AT&T Files Trademark For AT&T TV

[bluegras]

AT&T has filed for a trademark for ‘AT&T TV’ with the U.S Patent & Trademark Office, a possible signal that the telco will eventually move away from its current TV brand names, DIRECTV and U-verse.
In its trademark application, the telco says AT&T TV would be used for “Set-top boxes; computer hardware and software used for the control of voice controlled set-top boxes; remote controls for set-top boxes.”

AT&T Files Trademark For AT&T TV - The TV Answer Man!

 

[Claude Greiner]

Keep in mind they are trying to make Uverse, Directv and Directv now to have the same interface and feel.

I can see it all being rebranded Att Tv and the delivery method being satellite, fiber, copper lines or Ip.

Directv has a strong brand name.

Could be something like Comcast/xfinity

Even when Dish was talking about buying Directv 15 years ago they wanted to get rid of the dish name and go with Directv

 

[CSM]

Keep in mind they are trying to make Uverse, Directv and Directv now to have the same interface and feel.

I can see it all being rebranded Att Tv and the delivery method being satellite, fiber, copper lines or Ip.

Directv has a strong brand name.

Could be something like Comcast/xfinity

Even when Dish was talking about buying Directv 15 years ago they wanted to get rid of the dish name and go with Directv

Would the current channel contracts allow AT&T to rebrand DirecTV, UVerseTV and DTV NOW to AT&T TV and maybe AT&T TV NOW?

 

[Techiefan]

Would the current channel contracts allow AT&T to rebrand DirecTV, UVerseTV and DTV NOW to AT&T TV and maybe AT&T TV NOW?

Good question, I would think it doesn't matter, the contracts are between companies and not the customer, the branding can be anything they want, just need to trademark it first. I would think there is some LLC they created long ago to house the contacts side of the house when all these mergers started, but again it doesn't matter as the parent company AT&T is in control. The networks only care about $ and the real question is does each outlet (prior company offering) have to pay per subscriber or based on an overall agreement that was struck individually back when. Complicated stuff that is all backend and not customer facing for naming of the products they are offering to the public consumer. So the name Directv and others alike will fall under one name, no different than what AT&T has done to it's wireless consumer business in the past when it was buying up other carriers. Usually brandnames are born out of focus groups or stick around due to brandname recognition which is why I question changing the name from Directv to AT&T TV but that is above my pay grade. Also we are just speculating, they might just want to reserve it for later use like a new IPTV offering in the future, maybe even rebrand Directv NOW, who knows.

 

[Juan]

Keep in mind they are trying to make Uverse, Directv and Directv now to have the same interface and feel.

I can see it all being rebranded Att Tv and the delivery method being satellite, fiber, copper lines or Ip.

Directv has a strong brand name.

Could be something like Comcast/xfinity

Even when Dish was talking about buying Directv 15 years ago they wanted to get rid of the dish name and go with Directv

They really just want to pay one software development team instead of 3

 

[Jimbo]

Good question, I would think it doesn't matter, the contracts are between companies and not the customer, the branding can be anything they want, just need to trademark it first. I would think there is some LLC they created long ago to house the contacts side of the house when all these mergers started, but again it doesn't matter as the parent company AT&T is in control. The networks only care about $ and the real question is does each outlet (prior company offering) have to pay per subscriber or based on an overall agreement that was struck individually back when. Complicated stuff that is all backend and not customer facing for naming of the products they are offering to the public consumer. So the name Directv and others alike will fall under one name, no different than what AT&T has done to it's wireless consumer business in the past when it was buying up other carriers. Usually brandnames are born out of focus groups or stick around due to brandname recognition which is why I question changing the name from Directv to AT&T TV but that is above my pay grade. Also we are just speculating, they might just want to reserve it for later use like a new IPTV offering in the future, maybe even rebrand Directv NOW, who knows.

I could see it being changed to something like Directv brought to you by AT&T or AT&T Directv .... down the road.

 

[Scott Greczkowski]

They really just want to pay one software development team instead of 3

Too many platforms for that to happen.

 

[Don in CT]

Good question, I would think it doesn't matter, the contracts are between companies and not the customer, the branding can be anything they want, just need to trademark it first. I would think there is some LLC they created long ago to house the contacts side of the house when all these mergers started, but again it doesn't matter as the parent company AT&T is in control. The networks only care about $ and the real question is does each outlet (prior company offering) have to pay per subscriber or based on an overall agreement that was struck individually back when. Complicated stuff that is all backend and not customer facing for naming of the products they are offering to the public consumer. So the name Directv and others alike will fall under one name, no different than what AT&T has done to it's wireless consumer business in the past when it was buying up other carriers. Usually brandnames are born out of focus groups or stick around due to brandname recognition which is why I question changing the name from Directv to AT&T TV but that is above my pay grade. Also we are just speculating, they might just want to reserve it for later use like a new IPTV offering in the future, maybe even rebrand Directv NOW, who knows.

Well isn't the current AT&T still technically SBC.

 

[Jimbo]

Well isn't the current AT&T still technically SBC.

Yes.

THEY took the name AT&T (actually it's at&t now) exactly for what others were talking about earlier NAME RECOGNITION.

 

[Techiefan]

Well isn't the current AT&T still technically SBC.

yup, so AT&T was the better of the two name brands hence SBC became AT&T and possibly soon DirecTV becomes AT&T TV or some new platform we are not privy of yet.

 

[TheRatPatrol]

AT&T TV is too much of a mouthful. Directv is easier and faster to say.

 

[MitchDeerfield]

Uverse trade name will be gone.

 

[CSM]

Uverse trade name will be gone.

So have they changed their minds about getting rid of UVerseTV and just UVerseTV is becoming AT&T TV but not DirecTV and DirecTV Now?

 

[Jimbo]

So have they changed their minds about getting rid of UVerseTV and just UVerseTV is becoming AT&T TV but not DirecTV and DirecTV Now?

Uverse TV is still being sold in specific areas and you request it.
I think the majority of times when people call att for TV, they end up getting D*

 

[MitchDeerfield]

So have they changed their minds about getting rid of UVerseTV and just UVerseTV is becoming AT&T TV but not DirecTV and DirecTV Now?

The Uverse Internet service has already been renamed AT&T Internet. Uverse will be transitioned to At&T TV after they change and improve the IPTV platform, which could be a couple of years from now. DirecTV is a valuable trade name for their satellite TV service and won't be discarded like Uverse.

 

[CSM]

The Uverse Internet service has already been renamed AT&T Internet. Uverse will be transitioned to At&T TV after they change and improve the IPTV platform, which could be a couple of years from now. DirecTV is a valuable trade name for their satellite TV service and won't be discarded like Uverse.

Is that improving managed IPTV or just transitioning managed IPTV to OTT? If its managed IPTV how will they improve it? Will it be built off of the DirecTV platform using the DTV NOW interface and the merging of the DTV and UVerseTV channel line-ups? Also the DTV NOW name being changed to AT&T TV?

 

[Don in CT]

Is that improving managed IPTV or just transitioning managed IPTV to OTT? If its managed IPTV how will they improve it? Will it be built off of the DirecTV platform using the DTV NOW interface and the merging of the DTV and UVerseTV channel line-ups? Also the DTV NOW name being changed to AT&T TV?

Why put money into marketing DTV Now only to change the name a year later. Seems like a stupid move and shooting themselves in the foot.