DirecTV loses 1.2 million customers

[Juan]

Thats why they are switching to the VOD model..to eliminate the DVR....its not what YOU want ...its what the ADVERTISERS want...and when you have a company like ATT who has their hands in internet and content delivery...they will do everything they can to maximize profits

I don't think you can rely on Streaming at this point ...

2 way communication, don't need that if its mainly for Viewing habits (thats why I always opt OUT of that whenever possible.)
I don't need Commercials directed at me .... if they have no 2 way communication, they don't know what I like and I don't have to worry about a directed commercial.

I rarely watch commercials any ways.

Sent from my SM-G950U using the SatelliteGuys app!

 

[Bruce]

Thats why they are switching to the VOD model..to eliminate the DVR....its not what YOU want ...its what the ADVERTISERS want...and when you have a company like ATT who has their hands in internet and content delivery...they will do everything they can to maximize profits

As much as I hate to agree with Juan I believe he is right on this issue, this is exactly what Stankey of AT&T said-

“We didn’t buy DIRECTV because we love satellite,” said Stankey. “We bought DIRECTV because we love the customer base and the customer base could be migrated into more on-demand-oriented products and services.”

I read that as not only getting out of the Satellite business but also live TV, not saying soon but it is heading in that direction.





Sent from my iPad using SatelliteGuys

 

[Inclined Orbit]

ATT was looking at DirecTV for a couple of years before they bought it and well before any sale was advertised. DirecTV put on several dog and pony shows at corporate headquarters in El Segundo for ATT, hinting at a possible sale. Talk throughout the company back then was ATT is only interested in DirecTVs contracts and pricing with content providers to boost their existing video distribution service (U-Verse).

Looks like that is exactly what has happened but with a few minor twists along the way.

That’s the whole pro

I think the streaming providers should pay more to the programmers so everyone is on a level playing field

That’s the whole problem considering streaming doesn’t require a fleet of trucks and service people and besides the internet there are no satellites or infrastructure.

The only thing streaming providers need to do is come out with their own box and branded remote. Eliminate all the stupid apps and make it behave like a traditional cable box. This is the only way they can win over the older generation.

I think the streaming providers should pay more to the programmers so everyone is on a level playing field

 

[Justy5]

Man - this endless reporting of these losses make you think the world is coming to an end. Remember years back when Sprint lost 9 million customers because their service was so bad? Then years later they regained all of them back. AT&T could rework that magic with DIRECTV. The 64 million dollar question is - Do they want to? I personally don't think so. They planned for this to happen. It is partly or you could say mostly their fault. How much revenue have they lost by letting 4 or 5 million customers go? I wonder.

 

[Ronnie-]

Streaming business are not so hot right now either, who's to say at&t will be successful with it, people want value and at&t is not that good at that.

Sony shutting down PlayStation VUE cut the cord service

Depends, vue quit adding subs a year or two ago, but Hulu Live and YouTube Tv are doing well from a subscriber standpoint. Each passed the 2 million mark this year. Sling if I am not mistaken is still above the 2 million mark as well.

Directv now (or whatever they call it these days) has been losing subs and Vue hovered around the 500,000 mark. Both of those suffered from poor and confusing marketing in the case of Dorecrv Now, and piss poor branding with Ps Vue. Lots of people think to this day it requires a PlayStation, if they even know it’s live tv and not a game service.

 

[Bruce]

That’s the whole problem considering streaming doesn’t require a fleet of trucks and service people and besides the internet there are no satellites or infrastructure.

yep, and this is what AT&T is dreaming about, getting rid of a ton of employees, no more pay, no more healthcare costs, it is the corporate way.

The only thing streaming providers need to do is come out with their own box and branded remote. Eliminate all the stupid apps and make it behave like a traditional cable box. This is the only way they can win over the older generation.

Who cannot figure out a Roku and the problem with focusing on the older generation is that they die off and you no longer have a customer base, remember Bill Knapps Restaurants , all their customers died off and younger people did not care about getting a free chocolate cake on their birthday.

You need to figure out how to get the younger generation interested in Traditional TV, but I think it is too late for that, they are quite happy with Netflix, You Tube and the like.

I think the streaming providers should pay more to the programmers so everyone is on a level playing field

Umm no, I am very happy with paying under $40 for all my content and actually more then I ever can watch.




Sent from my iPad using SatelliteGuys

 

[slice1900]

As much as I hate to agree with Juan I believe he is right on this issue, this is exactly what Stankey of AT&T said-

“We didn’t buy DIRECTV because we love satellite,” said Stankey. “We bought DIRECTV because we love the customer base and the customer base could be migrated into more on-demand-oriented products and services.”

I read that as not only getting out of the Satellite business but also live TV, not saying soon but it is heading in that direction.

