# TVision Shutting Down



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

And another one bites the dust!

Tvision to shut down on 4/29/2021 and offer a discounted price for Philo and YouTubeTV.


----------



## Davenlr (Sep 16, 2006)

lparsons21 said:


> And another one bites the dust!
> 
> Tvision to shut down on 4/29/2021 and offer a discounted price for Philo and YouTubeTV.


You know if the discounted price on YTTV will be only for those that signed up for Tvision, or all Tmobile customers? Tomorrow Tmobile should be offering MLB package free.


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

Davenlr said:


> You know if the discounted price on YTTV will be only for those that signed up for Tvision, or all Tmobile customers? Tomorrow Tmobile should be offering MLB package free.


Haven't seen anything yet to indicate who would qualify.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

Davenlr said:


> You know if the discounted price on YTTV will be only for those that signed up for Tvision, or all Tmobile customers? Tomorrow Tmobile should be offering MLB package free.


All postpaid T-Mobile and Sprint mobile customers qualify based on what I read earlier today. I assume (but don't know) that T-Mobile Home Internet customers qualify as well, seeing as how TV service is a natural companion to broadband.


----------



## wmb (Dec 18, 2008)

NashGuy said:


> All postpaid T-Mobile and Sprint mobile customers qualify based on what I read earlier today. I assume (but don't know) that T-Mobile Home Internet customers qualify as well, seeing as how TV service is a natural companion to broadband.


This would be good. I already get Netflix from them, and could use a discount for YTTV.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## ericknolls (Aug 18, 2013)

I knew something was up with the so so roll out of TVision. So, Now it bites the dust! Really now

Sent from my moto g(7) using Tapatalk


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

Yet another streaming service bites the dust.

T-Mobile TVision streaming service shuts down after very short run

Well that was fast. I tried it a while back. UI was nice but the PQ sucked for streaming. Seemed like a hard sell... about the same price as DirecTV for me. I'm not a cord cutter, but cord cutters cut to save money, so...


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

The other way to divest yourself of your TV platform.

Five months wasn't much of a try considering all of the effort that goes into putting together such a service (and this was their second run at it).


----------



## Steveknj (Nov 14, 2006)

I don't think T-Mobiles new CEO was on board with this. So first he cut the idea going through separate boxes, and just streamed through an app. Then after that, they weren't getting much traction (and they really weren't advertising outside of for TMobile users via their app) so I think the idea was to find a partner and offload this, and they did this with Goggle and YTTV.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

ericknolls said:


> I knew something was up with the so so roll out of TVision. So, Now it bites the dust! Really now


What happened is that the company that operates the underlying streaming technology platform, MobiTV, just declared bankruptcy. They also power streaming cable TV services for various small broadband providers, like C-Spire in Mississippi and EPB in Chattanooga, TN. TVision was their largest client (or at least had the potential to become the largest, since it's a nationwide service). But apparently they didn't have their business structured properly to reach profitability soon enough, so they were bleeding cash. T-Mobile threw them a temporary funding lifeline about a month ago but apparently decided that they didn't want to either acquire MobiTV or try to figure out a way to replace them, which might mean re-architecting the TVision service.

I always wondered why T-Mobile wanted to launch their own cable TV service anyhow, as that whole industry is in decline and there's very little money to be made in it for a smaller player that doesn't own any of the channels/content the service would carry. It's far easier to just resell someone else's service as your preferred partner and get a little commission from them. Zero risk. And that's what they're going to do now by partnering up with YouTube TV and Philo.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

Steveknj said:


> I don't think T-Mobiles new CEO was on board with this. So first he cut the idea going through separate boxes, and just streamed through an app. Then after that, they weren't getting much traction (and they really weren't advertising outside of for TMobile users via their app) so I think the idea was to find a partner and offload this, and they did this with Goggle and YTTV.


As I posted on the other TVision thread, the bankruptcy of the TVision's underlying technology solutions provider (MobiTV) forced T-Mobile's hand. They were either going to have to invest more resources in it now to keep the thing operational or they were going to have to shut it down (because MobiTV won't be able to keep their servers running much longer). They opted for the latter.

It's just a hard business. There's not much money to be eeked out as a small cable TV operator. You have to own some of the channels (like Comcast and AT&T both do) and/or you need to have a large customer base. I expect that FuboTV will eventually shut down too.

YouTube TV and Hulu with Live TV are now probably big enough to survive (and are owned by deep-pocketed parents who can absorb losses until they achieve scale, if they haven't yet). I see those two, along with AT&T TV, being the only streaming cable TV services to go the distance. And if Comcast wants to jump in the game, of course, they could make it work too.


