DBSTalk Forum banner

AT&T TV Cities Now Listed on ATT Site

7K views 129 replies 23 participants last post by  NashGuy 
#1 ·
AT&T TV is now available in CA: Orange, Riverside | FL: West Palm Beach | KS: Topeka, Wichita | MO: St. Louis, Springfield | TX: Corpus Christi, El Paso, Odessa

These cities are the ones identified on the technician powerpoint a few weeks ago.

AT&T TV: Live TV, DVR, On Demand, Apps & Voice Control
 
#6 ·
It is back on their website now. Has a 2 year contract. Prices shown are only for year 1. Goes up in year 2.

Req's separate subscription & login for Netflix & Pandora. 2Google login req'd. 3Whole home Wi-Fi connectivity may require AT&T Smart Wi-Fi Extender(s) sold separately. 4Offer req's enrollment in any base package. Avail. to new customers only. Restr's apply. Premium channels (HBO®, CINEMAX®, SHOWTIME®, and STARZ® auto-renew at prevailing rate, currently $48/mo., unless you cancel.

*$19.95 ACTIVATION, EARLY TERMINATION FEES ($15/MO. FOR TV; $15/MO. FOR INTERNET) FOR EACH MONTH REMAINING ON AGMT., INTERNET EQUIPMENT NON-RETURN & ADD'L FEES APPLY. Price incl. AT&T TV Pkg., 1 AT&T TV device. Bundle price includes Wi-Fi Gateway & is after $10/mo. bundle discount on TV for up to 12 mos. Pay $10/mo. more than above prices until discount starts w/in 3 mos. New approved residential customers only. Restr's apply.
 
#8 ·
If I click on the Buy button for Xtra it takes me to a page that says "Darn ... this offer isn't available in your ZIP Code. Want 7 days of DIRECTV NOW on us?" I am in the St. Louis area as I get the St. Louis locals presently, which is one of the cities it is available in, but I am not physically in St. Louis.
 
#9 ·
$120 per box first one is free. They call it a "device service fee" so on the second one it is $10 per month or $120 one time payment. Whether that is a lease or sale I am not sure. So a three room installation would use three boxes and cost you $240 out of pocket front end payment or an additional $20 per month per month for one year. Now why can't they adopt the same model for D* so existing customers would not have to keep paying for equipment after the first year.

These are test markets so we will see the reception but at first glance I don't think this model will fly. They are competing against the Amazon and Google boxes that are heavily discounted sometimes to $15 rather than the $120 price of the ATT box. It shows the mentality of a monopolist but will not fly in a very competitive market like streaming.

They also require a 24 month agreement with a $15 / month early termination fee.

My conclusion is that ATT TV is DOA.
 
#10 ·
I’d agree that the deal is DOA! Just the 24 month contract alone would keep most of those interested in streaming away.
And frankly, the whole pricing structure barely competes with a cable bundle IMO.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro
 
#11 ·
Sounds like it is pretty much like I thought, same prices as satellite except no advanced receiver fee. The $120 for additional clients is a bit rich, but at least you aren't renting them forever. I imagine a lot of people on the satellite side would like a chance to buy clients for $120 if it meant doing away with the $7/month fee.

Really surprised they are keeping the 24 month commitment though, without the up front install cost their only commitment is giving away the first client for free. I could see a 3-6 month commitment, but 24 months is crazy.

I think they could be worried about cannibalizing their satellite base, and converting them to less-sticky internet customers.

Anyone know if AT&T TV customers can get NFLST? If so that might be why the commitment - they don't want a ton of customers signing up planning to cancel at the end of December. Having a longer commitment gives them no reason to switch from satellite to internet.
 
#13 ·
Really surprised they are keeping the 24 month commitment though, without the up front install cost their only commitment is giving away the first client for free. I could see a 3-6 month commitment, but 24 months is crazy.
Remember this is a pilot rollout like a beta test I think when they are ready to roll out nationwide the 24 month committment is gunna be eliminated otherwise this product is DOA.
 
#12 ·
This guy is using the new AT&T TV APP on his Apple TV and he likes it. He says the quality is good and it's fast.

