Rumored DTV Over IP Prices Plus Two New DTV Now Packages

[CSM]

It looks to me like AT&T lied about lowering the prices for DTV over IP. DTV over IP to me will now just be about the type of delivery method. Unless it would have the same PQ and sound quality as DTV over SatelliteTV? I wonder if this will also confuse people about what the difference between DTV over IP and DTV Now will be except maybe the difference in features. They should just merge the two into one streaming service.

DIRECTV NOW Will Reportedly Raise its Price $10 a Month Next Week & Launch 2 New Packages - Cord Cutters News

 

[comp9]

It looks to me like AT&T lied about lowering the prices for DTV over IP. DTV over IP to me will now just be about the type of delivery method. Unless it would have the same PQ and sound quality as DTV over SatelliteTV? I wonder if this will also confuse people about what the difference between DTV over IP and DTV Now will be except maybe the difference in features. They should just merge the two into one streaming service.

DIRECTV NOW Will Reportedly Raise its Price $10 a Month Next Week & Launch 2 New Packages - Cord Cutters News

I don’t think it will confuse. Directvnow allows you to use whatever streaming device you want. Regular directv will use a boC71K). I would hope/assume the streams will be 1080p. The unanswered questions still are 4K and DVR. Now if they give you unlimited streams and don’t charge you for say having X amount of boxes then yes it will be cheaper. Because now you take the advanced receiver fee/whole hom/ box mirroring charges out. My bill would drop 60 bucks in that scenario

 

[CSM]

I don’t think it will confuse. Directvnow allows you to use whatever streaming device you want. Regular directv will use a boC71K). I would hope/assume the streams will be 1080p. The unanswered questions still are 4K and DVR. Now if they give you unlimited streams and don’t charge you for say having X amount of boxes then yes it will be cheaper. Because now you take the advanced receiver fee/whole hom/ box mirroring charges out. My bill would drop 60 bucks in that scenario

I forgot one thing you could save is the $15 Advanced Receiver Fee for new SatelliteTV customers and $23 for older SatelliteTV customers. Unless they charge a DVR fee for DTV over IP and don't give you the first 20 hours for free like they do on DTV Now?

 

[jcrandall]

I forgot one thing you could save is the $15 Advanced Receiver Fee for new SatelliteTV customers and $23 for older SatelliteTV customers. Unless they charge a DVR fee for DTV over IP and don't give you the first 20 hours for free like they do on DTV Now?

From the article (no names source so consider nothing more than rumor at this point), they want to use the existing All Included price for the streaming version of DirecTV - which is crazy.
$93 for the select package, $124 for Xtra, all using your own broadband and own equipment (or perhaps they'll toss you a C71 or two for a time commitment).

HD, DVR, and MRV fees ($23-$25) were built into all-included a few years ago, now it's just the pricing model. The only possible way this sells is discounted time packages (like they do now for first-year), but they would have a hard time adding the $20/mo ETF to streaming only.

AT&T said it's all about the profitability now, losing less money and paying down debt, this pricing strategy would clearly show that - though they'll continue to bleed subscribers.

 

[comp9]

That site has been known to produce a lot of click bait articles also and been wrong a lot. So agree I would take what they say with a grain of salt

 

[NashGuy]

From the article (no names source so consider nothing more than rumor at this point), they want to use the existing All Included price for the streaming version of DirecTV - which is crazy.
$93 for the select package, $124 for Xtra, all using your own broadband and own equipment (or perhaps they'll toss you a C71 or two for a time commitment).

HD, DVR, and MRV fees ($23-$25) were built into all-included a few years ago, now it's just the pricing model. The only possible way this sells is discounted time packages (like they do now for first-year), but they would have a hard time adding the $20/mo ETF to streaming only.

AT&T said it's all about the profitability now, losing less money and paying down debt, this pricing strategy would clearly show that - though they'll continue to bleed subscribers.

Good points. I would take the report at Cord Cutters News with a grain of salt. The guy who runs that blog often gets details confused. My guess is that the story he posted there is *mainly* right but misleading in terms of details around pricing, etc.