----------



## Steveknj (Nov 14, 2006)

NashGuy said:


> As I posted on the other TVision thread, the bankruptcy of the TVision's underlying technology solutions provider (MobiTV) forced T-Mobile's hand. They were either going to have to invest more resources in it now to keep the thing operational or they were going to have to shut it down (because MobiTV won't be able to keep their servers running much longer). They opted for the latter.
> 
> It's just a hard business. There's not much money to be eeked out as a small cable TV operator. You have to own some of the channels (like Comcast and AT&T both do) and/or you need to have a large customer base. I expect that FuboTV will eventually shut down too.
> 
> YouTube TV and Hulu with Live TV are now probably big enough to survive (and are owned by deep-pocketed parents who can absorb losses until they achieve scale, if they haven't yet). I see those two, along with AT&T TV, being the only streaming cable TV services to go the distance. And if Comcast wants to jump in the game, of course, they could make it work too.


I agree. And it's pretty much what I expected. The whole business will consolidate. And with that, prices will start to reach cable/sat prices. It's just a different method of getting the same thing. I'd imagine that VZW might survive too and that FIOS will mix with some sort of streaming service like this. But of course, there might be less of an appetite for linear TV going forward that will make this all moot.


----------



## evotz (Jan 23, 2014)

I just don't see "live" TV as being a huge entity going forward. Who watches "live" TV anyway? The only content that needs to be served up "live" are sports and news.

If/When Bally Sports releases their OTT offering - that would seem to solve a lot of the "live" sports.

"Live" news isn't that difficult, see CBS News and best I can tell Fox News' Roku app is free.

How much longer until Turner starts an OTT service?

And then what will you need linear "live" TV streaming service for?

The argument could be made that some people can't get Internet (which is true), so DirecTV and Dish would have to serve those folks. But since we're arguing for streaming services, I don't really include them in this discussion.

I have Sling TV, but honestly I don't watch it that much. I used it this past week for the NCAA tournament games on Turner (which would be solved by a Turner OTT offering or March Madness OTT offering). I'll sometimes use it for filler TV - when I'm not really sitting down in the room but have the TV on. I'll sometimes watch the Star Wars marathons that TNT has or The Simpsons on Freeform (both are available on Disney+ anyway).

Maybe there could be a case for local channels, if you're not able to get all of your locals OTA. Locast would seem to solve that, if available in your market. Or perhaps that's something these big streaming companies need to pick up on, a cheap locals only offering.

You can possibly argue that by the time you get all of these OTT streaming packages you're approaching the cost of linear cable and that may be true. But you can watch the library of content (other than sports and news) whenever you want. And you don't have to subscribe to all of them.

I just don't see future generations plopping down on the couch and say "Let's see what's on TV tonight!" instead they're going to have their TV viewing already planned out ahead of time and will watch it when it's convenient for them.


----------



## wmb (Dec 18, 2008)

NashGuy said:


> YouTube TV and Hulu with Live TV are now probably big enough to survive (and are owned by deep-pocketed parents who can absorb losses until they achieve scale, if they haven't yet). I see those two, along with AT&T TV, being the only streaming cable TV services to go the distance. And if Comcast wants to jump in the game, of course, they could make it work too.


I'm not sure I see a long future for any of the cable, satellite, or vMVPD streaming providers. The proliferation of content providers going direct to consumer with OTT packages is going to be game changing. In the least, it will convince them their best option is not going direct to consumers, which could give cable cos bargaining leverage. Getting access to a handful of channels direct from the provider is going to be cheaper than the mega cable/satellite package of old, assuming you can limit the number you have to buy.

But, if T-Mobile couldn't compete nationally, with relatively deep pockets, who would be able to jump in now as a startup? Right now, my local telco has a fiber-based video service... I wonder how much longer they offer that? They already market YTTV on their internet-only marketing page, and they bundle their 250 Mbps service with HBOMax.

That said, with $10 off YTTV per month for having T-Mobile makes the cost $55 per month, which is palatable for a mid-tier cable-like package.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Davenlr (Sep 16, 2006)

Does anyone have the Tmobile Android TV dongle that can tell me how its speed is? They are going to keep selling them, apparently. Might be an interesting device if their YTTV app gets modified to work with the full featured remote like the ATT box


----------



## techguy88 (Mar 19, 2015)

Davenlr said:


> You know if the discounted price on YTTV will be only for those that signed up for Tvision, or all Tmobile customers? Tomorrow Tmobile should be offering MLB package free.


The $10 off YTTV and Philo will be ongoing for the customers who had TVision, T-Mo customers will get $10 off for 12 months


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

evotz said:


> I just don't see "live" TV as being a huge entity going forward. Who watches "live" TV anyway? The only content that needs to be served up "live" are sports and news.
> 
> If/When Bally Sports releases their OTT offering - that would seem to solve a lot of the "live" sports.
> 
> ...


