https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/t-kil...38115.html

This is not surprising, but is still a bit disappointing as AT&T TV Now offers the most complete list of Regional Sports Networks. Although its Max tier seemed a bit pricy at $80/month, it did include both HBO and Cinemax.

You can still get the same service under the AT&T TV brand.

The packages are just different and more extensive

If anyone wants to know how NOT to brand OTT services, please take a look at the way ATT has handled their services over the last 5 years. Clusterbang deluxe.

(01-12-2021 11:30 AM)solohawks Wrote:  You can still get the same service under the AT&T TV brand.

The packages are just different and more extensive

They are also a lot more expensive. The level that gets you RSNs has an intro price of $65/month PLUS taxes and an RSN fee. The RSN fee is $8.50/mo, so you're looking at $75/mo+. This includes HBO for the first year only, requires a 2 year contract, and has an unstated price bump in year 2.

This represents a significant price bump over the AT&T TV Now Max package. the Max package was essentially equal to the price of Hulu + Live TV or YouTube TV with the HBO adder, but included RSNs.

The real problem here seems to be the cost of RSNs, which drove Hulu and YouTube to drop most of them and may be driving what it effectively a big price increase for AT&T. For those who need their RSNs, these virtual cable packages may simply not be the way to go.

From a college sports standpoint, only the ACC offers an RSN package among P5 conferences, as does CUSA among G5 conferences. I don't believe these types of packages will remain in place much longer. I would rather see ESPN buyout of the sublicense with Sinclair/FSN and move that package to ESPN+ than leave it where it is. This may be a possibility now with the Sinclair RSNs having such a difficult time financially.

(01-12-2021 02:53 PM)orangefan Wrote:  

(01-12-2021 11:30 AM)solohawks Wrote:  You can still get the same service under the AT&T TV brand.

The packages are just different and more extensive

They are also a lot more expensive. The level that gets you RSNs has an intro price of $65/month PLUS taxes and an RSN fee. The RSN fee is $8.50/mo, so you're looking at $75/mo+. This includes HBO for the first year only, requires a 2 year deal, and has an unstated price bump in year 2.

This represents a significant price bump over the AT&T TV Now Max package. the Max package was essentially equal to the price of Hulu + Live TV or YouTube TV with the HBO adder, but included RSNs.

The real problem here seems to be the cost of RSNs, which drove Hulu and YouTube to drop most of them and may be driving what it effectively a big price increase for AT&T. For those who need their RSNs, these virtual cable packages may simply not be the way to go.

From a college sports standpoint, only the ACC offers an RSN package among P5 conferences, as does CUSA among G5 conferences. I don't believe these types of packages will remain in place much longer. I would rather see ESPN buyout of the sublicense with Sinclair/FSN and move that package to ESPN+ than leave it where it is. This may be a possibility now with the Sinclair RSNs having such a difficult time financially.

I meant to say expensive LOL

The only reason I would recommend AT&T TV to anyone would be if they want the RSN. But if you want the RSN you probably could get a better deal bundling with Cox, Comcast or Spectrum internet

Those prices are very high

(01-12-2021 12:40 PM)DoubleRSU Wrote:  If anyone wants to know how NOT to brand OTT services, please take a look at the way ATT has handled their services over the last 5 years. Clusterbang deluxe.

Yep. Seems like everything AT&T has done in TV from their boneheaded purchase of DirecTV through now has been one dumb decision followed by another and another and another...

(01-12-2021 02:55 PM)solohawks Wrote:  I meant to say expensive LOL

The only reason I would recommend AT&T TV to anyone would be if they want the RSN. But if you want the RSN you probably could get a better deal bundling with Cox, Comcast or Spectrum internet

Those prices are very high

Lol, fair enough! I found somewhere that the permanent price of the package with RSNs is $85/mo, which again does not include tax or RSN fees. Ouch.

(01-12-2021 05:44 PM)orangefan Wrote:  

(01-12-2021 02:55 PM)solohawks Wrote:  I meant to say expensive LOL

The only reason I would recommend AT&T TV to anyone would be if they want the RSN. But if you want the RSN you probably could get a better deal bundling with Cox, Comcast or Spectrum internet

Those prices are very high

Lol, fair enough! I found somewhere that the permanent price of the package with RSNs is $85/mo, which again does not include tax or RSN fees. Ouch.

