Social Feed

The contracts for OTT vs managed IP traversing private networks only are different. For instance, maybe they can't offer NFLST on the OTT version of Directv coming later this year but perhaps could on an IPTV version, or pricing might be different etc.

In an ideal world it doesn't matter, but once you get lawyers involved all bets are off

slice1900 said:

The contracts for OTT vs managed IP traversing private networks only are different. For instance, maybe they can't offer NFLST on the OTT version of Directv coming later this year but perhaps could on an IPTV version, or pricing might be different etc.

In an ideal world it doesn't matter, but once you get lawyers involved all bets are off

Click to expand...

I don't think Uverse TV has ever offered NFL Sunday Ticket. It's always been a DirecTV (satellite) exclusive. Aside from that, Uverse TV has only ever offered all the usual local and cable channels that everyone else tends to carry. I'm sure AT&T will have sewn up contracts for pretty much all of those channels before launching their forthcoming OTT service. I know that AT&T's CEO has mentioned that he ultimately foresees this service as offering NFL ST, although who knows if that will be the case when it first launches (which will likely be pretty late in the upcoming season).

The key thing I wonder about are all the locals, which are a big deal. Hard to imagine them rolling out a "premium" TV service that's essentially on the same level as DTV satellite and Uverse TV but without having the local ABC, NBC, CBS, Fox, CW and PBS affiliates. (Maybe they could get away with not having the CW and PBS affiliates, at least at first, if they incorporated their on-demand content into their platform.) I wonder how long AT&T has been trying to get all those affiliates on board? Maybe the new service will launch market-by-market only as all of the local affiliates in each market are on board. If that's the case, I would expect AT&T to try to get the new OTT service launched first in all of their landline markets (where Uverse TV already exists).

I also wonder if we'll see AT&T include support for multicast linear channels in this new service if the STB is connected to AT&T broadband service. That would reduce their own network traffic and allow for faster channel changes. Shouldn't be that difficult for them to do.

NashGuy said:

I also wonder if we'll see AT&T include support for multicast linear channels in this new service if the STB is connected to AT&T broadband service. That would reduce their own network traffic and allow for faster channel changes. Shouldn't be that difficult for them to do.

Click to expand...

The problem with doing multicast even within AT&T's network is the consumer's home network. They'd have to supply networking equipment that's been properly configured, because most consumer routers won't work with multicast out of the box - or at all. Its especially difficult over wifi, but even wired support is pretty spotty. Which makes sense because it hasn't been used in a consumer setting so there is no incentive for OEMs making routers intended for the home to support it...

slice1900 said:

The problem with doing multicast even within AT&T's network is the consumer's home network. They'd have to supply networking equipment that's been properly configured, because most consumer routers won't work with multicast out of the box - or at all. Its especially difficult over wifi, but even wired support is pretty spotty. Which makes sense because it hasn't been used in a consumer setting so there is no incentive for OEMs making routers intended for the home to support it...

Click to expand...

AT&T doesn't allow the use of consumer-owned retail routers. (That's a cable internet thing.) AT&T Internet (FTTN, which I have) and AT&T Fiber (FTTH) use the same few different models of gateways (combined modem/routers) provided by AT&T. These routers all already support Uverse TV (which uses some form of multicast -- compatible with their Ericsson Mediaroom platform, I suppose) for linear channels. (Oh, and BTW, Uverse TV has a few different models of wireless STBs, so they're obviously supporting multicast video over wifi.) I don't know if AT&T's gateways already support multicast-to-unicast conversion (as Comcast's own internet gateways do) but, even if they don't, it shouldn't be that hard for AT&T to push out firmware updates adding that feature. We subscribers have zero control over when and whether our AT&T gateways get updated by the mothership (apart from unplugging them completely).

