DirecTV Now to rebrand under AT&T TV family.

[goaliebob99]

There was nothing stopping them from doing MPEG4 prior to T16. What it brings is the ability to reach Puerto Rico (so they can retire 110) and Hawaii at full power (so they can use a Slimline instead of the AK/HI dish) and use the 6 transponders currently used for spot beams from 101 for CONUS broadcast.

MPEG4 is just a different way of organizing bits than MPEG2, the satellite transponders don't know or care whether the bits modulated into a RF waveform contain MPEG2, MPEG4 or chocolate chip cookie recipes in Welsh.

My understanding was it was a modulation issue on how they wanted the transponders configured versus an actual MPEG4 issue, they wanted to use S2 to squeeze more bandwidth out from the transponders in the combination of MP4 instead of DVBS and couldn't with the old bird as those modes were not supported on T8. But I could be wrong as this was 2nd hand info.

I believe it's a significant increase in bandwidth going from DVBS to S2 on KU, which would give them more capacity aside from the additional gains they would get from the encoding change as well.

 

[slice1900]

My understanding was it was a modulation issue on how they wanted the transponders configured versus an actual MPEG4 issue, they wanted to use S2 to squeeze more bandwidth out from the transponders in the combination of MP4 instead of DVBS and couldn't with the old bird as those modes were not supported on T8. But I could be wrong as this was 2nd hand info.

I believe it's a significant increase in bandwidth going from DVBS to S2 on KU, which would give them more capacity aside from the additional gains they would get from the encoding change as well.

DSS vs DVB-S2 is just a different organization of bits, the satellite doesn't know or care which is being used. Directv uses QPSK 6/7 on DSS, and use QPSK 3/4 on DVB-S2 which is actually LESS bit efficient. They get 34.1 Mbps out of their 24 MHz wide (20 MHz actually used) Ku transponders vs 39.4 Mbps out of their 36 MHz wide (30 MHz actually used) Ka transponders.

Directv has been using a single DVB-S2 transponder on D7S at 119 for years, carrying MPEG4 HD programming. So it is pretty obvious it works on the "older" satellites.

 

[CSM]

DTV also rebranding? Their twitter account hints at a name change?

DIRECTV: Will AT&T Change the Name? - The TV Answer Man!

 

[slice1900]

If they wanted to call the new streaming product AT&T TV to avoid confusion with Directv so customers would know the new product doesn't need satellite, changing the name of Directv's satellite product to something with AT&T in it would kind of defeat the purpose...

 

[Juan]

Not if you plan on transitioning customers from satellite to ip

If they wanted to call the new streaming product AT&T TV to avoid confusion with Directv so customers would know the new product doesn't need satellite, changing the name of Directv's satellite product to something with AT&T in it would kind of defeat the purpose...

Sent from my SM-G950U using the SatelliteGuys app!

 

[Jimbo]

Not if you plan on transitioning customers from satellite to ip

Sent from my SM-G950U using the SatelliteGuys app!

Not all customers will want to change to IP based ...

 

[slice1900]

Not if you plan on transitioning customers from satellite to ip

It is pretty obvious that's not the plan, or they wouldn't have just launched a new satellite two months ago. The existing satellites at 101 have more than enough life left if the plan was to transition customers over the next several years.

 

[CSM]

I looked at that twitter account again and Swann linked to the DTV Service Twitter account not the DTV Twitter account.

 

[Willh699]

DTV also rebranding? Their twitter account hints at a name change?

DIRECTV: Will AT&T Change the Name? - The TV Answer Man!

i saw that story, most likely, AT&T isn't rebranding, just trying to create a new consolidated AT&T TV service/customer support Twitter account to cover the new AT&T TV streaming service, AT&T Now (formerly DirecTV Now), U-Verse, AT&T Watch TV, and DirecTV.

 

[BCH]

AT&T TV goes live in 10 markets 8/19/2019.

Confirmed: AT&T TV Launches Tomorrow in 10 Test Markets - Cord Cutters News

 

[lparsons21]

Yeah, a not very premium service for a very premium price. Not a sale to me!


