Problem with Directv streaming, YouTube TV, etc. is they don't carry all the local channels in the market. At minimum maybe PBS, CW, or MyNetwork may be carried but it keeps out the indie stations. Some have local sports coverage on days for OTA viewers and not the RSN's. WGN Chicago has the Chicago Fire FC games and none of the streamers carry WGN9. Directv should stream the locals they offer over satellite.
AT&T TV
- Thread starter docdaddy
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 177
- Views 34K
Yeah, AT&T TV/DirecTV Stream currently still lacks a good number of locals that are carried on DirecTV satellite. They've got affiliates of the big 4 (ABC, CBS, NBC, Fox) pretty well nailed down but lots of smaller stations available on satellite are missing.
Now that the streaming service is explicitly being branded as the streaming version of DirecTV, maybe we'll see those channel line-up differences go away. First thing they need to do is add PBS locals, which are completely missing from the service. And they also need to add lots of stations owned by Nexstar, whose CW and MyNetwork stations, as well as their WGN Chicago, are missing.
A friend at WUNC was talking about how they were not happy with the YTTV deal. It ended up costing them a lot of time and money to get it setup. If DirecTV Stream is asking the same thing, they might be getting push back from the stations.
At the time, I read that once the stations have the necessary equipment to provide YTTV a live broadcast stream, it could be used by other live TV streaming services.
Yeah. There was a whole mess of legal/licensing stuff that PBS, their member stations, and the various content owners had to work through before they could be live streamed. And then there were the technical logistics of stations uplinking to provide a live stream. I'm sure that required some up-front costs.
But notice that it was very soon after PBS stations joined YTTV that we saw so many of them offer live streams through the national PBS website and app, for free. At this point, I can't imagine that there would be much, if any, incremental cost in terms of time or money for a PBS station that's already providing a live stream to YTTV and/or the PBS app to extend their feed to other vMVPDs such as DTV Stream. Just a matter of striking the carriage deals. And DTV satellite and Uverse TV already have carriage agreements in place with all those stations anyhow.
So it's hard to see what the hold-up is. I predicted we'd see PBS get added to AT&T TV last year after it officially launched nationwide in March. Here we are over 16 months later and still no PBS. I'm wondering if maybe YTTV negotiated a deal to be their exclusive vMVPD partner for a certain amount of time after adding them back in Feb. 2020, which is precluding them from striking deals (and getting paid by) AT&T TV, Hulu Live, FuboTV, etc. Maybe your friend at WUNC would know.
EDIT: Actually, I don't know if local stations even need to have a special IP-based "streaming" uplink in place for AT&T TV. Doesn't that system just take whatever master feed is already being provided for DTV satellite (probably a high-bitrate MPEG-2 transport stream in 1080i or 720p) and then do a separate encoding for AT&T TV (which obviously never beams out to space but instead just streams out from their servers to the end user in 1080p or 720p H.264)? If that's true, then there's ZERO additional work or accommodations that need to be made by local stations -- PBS or otherwise -- to get added to AT&T TV if they're already carried on DTV. It would simply be a matter of striking a carriage agreement and DTV ingesting the master feed into their OTT distribution system.
I don't have my live local CW on AT&T TV either, though YouTube TV carries it. In San Diego, CW is a substation of the CBS affiliate, which recently bought it. I'm not sure DirecTV carries it (I assume they do), though I know for a time Dish Network couldn't be bothered with including it after the station ownership changed a few years ago.
It makes me think that with AT&T TV, it's a matter of tasking people to do the legwork to sign up these less in-demand local stations (outside the big 4 networks that carry major sports). And if there isn't a huge demand from customers, why bother? Not to mention, you can get almost everything for free anyway (on demand on a limited time basis) from PBS and CW via their respective apps. (When I sign in with a free account, I can get local PBS content as well.)
Fortunately, my CBS affiliate (the local news I mostly watch) recently launched a news app for Roku, which includes its live news broadcasts that air on CW (same news team/anchors at different times). I actually can't get CBS/CW via an indoor antenna, though I live in the middle of the city less than 10 miles from the tower and can pick up the ABC affiliate from that same tower. *sigh*
It makes me think that with AT&T TV, it's a matter of tasking people to do the legwork to sign up these less in-demand local stations (outside the big 4 networks that carry major sports). And if there isn't a huge demand from customers, why bother? Not to mention, you can get almost everything for free anyway (on demand on a limited time basis) from PBS and CW via their respective apps. (When I sign in with a free account, I can get local PBS content as well.)
Fortunately, my CBS affiliate (the local news I mostly watch) recently launched a news app for Roku, which includes its live news broadcasts that air on CW (same news team/anchors at different times). I actually can't get CBS/CW via an indoor antenna, though I live in the middle of the city less than 10 miles from the tower and can pick up the ABC affiliate from that same tower. *sigh*
Hmm. I thought the only major local station owner with whom AT&T TV lacked a carriage agreement for their CW and MyNetwork TV affiliates was Nexstar. That accounts for most of those two networks' missing locals in major markets like NYC, LA, Philly, Dallas, Houston, Washington, etc.
In San Diego, KFMB is the local affiliate for CBS, The CW, and MyNetwork TV. They're owned by Tegna. Looks like none of Tegna's local CW or MyNetwork TV stations are carried on AT&T TV, even though their big 4 affiliates are. So that puts them in the same boat as Nexstar. It's just that Nexstar has *way* more CW and MyNetwork TV affiliates than does Tegna, especially in big markets. So I guess there are at least two carriage contracts that DirecTV Stream needs to ink to fill in all their holes in terms of missing CW and MyNetwork TV locals. (Here in Nashville, our local CW and MyNetwork stations, as well as our local Fox, are owned by Sinclair. All of them are on AT&T TV.)
As for picking up KFMB via OTA antenna, well, my first thought was that it's on VHF while the ABC station on the same tower is on UHF. But actually, they're both on VHF; KFMB is on 8 and KFTV is on 10 (although it's also simulcast on UHF 20 -- is that what you're actually getting?). And both 8 and 10 broadcast with similar power. It would be pretty odd if a given antenna could get VHF 10 but not VHF 8. But it might require moving it around the room some (unless it's a bigger antenna).
At any rate, if DirecTV Stream is going to price itself a bit more expensive than competing options like YTTV, and wants to be perceived as a no-compromise premium cable TV service that happens to be delivered over the internet, then they shouldn't force their customers to use an antenna or separate apps to watch popular local stations that are typically included in cable/satellite TV packages. They need to carry the local ABC, CBS, NBC, Fox, PBS, CW and MyNetwork TV station in every market across the country, just as DTV satellite has done for years. And like DTV, they should carry a national feed of ION, plus a few of the retro diginets like MeTV, Get TV, Cozi TV, Comet, etc.
Locast seems to be able to stream local stations with no special equipment needed by the station...one wonders why directv can't do the same thing..capture the signal from fiber or ota and convert it themselves..with the stations permission of course
That's the main issue -- the station's permission, which requires payment from DTV Stream for the right to carry that station as part of their channel packages.
In the case of Locast, they're just using an OTA antenna to tune in local stations and then they convert the signal to streaming. They don't have those stations' permission and they're not paying them anything. But they're getting away with it (so far) because Locast is a non-profit and they don't require payment from viewers to access those streams.
IIRC, I think Locast is relying on a point in the law governing OTA TV transmission which was originally intended to allow non-profits to erect repeater towers, like the sort used in rural areas out west, that "catch" the OTA signal from the station's own tower, at the edge of its coverage area, and then amplify the signal and beam it back out on a different frequency, thereby expanding the area in which residents can receive the station. That can be done without permission from the originating station. Locast is arguing that they're essentially doing the same thing, except their "repeater tower" is the internet.
More Details Announced About DirecTV Stream, Including Official Changeover Date
Fans of AT&T’s streaming services just got some more information about the company’s changeover to DirecTV Stream. According to a pop-up notice within the AT&T TV app, the rebrand to DirecTV Stream …
thestreamable.com
PBS affiliates are coming to DirecTV Stream. Timeline is a bit vague: from the end of this year to over the course of 2022. Hopefully the rollout won't take as long as it did for YouTube TV.
thestreamable.com
DIRECTV STREAM Adds PBS, Local PBS Affiliates Coming Later This Year
PBS fans will have a new way to stream public television content. DIRECTV STREAM now has an agreement to carry the channel. Participating PBS member stations will become available over the next few months, and the full …
thestreamable.com
DirecTV Stream Reportedly Set to Raise Prices
The number of people who subscribe to DirecTV Stream remains unclear.
nationalinterest.org
Yup. Entry-level Entertainment package will hold steady at $70 but Choice (which includes the RSNs) goes up $5 to $90, while Ultimate and Premier each increase by $10 to $105 and $150 respectively. Unless they're going to start including unlimited cloud DVR in the base price rather than charge an extra $10/mo for it, as they currently do, then this is going to make DTV Stream even less competitive versus YTTV and the Hulu Live bundle (which now includes Disney+ and ESPN+).DirecTV Stream Reportedly Set to Raise Prices
The number of people who subscribe to DirecTV Stream remains unclear.