But honestly, all that may be beside the point for AT&T. I would imagine that the C71 STB (or whichever Android TV thin-client STB that AT&T uses for their forthcoming "streaming DirecTV" service) would have built-in native support for whatever multicast protocol that AT&T would use. And frankly, those are the endpoints that really matter. Sure, other devices in the home, such as smartphones and tablets with the DirecTV app, could be served via the multicast-to-unicast conversion feature within the AT&T gateway, should it exist. But, as I say, AT&T may just figure that relatively little in-home live linear channel viewing would actually happen on those devices anyway, so screw it, just serve up unicast streams for linear channels on those devices, the same way they would do for the C71 STB if it was connected to any ISP other than AT&T Internet/Fiber.

NashGuy said:

AT&T doesn't allow the use of consumer-owned retail routers. (That's a cable internet thing.) AT&T Internet (FTTN, which I have) and AT&T Fiber (FTTH) use the same few different models of gateways (combined modem/routers) provided by AT&T.

Click to expand...

You can't disable the router function and put it in bridging mode? If not, I guess AT&T is out as anything I will EVER consider for home internet!

slice1900 said:

You can't disable the router function and put it in bridging mode? If not, I guess AT&T is out as anything I will EVER consider for home internet!

Click to expand...

Yeah, you can. I'm sure it's a very small percentage of customers who do though. Actually, there's a sort of "halfway" bridge mode called DMZ+ that allows you to use your own router but that still lets the AT&T gateway properly handle special traffic like IPTV and VOIP. You may also be allowed to do a full-out bridge mode too, where the AT&T gateway just blindly forwards everything to your own router. I haven't delved too deeply into it all since I'm happy with my BGW210 gateway after having initially assigned static IPs for certain devices on my LAN.

slice1900 said:

I agree, but there's no advantage to building it in and several disadvantages like added cost for all the people who DON'T want OTA, early obsolescence when ATSC 3.0 arrives, etc.

Given that locals cost more than $10/month now it would be an easy sell to customers if they let people shut off their locals and save money. The first step to selling people on that though is to break out the charge for locals like Mediacom does, so you can see how much they really cost and watch that price keep going up, up and up. Though I wonder if dropping locals is even an option for them - their contracts might not allow it or might specify that they pay x dollars per month per customer not "per customer who receives locals". The local stations know that if everyone getting cable/satellite who could pick them up OTA chose to do so, they'd lose a ton of money. Directv has been busy trying to get streaming rights for all local stations, they might have been forced to accept some terms that limited their ability to let customers drop locals to get those streaming rights...

Click to expand...

Yeah, the big issue for MVPDs is the contracts that they make with the network owners. In the largest markets, the broadcast nets actually own and operate their local affiliates, accounting for a huge chunk of viewers nationwide. "Hey DirecTV, you wanna carry ESPN? Then you better include WABC in every package tier for all of your subs in the NYC area, and KABC for all your subs in the LA area, and KRTK in the Houston area, etc." Yes, if every DTV sub had a built-in OTA tuner and antenna in their existing DTV set-up, it would give DTV a much stronger hand when negotiation stand-offs lead to blackouts. But I guess they figure that the actual benefits they'd see there don't justify the cost to include ATSC 1.0 tuners in every STB or home server tower. (As for ATSC 3.0, who knows how that's really going to end up playing out.)

Now, if AT&T launches this proposed $15 skinny bundle (dubbed "AT&T Watch"), then I can see them doing a bit of legwork to let viewers integrate ATSC 1.0 signals. That bundle isn't going to include any locals or any cable channels owned by those companies (nothing from Disney/ABC, Comcast/NBC, CBS or Fox). So why not make the AT&T Watch app capable of integrating those DLNA-compliant streams from HDHomeRun OTA network tuners? I have one of those tuners and can use it with apps from HDHomeRun as well as Channels, Plex and probably others. Heck, to my amusement, I even found that my old Panasonic smart Blu-ray player was able to detect and display live channels from the tuner, I'm sure because the streams are DLNA-compliant.

Perhaps we'll see AT&T even sell their own low-cost retail Android TV streaming box, as Sling TV has done with their AirTV Player, with either a built-in or optional USB ATSC 1.0 tuner. And maybe they'll let the user plug in a USB hard drive so that local TV channels can be DVR'd. Everything -- OTT and OTA live TV, plus cloud DVR and local DVR -- could be elegantly integrated into the same UI.