They have slightly lower year 1 prices if you opt for a 2 year contract but they jack it up year 2 making that an unwise choice. The no contract plan costs more than the year 1 prices but if you want the service that is the way to go

(01-12-2021 03:32 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(01-12-2021 12:40 PM)DoubleRSU Wrote:  If anyone wants to know how NOT to brand OTT services, please take a look at the way ATT has handled their services over the last 5 years. Clusterbang deluxe.

Yep. Seems like everything AT&T has done in TV from their boneheaded purchase of DirecTV through now has been one dumb decision followed by another and another and another...

It is truly unbelievable. The strategic basis for that decision is impossible to understand. They had U-Verse to bundle with phone and broadband where they offer line based service, which could have been a strategic objective. Given their own experience with disruption in the landline phone business, how could they not have foreseen the possibility for similar disruption in TV, particularly as one of the largest broadband providers in the US. Dumb, dumb, dumb

(01-12-2021 12:40 PM)DoubleRSU Wrote:  If anyone wants to know how NOT to brand OTT services, please take a look at the way ATT has handled their services over the last 5 years. Clusterbang deluxe.

Between the ATT name and HBO name they had about 6-7_services at the same time.

(01-12-2021 07:29 PM)Todor Wrote:  

(01-12-2021 12:40 PM)DoubleRSU Wrote:  If anyone wants to know how NOT to brand OTT services, please take a look at the way ATT has handled their services over the last 5 years. Clusterbang deluxe.

Between the ATT name and HBO name they had about 6-7_services at the same time.

Yeah, that’s what I’m talking about. Multiple names, changed names, dropped services, etc. A real mess.

(01-12-2021 07:35 PM)DoubleRSU Wrote:  

(01-12-2021 07:29 PM)Todor Wrote:  

(01-12-2021 12:40 PM)DoubleRSU Wrote:  If anyone wants to know how NOT to brand OTT services, please take a look at the way ATT has handled their services over the last 5 years. Clusterbang deluxe.

Between the ATT name and HBO name they had about 6-7_services at the same time.

Yeah, that’s what I’m talking about. Multiple names, changed names, dropped services, etc. A real mess.

At&t TV with 4 subscription tiers
At&t Watch TV
At&t TV Now, formerly DirectTv Now with 6 different package options

HBO Max
HBO Go
HBO Now

DC Universe

Plus regular DirecTV and U Verse services.

Shocker, they are in over $160 Billion in debt.
And here are the articles telling investors to avoid them like the plague.
https://investorplace.com/2020/11/saddle...att-stock/

I'd also advise customers avoid them like the plague. Can't wait for Dish to get their 5g network built.

(01-12-2021 07:54 PM)Todor Wrote:  

(01-12-2021 07:35 PM)DoubleRSU Wrote:  

(01-12-2021 07:29 PM)Todor Wrote:  

(01-12-2021 12:40 PM)DoubleRSU Wrote:  If anyone wants to know how NOT to brand OTT services, please take a look at the way ATT has handled their services over the last 5 years. Clusterbang deluxe.

Between the ATT name and HBO name they had about 6-7_services at the same time.

Yeah, that’s what I’m talking about. Multiple names, changed names, dropped services, etc. A real mess.

At&t TV with 4 subscription tiers
At&t Watch TV
At&t TV Now, formerly DirectTv Now with 6 different package options

HBO Max
HBO Go
HBO Now

DC Universe

Plus regular DirecTV and U Verse services.

Shocker, they are in over $160 Billion in debt.
And here are the articles telling investors to avoid them like the plague.
https://investorplace.com/2020/11/saddle...att-stock/

I'd also advise customers avoid them like the plague. Can't wait for Dish to get their 5g network built.

I'm currently an AT&T TV Now suscriber, I've been with them since they launched DIRECTV Now. What does this mean? Can I still use the service or will I be forced to get one of those stupid boxes? Otherwise I may switch to T-Vision. This may be the move to leave cable all together?

Note: https://www.theverge.com/2021/1/12/22226...-hulu-fubo

So I'll still be able to use the service and I'll stay for sure. I get a crazy amount of channels from when they first lured you in and HBO Max for free. I have like almost 100 channels (Don't watch them) but here in LA I also get FOX Sports West, Prime Ticket, Spectrum SportsNet & SportsNet LA with my service and I only pay $60/mo. So I'll ride it until the wheels fall off. Lol. Otherwise I probably would've given FuboTV a look.

(01-12-2021 07:29 PM)orangefan Wrote:  

(01-12-2021 03:32 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(01-12-2021 12:40 PM)DoubleRSU Wrote:  If anyone wants to know how NOT to brand OTT services, please take a look at the way ATT has handled their services over the last 5 years. Clusterbang deluxe.

