Streaming TV is about to get very expensive

Discussion in 'Now Playing - TV Show Talk' started by mr.unnatural, Jul 1, 2019.

  1. Feb 8, 2020 #581 of 632
    Malcontent

    Malcontent Ancient Astronaut Theorist

    4,340
    489
    Sep 4, 2004
    Lurker1 likes this.
  2. Feb 9, 2020 #582 of 632
    Amnesia

    Amnesia The Question

    11,367
    498
    Jan 30, 2005
    Boston, MA
    That headline seems a bit premature. From the article:
     
    Mikeguy likes this.
  3. Feb 9, 2020 #583 of 632
    jamesbobo

    jamesbobo with a grain of salt

    5,209
    110
    Jun 18, 2000
    NJ
  4. tenthplanet

    tenthplanet Well-Known Member

    1,525
    445
    Mar 5, 2004
    Which is why they have been moving more into original content similar to HBO. At some point expect all MGM labels to be consolidated onto Epix, Disney grabbed away Lionsgate films for Hulu and FX down the line. Wait till the contract for Universal and 20th Century run out for HBO down the line. That will be messy.
     
  5. tenthplanet

    tenthplanet Well-Known Member

    1,525
    445
    Mar 5, 2004
    Streaming was never cheap if you wanted to watch anything new. People who said it was had "magic free internet". Piracy is a moral choice, a thief is a thief. You can't catch them all, but you should have no mercy for the ones you do. :eek:
     
  6. MikeMar

    MikeMar Go Pats

    45,158
    792
    Jan 7, 2005
    Boston...
    Is it wrong that I pirated some stuff from Amazon or Netflix just to have it all in 1 place? Not to derail the thread
     
  7. pdhenry

    pdhenry Recumbent

    28,538
    4,778
    Feb 27, 2005
    PA
    I remember when Netflix was pretty much all there was and you could view a certain number of hours per month according to how many disks were on your plan. It was pretty cheap then.
    Amazon wasn't even streaming - you had to download the show before you could watch it.
     
  8. Mar 2, 2020 #588 of 632
    markb

    markb Well-Known Member

    1,451
    239
    Jul 24, 2002
    San Diego
    Last edited: Mar 2, 2020
  9. Mar 2, 2020 #589 of 632
    Steveknj

    Steveknj Lost in New Joisey TCF Club

    51,681
    2,934
    Mar 10, 2003
    New Jersey
    The goal here, is for AT&T to eventually replace DirecTV for those users who "want it all" and don't mind paying for it. Right now, that's me. They have mentioned they will stop marketing DirecTV going forward. I still have the issue where it would take 2-3 different streaming servcies like YTTV or Hulu to get what are my essentials....all of the broadcast channels, the three local RSNs (plus their overflow channels) and all of the cable channels that the 5 of us watch. Plus a decent DVR, and advanced audio and video. There's not a streamer out there that gives me all of this. And right now neither does this new service, but it's close. It's missing three essential channels for me, CW (in the NY Metro), PBS (again, in the NY Metro) and MeTV (okay, that might not be essential, but I do watch stuff on that channel). The other annoying limitation is that their "box" only allows for 3 simultaneous streams and my house I'd need a minimum of 5.
     
  10. Mar 2, 2020 #590 of 632
    TonyD79

    TonyD79 Well-Known Member

    12,225
    1,741
    Jan 4, 2002
    Columbia, MD
    Yeah. This is the replacement for satellite and ATT fiber. The reviewer misplaced the market here. I beta tested this device using ATT Now and it was a nice piece of hardware. Even though ATT Now doesn’t use channel numbers, when using this box, it did so you could express tune to 206 for ESPN, etc.

    This is not meant to compete with small packages but to be for the larger package folks who have satellite now.
     
    Steveknj likes this.
  11. Mar 2, 2020 #591 of 632
    markb

    markb Well-Known Member

    1,451
    239
    Jul 24, 2002
    San Diego
    I get the need for a higher-price "want it all" plan. But the two-year contract and the hidden fees seem so retro. (I know, these are a part of many of AT&T's current offerings, but it goes against how other streaming services do it, including AT&T TV Now and HBO Now, from what I can see.) What they should do is offer it as a higher-priced tier on AT&T TV Now, and do away with the contracts and fees.
     
    tlc likes this.
  12. Mar 2, 2020 #592 of 632
    lparsons21

    lparsons21 Active Member

    426
    142
    Feb 17, 2015
    Except that YouTubeTV @$50/month provides a better channel lineup than does ATT’s first two levels. So regardless of who ATT wants you to think it compete with, the competition in reality IS YTTV and Hulu+Live and with a bit of a stretch, some combo of others. All with no contracts, no ETF and the biggest benefit of all, not dealing with ATT!