Why would AT&T do this? Assuming the Time Warner acquisition happens, I think their main strategies with regard to video distribution going forward are threefold:

• Use video subscriptions as something to bundle (at reduced cost or even free) with their mobile and broadband services, as a way to enhance those products and reduce churn
• Make money from subscription fees, both on their premium a la carte services (e.g. HBO, Cinemax, Filmstruck, Boomerang, etc.) as well as their basic cable networks (CNN, TBS, TNT, etc.) distributed through other MVPDs and vMVPDs
• Maximize ad revenue from their ad-supported networks (CNN, TBS, TNT, etc.) by expanding distribution as much as possible and charging more per ad impression via targeted ads on those networks when distributed through their OTT services

When AT&T Watch was initially announced, I thought, "Why give this skinny bundle its own brand and separate app rather than just sticking it in DTV Now as a new starter bundle? Putting it in DTV Now would make it easier to upsell those new subs to a more expensive bundle later." Then it hit me: maybe AT&T would actually prefer that they didn't upgrade to a bigger DTV Now bundle. Sure, they make a bit of extra money in carriage fees on those extra channels but not much. The margins are VERY thin, especially among OTT vMVPDs. (As this piece puts it, "the business of bundling and distributing live networks—either through traditional managed networks or over the top—is not that good anymore.") And the more non-AT&T-owned channels that a viewer has in his bundle, the less time he is likely to spend watching AT&T-owned cable channels (and the ads they carry). The more basic cable channels he has, and the more he is spending on them, the less likely he is to subscribe to HBO.

So why not sweeten this $15 bundle even more by letting the viewer integrate whatever free OTA TV he can receive into it? Imagine spending $100 or less on new hardware (either an HDHomeRun OTA network tuner or an Android TV box packaged with an OTA tuner) and then you could spend just $15 per month going forward (or completely free if you're an AT&T Unlimited wireless subscriber) to have the following:

all the HD and SD locals you can get via antenna (ABC, NBC, CBS, Fox, PBS, The CW, Me-TV, Antenna TV, Cozi TV, etc.)
TBS*
TNT*
CNN*
HLN*
Cartoon Network*
TCM*
TruTV*
Audience*
A&E
AMC
Animal Planet
BBC America
BET
Bloomberg TV
C-SPAN
C-SPAN 2
CMT
Comedy Central
Discovery
E!
Food Network
Hallmark Channel
Hallmark Movies & Mysteries
HGTV
History
Investigation Discovery
Lifetime
MTV
MTV2
Nick Jr.
Nickelodeon
Ovation
Paramount Network
RFD-TV
TeenNick
TLC
TV Land
Velocity
VH1
Viceland
WE tv
Weather Nation

Now, none of us know yet exactly what will be in the $15 AT&T Watch bundle. But the above list is a good guess, I think. It's everything in the cheapest $35 DTV Now bundle but without any locals or anything owned by the big four networks. The asterisked networks at the top of the list are those that would be owned by AT&T after the acquisition of Time Warner.

[EDIT: I would add that another reason that AT&T may want to segregate the $15 bundle under its own app/brand is because it may have a different feature set/usage rights than DTV Now has. Perhaps AT&T Watch will not offer a cloud DVR, or -- more likely, IMO -- it will have one but without the ability to FF past ads as you can always do on DTV Now. Remember, AT&T's main strategy with those Turner nets they plan to acquire is to use them to sell as many targeted ads as possible. Fresh targeted ads can be inserted just as easily and effectively in a recording from two weeks ago as on a live channel.]

CSM said:

Could DTV OTT and DTV NOW easily get the local HD sub-channels rights?

Click to expand...

I don't see them fooling around with all those subchannels, which only add to the complexity of contracts with locals. However, we are seeing some of the diginets, such as Decades, offer a national feed to vMVPDs. Some, like Comet, live stream a national feed on their websites. Apparently their agreements with local stations do not preclude them from OTT distribution.