At this point, I think DTV Stream is mainly just attracting folks who want their RSNs (which, for the most part, aren't available on competing streaming cable services) plus some DTV satellite customers who want to save a little money while keeping the same channel line-up and numbers.
- Nov 29, 2003
- 16,136
- 20,792
I expect YTTV to go up the usual $5 soon, still the much better bargain then D* Stream and Hulu Live because of no charge for the DVR and 3 streams.
Yeah, I agree. But keep in mind that YTTV has added a few channels lately -- the three Hallmark nets, plus Sony's GSN and GetTV -- while holding the price at $65. And my guess is that at the next price hike, probably to $70, we see them add the last remaining major channel group, the A+E nets: History, A&E, Lifetime, maybe Vice and/or LMN too. At that point, would YTTV be missing anything significant at all other than NHL Network (and, of course, the RSNs)?
Wouldn't surprise me to see them also add some more of the new little streaming channels that are available in free apps like Pluto TV, Xumo and Peacock. They already carry some of them, such as Cheddar News, Docurama, Dabl, Dove Channel, Fox Soul, and Law & Crime. Maybe we'll see them add Newsy, Circle, CBSN, Buzzr, Sky News, etc. They might pick up such channels for zero carriage cost; those little nets just want more eyeballs to sell ads.
YouTube TV's price increases have been on the order of $10 to $15, not $5. If they add the History and A&E family of channels, there's no way it's only a $5 increase if history serves. The price jumped $15 when they added eight Viacom channels. And let's not forget they soon after dropped most RSNs and Tennis Channel with no corresponding price drop and only a few lower-cost niche channel additions since. (They dropped Newsy in June of this year, btw.)
If rumors are true about the DirecTV Stream price increase, I'm definitely out. I can't justify paying that much extra to get my RSN. CBS Sports is just as important to me, and for that I need the Ultimate tier, which will go up to $105. I can get Tennis Channel (another priority) and CBS Sports for about $80 on FuboTV, so that's what I'm looking at right now. At least I'll get a decent amount of DVR storage space and the occasional 4K.
If rumors are true about the DirecTV Stream price increase, I'm definitely out. I can't justify paying that much extra to get my RSN. CBS Sports is just as important to me, and for that I need the Ultimate tier, which will go up to $105. I can get Tennis Channel (another priority) and CBS Sports for about $80 on FuboTV, so that's what I'm looking at right now. At least I'll get a decent amount of DVR storage space and the occasional 4K.
- Nov 29, 2003
- 16,136
- 20,792
It is true-
DirecTV Stream confirms $5 to $10 rate hikes for 2022
DirecTV has confirmed a series of rate increases for its virtual MVPD, DirecTV Stream, making it the latest live streaming TV service to raise prices. | DirecTV has confirmed a series of rate increases for its virtual MVPD, DirecTV Stream, making it the latest live streaming TV service to raise...
YTTV's price history is $35, then $40, then $50, then $65. So they did raise it by only $5 once before. But more important is what their main competitor, Hulu Live, is doing, which is increasing their price from $65 to $70 this month (while also sweetening the deal by throwing in Disney+ and ESPN+). It's going to be hard for YTTV to raise beyond that $70 price point as long as that's where Hulu Live sits.
Based on what I've read, I think YTTV was losing money at $35 and $40 (based on the channels they carried at those points) and probably only about breaking even at $50. The big jump up to $65, combined with dropping the RSNs, is what got them up to a level of acceptable profitability for Google.
As for adding the A+E nets, well, little FrndlyTV just did it and only increased their pricing by $1/mo, from $8 to $9 for their standard package (HD with 3-mo cloud DVR). Back in 2017, per this chart that Variety published a few years ago, the entire suite of A+E nets had a carriage cost of only $1.45 per sub. I'm sure that's gone up in the five years since, but I doubt it's doubled. If the cost increased by 10% per year, that would put it at $2.34 per sub for 2022. A $5 price hike by YTTV might well be enough to absorb the cost of adding the A+E nets, plus the additional carriage costs for the recently-added Hallmark nets, as well as the inflation on other channels (e.g. Disney-owned).
Does the stream have all RSNs either by default or with something like the Sport Pack on DTV satellite? I realize the games will be blacked out - but I like the local programming and not interested in a dish.
No. If you subscribe to DTV Stream's Choice package ($85/mo, going up to $90/mo in Jan.), it will include only the RSN(s) for your particular area. And DTV Stream does not offer an optional add-on like DTV sat's Sports Pack that gives you out-of-market RSNs with the actual games blacked out. As far as I know, the only TV service that offers that is DTV satellite.
Similar threads
- Article