You are assuming everybody is in your boat. Financially, streaming/OTT only makes sense for people with multiple TVs. If you have a lower TV count, its the same price as DirecTV or more (assuming you negotiate your DirecTV price). Also assuming you can get all your channels from one provider. I used to need 4-5 to get all the channels I actually watch... but I guess I need one less channel now as that show seems to have gotten cancelled and that was one of the tougher channels to find on OTT. Now I could probably get away with 2-3 + PBS. So not saving anything and introducing a bunch of hassle by going OTT.

Also, I watch linear shows, I don't want to watch ads, I want to FF through them and I like having everything under a single UI. Juggling UIs and multiple DVRs is a pain.


----------



## evotz (Jan 23, 2014)

Actually, I just have the one TV. Streaming makes sense to me because I can watch it on my big screen or I can watch it on my tablet if i'm stuck in the office for some reason.

Obviously there's going to be outliers that need/want traditional linear live TV. But I think that's going to be a very small minority. Doesn't make sense for the majority of the population to have to subsidize for the few in the minority.

ESPN is another one that I watch that is currently only on linear cable. Again, though, ESPN could probably split this off into it's own OTT streaming (they've done it with ESPN+ but that largely only shows secondary content). Of course, ESPN is a leaking money faucet, they have to hope that linear cable stays around so the non-watchers can help subsidize the watchers, otherwise they're in huge, huge trouble.


----------



## techguy88 (Mar 19, 2015)

evotz said:


> Actually, I just have the one TV. Streaming makes sense to me because I can watch it on my big screen or I can watch it on my tablet if i'm stuck in the office for some reason.
> 
> Obviously there's going to be outliers that need/want traditional linear live TV. But I think that's going to be a very small minority. Doesn't make sense for the majority of the population to have to subsidize for the few in the minority.
> 
> ESPN is another one that I watch that is currently only on linear cable. Again, though, ESPN could probably split this off into it's own OTT streaming (they've done it with ESPN+ but that largely only shows secondary content). Of course, ESPN is a leaking money faucet, they have to hope that linear cable stays around so the non-watchers can help subsidize the watchers, otherwise they're in huge, huge trouble.


Disney's new NFL contract that takes effect with the 2022 season now allows them to stream every NFL game that airs on ESPN and ABC on ESPN+. Also ESPN+ will get 1 exclusive NFL game per year. ABC gets 2 Super Bowls.


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

evotz said:


> Actually, I just have the one TV. Streaming makes sense to me because I can watch it on my big screen or I can watch it on my tablet if i'm stuck in the office for some reason.
> 
> Obviously there's going to be outliers that need/want traditional linear live TV. But I think that's going to be a very small minority. Doesn't make sense for the majority of the population to have to subsidize for the few in the minority.
> 
> ESPN is another one that I watch that is currently only on linear cable. Again, though, ESPN could probably split this off into it's own OTT streaming (they've done it with ESPN+ but that largely only shows secondary content). Of course, ESPN is a leaking money faucet, they have to hope that linear cable stays around so the non-watchers can help subsidize the watchers, otherwise they're in huge, huge trouble.


No offense, but you obviously haven't done your homework (by a LONG shot)!

Hulu with Live TV (4 million subscribers as of Feb. 11, 2021)
YouTube TV (More than 3 million subscribers as of Oct. 29, 2020)
Sling TV (2.474 million subscribers as of Dec. 31, 2020)
Philo (750,000 subscribers as of August 2020)
AT&T TV Now (683,000 subscribers as of Sept. 30, 2020)
Fubo TV ( 545,000 subscribers as of Dec. 31, 2020)
As of the fourth quarter of 2020, *DirecTV* had 13 million pay TV *subscribers* in the United States
As of the fourth quarter of 2020, Dish Network had 8.82 million pay TV subscribers,

As of March 2021, the number of *pay TV households in the United States* stood at 74 million

The last number includes sat & cable. So that's 74M vs. (I'll be generous and round it up) 11M OTT subs.

That means OTT is a mere drop in the bucket @ 12.9%. Hardly the majority lol.

ALSO, keep in mind that the 12.9% number is being a bit generous since a lot of people subscribe to multiple services to get all their channels. So to be fair, you'd have to count UNIQUE OTT subs to compare to cable since nobody would subscribe to Dish AND DirecTV. Youtube is commonly stacked with Philio for example.

But even at the double (or more) counted subs at 12.9% still not a majority. Linear definitely not your "tiny minority" lol.

Now that's not to say linear subs aren't declining, but if you think it'll be a tiny minority any time soon... well, I got a bridge in brooklyn to sell you.