NashGuy said:

Yeah, you can. I'm sure it's a very small percentage of customers who do though.

Click to expand...

I don't know, this question comes up ALL THE TIME on Centurylink boards. Now you're right I'm sure it is probably less than 10%, but I think more people do this than you'd think. The routers built into the modems/gateways are typically pretty limited, so if you want something newer bridge mode is your only option.

Or if like me (and now we're talking a very small percentage) you want to run DD-WRT, OpenWRT or one of the other open source packages so you aren't at the mercy of closed source vendors with their backdoors and built in security holes - this is happening right now with the VPNFilter attack that hits most popular OEM routers, and I'll bet most likely affects the routers built into stuff like AT&T's gateway as well. F.B.I.'s Urgent Request: Reboot Your Router to Stop Russia-Linked Malware

slice1900 said:

I don't know, this question comes up ALL THE TIME on Centurylink boards. Now you're right I'm sure it is probably less than 10%, but I think more people do this than you'd think. The routers built into the modems/gateways are typically pretty limited, so if you want something newer bridge mode is your only option.

Or if like me (and now we're talking a very small percentage) you want to run DD-WRT, OpenWRT or one of the other open source packages so you aren't at the mercy of closed source vendors with their backdoors and built in security holes - this is happening right now with the VPNFilter attack that hits most popular OEM routers, and I'll bet most likely affects the routers built into stuff like AT&T's gateway as well. F.B.I.'s Urgent Request: Reboot Your Router to Stop Russia-Linked Malware

Click to expand...

Yeah, as soon as I read that news several days ago, I unplugged and rebooted my router. Ugh, Russia.

Yeah, maybe I'm underestimating the number of technologically sophisticated folks like you out there who want to use their own special routers for whatever reason. But keep in mind that guys like us who post on these kind of message boards just AREN'T very representative of the general public.

At any rate, to get back to the thing which (I think) prompted this talk about retail routers with AT&T service, yes, you CAN use your own router in conjunction with an AT&T gateway and still properly receive Uverse TV multicast IPTV streams IF you only put the AT&T gateway into DMZ+ mode, which is a bit more limited than full bridge mode. I don't think you can use full bridge mode and Uverse TV at the same time. So I suppose the same rules would be in effect should AT&T provision multicast streams for linear channels with their upcoming "streaming DirecTV" service.

NashGuy said:

Yeah, as soon as I read that news several days ago, I unplugged and rebooted my router. Ugh, Russia.

Yeah, maybe I'm underestimating the number of technologically sophisticated folks like you out there who want to use their own special routers for whatever reason. But keep in mind that guys like us who post on these kind of message boards just AREN'T very representative of the general public.

At any rate, to get back to the thing which (I think) prompted this talk about retail routers with AT&T service, yes, you CAN use your own router in conjunction with an AT&T gateway and still properly receive Uverse TV multicast IPTV streams IF you only put the AT&T gateway into DMZ+ mode, which is a bit more limited than full bridge mode. I don't think you can use full bridge mode and Uverse TV at the same time. So I suppose the same rules would be in effect should AT&T provision multicast streams for linear channels with their upcoming "streaming DirecTV" service.

Click to expand...

I would imagine there's probably a simple way of using bridge mode and Uverse TV - you'd just have to configure the router correctly for multicast, VLANs or whatever it is that trips up bridge mode with default settings.

Didn't I read somewhere that AT&T will use the Directv Now infrastructure to deliver this new "streaming Directv" service? Obviously they can't do multicast for non-AT&T customers, and while they could for AT&T customers they might figure it isn't worth it since they already have to do the "hard way" for the rest. Its not even clear it is worth it for their future fixed wireless offering, depending on how many customers they end up serving per tower. The size of an HEVC stream isn't that large in a 5G network, and antenna diversity would mean broadcasting the same thing multiple times from a given tower anyway.

You'd only see savings from multicast on fixed wireless if you had multiple customers watching the same thing off the same antenna off the same tower. A single customer watching the same thing on multiple TVs could be handled by having the box at one TV stream to the other TVs within the home network.

slice1900 said:

I would imagine there's probably a simple way of using bridge mode and Uverse TV - you'd just have to configure the router correctly for multicast, VLANs or whatever it is that trips up bridge mode with default settings.

