TVAnswerman Has AT&T Predictions For 2020

bobvick

Pub Member / Supporter
Pub Member / Supporter
Lifetime Supporter
Jul 20, 2006
4,445
2,151
Northwest Alabama
I disagree, if you go to Comcast site and check to see what channels are available in what package, it lists locals and sports and at no where does it say these channels costs extra until you read the fine print on a different page.

If they are going to charge extra on channels they include in the package they should at least give you the option of opting out of those fees and channels, if they did I would still be a customer of their video service, i have no need of locals and do not watch sports.



Sent from my iPad using SatelliteGuys
The customer should be made aware of those costs, but I don’t see any problem with being a dealer/representative for Comcast just because they have those fees.
 

Juan

Supporting Founder
Supporting Founder
Sep 14, 2003
24,255
5,103
Moscow Russia
I like the " broadcast tv fee"...when originally the only thing on cable were OTA channels...and limited basic used to contain only OTA channels
I disagree, if you go to Comcast site and check to see what channels are available in what package, it lists locals and sports and at no where does it say these channels costs extra until you read the fine print on a different page.

If they are going to charge extra on channels they include in the package they should at least give you the option of opting out of those fees and channels, if they did I would still be a customer of their video service, i have no need of locals and do not watch sports.



That I agree with, we are moving to Florida in the next 2 years and will be triple checking to make sure the house gets great Broadband.




Sent from my iPad using SatelliteGuys
Sent from my SM-G950U using the SatelliteGuys app!
 
  • Like
Reactions: CycloneSat

slice1900

SatelliteGuys Pro
Feb 14, 2015
1,216
535
IA
I like the " broadcast tv fee"...when originally the only thing on cable were OTA channels...and limited basic used to contain only OTA channels
Well the one good thing about that fee (my cable company Mediacom charges it also) is that you know exactly how much you are paying for those OTA channels. I think Directv would be smart to break that out - lower the package pricing by $15/month for new customers and add it back via that fee.

At least as long as they were honest in their advertising and showed the full cost including all the fees instead of using the low package pricing to entice customers like cable does. I know, I know, nobody is but I think maybe that new law requires them to be more transparent in their advertising. We'll have to see how that works in practice or if they'll find a way around it.

The other benefit, other than letting people know how much they are paying for locals, is that a lot of the yearly price increases come from it. It doubled from a little over $7 to just under $15 for me with Mediacom in only two years. The price of my package only went up by $2 during that time. Directv wouldn't have to increase prices by as much if most of the increase was in the locals fee and RSN fee - letting customers know where those increases are coming from. Just like RSNs, there are probably some differences between markets in how much locals actually cost, depending on contract cycles etc.

It would also make it easier for them to allow customers to drop locals (if they ever get their act together with the LCC) by showing them how much they will save - and knowing that savings will only increase in the future.
 

NashGuy

SatelliteGuys Pro
Mar 24, 2009
657
274
Nashville, TN USA
Well the one good thing about that fee (my cable company Mediacom charges it also) is that you know exactly how much you are paying for those OTA channels. I think Directv would be smart to break that out - lower the package pricing by $15/month for new customers and add it back via that fee.

At least as long as they were honest in their advertising and showed the full cost including all the fees instead of using the low package pricing to entice customers like cable does. I know, I know, nobody is but I think maybe that new law requires them to be more transparent in their advertising. We'll have to see how that works in practice or if they'll find a way around it.

The other benefit, other than letting people know how much they are paying for locals, is that a lot of the yearly price increases come from it. It doubled from a little over $7 to just under $15 for me with Mediacom in only two years. The price of my package only went up by $2 during that time. Directv wouldn't have to increase prices by as much if most of the increase was in the locals fee and RSN fee - letting customers know where those increases are coming from. Just like RSNs, there are probably some differences between markets in how much locals actually cost, depending on contract cycles etc.

It would also make it easier for them to allow customers to drop locals (if they ever get their act together with the LCC) by showing them how much they will save - and knowing that savings will only increase in the future.
Agree that it's good for your bill to be itemized so that consumers can see how much they're paying specifically for their locals but, as I believe the new law forbids, non-optional MVPD fees (such as the broadcast TV fee, RSN fee, etc.) should not be excluded from the advertised pricing.