Yep. Seems like everything AT&T has done in TV from their boneheaded purchase of DirecTV through now has been one dumb decision followed by another and another and another...

It is truly unbelievable. The strategic basis for that decision is impossible to understand. They had U-Verse to bundle with phone and broadband where they offer line based service, which could have been a strategic objective. Given their own experience with disruption in the landline phone business, how could they not have foreseen the possibility for similar disruption in TV, particularly as one of the largest broadband providers in the US. Dumb, dumb, dumb

ATT bought DirecTV solely for NFL Sunday Ticket. A package that they won’t be able to keep when the current contract expires.

(01-12-2021 07:54 PM)Todor Wrote:  

(01-12-2021 07:35 PM)DoubleRSU Wrote:  

(01-12-2021 07:29 PM)Todor Wrote:  

(01-12-2021 12:40 PM)DoubleRSU Wrote:  If anyone wants to know how NOT to brand OTT services, please take a look at the way ATT has handled their services over the last 5 years. Clusterbang deluxe.

Between the ATT name and HBO name they had about 6-7_services at the same time.

Yeah, that’s what I’m talking about. Multiple names, changed names, dropped services, etc. A real mess.

At&t TV with 4 subscription tiers
At&t Watch TV
At&t TV Now, formerly DirectTv Now with 6 different package options

HBO Max
HBO Go
HBO Now

DC Universe

Plus regular DirecTV and U Verse services.

Shocker, they are in over $160 Billion in debt.
And here are the articles telling investors to avoid them like the plague.
https://investorplace.com/2020/11/saddle...att-stock/

I'd also advise customers avoid them like the plague. Can't wait for Dish to get their 5g network built.

AT&T also has Boomerang with classic cartoons.

I actually subscribe to that one for the $30/year because I like watching the old cartoons with my kids

(01-12-2021 12:40 PM)DoubleRSU Wrote:  If anyone wants to know how NOT to brand OTT services, please take a look at the way ATT has handled their services over the last 5 years. Clusterbang deluxe.

Are you suggesting AT&T's AT&T Now and HBOMax are not branded properly?

AT&T will shed Warner, HBO, and DirecTV.

Maybe HBO+, like Disney+ and Apple TV+ and ESPN+ and... may be a better way to brand a streaming service.

(01-13-2021 08:48 AM)chess Wrote:  

(01-12-2021 12:40 PM)DoubleRSU Wrote:  If anyone wants to know how NOT to brand OTT services, please take a look at the way ATT has handled their services over the last 5 years. Clusterbang deluxe.

Are you suggesting AT&T's AT&T Now and HBOMax are not branded properly?

AT&T will shed Warner, HBO, and DirecTV.

Maybe HBO+, like Disney+ and Apple TV+ and ESPN+ and... may be a better way to brand a streaming service.

You can call it whatever plus, now, Max, or whatever you want. Just don’t change the name and stick with it.

(01-13-2021 02:45 AM)Realignment Wrote:  I'm currently an AT&T TV Now suscriber, I've been with them since they launched DIRECTV Now. What does this mean? Can I still use the service or will I be forced to get one of those stupid boxes? Otherwise I may switch to T-Vision. This may be the move to leave cable all together?

Note: https://www.theverge.com/2021/1/12/22226...-hulu-fubo

So I'll still be able to use the service and I'll stay for sure. I get a crazy amount of channels from when they first lured you in and HBO Max for free. I have like almost 100 channels (Don't watch them) but here in LA I also get FOX Sports West, Prime Ticket, Spectrum SportsNet & SportsNet LA with my service and I only pay $60/mo. So I'll ride it until the wheels fall off. Lol. Otherwise I probably would've given FuboTV a look.

The article indicates that it is closed to new subscribers, which suggests that the current service will remain in place for some period. I suspect they will slowly raise the price until they force you to switch to an AT&T TV plan, or may just covert you at some point in the future after such a series of price increases. I'd keep it for now, as there will be no getting it back.

(01-13-2021 06:34 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(01-12-2021 07:29 PM)orangefan Wrote:  

(01-12-2021 03:32 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(01-12-2021 12:40 PM)DoubleRSU Wrote:  If anyone wants to know how NOT to brand OTT services, please take a look at the way ATT has handled their services over the last 5 years. Clusterbang deluxe.

Yep. Seems like everything AT&T has done in TV from their boneheaded purchase of DirecTV through now has been one dumb decision followed by another and another and another...