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

 

[Scott Greczkowski]

Two year contract for one box? Each additional box is another $10 a month, and the internet to receive it is not included? And the price starts at $59 a month?

No thanks.

 

[Ganthet]

And DVR recordings delete after 90 days. I know where the cost benefits are for AT&T, but from a consumer standpoint and I can't see a compelling reason to choose this over the traditional service.

 

[lparsons21]

Two year contract for one box? Each additional box is another $10 a month, and the internet to receive it is not included? And the price starts at $59 a month?

No thanks.

Prices start at $59/month for the first year and then take a very significant bump upwards in the second year. Makes it even less of a ‘deal’!


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

 

[slice1900]

Prices start at $59/month for the first year and then take a very significant bump upwards in the second year. Makes it even less of a ‘deal’!

And that's different from regular Directv how, exactly?

While I'm surprised they have such a long lock-in, it is apparent Directv is positioning this as an alternate delivery method for Directv satellite. How many millions of people are there in the US who rent and can't use a dish because of line of sight or nowhere to put it can get Directv? It only looks like a bad deal if you think it is intended to replace Directv's satellite product. It obviously isn't like I predicted and kept telling people for the last few years. It makes perfect sense as a complement, and still comes out a bit cheaper because you don't pay the advanced receiver fee (or the monthly receiver fees, though you have to buy additional clients)

People who are looking for a cheaper alternative to Directv's pricing already had it - Directv Now / AT&T Now. That's their product targeted at people who are considering cutting the cord over Directv's pricing or don't want a long lock in.

 

[Soccernut]

Viewing in 4K req’s 4K TV and separate 3rd-party subscriptions
That seems to suggest that there wont be any 4k service directly from DIRECTV.

 

[NashGuy]

And that's different from regular Directv how, exactly?

While I'm surprised they have such a long lock-in, it is apparent Directv is positioning this as an alternate delivery method for Directv satellite. How many millions of people are there in the US who rent and can't use a dish because of line of sight or nowhere to put it can get Directv? It only looks like a bad deal if you think it is intended to replace Directv's satellite product. It obviously isn't like I predicted and kept telling people for the last few years. It makes perfect sense as a complement, and still comes out a bit cheaper because you don't pay the advanced receiver fee (or the monthly receiver fees, though you have to buy additional clients)

People who are looking for a cheaper alternative to Directv's pricing already had it - Directv Now / AT&T Now. That's their product targeted at people who are considering cutting the cord over Directv's pricing or don't want a long lock in.

Well, I admit that AT&T TV -- at least in its initial incarnation in the pilot markets -- does not look like I had predicted. It's essentially just the same channel packages as DirecTV satellite has, with the same 2-year contract and the same first-year promo prices and the same second-year standard prices. Fees around additional TVs and equipment are a little different and there are trade-offs either way you go. As currently offered, AT&T TV isn't a *bad* deal (especially if bundled with AT&T Internet) but it's not a great deal either. Kinda "meh".

Given everything that AT&T's CEO has stated about the service -- about how it will cost less than satellite due to the lower customer acquisition costs, about how AT&T is working to thin out their content costs and drive down the cost curve, etc. -- I'm still skeptical that what we're seeing right now in the pilot markets is what AT&T TV will look like when it goes nationwide (with some major advertising) by the end of this year. I've already read a couple articles that quote AT&T folks saying that they're going to get feedback from consumers in the pilot market and use that to fine-tune the service before it rolls out nationwide.

I still think that the end-goal for AT&T TV is to offer a new package line-up consisting of Select, Plus, and Max, with HBO Max non-optionally included. It just doesn't make any sense that they created those new Plus and Max packages (with HBO non-optionally included) for DirecTV Now this past spring -- and then ALSO started selling them on DirecTV satellite -- unless they have much bigger plans for those packages. My guess is that they just haven't finished negotiating the carriage contracts with some of the network owners (e.g. Discovery, AMC, PBS, etc.) in order to finish building out the new packages and begin selling them across all of their platforms as the standard default line-up.