----------



## evotz (Jan 23, 2014)

SledgeHammer said:


> The last number includes sat & cable. So that's 74M vs. (I'll be generous and round it up) 11M OTT subs.
> 
> That means OTT is a mere drop in the bucket @ 12.9%. Hardly the majority lol.


But you're thinking like a linear TV executive. Subscriber does not mean viewer.

Just because someone's subscribing to a service, doesn't mean they are actually using it (or fully using it) or viewing it.

Sure... linear cable has a lot more subscribers... it's been around a lot longer. I bet if you do a survey of cars on the road, you'll find a lot more cars made between 1980 and 2010 on the road than 2021 models.

The point isn't so much looking at subscriber numbers. It's taking a look at those 74M linear TV subscribers, how many of those could drop that subscription and use video on-demand streaming services?

There's a reason that streaming service numbers are trending upward and linear TV subscriptions are in a downward spiral.

Again... there's going to be outliers in all of this. There's going to be some that have to hang on to the past and have to have a TV subscription service where they can flip through channels at will. I'm not saying that that is going to go away completely. But the point of this thread is that TVision shut down because there's just not a huge market for linear/live streaming MVPD.

There's just not enough differences between YouTubeTV, Hulu Live TV, and what TVision offered. As someone else said FuboTV is probably next on the chopping block. AT&T's TV service has differentiated itself as being a more expensive - more premium offering (see Bally Sports), although one has to question how long it will survive at that price point. Sling too has differentiated itself as being a cheaper option. I have Sling, essentially for ESPN - and I suspect there's a lot of Sling subscribers that fall into this boat. Philo TV also fits in the cheap category - although I kind of wonder what it offers that can't be accessed through separate OTT streaming platforms - still it's cheap enough that it may be attractive to some individuals.

The only other market (that I can think of) that has yet to be explored is a streaming service that focuses solely on local TV streaming. Locast is the only service I can think of, but unfortunately they don't service every DMA. Getting retransmission contracts with every TV station in the United States is going to be difficult, no doubt - but it is a market that I could see attracting customers, as long as it's priced accordingly.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

evotz said:


> But you're thinking like a linear TV executive. Subscriber does not mean viewer.


Subscribers vote with their wallets. Nobody watches everything but they don't want to be summarily denied anything that they do want to watch or be forced to watch it in a very specific way.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

evotz said:


> Getting retransmission contracts with every TV station in the United States is going to be difficult, no doubt - but it is a market that I could see attracting customers, as long as it's priced accordingly.


Locast doesn't have conventional retrans contracts with TV stations. They're (ab)using their non-profit status to bypass the conventional carriage rules.


----------



## evotz (Jan 23, 2014)

harsh said:


> Locast doesn't have conventional retrans contracts with TV stations. They're (ab)using their non-profit status to bypass the conventional carriage rules.


I agree. That's why I say a MVPD that focuses more on conventional re-transmission might be appealing. Although, as with anything proper research has to be done. At what price point do would-be customers balk at the idea? $20/mo to get all of my "local" stations isn't all that appealing to me. $5/mo? Sure, I'd go for that. But can a streaming MVPD negotiate to that price point?


----------



## evotz (Jan 23, 2014)

harsh said:


> Subscribers vote with their wallets. Nobody watches everything but they don't want to be summarily denied anything that they do want to watch or be forced to watch it in a very specific way.


I just think there's a lot of those 74M linear TV subscribers that sit down every night and watch NetFlix. They could probably drop their cable subscription and not miss anything. Enough to bring OTT only subscribers over traditional cable subscribers? Probably not, but would continue the upward trend of OTT and downward trend of traditional cable.

Let us not also forget, we're talking about streaming MVPDs here. The purpose of the thread is why TVision went out of business. TVision was competing with AT&T TV, YouTubeTV, Hulu Live TV, Fubo, Sling, Philo - not necessarily DirecTV, Dish Network, Spectrum, Comcast, etc. Someone that had decided to go with TVision had obviously decided to enter into the realm of streaming MVPD, for whatever reason. Why choose TVision over AT&T TV, YouTubeTV, Hulu Live TV, Fubo, Sling, or Philo?


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

evotz said:


> I just think there's a lot of those 74M linear TV subscribers that sit down every night and watch NetFlix. They could probably drop their cable subscription and not miss anything.


You have to realize how silly this sounds even if you're a dedicated MVPD cutter.


> The purpose of the thread is why TVision went out of business.


As NashGuy pointed out, TVision's biggest problem is that service provider, MobiTV, is undergoing Chapter 11 reorganization. It isn't a clear referendum on TMobile, TVision or the concept of linear TV.

Others who are partnering with MobiTV perhaps haven't cancelled plans/contracts but they're surely considering their options.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

SledgeHammer said:


> As of March 2021, the number of *pay TV households in the United States* stood at 74 million
> 
> The last number includes sat & cable. So that's 74M vs. (I'll be generous and round it up) 11M OTT subs.
> 
> That means OTT is a mere drop in the bucket @ 12.9%. Hardly the majority lol.


What you're referring to here as "OTT" are simply OTT _cable TV services_, i.e. vMPVDs. You're comparing subscriber levels for vMVPDs vs. traditional MVPDs (e.g. Comcast, Charter, DirecTV, Dish, etc.). And you're right that MVPDs still dwarf vMVPDs. And that may always be the case.

But the more interesting comparison, and the one that gets at what I think evotz was originally talking about when he questioned the need for "live TV," is between all forms of traditional channel-based TV (MVPDs/vMVPDs/OTA) and the various direct-to-consumer OTT streaming services that are mostly on-demand-based: Netflix, Prime Video, Hulu (base tier), HBO Max, Disney+, Peacock, Paramount+, ESPN+, discovery+, Tubi, etc.

As of late 2019, more Americans were paying for an OTT streaming service than were paying for cable TV. And I'm sure that the disparity has since grown further and will continue to do so as the overall number of MVPD+vMVPD subscriptions continues to decline while the number of direct-to-consumer streaming subscriptions continues to rise. And then there's also the growth in free ad-supported streaming apps like Tubi, Pluto TV, Roku Channel, IMDB tv, Vudu, etc.

The new NFL deal is particularly telling with regard to the shift away from traditional channel-based TV, in that for the first time, they're giving an OTT on-demand service (Prime Video) exclusive access to one of their big primetime games, Thursday Night Football. Wanna watch it on DirecTV, or YouTube TV, or Verizon FiOS TV, or on any channel in your cable package from Comcast, Charter, Cox or Altice? Sorry, you won't be able to. You'll have to launch the Prime Video app.

And beyond that, all those other live NFL games (regular Sunday afternoon games, and games on Sunday and Monday nights) which will remain on traditional TV channels will also be available on (or at least the NFL will _permit_ them to be available on) those channels' related direct-to-consumer OTT services. Catch CBS games on Paramount+. Catch NBC games on Peacock. Catch ESPN games on ESPN+. Catch Fox games on Tubi. (It remains to be seen for sure how ESPN and Fox will or won't stream their games, although live NFL on Paramount+ and Peacock have been confirmed by those services.)

So it looks like, within a couple years, NFL fans may not need either a cable TV service or even fool with an OTA antenna to watch all their live NFL games. And that can't help but encourage yet more cord-cutting as consumers trade a fat bundle of channels for a handful of streaming apps that costs them half as much or less.

Deeper Dive-Did the NFL deal a death blow to the MVPD bundle?


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

techguy88 said:


> The $10 off YTTV and Philo will be ongoing for the customers who had TVision, T-Mo customers will get $10 off for 12 months


The question of whether the $10/mo discount on YTTV is ongoing or only lasts 12 months is addressed on another forum here. Following is what the poster there says was written to him from T-Mobile via Twitter direct message:

_With our transition to our partnership for YouTube TV, you're able to get $10 off as long as you're a T-Mobile/Sprint customer on an eligible rate plan (a few things like prepaid, tablets, and smart watch lines aren't eligible). To make the transition quickly we're offering that unique code which will allow for 12 months. At some point we're going to be moving the billing portion to T-Mobile so it will be charged through us rather than needing to pay Google, so once that happens we'll let you know when it's ready. But as long as you do that once it's available, you'll continue to receive that discount even after 12 months!_​


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

evotz said:


> I just think there's a lot of those 74M linear TV subscribers that sit down every night and watch NetFlix.


If they are addicted (or "can't live without") content that is only available on a linear provider then that makes perfect sense. The same as people who primarily watch their linear subscription but also pay for a streamer because of unique content that they have become addicted to (or "strongly attracted to').

TVision made the mistake of entering the streaming market with a high cost product. The same mistake that AT&T TV made (although they had a lower cost product before they matched prices with DIRECTV). The reason why AT&T TV is still around and TVision isn't is DIRECTV. Millions of profitable subscribers propping up the streaming company.

TVision might have done better if they would have sold packages at rates competitive with streamers other than AT&T TV.


----------



## Davenlr (Sep 16, 2006)

James Long said:


> . The reason why AT&T TV is still around and TVision isn't is DIRECTV. Millions of profitable subscribers propping up the streaming company.


$102 for entertainment, $7 per room X 2, ~$23 for dvr and multiroom and HD = $139 plus tax.
ATT TV = $69.99 for 20 rooms, no dvr fee, no multiroom fee, no HD fee = $69.99 tax included.
Thank you DirecTv subs. Keep on covering for half my bill.


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

evotz said:


> I just think there's a lot of those 74M linear TV subscribers that sit down every night and watch NetFlix. They could probably drop their cable subscription and not miss anything. Enough to bring OTT only subscribers over traditional cable subscribers? Probably not, but would continue the upward trend of OTT and downward trend of traditional cable.
> 
> Let us not also forget, we're talking about streaming MVPDs here. The purpose of the thread is why TVision went out of business. TVision was competing with AT&T TV, YouTubeTV, Hulu Live TV, Fubo, Sling, Philo - not necessarily DirecTV, Dish Network, Spectrum, Comcast, etc. Someone that had decided to go with TVision had obviously decided to enter into the realm of streaming MVPD, for whatever reason. Why choose TVision over AT&T TV, YouTubeTV, Hulu Live TV, Fubo, Sling, or Philo?


I have DirecTV and I bum off my parents Netflix. I probably watch 2 - 3 hours per MONTH of Netflix because there simply isn't anything on there. I'm not interested in watching a foreign movie with subtitles or one that has been poorly dubbed which is par for the course with Netflix these days since they lost most of the mainstream content.

Tvision went out of business because the PQ sucked, it required a proprietary box and was the same price as traditional.

Why *I* chose to try TVision over YouTubeTV, etc? Because:

1) YouTubeTV is missing a lot of channels that I want
2) The YouTubeTV DVR makes you "record" every episode of a series when you may just want to watch one. I've had people on here actually suggest that I jot down the season and episode number, so I can easily find it later. LMAO. Come on, that's the dumbest thing I've ever heard. It's supposed to be MORE convenient, not LESS.
3) If I added another service to fill in the channel gaps, I'm paying for a bunch of channels twice and have to juggle 2 apps, 2 UIs, 2 bills, 2 providers, 2 DVRs. Again... LESS convenient.

Oh, one other reason I didn't want to switch to Tvision or Cox was because they give me local PST feeds of the nationals whereas DirecTV gives me EST feeds of the nationals, so my shows are on at times that better suite me vs. in the middle of the night.


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

Davenlr said:


> $102 for entertainment, $7 per room X 2, ~$23 for dvr and multiroom and HD = $139 plus tax.
> ATT TV = $69.99 for 20 rooms, no dvr fee, no multiroom fee, no HD fee = $69.99 tax included.
> Thank you DirecTv subs. Keep on covering for half my bill.


Isn't that the teaser price? Isn't the regular price almost double?

Btw, you just didn't negotiate your deal very well. I get Preferred Xtra which is a much higher package + HR54 for a measly $103 out the door. Adding a 2nd TV would only bump it up to $110. A far cry from the $139 you were paying for the entry level package.


----------



## compnurd (Apr 23, 2007)

SledgeHammer said:


> Isn't that the teaser price? Isn't the regular price almost double?
> 
> Btw, you just didn't negotiate your deal very well. I get Preferred Xtra which is a much higher package + HR54 for a measly $103 out the door. Adding a 2nd TV would only bump it up to $110. A far cry from the $139 you were paying for the entry level package.


No 59 is the teaser


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

compnurd said:


> No 59 is the teaser


Ok, so $69 for 65 channels vs. $103 for 230+. So he's paying $1.06 a channel vs. me paying $0.45 a channel. If I added a 2nd TV, it'd still be only $0.47 a channel.

And that's of course leaving out that pesky little detail of data caps. Cox has 1TB data caps. I currently use ~300GB to ~400GB with zero streaming. Right now I'm getting unlimited for free, but at some point it would be $50/month. If I did that, that really makes streaming $69 + $50 / mo since I wouldn't need unlimited for any other purpose. So that's a mind boggling $1.83 a channel.

So his argument would probably be that he doesn't need 230 channels and its just a bunch of crap. True. I made a list of the channels I watch and entertainment is missing some stuff like DIY and Science and where's WB and PBS ?

And either way, AT&T Now has just as much crap channels.

$69 + $50 is $119/mo vs. the $103 I'm paying now for DirecTV and not needing unlimited .