Many months ago I said that perhaps the streaming version of full-blown DTV would simply be marketed as "DirecTV," just like the satellite service. And if it's going to have the same channel packages and the same (or similar) pricing, I think that's even more likely to be the case. Imagine going to the DTV website to sign up and, by default, it pushes you toward the streaming version, although it would let you instead choose satellite if you wanted it or you don't have broadband. (Maybe the site will do an internet speed test before checkout to ensure that your connection is fast enough to support the streaming version.) There would be a single set of channel packages, with one price listed per package -- same price for each channel package regardless of whether you get it via satellite or streaming.

But maybe there would be higher monthly equipment charges for satellite subscribers than streaming subscribers. Maybe satellite subscribers would have a two-year contract while streaming subscribers would only have one year. Maybe they'll begin charging an up-front installation charge for satellite subscribers whereas the streaming version comes with free self-installation. Who knows? There are various ways that AT&T could structure the two offerings so that the streaming version is more attractive to new customers, assuming that their long-term goal is to move their DirecTV subscriber base away from satellite over to streaming, as has been reported for a few years now.

I suspect that, once this new streaming version of DTV rolls out, we'll see a re-jiggered channel line-up and pricing for the satellite product too. I also expect at that time that BOTH versions will be served by the new C71 Android TV-powered set-top box. For customers on the streaming version, they just need to connect it to their home network via wifi or ethernet. For customers on the satellite version, they'll also need to have a central server, the HS-27, installed, which will contain the satellite tuners and local DVR hard drive, which will wirelessly stream DTV to C71 boxes around the house. In other words, it will simply be the next-gen version of the current HS-17 plus C61 Genie Mini system.

 

[CSM]

Good points. I would take the report at Cord Cutters News with a grain of salt. The guy who runs that blog often gets details confused. My guess is that the story he posted there is *mainly* right but misleading in terms of details around pricing, etc.

Many months ago I said that perhaps the streaming version of full-blown DTV would simply be marketed as "DirecTV," just like the satellite service. And if it's going to have the same channel packages and the same (or similar) pricing, I think that's even more likely to be the case. Imagine going to the DTV website to sign up and, by default, it pushes you toward the streaming version, although it would let you instead choose satellite if you wanted it or you don't have broadband. (Maybe the site will do an internet speed test before checkout to ensure that your connection is fast enough to support the streaming version.) There would be a single set of channel packages, with one price listed per package -- same price for each channel package regardless of whether you get it via satellite or streaming.

But maybe there would be higher monthly equipment charges for satellite subscribers than streaming subscribers. Maybe satellite subscribers would have a two-year contract while streaming subscribers would only have one year. Maybe they'll begin charging an up-front installation charge for satellite subscribers whereas the streaming version comes with free self-installation. Who knows? There are various ways that AT&T could structure the two offerings so that the streaming version is more attractive to new customers, assuming that their long-term goal is to move their DirecTV subscriber base away from satellite over to streaming, as has been reported for a few years now.

I suspect that, once this new streaming version of DTV rolls out, we'll see a re-jiggered channel line-up and pricing for the satellite product too. I also expect at that time that BOTH versions will be served by the new C71 Android TV-powered set-top box. For customers on the streaming version, they just need to connect it to their home network via wifi or ethernet. For customers on the satellite version, they'll also need to have a central server, the HS-27, installed, which will contain the satellite tuners and local DVR hard drive, which will wirelessly stream DTV to C71 boxes around the house. In other words, it will simply be the next-gen version of the current HS-17 plus C61 Genie Mini system.

Good points. I also hope if you already have DTV over SatelliteTV they would let you have DTV over IP for free for bad weather backup. Or let you use it at the same time as SatelliteTV using the C71KW. Say you had people in the household that still liked to use SatelliteTV but others who wanted to use the latest technology. Also the DTV Everywhere APP would be replaced by DTV over IP using the DTV Now App.

 

[comp9]

Good points. I also hope if you already have DTV over SatelliteTV they would let you have DTV over IP for free for bad weather backup. Or let you use it at the same time as SatelliteTV using the C71KW. Say you had people in the household that still liked to use SatelliteTV but others who wanted to use the latest technology. Also the DTV Everywhere APP would be replaced by DTV over IP using the DTV Now App.