The biggest surprise to me, honestly, is that AT&T TV is requiring a 2-year up-front contract. No one outside of satellite does that. Uverse TV only had a 1-year contract. Comcast TV never *requires* a contract, although they often offer a discount if you sign either a 1-yr or 2-yr contract. I predicted that AT&T TV probably wouldn't have a contract but if it did would be a max of 1 year. Hard for me to see how they succeed by insisting on a 2-year contract, especially with no major up-front sweeteners like a free Visa gift card or free NFL ST.

 

[slice1900]

Well, I admit that AT&T TV -- at least in its initial incarnation in the pilot markets -- does not look like I had predicted. It's essentially just the same channel packages as DirecTV satellite has, with the same 2-year contract and the same first-year promo prices and the same second-year standard prices. Fees around additional TVs and equipment are a little different and there are trade-offs either way you go. As currently offered, AT&T TV isn't a *bad* deal (especially if bundled with AT&T Internet) but it's not a great deal either. Kinda "meh".

Given everything that AT&T's CEO has stated about the service -- about how it will cost less than satellite due to the lower customer acquisition costs, about how AT&T is working to thin out their content costs and drive down the cost curve, etc. -- I'm still skeptical that what we're seeing right now in the pilot markets is what AT&T TV will look like when it goes nationwide (with some major advertising) by the end of this year. I've already read a couple articles that quote AT&T folks saying that they're going to get feedback from consumers in the pilot market and use that to fine-tune the service before it rolls out nationwide.

I still think that the end-goal for AT&T TV is to offer a new package line-up consisting of Select, Plus, and Max, with HBO Max non-optionally included. It just doesn't make any sense that they created those new Plus and Max packages (with HBO non-optionally included) for DirecTV Now this past spring -- and then ALSO started selling them on DirecTV satellite -- unless they have much bigger plans for those packages. My guess is that they just haven't finished negotiating the carriage contracts with some of the network owners (e.g. Discovery, AMC, PBS, etc.) in order to finish building out the new packages and begin selling them across all of their platforms as the standard default line-up.

The biggest surprise to me, honestly, is that AT&T TV is requiring a 2-year up-front contract. No one outside of satellite does that. Uverse TV only had a 1-year contract. Comcast TV never *requires* a contract, although they often offer a discount if you sign either a 1-yr or 2-yr contract. I predicted that AT&T TV probably wouldn't have a contract but if it did would be a max of 1 year. Hard for me to see how they succeed by insisting on a 2-year contract, especially with no major up-front sweeteners like a free Visa gift card or free NFL ST.

Well the CEO said it would cost less to install, but didn't say anything about charging customers less. But look, if you have one TV you are paying $22/month less, and if you have more TVs you have to buy the client but save the $7 fees on those so setting up say five rooms (albeit limited to only watching Directv in three at once, but you could use apps on the other two which is probably realistic for families these days) would cost $50 a month less on AT&T TV versus Directv satellite. That's not an insignificant savings.

The contract length surprises me too, though I wonder if they would waive/reduce the contract if you don't get the lower 12 month intro pricing? But like I said, they are targeting this as an alternative delivery method for the same (or as close as they can come given contracts etc.) Directv as you get via satellite. They save money on install costs, you save money on some fees, but the commitment term seems to be equal between the two. I was expecting 3-6 months, a year at the longest.

 

[larry55]

Not interested .

 

[lparsons21]

Somewhat correct.

With one box you would save $22/month as you note but you get less in channels too, depending on market. And you don’t get NFLST or the $100-$300 gift card either.

If you have 3 boxes you have $20/month fees for the additional 2 boxes vs $36/month you would have with satellite. 5 boxes and you have $40/month fees vice $50/month with satellite. But you can only use 3 of the boxes at any given time.

So yes it does cost something less, but you are also getting something less in return. In my market I would get the $300 gift card which in effect reduces the sat bill by $12.50 over the 2 year commitment. So the savings aren’t as high.

And the streaming service introduces the possibility that your internet service cost might go up because of data overages in those markets where data caps are in place.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro