ATT TV - a little review

Discussion in 'Internet Streaming Services' started by lparsons21, Apr 27, 2020.

  1. Jan 12, 2021 #601 of 1812
    harsh

    harsh Beware the Attack Basset

    22,438
    384
    Jun 14, 2003
    Salem, OR
    Rest assured that the NFL will demand that NFLST be widely available. Whether it is YouTube, Amazon or another player in the pay TV market (maybe Bally's?), the NFL will find a way.
     
  2. Jan 12, 2021 #602 of 1812
    lparsons21

    lparsons21 Hall Of Fame

    5,869
    730
    Mar 4, 2006
    Herrin, IL
    Being bored and hunkered down I’ve been playing the numbers/channels game all morning. Here’s one that intrigues me since I generally have at least a couple of the Premium movie channels active all the time.

    ATT TV Now Max = $80
    AMC/BBCA = $9
    Showtime = $10
    Starz = $6 (usually this deal is available

    Total = $105/month

    ATT TV Now Ultimate = $95
    Expand DVR = $10
    Includes HBO, Cinemax, Starz, Showtime
    Includes AMC/BBCA

    Total = $105/month

    Currently I’m paying $89 for ATT TV Now Max + AMC+, so for $16/month more I could make the change. I would lose the great expansion of AMC networks wonderful AMC+ offering and it would be an every month cost on the additional Premiums I would kick in and out on occasion. But would pick up a slew of channels I don’t have access to now, including the Discovery stuff. Hmmm.... Got to do some thinking.
     
  3. Jan 12, 2021 #603 of 1812
    lparsons21

    lparsons21 Hall Of Fame

    5,869
    730
    Mar 4, 2006
    Herrin, IL
    I wouldn’t, I was using that in the cost comparison of Entertainment with and without contract to even up the features.
     
  4. Jan 12, 2021 #604 of 1812
    lparsons21

    lparsons21 Hall Of Fame

    5,869
    730
    Mar 4, 2006
    Herrin, IL
    IOW, it isn’t an issue then, is it? :)
     
  5. Jan 12, 2021 #605 of 1812
    lparsons21

    lparsons21 Hall Of Fame

    5,869
    730
    Mar 4, 2006
    Herrin, IL
    Oops! Website misread, Ultimate doesn’t include the Premiums, my bad. So all this is just not good. :(
     
  6. Jan 12, 2021 #606 of 1812
    harsh

    harsh Beware the Attack Basset

    22,438
    384
    Jun 14, 2003
    Salem, OR
    Only if there isn't a commitment involved somewhere along the path.
     
  7. Jan 12, 2021 #607 of 1812
    lparsons21

    lparsons21 Hall Of Fame

    5,869
    730
    Mar 4, 2006
    Herrin, IL
    Yeah, that might be an issue. But there is no way to outguess these marketing geniuses in their ever changing offerings is there? :)

    ATT is in a bind here I think. The current offerings for streaming TV is just a mess as it has always been. No-contract and contract service from the same provider with different pricing and even subscription levels. Just a god awful mess at their website. And frankly that’s too bad as the ATT TV service itself is really excellent just poorly marketed. Unfortunately “AT&T” and “poorly marketed” seem like they are synonyms these days!
     
  8. Jan 12, 2021 #608 of 1812
    compnurd

    compnurd Hall Of Fame

    4,222
    814
    Apr 23, 2007
    Evans City PA
    I actually think this cleans it up alot.. Same Service Same Plans Two Different Options.. Cheaper Year 1 with a contract for same price for however long with no contract
     
  9. Jan 12, 2021 #609 of 1812
    techguy88

    techguy88 Well-Known Member

    1,380
    650
    Mar 19, 2015
    Really if you are wanting a more complete channel lineup with 1 single service then AT&T TV Choice (No Contract) is the best priced option right now. You get locals (where available), all top channels, RSNs (with no RSN fee) and most sports channels (some require Ultimate). While the included 20 Hour Cloud DVR is paltry compared to the others it is double the base Sling TV Cloud DVR and recordings are kept for 90 days unlike Sling's 30 Days. The only big omission for AT&T TV is NFL Network.

    2021 Streaming Comparison.png
     
  10. Jan 12, 2021 #610 of 1812
    B. Shoe

    B. Shoe Mentor

    336
    128
    Apr 3, 2008
    Illinois
    I've mentioned this in other threads, but I'm not sure the league is *that* worried about Sunday Ticket. The league NEEDS eyes on its CBS and FOX local affiliate games. Big dollar contracts, and local affiliates sell a lot of advertising during the season. Making Sunday Ticket more readily available, either via provider or a lower cost, takes eyes away from those games and devalues the contracts. They're getting over a billion dollars a year from DIRECTV and the best estimate is that D* has approximately 2 million residential subscribers. That's a pretty good payday for not a ton of eyeballs, and even then only your most diehard fans are utilizing the service all 17 weeks of the regular season.

    Personally, I would love Sunday Ticket and would like for it to be more readily available for fans. (Mainly at a cheaper cost. It doesn't matter what provider carries it, both tiers of ST carry a hefty fee.) I'm just not sure the NFL is that worried.
     
  11. Jan 12, 2021 #611 of 1812
    lparsons21

    lparsons21 Hall Of Fame

    5,869
    730
    Mar 4, 2006
    Herrin, IL
    Yes, it does clean it up but it is still a mess IMO. It would be simpler to have all the sub levels available in both ways and have a grid with contract/no-contract pricing right there, not spread between two different websites. But the bigger problem is that two different ways even exist. It just can’t help adding confusion, especially when you compare to all other streaming services.