He also said:

...that the DirecTV satellite service, which he said still produces more than $4 billion in free cash flow per year, will have a long life. But he reiterated that AT&T TV, the company’s upcoming streaming TV service, will be the primary vehicle for going to market.​

He mentioned elsewhere that Directv had totaled $22 billion in free cash flow since the acquisition. So even if today it is worth $20 billion less than they paid for it, they still come out ahead. And that doesn't include all the savings from getting better content deals - when they bought Directv they said an equivalent Uverse TV package cost them $14/month more in content fees. So basically they're now saving $150/year on every Uverse TV customer, and on AT&T TV Now / AT&T TV customers now and in the future, by owning Directv and getting scale when negotiating with networks. Even if it is worthless by 2030 they'll probably have got their money's worth from buying it.

So like I've long said, they will keep Directv around for a long time, but they will 'encourage' new customers to choose AT&T TV over Directv - presumably by making the total price of AT&T TV (when you add in all the fees) lower than Directv.

 

[JohnL]

What I don't understand is simply this.

1) Moving DirecTV subs to a streaming platform MIGHT save AT&T money but it isn't going to save the customers ANYTHING as AT&T is going to take EVERY DOLLAR they can, NONE of that cost savings is going to materialize in cheaper price points for AT&T Steaming subs.
2) If Cable Company bundling is the likely reason for losing subs, how in the world does that help a AT&T streaming service as it would REQUIRE a CABLE COMPANY Internet ONLY Subscription to get access to the Streaming service from AT&T. Internet ONLY Cable Subscriptions fees are OFF THE CHARTS. Any Streaming TV Sub cost savings are going to be GOBBLED up by the Cable Internet pricing.

DirecTV needs to go back to being the PREMIUM service it has always been, too bad AT&T has ruined DirecTV service as well as their support.

I want my own DVR and NOT some limited ability to "fast forward or rewind" a streamed program.

 

[Juan]

Its all about $$$$$$$.nothing else

What I don't understand is simply this.

1) Moving DirecTV subs to a streaming platform MIGHT save AT&T money but it isn't going to save the customers ANYTHING as AT&T is going to take EVERY DOLLAR they can, NONE of that cost savings is going to materialize in cheaper price points for AT&T Steaming subs.
2) If Cable Company bundling is the likely reason for losing subs, how in the world does that help a AT&T streaming service as it would REQUIRE a CABLE COMPANY Internet ONLY Subscription to get access to the Streaming service from AT&T. Internet ONLY Cable Subscriptions fees are OFF THE CHARTS. Any Streaming TV Sub cost savings are going to be GOBBLED up by the Cable Internet pricing.

DirecTV needs to go back to being the PREMIUM service it has always been, too bad AT&T has ruined DirecTV service as well as their support.

I want my own DVR and NOT some limited ability to "fast forward or rewind" a streamed program.

Sent from my SM-G950U using the SatelliteGuys app!

 

[slice1900]

What I don't understand is simply this.

1) Moving DirecTV subs to a streaming platform MIGHT save AT&T money but it isn't going to save the customers ANYTHING as AT&T is going to take EVERY DOLLAR they can, NONE of that cost savings is going to materialize in cheaper price points for AT&T Steaming subs.

Moving existing customers from Directv to streaming won't save them a penny, and in fact would cost them money. Not much, but it wouldn't be free to them. They'll never do that, at least not until a decade or more from now when the existing satellites will be getting long in the tooth and they may shut Directv down.

Encouraging new customers to sign up for streaming instead of satellite will save them a good chunk of money up front - no installer visit, no need to provide them a Genie. But in an ongoing sense it will be a wash at best.

 

[dishnich]

A little over a year ago, my contracted 2 years of Directv service was up. I'm retired now, and wasn't willing to pay the full rate. I decided to try streaming, and signed up for the Directv Now streaming service. I called Directv and told them that I was cancelling at the end of my billing period, and they did ask me why. "Cost" was my honest reply, and did tell them I was staying within AT&T family with their streaming service. They then proposed that I stay with their satellite service for another year with the same price I had been paying. Of course, I stayed.

Jump ahead to 2-3 months ago when that one year was up. I called back to cancel. This time, there was no attempt to keep me. The cancellation went ahead. I'm now trying streaming, and guess what I am currently using. You got it, Playstation Vue. As one person stated, AT&T called my bluff. Guess I'll be looking around some more, and that is why I am on this website looking at options. By the way, I wasn't too crazy about Vue. Too many clicks to get to the show I want to see. The other option to find it (I have Alexa on Amazon Fire Stick) usually takes me 2-3 attempts before it understands me and takes me to that channel).

 

[Juan]

Ummm they could eliminate employess from the directv side

Moving existing customers from Directv to streaming won't save them a penny, and in fact would cost them money. Not much, but it wouldn't be free to them. They'll never do that, at least not until a decade or more from now when the existing satellites will be getting long in the tooth and they may shut Directv down.

Encouraging new customers to sign up for streaming instead of satellite will save them a good chunk of money up front - no installer visit, no need to provide them a Genie. But in an ongoing sense it will be a wash at best.

Sent from my SM-G950U using the SatelliteGuys app!