It is truly unbelievable. The strategic basis for that decision is impossible to understand. They had U-Verse to bundle with phone and broadband where they offer line based service, which could have been a strategic objective. Given their own experience with disruption in the landline phone business, how could they not have foreseen the possibility for similar disruption in TV, particularly as one of the largest broadband providers in the US. Dumb, dumb, dumb

ATT bought DirecTV solely for NFL Sunday Ticket. A package that they won’t be able to keep when the current contract expires.

Another example of the lack of vision regarding both the lack of a more robust plan for achieving synergies from the acquisition and the lack of foresight regarding the future of the industry.

Contrast this acquisition with Disney's acquisition of the majority of Fox's entertainment assets. As time passes, it becomes clear that Disney had a vision for how to leverage these assets that was much more expansive and strategically sound than anyone saw at the time. In addition to the anticipated and obvious synergies, the following are particularly notable to me: Acquisition of the Star/Hotstar assets provides Disney+ with the breadth to compete with Netflix in international markets; Acquisition of Fox's interest in Hulu allowed Disney to leverage the buyout of other minority owners to completely own and control Hulu, making a Hulu/Disney+ bundle the breadth to compete with Netflix in the US; Acquisition of FX gives Hulu a library of older, current and future prestige TV series to offset the likely future loss of NBC and WarnerMedia programming; Acquisition of 20th Century Studios will likely provide Hulu with a long term source of access to movies, including movies in the Pay One window dominated by HBO (which holds Pay One window rights until 2022 for 20th releases); Acquisition of complete ownership and control of the market leading Hulu + Live TV service provides Disney with 100% of the revenues associated with Disney cable channels from subscribers to the service; Hulu + Live TV also gives Disney additional leverage in negotiations with cable and satellite providers regarding carriage fees; acquisition of Fox's TV and movie production assets cuts out the middleman when purchasing programming, providing maximum margins from its programming. If you look at the "eliminations" line in Disney's income statement, it is all intercompany charges for licensing of movies, TV programs and TV networks. These are all revenues that would otherwise be shared with third party partners.

(01-13-2021 10:31 AM)orangefan Wrote:  Another example of the lack of vision regarding both the lack of a more robust plan for achieving synergies from the acquisition and the lack of foresight regarding the future of the industry.

Contrast this acquisition with Disney's acquisition of the majority of Fox's entertainment assets. As time passes, it becomes clear that Disney had a vision for how to leverage these assets that was much more expansive and strategically sound than anyone saw at the time. In addition to the anticipated and obvious synergies, the following are particularly notable to me: Acquisition of the Star/Hotstar assets provides Disney+ with the breadth to compete with Netflix in international markets; Acquisition of Fox's interest in Hulu allowed Disney to leverage the buyout of other minority owners to completely own and control Hulu, making a Hulu/Disney+ bundle the breadth to compete with Netflix in the US; Acquisition of FX gives Hulu a library of older, current and future prestige TV series to offset the likely future loss of NBC and WarnerMedia programming; Acquisition of 20th Century Studios will likely provide Hulu with a long term source of access to movies, including movies in the Pay One window dominated by HBO (which holds Pay One window rights until 2022 for 20th releases); Acquisition of complete ownership and control of the market leading Hulu + Live TV service provides Disney with 100% of the revenues associated with Disney cable channels from subscribers to the service; Hulu + Live TV also gives Disney additional leverage in negotiations with cable and satellite providers regarding carriage fees; acquisition of Fox's TV and movie production assets cuts out the middleman when purchasing programming, providing maximum margins from its programming. If you look at the "eliminations" line in Disney's income statement, it is all intercompany charges for licensing of movies, TV programs and TV networks. These are all revenues that would otherwise be shared with third party partners.

While Iger can be lauded for his acquisitions while heading Disney, he didn't have with the infrastructure concerns that plagues ATT. The new 'T' in San Antonio spent so much time and money reacquiring Baby Bells that they found themselves way behind in the information/distribution market.

In many ways they are similar to GE: a large company picking up dated assets paid for with debt that has become increasingly unserviceable.

Its too complicated not be a content maker, content provider, and network (infrastructure) provider and achieve much synergy between all of them. There are too many moving parts that that are constantly changing. The content maker side is a whole different animal.

Buying Direct TV when its a clearly fading industry, in contrast and competition to your existing cable business, and in competition with new streaming services- some of which are content maker based like HBO and others that are more like traditional cable like the ATT branded ones has created quite a confusing mess, high debt, consumer confusion and will be a mess to separate out again.