I suspect that's part of the reason why Verizon FiOS just announced this week new packaging and pricing for FiOS TV (with those fees built in). Likewise, Comcast just launched a new "Choice TV" package -- just the locals in HD with 20 hrs of cloud DVR, plus their StreamPix on-demand content -- that has all the fees and discounts rolled in and netted out to a bottom line price: an extra $25 on top of broadband (and it's available only as an add-on to their broadband service). If you want an optional Comcast 4K streaming box to use with the service, they're an extra $5 each.
 
  • Like
Reactions: navychop

Inclined Orbit

SatelliteGuys Pro
Jan 2, 2018
258
113
Los Angeles
The FCC required DirecTV and Dish carry local channels in 200 something markets and it cost a fortune in satellite transponders and ground equipment to fulfill that. Their is something like 1,000 local channels that are uplinked by Directv that take the same band width as a premium channel, but DirecTV hardly makes any $$ on them and possibly makes nothing. After putting all the locals on air DirecTV did discover the customer wants them real bad and it turns out to be a marketing hook to get or keep some customers.

BTW, DirecTV met the FCC requirements to deliver local channels but Dish on the other hand did not invest the money and missed FCC deadlines since they did not have their own satellite resources to pull it off. Charlie is a cheap, penny pinching SOB.

I think Directv would be smart to break that out - lower the package pricing by $15/month for new customers and add it back via that fee.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 907TECH

Claude Greiner

SatelliteGuys Master
Supporting Founder
Sep 8, 2003
12,985
3,591
Detroit - The Paris of the Midwest
Is it really laughing out loud funny? Is it really necessary to laugh out loud at them just because they are uninformed? Seems like a condescending response to some poor customers just because you're an "expert" in the industry. You're coming off as the type of person I would never want to buy service from. Some humility would be nice.
The funny part is the fact they just recently moved and didn’t consider what internet is available at the place they are moving to.

Then they call me to order internet service, and their first words are “We Stream everything” and are literally shocked when they are told that internet like they know it is not available where they want to live.

I would think everyone on this forum is smart enough to research internet service providers before they make the decision to move.

I don’t know about anyone else, but if there is no internet available, I don’t move there.
 
  • Like
Reactions: navychop

Claude Greiner

SatelliteGuys Master
Supporting Founder
Sep 8, 2003
12,985
3,591
Detroit - The Paris of the Midwest
Claude does not like Cord Cutters because it costs him $$$$, yet he is willing to sell services that just rip customers off, does he bring up to how Comcast adds a minimum of $30 of fees to their 2 of 3 deals, heck even their most basic plan (locals) adds $20 to the bill.


Sent from my iPad using SatelliteGuys
A bulk of it is a broadcast Tv fee, and regional sports fee which total almost $20

Satellite charges for locals (Dish network) and satellite (Directv) charges a regional sports fee.

Dish doesn’t carry regional sports, and in some areas charges $1.

Directv includes their locals in their package.
 

Jimbo

SatelliteGuys Master
Lifetime Supporter
Jul 14, 2005
61,666
3,128
NW Ohio - Buckeye Country
The funny part is the fact they just recently moved and didn’t consider what internet is available at the place they are moving to.

Then they call me to order internet service, and their first words are “We Stream everything” and are literally shocked when they are told that internet like they know it is not available where they want to live.

I would think everyone on this forum is smart enough to research internet service providers before they make the decision to move.

I don’t know about anyone else, but if there is no internet available, I don’t move there.
You are correct ...
But remember, those on this forum are a very small percentage of the people moving and looking for internet.
 
  • Like
Reactions: longhorn23

longhorn23

SatelliteGuys Family
Nov 21, 2017
102
44
Rowlett, TX
You are correct ...
But remember, those on this forum are a very small percentage of the people moving and looking for internet.
Yup we are a very small percentage of people. No one I know gets on forums to look up info about their internet provider or cable/satellite provider to see what new features or channels are being offered unless if they are having some kind of problem that needs troubleshooting. And even then, they usually will just call their provider. And no one I know looks up forums about 4k stuff. Sometimes I'm like dang I'm such a loser wasting my time reading these forums lol .
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jimbo

Jimbo

SatelliteGuys Master
Lifetime Supporter
Jul 14, 2005
61,666
3,128
NW Ohio - Buckeye Country
Yup we are a very small percentage of people. No one I know gets on forums to look up info about their internet provider or cable/satellite provider to see what new features or channels are being offered unless if they are having some kind of problem that needs troubleshooting. And even then, they usually will just call their provider. And no one I know looks up forums about 4k stuff. Sometimes I'm like dang I'm such a loser wasting my time reading these forums lol .
No reason to get depressed ...
You are part of a dedicated family with like interests for the most part.
 
