AT&T to offer streaming version of DirecTV

Discussion in 'DIRECTV General Discussion' started by Athlon646464, Mar 9, 2019.

  1. b4pjoe

    b4pjoe New Member

    380
    65
    Nov 19, 2010
    I signed up for the free one month trial for the Max package. Not impressed. Youtube.TV has better quality and much better DVR. DirecTV Now is giving me the locals out of southern Illinois and Kentucky instead of St. Louis which is where they are out of for DirecTV Sat and all of the other streaming services I have tried.
     
  2. NashGuy

    NashGuy Active Member

    389
    79
    Jan 30, 2014
    Nashville, TN
    Hahahaha! I'll be skeptical about any damn thing I want.

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

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

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

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

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

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

    SledgeHammer Icon

    2,431
    260
    Dec 28, 2007
    *Shrug*. I watch Discovery and History and Science and DIY, so I wouldn't buy anything that didn't include those channels.
     
    ericknolls and b4pjoe like this.
  4. slice1900

    slice1900 Well-Known Member

    9,934
    1,237
    Feb 14, 2013
    Iowa
    While Kyl416 hasn't ever (to my knowledge) revealed exactly who he works for or what he does, it is clear from the information he's provided in the past that he works in the industry in some higher level capacity, and is very much plugged into the arcane details of how these contracts between networks and MVPDs work, among other things. So you can be skeptical all you want, I'll trust what he says over the speculation of uninformed people who don't work in the industry. His track record has proven what he says isn't speculation, but actual knowledge and experience.
     
    TJNash, KyL416 and TheRatPatrol like this.
  5. NashGuy

    NashGuy Active Member

    389
    79
    Jan 30, 2014
    Nashville, TN
    I'm not questioning the accuracy of any of this info but the pricing of the satellite packages via DTV Now and the new DTV Now packages via satellite make no sense.

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

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

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

    SledgeHammer Icon

    2,431
    260
    Dec 28, 2007
    Isn't it pretty common knowledge that if you want to carry "Awesome Channel A", the rights holder makes you also include "Crappy Channel B and C" in the package? I'm not in the industry at all, but I know that's how it works. They never let you carry one off channels, they make you take the whole "set".
     
  7. slice1900

    slice1900 Well-Known Member

    9,934
    1,237
    Feb 14, 2013
    Iowa
    Yes, but Kyl416 was not arguing against that fact.
     
  8. FussyBob

    FussyBob Legend

    242
    8
    Jan 11, 2009
    I really don't get this cord cutting/streaming to save money.

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

    Soccernut AllStar

    321
    45
    Jan 19, 2004
    Todays reality the future is pure "speculation".
     
  10. TDK1044

    TDK1044 Godfather

    752
    70
    Apr 8, 2010
    Six companies own all of the media outlets. Those companies being Comcast, Disney, AT&T, 21st Century Fox, CBS and Viacom. A company like D* would love to cherry pick the channels to offer, but the reality is that if you want A&E and Lifetime, Disney will also make you carry some of its less popular channels. The same for the other 5 companies. That's why all the carriers still offer packages in some form.
     
  11. KyL416

    KyL416 Hall Of Fame

    5,391
    1,048
    Nov 10, 2005
    Tobyhanna, PA
    The contracts for the A&E Networks are completely seperate from the rest of the majority Disney owned channels. The AETN channels are run as a seperate operation with their own corporate structure, affiliate relations and ad sales teams from Disney/ABC and ESPN because of that 50/50 ownership with Hearst. They're also going to have to divest their half of the European AETN operations as a condition of the EU approval of the Fox purchase, with rumors of them possibly selling the entire operation to Hearst in the US which would make Hearst another major player. Disney refers to them as one of their equity networks where they only have partial ownership but don't control the day to day operations.

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


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

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

    Sinclair might become another major player if they get the Fox RSNs with their already massive presence in broadcast, along with their future Cubs RSN and the Tennis channel. Nexstar as well if their Tribune purchase is approved.
     
    Last edited: Mar 19, 2019
    Microphone likes this.
  12. Glenee

    Glenee Cool Member

    66
    9
    Sep 22, 2007
    Companies like this can make a P&L statement read closer to what they want you to think, than you may imagine.
    One of the worst things to ever happen, was a thing called the zero balance budget.
    It doesn't apply here, but this accounting technique is a green light to waste and theft.
     
  13. DirectMan

    DirectMan AllStar

    191
    20
    Jul 14, 2007
  14. Steveknj

    Steveknj Icon

    1,273
    62
    Nov 14, 2006
    Those are my concerns as well for new streaming service. I've been saying, I don't care how I get my TV. I just want it to be as close to what i have now. And I want to be able to stream wherever and whenever I want, and on many devices (we generally have at least 4 different TVs using DirecTV at any given time).
     
  15. wxman2003

    wxman2003 New Member

    28
    10
    Feb 28, 2015
    AngryManMLS likes this.
  16. Steveknj

    Steveknj Icon

    1,273
    62
    Nov 14, 2006
    So I thought DirecTV's plan was to roll out DirecTV over IP through a dedicated streaming box, and with it their new 5G network as an alternative to your current ISP package? Maybe I've misread the situation completely.

    One question for those in the know here. Are the carriage fees for the networks the same for streaming as they are for Satellite? I'm speculating here, but I wonder if the main reason why AT&T is going down this road is to drive down these carriage fees. More streaming subs mean less per sub that they pay to Viacom, or A&E or whoever than they do on Satellite. So they are attempting to "push" us there eventually. But if that's not the case, I have NO idea what AT&T is doing except to drive streamers somewhere else and play hardball with the content providers.
     
  17. slice1900

    slice1900 Well-Known Member

    9,934
    1,237
    Feb 14, 2013
    Iowa
    It will take YEARS for 5G networks to roll out, that and Directv over IP are totally separate things. Theoretically a network could offer different rates for streaming, but why should they, and if they do why should it be less rather than more?

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

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

    CTJon Godfather

    923
    104
    Feb 5, 2007
    I don't know why people want DirecTV and others to fail. You have a choice and if there weren't a choice you'd get a lot less for a lot more money.
    I've had, for a variety of reasons, DirecTV, UVerse, a couple of cable companies and DTV gave me the best experience, best channel choice, best PQ, etc. Sure the price is high but sometimes money isn't the most important item.
    I also suspect that internet services will drastically increase in price and more and more demands are put on them. In most cases people also have no choice who there internet service provider is.
     
    MysteryMan likes this.
  19. dtv757

    dtv757 Icon

    1,646
    158
    Jun 3, 2006
    757
    I don't want D* to fail but I do want the cable companies to
    .

    I'm pro phone companies FTTH not cable co.

    Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
     

Share This Page

spam firewall