----------



## Davenlr (Sep 16, 2006)

You are correct. I dont watch any of the channels that are not already in the Entertainment package, nor do I want to pay the additional mandatory fee for my local RSN which I also never watch, hence Entertainment. One of my favorite channels, however, is in HD on ATT TV, but only SD on Directv. That was a big plus. I don't have data caps with ATT Fiber, but have never gone over the 1.2TB cap Xfinity has should I have decided to stay with them. Not knocking DirecTv at all. Just not worth all the extra charges I can avoid by streaming...since I would have internet either way. If DirecTv called me tomorrow and said I could turn on both my HR24's and two H24s with no HD, multiroom, extra $7 per box fee for $69.99 tax included, I would probably take them up on it, just so I could subscribe to Sunday Ticket this fall. WB? You mean CW? I get PBS, CW and about 40 more on my Tivo with an antenna on my tower, so no problem there. They are free. If they offered the $12 discount like DISH, I would opt out of those too


----------



## compnurd (Apr 23, 2007)

SledgeHammer said:


> Ok, so $69 for 65 channels vs. $103 for 230+. So he's paying $1.06 a channel vs. me paying $0.45 a channel. If I added a 2nd TV, it'd still be only $0.47 a channel.
> 
> And that's of course leaving out that pesky little detail of data caps. Cox has 1TB data caps. I currently use ~300GB to ~400GB with zero streaming. Right now I'm getting unlimited for free, but at some point it would be $50/month. If I did that, that really makes streaming $69 + $50 / mo since I wouldn't need unlimited for any other purpose. So that's a mind boggling $1.83 a channel.
> 
> ...


So the closest comparison would be the Ultimate package. 94 vs 151


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

evotz said:


> Actually, I just have the one TV. Streaming makes sense to me because I can watch it on my big screen or I can watch it on my tablet if i'm stuck in the office for some reason.
> 
> Obviously there's going to be outliers that need/want traditional linear live TV. But I think that's going to be a very small minority. Doesn't make sense for the majority of the population to have to subsidize for the few in the minority.
> 
> ESPN is another one that I watch that is currently only on linear cable. Again, though, ESPN could probably split this off into it's own OTT streaming (they've done it with ESPN+ but that largely only shows secondary content). Of course, ESPN is a leaking money faucet, they have to hope that linear cable stays around so the non-watchers can help subsidize the watchers, otherwise they're in huge, huge trouble.


In a couple years when you realize you are paying as much for each individual streamer combined as it costs to just get a package from DIRECTV or whoever and that they also allow you to stream everything you might change your mind.

That is exactly where we are headed, unless you are willing to rotate monthly through every provider and only have one streamer at a time.

And someday, they will figure out a way to slow that way down too.


----------



## rnbmusicfan (Jul 19, 2005)

evotz said:


> But you're thinking like a linear TV executive. Subscriber does not mean viewer.
> 
> Just because someone's subscribing to a service, doesn't mean they are actually using it (or fully using it) or viewing it.
> 
> ...


I don't think T-Vision ending, necessarily means anything for fubo, or that fubo will be shutting down anytime in the next couple of years. As a former customer, I thought fubo's pricing was on the expensive side - but I think that of other carriers as well.

They likely have a growing niche and according to news reports, they seem to be doing well financially. I thought their service was solid as well, superior to Sling. Their channel selection is different than YouTube TV or Hulu Live as well to be a differentiator. I realize they dropped the Turner channels, but wonder why they don't try to add AXS TV, HD Net Movies, Heroes & Icons, and maybe a few smaller networks to round out their package to further distinguish from YouTube TV and Hulu Live.

There is another local streaming service than Locast. It's Local BTV. It's available only in select markets (NYC, Philly, Phoenix, LA, SF, Fresno and Monterey CA). It doesn't have feeds from NBC, ABC, CBS or Fox, but it does have Cozi from NBC but no DVR recording is permitted just on that network based on the arrangement from the station. They carry the local Cozi in Philly which pre-empts an hour of The Office on Sunday afternoons for Meet the Press re-broadcast. Local BTV also does carry the PBS stations and Nexstar independent stations. (It actually goes well with Hulu Live or YouTube in that it offers a number of missing local TV stations). It's totally free but it's that's more of it being on a trial basis and they originally wanted to strike deals with all the major networks in the markets and officially launch as a service. I actually don't know what their plan is anymore. But, it did recently add service to Monterey, CA as new streaming market. But the interface is actually pretty decent and was better than frndlyTV's interface (which is a subscription service).

There is still a market for linear channels. A lot of old people love channels like INSP. Shows like Bonanza with all its seasons, aren't fully available on any non linear streaming service.


----------



## Davenlr (Sep 16, 2006)

So if you live in an area with high speed internet, surly most would be able to get all their locals for free with an antenna. Why are more people not doing that? DVR options from HDHomerun to Tivo (cheap to expensive) are available too. It really bugs me to have to pay for free TV. Why is DISH the only provider that allows you to opt out?


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

inkahauts said:


> That is exactly where we are headed, unless you are willing to rotate monthly through every provider and only have one streamer at a time.
> And someday, they will figure out a way to slow that way down too.