    Go to their web pages and it is all laid out with a single base package and/or additional packages. That makes sense, makes it easy for the consumer to see exactly what they are buying into and doesn’t add all the confusion as to which way to subscribe.

    Unfortunately for AT&T they decided that a contract version of the service made any kind of sense in the streaming world to begin with. But the fact that their non-contract service was dying a slow death probably is what enticed them to offer it. So instead of cleaning up their non-contract service they decided to introduce a cable/sat packaging of a streaming service. Going forward I see no long term future for AT&T TV’s offerings even though it is probably the best performing service out there, has a solid app to work with it, best PW and AQ, and widest range of channel offerings.
     
  12. Jan 12, 2021 #612 of 1812
    compnurd

    compnurd Hall Of Fame

    4,222
    814
    Apr 23, 2007
    Evans City PA
    I dont know what you are looking at.. But click one button and it shows me the no contract package pricing.. click it again and it shows me the other way. Only one website

    It almost seems they are more now pushing no contract because you see that first...

    And your last sentence complete contradicts it self It ATT Holds the pricing for 2021 and YTTV and Hulu have another price increase. ATT is going to look alot better to alot of people
     
  13. Jan 12, 2021 #613 of 1812
    lparsons21

    lparsons21 Hall Of Fame

    5,869
    730
    Mar 4, 2006
    Herrin, IL
    Yeah, it is all of those things and would fit quite a few people that just need nearly all of it. But the pricing is a bit bogus because of the very small cloud space. Instead of being $85/month for most that would be interested it would be $95/month to also have a reasonably sized DVR space IMO.

    But the single biggest reason given for wanting to ‘cut the cord’ is to save some money, this just doesn’t really do it well and at $95/month makes it the single most expensive live streaming service out there with a price that is close to cable/sat pricing for similar lineups.
     
  14. Jan 12, 2021 #614 of 1812
    lparsons21

    lparsons21 Hall Of Fame

    5,869
    730
    Mar 4, 2006
    Herrin, IL
    Did you not notice that the contract version now costs $200 more than it did yesterday? And what magic 8 ball is telling you that AT&T won’t be raising their prices? All indications are that all of them will be to some extent going forward. Every one of them are furiously doing their spreadsheets to find that magic number that gets them profitable and keeps subscribers at the same time and has been that way since the first live streaming service started.

    And no, it isn’t just one website, or at least not one webpage. And it needs to have at least one page that gives the subscription levels with both pricings as well as having all the subscription levels available each way IMO. Considering that ATT TV is losing customers every day what they are doing isn’t working.
     
  15. Jan 12, 2021 #615 of 1812
    b4pjoe

    b4pjoe New Member

    1,818
    549
    Nov 19, 2010
    So if you decide to get the no contract version can you buy a box for $120 or do you have to go with the contract option to get the box?
     
  16. Jan 12, 2021 #616 of 1812
    lparsons21

    lparsons21 Hall Of Fame

    5,869
    730
    Mar 4, 2006
    Herrin, IL
    Yes, you can now buy the ATT box with the no-contract version. That’s a change as prior to this you couldn’t buy one at all from AT&T.
     
  17. Jan 12, 2021 #617 of 1812
    compnurd

    compnurd Hall Of Fame

    4,222
    814
    Apr 23, 2007
    Evans City PA
    It is literally one page I have no clue what you are looking at.. Click the switch button at the top and the packages change to show the pricing

    upload_2021-1-12_14-44-26.png
     
  18. Jan 12, 2021 #618 of 1812
    techguy88

    techguy88 Well-Known Member

    1,380
    650
    Mar 19, 2015
    The no-contract option allows you to buy the box outright ($120 one time charge per box) or breaks the cost down into $5 monthly installments spread across 24 months. The no-contract option does not include an AT&T TV box but allows you to bring your own device (aka Roku).

    The Cloud DVR services are different yes but it really comes down to how much one records, how much one uses on-demand and other streaming services (like base Hulu) one pays for.

    2021 DVR Comparison.png
     
  19. Jan 12, 2021 #619 of 1812
    harsh

    harsh Beware the Attack Basset

    22,438
    384
    Jun 14, 2003
    Salem, OR
    Given that an NFLST deal, as it currently stands, is a guaranteed source of $2 billion per year in revenue for very little effort on the NFL's part, it should remain attractive as long as they can find someone willing to strike a similar deal. The broadcast avenues ultimately depend on many variables including significant damage from cord cutting when people figure out how much they're paying to get a questionable value in local channels (versus getting the shows they want to watch some other way).

    If someone can open it up to more eyeballs than DIRECTV (and Uverse?) can reach (a rapidly diminishing number), so much the better for a guaranteed paycheck.
     
    B. Shoe likes this.
  20. Jan 12, 2021 #620 of 1812
    techguy88

    techguy88 Well-Known Member

    1,380
    650
    Mar 19, 2015
    The current DirecTV-NFL contract is a hard exclusive to the satellite platform. U-Verse never had NFL Sunday Ticket since AT&T acquired DirecTV. AT&T & NFL were able to carve out a 1 season test with DirecTV Now in limited markets which caused U-Verse TV's NFL Network carriage agreement to be extended to D*Now/AT&T TV Now until AT&T let that contract lapse.

    The NFL had the option to end the current agreement early but the money they would have generated from multiple streaming services was less than AT&T's current D* agreement. If AT&T is willing to pony up $1.5+ billion/year as long as AT&T TV can sell NFL ST in addition to DirecTV I could see NFL agreeing to that kind of deal since they love pools of money.
     

Share This Page

spam firewall

Advertisements