It will be a cold day in hell before Directv gives you a free version of a similar priced product for weather backup

 

[jcrandall]

They've still got some challenges with locals for a streaming product. I'm in Lansing, and here the satellite has all our locals, and Now does not offer any locals. I have to think that if they had the rights to streaming those channels, they would be available to the Now subscribers, and they would be available to me in the Directv app - especially considering they just removed the ability to stream from my receiver to out of home.

They could do a blitz like Google just did with YoutubeTV and launch several markets of locals, but this is AT&T, I highly doubt they will. More likely, they'll just offer the streaming version in markets where they have the locals streaming agreement, and continue to chip away slowly at new agreements.

 

[Jimbo]

Good points. I also hope if you already have DTV over SatelliteTV they would let you have DTV over IP for free for bad weather backup. Or let you use it at the same time as SatelliteTV using the C71KW. Say you had people in the household that still liked to use SatelliteTV but others who wanted to use the latest technology. Also the DTV Everywhere APP would be replaced by DTV over IP using the DTV Now App.

They didn't offer the D* Now package to us Sat subs, so I doubt they will do it then.

 

[slice1900]

From the article (no names source so consider nothing more than rumor at this point), they want to use the existing All Included price for the streaming version of DirecTV - which is crazy.
$93 for the select package, $124 for Xtra, all using your own broadband and own equipment (or perhaps they'll toss you a C71 or two for a time commitment

The 'DTV over IP' product requires Directv's equipment. So I wouldn't be surprised if you get the same $7/month fee, and the only real savings are not paying $15/month advanced receiver fee.

I don't know why anyone is surprised. It costs them the same for the content, and it isn't any cheaper to deliver - it is only cheaper for the initial install since it is a self-install and you don't wait around for a guy in a truck to put up a dish. If they undercut the price of satellite in a significant way they'd have a lot of satellite customers switching to the IP version to save money - and all that savings would be coming at the expense of Directv's profit. They're in business to make money, after all.

 

[Jimbo]

The 'DTV over IP' product requires Directv's equipment. So I wouldn't be surprised if you get the same $7/month fee, and the only real savings are not paying $15/month advanced receiver fee.

I don't know why anyone is surprised. It costs them the same for the content, and it isn't any cheaper to deliver - it is only cheaper for the initial install since it is a self-install and you don't wait around for a guy in a truck to put up a dish. If they undercut the price of satellite in a significant way they'd have a lot of satellite customers switching to the IP version to save money - and all that savings would be coming at the expense of Directv's profit. They're in business to make money, after all.

Instead they are raising prices on the streaming version ...

You'd think, lower the price, draw more subs .... but no, raise prices and squeeze those you already have.
Are there commitments with the streaming version ?

 

[slice1900]

Instead they are raising prices on the streaming version ...

You'd think, lower the price, draw more subs .... but no, raise prices and squeeze those you already have.
Are there commitments with the streaming version ?

How does drawing more subs when they lose money on each one help them? There is zero lock-in for streaming MVPDs that are priced month to month and use set tops the customer owns.

 

[CSM]

It will be a cold day in hell before Directv gives you a free version of a similar priced product for weather backup

I don't know why I didn't think when they do start to move DTV over SatelliteTV subscribers to DTV over IP they really wont have a need to keep upgrading the DTV Everywhere APP. This could be a reason they are taking mobile DVR away. AT&T could then have DTV over IP on phones, tablets and the PC. I know the C71KW manual said their would be a future HS-27 but they may decide not to do that and just do upgrades to the HS-17.

 

[comp9]

I don't know why I didn't think when they do start to move DTV over SatelliteTV subscribers to DTV over IP they really wont have a need to keep upgrading the DTV Everywhere APP. This could be a reason they are taking mobile DVR away. AT&T could then have DTV over IP on phones, tablets and the PC. I know the C71KW manual said their would be a future HS-27 but they may decide not to do that and just do upgrades to the HS-17.