Not difficult ... just introduce compelling new content every month (stop premiering entire seasons as a binge watch dump! spread it out) and expire content as needed.
From a pricing standpoint raise prices for monthly subscribers and give a discount (the existing price) to people who pay for 12 months at a time.
Reward commitment instead of requiring it.


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

Davenlr said:


> You are correct. I dont watch any of the channels that are not already in the Entertainment package, nor do I want to pay the additional mandatory fee for my local RSN which I also never watch, hence Entertainment. One of my favorite channels, however, is in HD on ATT TV, but only SD on Directv. That was a big plus. I don't have data caps with ATT Fiber, but have never gone over the 1.2TB cap Xfinity has should I have decided to stay with them. Not knocking DirecTv at all. Just not worth all the extra charges I can avoid by streaming...since I would have internet either way. If DirecTv called me tomorrow and said I could turn on both my HR24's and two H24s with no HD, multiroom, extra $7 per box fee for $69.99 tax included, I would probably take them up on it, just so I could subscribe to Sunday Ticket this fall. WB? You mean CW? I get PBS, CW and about 40 more on my Tivo with an antenna on my tower, so no problem there. They are free. If they offered the $12 discount like DISH, I would opt out of those too


I agree with you on the RSN fee. I wouldn't pay that either. Good thing Preferred Xtra doesn't have one . Preferred Xtra = 230+ channels minus like 1 or 2 sports channels that Xtra would have. I don't watch sports, so that's perfect.

Ok, so you need AT&T Now and OTA and a Tivo to get all your channels. Argument I (and many others) make against that is that juggling multiple devices / apps / providers / bills (although OTA is free) is a pain. I have an OTA antenna as well and what do ya know , OTA support is built into the DirecTV box, so its all integrated into a single device and single provider and single UI.

I wouldn't use up ~700GB watching HD... but probably would if I there was a lot of 4K content.

If Cox ever does away with the data cap, which I doubt they will, might be a different situation cost wise for people with data caps.

Still, regardless... I don't want to juggle multiple providers, apps, UIs and pay for channels 2 or 3 times.


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

Davenlr said:


> So if you live in an area with high speed internet, surly most would be able to get all their locals for free with an antenna. Why are more people not doing that? DVR options from HDHomerun to Tivo (cheap to expensive) are available too. It really bugs me to have to pay for free TV. Why is DISH the only provider that allows you to opt out?


I have an OTA antenna and it works just fine going through my DirecTV box. I use it mainly for the sub channels, not the mains which I get through DirecTV. Even if I did use it for the mains, it'd still be through a single device. Why do I want to juggle multiple DVRs? You must have a lot of time on your hands .

Oh... I want to watch program X, wait a sec, what provider/DVR did I have that on again? Darn it all to heck, I can't keep track, let me hop on my PC and bring up my Excel spreadsheet and check my cross reference sheet .


----------



## Davenlr (Sep 16, 2006)

Yea, I had an AM21. It worked OK, but the tuner in it wasnt very good with multipath. its real hard to switch my AVR from Video 1 to Video 2 to switch from "cable" to "local". I even have video 3 "10' C band receiver" and Video 4 "4K blu ray player". Not that confusing. Now making an excel spreadsheet, that would be confusing, since I never used excel except at work to fill out pre-created forms for job orders. I would have no clue how to make one.


----------



## lee635 (Apr 17, 2002)

We actually had Tvision for the last several months. The biggest issue was it didn't have a complete local package. We only got NBC and Fox feeds. The ABC feed was some sort of national feed that would cut in at the middle of a show with news packages. Also, to delete a recorded program you were watching, you couldn't just "right click" but instead had to go back through the menus to find the episode on the dvr menu and then delete it.

Some other quirks with the app, but otherwise a good service. The picture quality came up a lot after in the last couple months. 

Haven't been on here in a while, so hi all. Glad to see the board is active!
Thanks Lee


----------



## Davenlr (Sep 16, 2006)

I was going to sign up with T-vision, except they hadnt worked out the account system to accept Sprint customers yet, so stayed with ATT. Looking close at the YouTubeTv deal now that they have me on Tmobile billing.
Already have free MLB.TV from them. If I get $10 off TV, my cell phone bill will be free.


----------



## b4pjoe (Nov 20, 2010)

Davenlr said:


> So if you live in an area with high speed internet, surly most would be able to get all their locals for free with an antenna. Why are more people not doing that? DVR options from HDHomerun to Tivo (cheap to expensive) are available too. It really bugs me to have to pay for free TV. Why is DISH the only provider that allows you to opt out?


Surely not. I have 200/10 internet but I'm 80 miles from the nearest local and it isn't flat ground from there to here.


----------