Click to expand...

Yes. As I mentioned above, it's not called "bridge mode," it's DMZ+ mode. It doesn't give the user quite as much freedom as a true bridge mode would but it does allow the user to continue receiving Uverse IPTV. See this thread if you want to read more:
Anyone have success with U-Verse IPTV on thrid party router?

slice1900 said:

Didn't I read somewhere that AT&T will use the Directv Now infrastructure to deliver this new "streaming Directv" service?

Click to expand...

Yes, you probably read that from me, as I've posted it multiple times.

slice1900 said:

Obviously they can't do multicast for non-AT&T customers, and while they could for AT&T customers they might figure it isn't worth it since they already have to do the "hard way" for the rest. Its not even clear it is worth it for their future fixed wireless offering, depending on how many customers they end up serving per tower. The size of an HEVC stream isn't that large in a 5G network, and antenna diversity would mean broadcasting the same thing multiple times from a given tower anyway.

You'd only see savings from multicast on fixed wireless if you had multiple customers watching the same thing off the same antenna off the same tower. A single customer watching the same thing on multiple TVs could be handled by having the box at one TV stream to the other TVs within the home network.

Click to expand...

Yeah, it may well be that AT&T decides that they have sufficient network bandwidth that it isn't worth fooling with multicast for live linear channels in their OTT TV service when accessed on their own network. As for delivering TV service via fixed 5G, AT&T's latest comments make it sound as though they've really cooled off on the idea of fixed 5G. They say that it doesn't make economic sense for them in most cases. (Verizon, OTOH, is very gung-ho on it.) For now, sounds like AT&T is mainly going to concentrate on upgrading more places to FTTH. (And, who knows, maybe their AirGig project is coming along and they think it will be an important factor in a couple of years.) At any rate, for FTTH and especially FTTN customers, it would seem to me that the efficiencies of multicast video would be significant during popular shows that lots of folks in the neighborhood are simultaneously watching, like major sports events, etc.

Here's an interesting article about how ABR multicast can be integrated alongside unicast in the same system using a "nanoCDN" solution. I imagine that AT&T has something along the lines of this capability in-house now and could implement it (or perhaps already has implemented it) in the new cloud-based streaming video platform that powers DTV Now and will eventually power all of their TV services.

Multicast ABR and low-latency streaming are the starting gun for migration to an all-HTTP video future | Videonet

NashGuy said:

Yes. As I mentioned above, it's not called "bridge mode," it's DMZ+ mode. It doesn't give the user quite as much freedom as a true bridge mode would but it does allow the user to continue receiving Uverse IPTV. See this thread if you want to read more:
Anyone have success with U-Verse IPTV on thrid party router?

Click to expand...

What I'm saying is that since true RFC1483 bridge mode apparently works for AT&T Uverse customers who don't have TV (assuming the others who posted it are correct) then it is surely possible to get it working for Uverse TV. Someone would just have to figure out what AT&T is doing in their routers that a standard router isn't doing. Would easy to figure out using something like Wireshark.

slice1900 said:

What I'm saying is that since true RFC1483 bridge mode apparently works for AT&T Uverse customers who don't have TV (assuming the others who posted it are correct) then it is surely possible to get it working for Uverse TV. Someone would just have to figure out what AT&T is doing in their routers that a standard router isn't doing. Would easy to figure out using something like Wireshark.

Click to expand...

I dunno, maybe it would be possible to figure out how the AT&T gateway is handling multicast IPTV streams and then have them passed along to your retail router, which would handle them in the same way and pass them on to the Uverse TV STBs on the network. Although then you run into the possibility that the Uverse TV STB is locked in a way so that it can't connect to any router other than an AT&T gateway.

Looks like there are several ways to ramp up subscriptions.

https://gizmodo.com/at-t-employees-reportedly-encouraged-to-use-unethical-s-1827088406