About the $120 on time box fee, you could think of it as still saving per year the $7 a month set-top box fee depending on how many boxes you have. Plus you are saving the Advanced Receiver Fee and the old fee of $23.

However in my area AT&T TV doesn't have TheCW or METV. METV is on a main channel that DTV has.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=CcvGfBidQ2
 
#20 ·
I looked at this and it has most of what I'd want, but the deal breaker for me is only 3 concurrent streams. We have almost every night 4-5 TVs going. I'd love to be able to be done with rain fade, but there's no real advantage to this for me. Plus they, once again are trying to lock you in for 2 years.
 
#22 ·
Yup I was all in till the 3 streams came out

That and this

Unlike AT&T Now, AT&T TV requires a contract. With a two-year contract, prices range from $60 to $80 a month without internet access, across five different tiers of service. Local stations are not offered in all markets as of yet.
 
This post has been deleted
#31 ·
From what it sounded like to me, you might not need an additional box as you will be able to stream it through an app on the major streaming boxes (I think they mentioned Amazon Firestick, which is under $40 for the HD stick, one time price. If that's the case, there could be some savings there. but, still there's no real incentive for me to switch. Maybe when they really begin their push away from SAT, they'll give existing SAT users a deal, but this being AT&T I have my doubts.

To me this is more proof that they are clueless when it comes to being a SAT service provider. They should stick to what they know best, crappy cell service. I'm really not very confident they know what they are doing as a content provider yet either.
 
#36 · (Edited)
The 2 year commitment and ETF fees caused me to just stop reading the article altogether. At this point, if I were to reconsider ditching my OTT/OTA setup at some point in the future, AT&T "anything" just isn't in the running anymore for us as long as these legacy policies are around. Heck, even the evil Comcast has a maximum commitment of 1 year and you can opt out of that and choose to go with no commitment at all by just paying 10.00 more a month for any of the services they offer in our area.

Oh, and I didn't notice anything about whether the boxes you have to buy to use the service will still work for anything else if you chose to leave after your commitment was up. I know they are supposed to be android powered but will they work even if they aren't active on an AT&T service anymore?
 
#57 ·
"Interesting" is "interesting" ... not necessarily wrong or idiotic. I find it "interesting" that DISH and DIRECTV will lease systems with more clients than tuners.

The "wrong" part of the plan is the three stream limit. While cord cutters may have become accustomed to a limited number of streams, attracting non-cord cutters to the new AT&T TV when they are accustomed to more streams will be a challenge. The fourth viewer in a household loses? Or do they just watch some other streaming service with a separate subscription fee? At least with a DISH/DIRECTV whole home system when there are more viewers than tuners one can still watch DVR content paid for by the same subscription.

AT&T's $10 per month payment plan (or $120 up front) for clients is more than the $7 additional receiver fees. The bonus with satellite being that one can add tuners (additional streams) to most systems. It is a tough market ... if AT&T thinks their price plan is a winner I believe the market will correct them.
 
#62 ·
I was honestly hoping that this offering was going to be compelling. The more clear the details become, both technical and pricing, the less compelling it is IMO. Seems to me whoever is in charge of this part of AT&Ts business has very little understanding of where this segment is headed. I hope I’m wrong.
 
  • Like
Reactions: lparsons21
#63 ·
I was honestly hoping that this offering was going to be compelling. The more clear the details become, both technical and pricing, the less compelling it is IMO. Seems to me whoever is in charge of this part of AT&Ts business has very little understanding of where this segment is headed. I hope I'm wrong.
Nothing about them is compelling, just the normal sat TV lineups delivered a different way at about the same price. But no new customer deals involved. They are literally the same product that people are dropping like flies!
While I may prefer linear TV and my current cost is within what I consider the reasonable range, the writing is on the wall that all of that is going to change. What is still up in the air is whether or not the various streaming providers will find a product to sell at a price that attracts lots of customers and is profitable for them. So far all I've read is that they are losing money and you know that isn't going to continue.
I keep looking at all the channels I actually do watch and have noticed that other than broadcast channels, I don't watch more than 1-3 shows a week on any of them. Maybe its time for the 'watch paint dry' channel to finally shut down!!