    This is designed to suck in what’s left of the older ones of us that are uncomfortable with much change. My prediction, before a full year is out this will change or be gone. For smart buyers, it probably will be DOA.
     
    Teavo likes this.
  13. Mar 2, 2020 #593 of 632
    DevdogAZ

    DevdogAZ Give 'em Hell, Devils

    58,035
    4,049
    Apr 16, 2003
    Arizona
    But it's not significantly different from the rest of the streaming services, so for those who fear change, if they were willing/able to adopt this new service, they'd be 90% of the way to just adopting streaming. So it's really only good for those who have very specific sports requirements that can't be met through the other streaming platforms, and my guess is that's a very small number that are willing to pay the necessary pricing to get those very specific channels.
     
  14. Mar 2, 2020 #594 of 632
    TonyD79

    TonyD79 Well-Known Member

    12,225
    1,741
    Jan 4, 2002
    Columbia, MD
    Who’s talking about the lower levels of ATT? They have ATT Now for that. This is the heavy hitter of directv satellite with hundreds of channels including out of region sports channels and all that.

    Oh, and the box integrates apps into it.

    They may not be targeting the right thing but that is what they are attempting. To target the part of the industry that are satellite customers.

    I’ve looked at YouTube. It doesn’t provide the same extensive lineup.
     
    Steveknj likes this.
  15. Mar 2, 2020 #595 of 632
    mdavej

    mdavej Well-Known Member

    3,138
    1,011
    Aug 13, 2015
  16. Mar 2, 2020 #596 of 632
    lparsons21

    lparsons21 Active Member

    426
    142
    Feb 17, 2015
    I wasn’t referring to ATT Now, but the lower 2 levels of the newly announced product. And those aren’t any better than what is currently on YTTV or Hulu+Live.
     
  17. Mar 3, 2020 #597 of 632
    TonyD79

    TonyD79 Well-Known Member

    12,225
    1,741
    Jan 4, 2002
    Columbia, MD
    Okay. I was not clear. I’m not sure they are gong to succeed. Only that they are attempting to transition the same level of satellite to streaming.
     
  18. Mar 3, 2020 #598 of 632
    Steveknj

    Steveknj Lost in New Joisey TCF Club

    51,681
    2,934
    Mar 10, 2003
    New Jersey
    There's a lot of discussion on DBS Forum about this and the same points are made there. Yes, I agree, that AT&T is introducing this poorly and a lot of people think it's dead in the water. if the goal is to move people to this rather than DirecTV or UVerse there's zero incentive to move. If it's to move people who like cable to this, then the 2 year commitment is a killer, especially for a system that's brand new and people will have reservations about trying it and having to commit to it for 2 years if it's terrible. I certainly wouldn't. I sort of like the idea of what they are doing, but whoever came up with the process should be fired.
     
  19. Mar 3, 2020 #599 of 632
    Steveknj

    Steveknj Lost in New Joisey TCF Club

    51,681
    2,934
    Mar 10, 2003
    New Jersey
    I've tried YTTV and for those of us used to cable/sat it's not very intuitive, has a terrible interface and there are a lot of limitations. So while you might be correct about channel selection on the first two tiers, (I'm interested in the 3rd), this is much more high quality stuff, with some 4K offerings, better sound quality and so forth. but I agree, that most people will look at the two systems and those who don't need the advanced stuff will go with the lower cost choice every time. But they are doing that anyway.
     
  20. Mar 3, 2020 #600 of 632
    lparsons21

    lparsons21 Active Member

    426
    142
    Feb 17, 2015
    For the life of me, I can’t figure out a sales pitch that makes this new offering from ATT a success. It isn’t really offering more channels unless you get one of the top 2 levels, the price is higher than nearly any other streaming service and you get locked into a 2 year contract.

    In general I’ve found that people switch TV providers for one of two reasons. Cost is usually right up there at the top usually brought about by the end of whatever ‘deal’ your cable/sat provider gave you is expiring. The other one is channel disruptions. A very small percentage change because of technical issues.

    So here’s a streaming solution that is more costly to start with, is guaranteed to nearly double in the 2nd year and is still just as likely to have channel contentions as any other service.
     
    osu1991 likes this.

Share This Page