DOJ Wants AT&T To Sell DTV Or Turner
- Thread starter CSM
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 62
- Views 5K
- Status
My guess would be that its rather easy to do, doesn't cost much and they have something with AT&T's name on it that they didn't have to get elsewhere.
Also, if they do happen to in the future have to sell D* they still have a Streaming service.
One of the things AT&T said is they could launch a streaming service having the clout that DTV has for negotiating channel contracts since they had 21 million customers and they couldn't only having 6 million customers with UVerseTV. Could they still negotiate channel contracts using the DTV name and get them under the AT&T TV name?
Possibly ...
What they would want to do would be to get the ATT Streaming service off the ground and running Long before selling D* ....
Sadly that could be in the works down the road.
They would never sell D* before that happens, just wouldn't make sense.
If they sold DTV could they still keep the channel contracts with AT&T TV they made having DTV?
Yes. Many mergers at one time would not be allowed but in a different time and circumstances it might. SiriusXM an example. That merger would not have been allowed but neither company was doing well enough to say they would be in business for the long run. Rather than let one of them go out of business, make those consumers buy all new equipment if they wanted to switch to the existing company an orderly merger was allowed. The result is 32 million subscribers far more than the two had before.
During the time I was having this problem I increased my speed to the maximum at the time of 60 mb/s which also involved going into the cable office and getting the newest modem/router available. I did not use wifi, an ethernet cable ran through the wall.
The streaming I mentioned that had not been a problem was on the same newest model Roku as Netflix. I watched CBS News, Sky News and Weather Nation all of which is live streaming at least part of the time.
I am sure I could have continued to fight this problem with visits from the cable company and purchasing different streaming devices but to get back to the theme of this discussion, not everyone is ready to switch to streaming and there certainly are problems and incompatibilities that can arise which many members of the general public are not prepared to address. For now I am very pleased just to turn on my Directv, record with 100% reliability and not be trouble shooting problems. I gave the Roku to a neighbor and only use the internet for this Apple Computer.
Not to mention a reneg on the plans they said was going to be in place If the merger went thru ...
There was suppose to be packages that cost as little as $6.99 and $9.99, which showed the programming I used at the time ... instead my bill has gone UP every year ... till I call and say, I'm not paying that outrageous price .... they want like 2-300 for 1 radio.
I tell them to give me what I had the previous year or turn it off and I get the "we can't do that" sob story .... Royalty fees are also ridiculous.
Eventually instead of turning me off they give it to me for about $150 a radio, which is about the top of what I feel its worth. (I have 2 radios) (I'll try to not have to move this to the other forum.)
Not for long ... They NEVER offered that to me.
My bill is more like $18 p/m which is way more than it should be.
What about if they sold DTV and AT&T TV OTT only had 5 million customer when the channel contracts expired?
Are you referring to the "AT&T Watch" service that was announced by the AT&T CEO during this testimony in the current merger trial? That's the new $15 bundle of channels that won't include any sports channels. I think it was later reported that it wouldn't include any locals either. I'm sure it will basically boil down to the Turner channels plus other popular channels that aren't owned by ABC/Disney, NBC/Comcast, Fox or CBS. So it'll look a lot like the Turner nets plus several of the nets on Philo.
But I can't figure out why AT&T would want to launch the new $15 bundle as an entirely separate service/app/brand, though. Why not make it the starter tier within DTV Now, which would make it far easier to later upsell customers to any of the larger, more expensive bundles already available in DTV Now? That's why I've been predicting that AT&T Watch will actually be the new brand name for all of DTV Now. (I'm guessing that the CEO accidentally let the new name slip on the stand.) Once the updated DTV Now app, with cloud DVR and the new UI, debuts sometime before the end of June, it will also include the new $15 starter bundle and the whole thing will get rebranded as AT&T Watch. Probably makes more sense from a marketing perspective anyway. As things stand now, they have to explain to folks that "No, you don't have to put a dish on your roof to subscribe to DTV Now." Plus, if AT&T is forced to sell off their satellite service, well, at least their shiny new OTT service would no longer share a brand name with it.
Now, beyond AT&T Watch, there's another brand name that AT&T recently registered, "AT&T TV". I think that's going to be like a higher-end version of DTV Now aimed more at traditional cable TV subscribers who mainly watch at home and want a dedicated STB and remote control to come with the service. AT&T TV will effectively replace Uverse TV and, since it will be OTT and available nationwide to anyone with a home broadband connection, it will eventually replace D* satellite as well, although it will take several years to get the bulk of satellite subscribers transitioned over to it. But once that happens, I could easily see AT&T dumping their satellite TV business. At some point, someone is going to end up with possession of both the D* and E* satellite TV businesses, just as Sirius and XM satellite radio ended up merging. The market just won't be big enough to sustain two separate operators.
And yet it doesn't seem to be holding Netflix back. If OTT distribution works for them, it can work for AT&T too.
I don't know ANYONE that would go for that $15 package as the MAIN TV programming, theres next to nothing in it. Particularly if its true that the locals are not in it either.
I don't see them selling D* or D Now.
Remember that that $35 package of channels on D* Now is just the beginning, those prices will be going up as well.... there will come a time in the near future that streaming will cost just as much as the Cable /Sat bill.
It could work fine, till the government steps in and says they can't.
And that WILL happen ... AT&T wants to be able to compete with the Netflix's of the world and they will if they continue with the D* Now app .... unless the Feds get in the way.
C'mon, I KNOW you know the difference between live and prepackaged streaming, right? Netflix can buffer many minutes ahead so it can survive hiccups in your internet connection far better.
Sure, I understand that live streaming is more challenging. I also know that lots of smart engineers and lots of money on edge cloud hardware, interconnection agreements, etc. are working to overcome that challenge.
The proof is ultimately in the pudding. Tell me about your personal experience using DTV Now or other live streaming vMPVDs., not your theoretical objections as to why live OTT services can't ever work well or be a viable alternative in the marketplace vs. traditional cable/satellite/telco TV.
I can tell you about mine, as a beta tester for DTV Now. Throughout Feb., Apr., and May, it's been WAY more reliable for live TV than satellite (either D* or E*) ever were for me. I could count on one hand the number of times when a live channel failed to begin streaming in a timely manner on DTV Now. (And even then, it was just a very momentary fluke, remedied by switching channels and then back.) My only real gripe was with the cloud DVR, which they were/are still developing, although that's gotten better. But for live TV (which is actually behind by about 60 seconds), DTV Now has been very solid, with HD picture quality that blows Comcast out of the water and is probably slightly better overall than D* satellite.
And again, AT&T and the other vMVPDs are still relatively new. They're continually learning and improving their services, and as more subscribers join, more money is poured into improving the platforms.
The future of all video is OTT unicast streams for on-demand/cloud DVR and at least some live linear channels, with multicast streams being used for some popular live linear channels where technically feasible and efficient (e.g. when the viewer is connected to a network owned by the vMVPD).
- Status