 

[slice1900]

Ummm they could eliminate employess from the directv side

Exactly how many customers do you think they could force migrate to streaming? Because they'd have to migrate them ALL to eliminate employees. Take away customers who can't/won't, like rural people with no broadband, or commercial customers who aren't going to stream to 30 TVs (if they even commercially license AT&T TV - I see no sign of this) then take away those who figure out it is cheaper to go with a cable bundle since they've already got cable internet, or customers who decide they like Sling TV or other streaming options better and they'd probably lose 75% of their customers trying to force migrate. That would result in huge revenue losses that totally swamp whatever savings they could manage by laying off everyone associated with satellite.

Besides, AT&T's CEO outright stated satellite "will have a long life". And they launched a new satellite just a couple months ago. What more proof do you need? The time for people to quote baseless articles claiming Directv will go away in a few years is long past.

 

[Bruce]

They'll never do that, at least not until a decade or more from now when the existing satellites will be getting long in the tooth and they may shut Directv down.

You keep writing about existing satellites and lasting until 2030 or so but the one thing you do not bring up is the boxes, some of those Genies out there are getting pretty old, 10 years or so is a long time to go without new hardware and there is not even a hint they are developing anything new for DirecTV, the only thing new is the Android box for at&t TV.



Sent from my LML713DL using the SatelliteGuys app!

 

[slice1900]

You keep writing about existing satellites and lasting until 2030 or so but the one thing you do not bring up is the boxes, some of those Genies out there are getting pretty old, 10 years or so is a long time to go without new hardware and there is not even a hint they are developing anything new for DirecTV, the only thing new is the Android box for at&t TV.

They don't necessarily need anything new. They could have Humax & Technicolor continue to manufacture HS17 and C61/C61W/C61K for another decade. I'm sure they'll update those at some point, though the updates would be minor because there's really not much they could do to them other than add HDMI 2.1 support to a C61K follow-on to support 4Kp120 (in case we ever get any 4Kp120 sports)

What exactly is it you'd expect them to introduce as far as new hardware, what added capabilities would it have? If you can't think of anything that they would actually make (sorry, a 32 tuner DVR with a 16TB hard drive is not coming) then there is no reason for them to upgrade the current models.

 

[Jimbo]

As much as I hate to agree with Juan I believe he is right on this issue, this is exactly what Stankey of AT&T said-

“We didn’t buy DIRECTV because we love satellite,” said Stankey. “We bought DIRECTV because we love the customer base and the customer base could be migrated into more on-demand-oriented products and services.”

I read that as not only getting out of the Satellite business but also live TV, not saying soon but it is heading in that direction.





Sent from my iPad using SatelliteGuys

He won't feel so good when he has ZERO customer base left in the end.

Last one leaving, turn the lights out.

 

[CSM]

They don't necessarily need anything new. They could have Humax & Technicolor continue to manufacture HS17 and C61/C61W/C61K for another decade. I'm sure they'll update those at some point, though the updates would be minor because there's really not much they could do to them other than add HDMI 2.1 support to a C61K follow-on to support 4Kp120 (in case we ever get any 4Kp120 sports)

What exactly is it you'd expect them to introduce as far as new hardware, what added capabilities would it have? If you can't think of anything that they would actually make (sorry, a 32 tuner DVR with a 16TB hard drive is not coming) then there is no reason for them to upgrade the current models.

What about going back to a headed server that outputs to 4k over HDMI and has a small size?

Would their ever be a time where they can’t keep refurbishing the H-25, H-24, HR-24, HR-44/54 and those start breaking? Would that cost a lot and be time consuming to replace all those with the HS-17 and mini’s? Wouldn’t the HS-17 need the reverse band LNB? Or is that for 4k only? If the HS-17 does need the reverse band LNB what about the installer not being able to go up on the roof to replace the LNB depending on where the dish is placed?

 

[CycloneSat]

As much as I hate to agree with Juan I believe he is right on this issue, this is exactly what Stankey of AT&T said-

“We didn’t buy DIRECTV because we love satellite,” said Stankey. “We bought DIRECTV because we love the customer base and the customer base could be migrated into more on-demand-oriented products and services.”

I read that as not only getting out of the Satellite business but also live TV, not saying soon but it is heading in that direction.




Sent from my iPad using SatelliteGuys

That would mean AT&T TV just exists for basically no reason.

 

[CycloneSat]

One word: fiber. That will be streaming’s key to success.

 

[slice1900]

What about going back to a headed server that outputs to 4k over HDMI and has a small size?

Would their ever be a time where they can’t keep refurbishing the H-25, H-24, HR-24, HR-44/54 and those start breaking? Would that cost a lot and be time consuming to replace all those with the HS-17 and mini’s? Wouldn’t the HS-17 need the reverse band LNB? Or is that for 4k only? If the HS-17 does need the reverse band LNB what about the installer not being able to go up on the roof to replace the LNB depending on where the dish is placed?

I suppose people with older receivers will eventually not be able to get replacements someday, but I doubt it will be an issue anytime soon. I have H20s that were all made from 2005-2007 and they're still going strong.