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro
 
#67 ·
Nashguy - You’re last post was interesting. For those wanting a cable/sat-alike subscription service, you may be right or close anyway. But I don’t think that’s where streaming is headed.
I think more like Disney’s upcoming offering, CBS All Access, NBC/Universal and so forth will be the ones to survive quite well. Of course they will twiddle the how over time. Note none of them have a contract of any sort beyond a month at a time.
Personally I think the day of longer term contracts for video are over or soon will be. Cable/sat is currently dying and some cable companies are doing away with commitments right now. ATT’s proposed service with a commitment period attached is a non-starter as no contract is one of the biggest selling points of streaming. Sign up, binge a few shows, cancel. All done online and simply. No calling in to cancel and listening to some drone making a half hearted sales pitch, no issues with misunderstanding because of language/accent barriers, just a click of the mouse/trackpad.
Yeah, managing subscriptions will be a bit of a PITA, but really not daunting going forward IMO.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro
 
#68 ·
Nashguy - You're last post was interesting. For those wanting a cable/sat-alike subscription service, you may be right or close anyway. But I don't think that's where streaming is headed.
I think more like Disney's upcoming offering, CBS All Access, NBC/Universal and so forth will be the ones to survive quite well. Of course they will twiddle the how over time. Note none of them have a contract of any sort beyond a month at a time.
Personally I think the day of longer term contracts for video are over or soon will be. Cable/sat is currently dying and some cable companies are doing away with commitments right now. ATT's proposed service with a commitment period attached is a non-starter as no contract is one of the biggest selling points of streaming. Sign up, binge a few shows, cancel. All done online and simply. No calling in to cancel and listening to some drone making a half hearted sales pitch, no issues with misunderstanding because of language/accent barriers, just a click of the mouse/trackpad.
Yeah, managing subscriptions will be a bit of a PITA, but really not daunting going forward IMO.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro
Yup, I think that's just about what's gonna happen. And watching TV will become a lot simpler. This is a good thing.

Rich
 
#78 ·
Not saying that cost isn't important but if D* and other traditional TV services lowered their costs by 50% would people still go to streaming services if prices ended up the same?
One of my issues is the simplicity of traditional service - I turn it on look through 1 guide find what I want and record or watch. I don't have to look through several services, each with a different interface, and try and remember what show is on which service. Ok I'm retired so there are times I'm just at home and thinking I'll watch tv and then have to find things.
The question is it the service or the price?
 
#79 ·
Not saying that cost isn't important but if D* and other traditional TV services lowered their costs by 50% would people still go to streaming services if prices ended up the same?
One of my issues is the simplicity of traditional service - I turn it on look through 1 guide find what I want and record or watch. I don't have to look through several services, each with a different interface, and try and remember what show is on which service. Ok I'm retired so there are times I'm just at home and thinking I'll watch tv and then have to find things.
The question is it the service or the price?
Traditional service is no longer that simple. Not unusual for a sports overflow on Fox or ESPN to result in the game you want to see streaming on their app until the long running game ends. If you're already watching on a streaming service it's easy to just fire up the appropriate app.
 
#82 ·
I saw an article earlier this year that content costs as a percentage of revenue for cable carriers they had figures for (Comcast was one) were in the mid 50s at the start of the decade but were now moving into the high 60s. As a result cable companies were increasing relying on internet service, which has higher margins, to make up for the shrinking profit from TV.

If you add in all the other costs for employees, infrastructure and so forth they don't have room to lower their prices much at all. Directv (considered alone rather than as part of AT&T) and Dish don't have internet services delivered over common infrastructure like cable does - at least there if something needs fixing or upgrading or maintaining that cost can be attributed to both TV and internet. For Directv or Dish all their costs are 100% attributable to TV so they have even less room to maneuver than cable.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NashGuy
#88 ·
After subtracting the differences between DTV and AT&T TV after that 1 year Internet discount expires and would only save $1 with AT&T TV. I think now that if these are the same pricing when they launch AT&T TV nationally that they only did AT&T TV to save AT&T DTV installation costs. The only thing with AT&T TV is not gong out in bad weather. But with AT&T TV you could have a cut fiber line and downed telephone poll. I think in order for AT&T TV to be successful they should keep the first year pricing permanent.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top