  • Like
Reactions: longhorn23

theBruce

Supporting Founder
Supporting Founder
Nov 29, 2003
4,685
3,701
A bulk of it is a broadcast Tv fee, and regional sports fee which total almost $20
More then that for Comcast-

Broadcast TV Fee-$14.95/mo.
Regional Sports Fee-$8.75/mo.

Then you have those extra fees and taxes, like Franchise, Recovery and whatever we want to charge you fees.

The newest one is they now will charge you per TV after the first, even if you do not have a box and watch via their app, from their site-Service limited to a single outlet.






Sent from my iPad using SatelliteGuys
 
  • Sad
Reactions: Jimbo

raoul5788

Studebaker driver
Staff member
HERE TO HELP YOU!
Supporting Founder
Lifetime Supporter
Dec 28, 2004
28,774
12,248
Cheshire CT
I like the " broadcast tv fee"...when originally the only thing on cable were OTA channels...and limited basic used to contain only OTA channels

Sent from my SM-G950U using the SatelliteGuys app!
And you could watch your local government if they had an access channel.
 

slice1900

SatelliteGuys Pro
Feb 14, 2015
1,216
535
IA
BTW, DirecTV met the FCC requirements to deliver local channels but Dish on the other hand did not invest the money and missed FCC deadlines since they did not have their own satellite resources to pull it off. Charlie is a cheap, penny pinching SOB.
The recent STELA replacement bill requires satellite providers to provide locals to all 212 markets by May 31st or they will lose the right to carry DNS channels for all customers.

Dish may have late but they carry all 212 markets while Directv carries only 200. They even have unused spot beams for some of those markets - apparently they decided the remaining small markets weren't worth the expense of setting up LRFs, fiber links, encoders etc. in RBCs and so forth. I'm sure you have a much better idea of how much work is entailed and what that would cost per market than any of us do.

The cost of losing DNS and the customers who depend on it will be too great so I imagine they are scrambling to put together a plan to get this all done in the next few months. If there are some markets where they don't have spot beams I guess their only choice will be to carry them on national transponders (perhaps as MPEG4 SD only to reduce per channel bandwidth) or maybe they'll carry them on reverse band national transponders and offer free LNB upgrades to customers in those markets. They are all small DMAs, and lacking locals Directv probably doesn't have many subscribers there so that may be the cheapest/easiest solution for them if there are markets they don't have spot beams available for.
 

Claude Greiner

SatelliteGuys Master
Supporting Founder
Sep 8, 2003
12,985
3,591
Detroit - The Paris of the Midwest
Keep in mind the people on this forum are unique and do not think like the average customer.

Everyone on here has a DVR. In the real world, unless we force a customer to take a DVR, very few people will opt to get one
 

Jimbo

SatelliteGuys Master
Lifetime Supporter
Jul 14, 2005
61,666
3,128
NW Ohio - Buckeye Country
Keep in mind the people on this forum are unique and do not think like the average customer.

Everyone on here has a DVR. In the real world, unless we force a customer to take a DVR, very few people will opt to get one
I bet everyone (at least 80%, nothing will be 100%) would take a DVR if they weren't CHARGED addl fees for them.
 

theBruce

Supporting Founder
Supporting Founder
Nov 29, 2003
4,685
3,701
New Rumors Point to YouTube TV Taking Over NFL Sunday Ticket

For some time now we have heard that Google was aiming to buy rights to the NFL Sunday Ticket when its contract expires after the 2021-2022 season. Over the weekend, YouTube’s head of product was seen sitting with NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell at the Minnesota Vikings vs San Francisco 49ers game.

This new and suddenly increasing relationship has raised speculation and rumors that YouTube TV is aggressively trying to reach a deal with the NFL for rights to NFL games both here in the United States with the upcoming NFL Sunday Ticket talks but also around the world through its traditional YouTube service.

Google is not the only one trying to get these rights. Amazon is also reportedly working on getting rights to the NFL Sunday Ticket and already has a deal to stream Thursday night NFL games.