Correct on the app I think to an extent. I think on iPads and whatever it will be one app so to speak for both products

The manual is old for the C71 now. I wouldn’t be surprised if we don’t ever see a HS27 at this point

 

[Claude Greiner]

I wonder if they will go the direction Comcast is going. Streaming vs traditional tv are the same price. Only difference is the per box rental fees

 

[NashGuy]

I found this link on another message board. It shows which channels will be included in the two new DTVN packages, Plus ($50) and Max ($70), versus all of the existing DTVN packages which will soon be grandfathered only for existing subs:

Compare Packages Account

AT&T is *clearly* positioning DTVN as a very skinny service that will be profitable for them (given the reduced content and the increased prices) and which does not really overlap with or compete with the channel packages in the traditional DTV satellite service (which will apparently soon be offered via streaming as well). This all makes sense.

What I'm trying to figure out is who the heck is going to sign up for these new DTVN Plus or Max packages. First off, they're really not for anyone who wouldn't otherwise subscribe to HBO all the time for at least $10/mo anyhow. But even if you were to knock $10 off the stated prices, it's hard to see how these compare very well against YouTube TV. Basically, for $40, YouTube TV offers the same stuff as the new $70 DTVN Max, except that YTTV doesn't have Hallmark Channel, HBO or Cinemax, but it does have AMC, BBA America, IFC, Smithsonian, and a few other small nets, none of which DTVN Max will have. And, oh, YTTV has unlimited cloud DVR storage for 9 months, with the ability to FF through ads on every channel except those owned by CBS (CBS, Pop and CBS Sports). Keep in mind that, for those who want it, they can add HBO separately through HBO Now for $15 or through the upcoming WarnerMedia streaming service which will basically be HBO Now plus other stuff for who-knows-what-price.

 

[comp9]

I found this link on another message board. It shows which channels will be included in the two new DTVN packages, Plus ($50) and Max ($70), versus all of the existing DTVN packages which will soon be grandfathered only for existing subs:

Compare Packages Account

AT&T is *clearly* positioning DTVN as a very skinny service that will be profitable for them (given the reduced content and the increased prices) and which does not really overlap with or compete with the channel packages in the traditional DTV satellite service (which will apparently soon be offered via streaming as well). This all makes sense.

What I'm trying to figure out is who the heck is going to sign up for these new DTVN Plus or Max packages. First off, they're really not for anyone who wouldn't otherwise subscribe to HBO all the time for at least $10/mo anyhow. But even if you were to knock $10 off the stated prices, it's hard to see how these compare very well against YouTube TV. Basically, for $40, YouTube TV offers the same stuff as the new $70 DTVN Max, except that YTTV doesn't have Hallmark Channel, HBO or Cinemax, but it does have AMC, BBA America, IFC, Smithsonian, and a few other small nets, none of which DTVN Max will have. And, oh, YTTV has unlimited cloud DVR storage for 9 months, with the ability to FF through ads on every channel except those owned by CBS (CBS, Pop and CBS Sports). Keep in mind that, for those who want it, they can add HBO separately through HBO Now for $15 or through the upcoming WarnerMedia streaming service which will basically be HBO Now plus other stuff for who-knows-what-price.

All good points. Who knows. Maybe they change it to unlimited streams or something with the dvr to compete on some level

 

[CSM]

I don't see why they even need DTV now? They could just start DTV over IP at $50 and go to $135.

 

[NashGuy]

I don't see why they even need DTV now? They could just start DTV over IP at $50 and go to $135.

Yeah. Well, I suppose having two different brands "DirecTV Now" vs. "DirecTV" will come down to this:

DirecTV Now is available exclusively via OTT streaming, not satellite. It requires the customer to supply his own STB (streaming device/box/stick). It has no initial contract/commitment. And, possibly, it doesn't come with any sort of bundle discount if you subscribe to other AT&T services (mobile, home broadband, etc.). It may continue to have a DVR experience that is, in one or more ways, inferior to using a DVR with DirecTV (number of storage hours, length of storage allowed, etc.).

Meanwhile, DirecTV will be available via both OTT and satellite. To view it on a TV, you must use an AT&T-supplied STB. It may still require an up-front contract/commitment. And it will provide a discount if bundled with other AT&T services.

Some questions still remain though. I wonder if AT&T will sell or rent the C71 STB for use with DTV Now or if it will be available exclusively for use with DTV? I would think it would be in their interest to allow DTV Now subscribers to purchase the C71 at cost because it would make it very simple for them to upgrade to a more expensive "full" DTV package if they wanted to do so in the future.