According to the Sports Business Journal newsletter, the NFL is closely watching how Amazon handles Premier League streams. If all goes well, an NFL media executive says that the league could sign an exclusive deal with Amazon to stream NFL games.

The NFL has recently made it clear that when they reach a new contract for the NFL Sunday Ticket they want it to be more open than the current DIRECTV deal. What that means is unknown, but some reports have the NFL looking at a streaming service like YouTube TV or Amazon. Other reports have the NFL looking at making the NFL Sunday Ticket open to multiple services and no longer exclusive to one like its current DIRECTV contract.




Sent from my iPad using SatelliteGuys
 

TheTechGuru

SatelliteGuys Pro
Oct 30, 2010
1,577
94
Texas
New Rumors Point to YouTube TV Taking Over NFL Sunday Ticket

For some time now we have heard that Google was aiming to buy rights to the NFL Sunday Ticket when its contract expires after the 2021-2022 season. Over the weekend, YouTube’s head of product was seen sitting with NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell at the Minnesota Vikings vs San Francisco 49ers game.

This new and suddenly increasing relationship has raised speculation and rumors that YouTube TV is aggressively trying to reach a deal with the NFL for rights to NFL games both here in the United States with the upcoming NFL Sunday Ticket talks but also around the world through its traditional YouTube service.

Google is not the only one trying to get these rights. Amazon is also reportedly working on getting rights to the NFL Sunday Ticket and already has a deal to stream Thursday night NFL games.

According to the Sports Business Journal newsletter, the NFL is closely watching how Amazon handles Premier League streams. If all goes well, an NFL media executive says that the league could sign an exclusive deal with Amazon to stream NFL games.

The NFL has recently made it clear that when they reach a new contract for the NFL Sunday Ticket they want it to be more open than the current DIRECTV deal. What that means is unknown, but some reports have the NFL looking at a streaming service like YouTube TV or Amazon. Other reports have the NFL looking at making the NFL Sunday Ticket open to multiple services and no longer exclusive to one like its current DIRECTV contract.




Sent from my iPad using SatelliteGuys
That would really suck for a lot of people that do not have access to broadband.
 

theBruce

Supporting Founder
Supporting Founder
Nov 29, 2003
4,685
3,701
That would really suck for a lot of people that do not have access to broadband.
I have pointed out before that Corporations do not care about the 15-20% Rural population, they care about the 80-85% percent of the population that can.

If they cared you would have had, for example, Disney+ as a premium channel on Sat./cable providers then what it is now.

Hopefully Star Link works out as a broadband provider so those in Rural Areas can get fast speed but if so, it would hasten the demise of Sat. TV.


Sent from my iPad using SatelliteGuys
 

TheTechGuru

SatelliteGuys Pro
Oct 30, 2010
1,577
94
Texas
I have pointed out before that Corporations do not care about the 15-20% Rural population, they care about the 80-85% percent of the population that can.

If they cared you would have had, for example, Disney+ as a premium channel on Sat./cable providers then what it is now.

Hopefully Star Link works out as a broadband provider so those in Rural Areas can get fast speed but if so, it would hasten the demise of Sat. TV.


Sent from my iPad using SatelliteGuys
It's not just a residential issue. Texas has thousands of bars outside of city limits that can't get broadband. Will StarLink be free of any data caps? If not it's just another HughesNet that won't work for cord-cutters.
 

NashGuy

SatelliteGuys Pro
Mar 24, 2009
657
274
Nashville, TN USA
It's not just a residential issue. Texas has thousands of bars outside of city limits that can't get broadband. Will StarLink be free of any data caps? If not it's just another HughesNet that won't work for cord-cutters.
I still think that NFLST and other major sports packages will continue to be delivered via DBS at least to commercial establishments in the early 2020s, even if they were to move exclusively to streaming distribution for retail residential customers. It'll be awhile before all those sports bars are ready for OTT/IPTV.

As for Starlink, I don't think Musk has said whether it will have data caps. I just know they want it to be easy to set up, with quality (speed, latency) that can compete with cable broadband for most customers, at a competitive price. Even if Starlink had a 1 TB data cap, many (though not all) households could make do with that, even if they streamed all their video.
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 1, Members: 0, Guests: 1)

Top