# Seems AT&T TV is what the TiVo Stream 4K should’ve been, no?



## BillyClyde

Due to spousal issues with everything "just working like it used to" (referring to legacy cable and satellite boxes and how they work), I've been feverishly working to find a service which replicates the legacy cable/satellite box and DVR experience, but also allows more streaming integration into that single solution.

It seems the best thing I've found is the newish AT&T TV with their version of an AndroidTV box. Of course the BIG issue with this approach is cost, but I am actually willing to do this if it makes the much more important than me, other half happy! 

This solution appears to really merge the two approaches, cable/satellite-like DVR box with remote and streaming apps, perfectly. This seems more like what @Dan203 expected with the underlying background control UI being what appears to be true "old DirecTV/AT&T", with the apps being within the GUI, or at least easily seen and accessible, and a normal style DVR remote with all the normal direct command buttons, but still having a portal to the AndroidTV backbone.

This is is stark contrast to this TiVo (can you even call it that really?) Stream 4K dongle which is just essentially a cheaper AndroidTV box with some TiVo customizations and a proprietary app, like any other including the superior ReelGood app!

I just wish TiVo would've done basically the exact same thing, just replacing the AT&T underlying control UI and experience with a similar TiVo one. From what I've read around TCF the last couple years, they also have a streaming cable service with MSO type AndroidTV boxes in use that do something similar to this already, no? Evolution Digital or something?

Your thoughts?


----------



## BillyClyde

@EIT60, it sounds like this is also applicable here and maybe why TiVo didn't do it how AT&T did it, like I mentioned above?



ElT60 said:


> The Tivo apps mainly is a replacement for the main AndroidTV screen. The catch-22 for Tivo though is that they can't really replace the main AndroidTv screen. Google only allows Content streaming Operators to do that to build service specific, branded "boxes'. Tivo is not a content operator. ( although perhaps taking stabs at trying to qualify as one with the Tivo+ bundle, grid , and rebrand moves.).....


----------



## cwoody222

BillyClyde said:


> @EIT60, it sounds like this is also applicable here and maybe why TiVo didn't do it how AT&T did it, like I mentioned above?


Yes!

This is also a reason why TiVo can't just change their DVR platform to Android.

If they did, we'd have the same Frankenstein mess we have with the Stream 4K.

Although Amazon customized Android for their Fire. THAT'S what I'd like TiVo to accomplish.


----------



## stuart628

how about just making att tv work with the tivo stream app  I mean our remotes do have a number keypad on them.


----------



## mdavej

@BillyClyde, I had AT&T TV NOW for 3 years, and the box you're talking about for 1 year. I really liked it over all. Lineup was great, user experience was exactly like a cable DVR (one button record, channel up/down/last, channel numbers, instant on), great picture, great sound, great voice control capabilities. That's the good.

The bad, as you know, is the price is exactly the same as traditional cable, DVR doesn't actually work very well, AT&T TV box has exactly the same "forced HDR" bug as the Tivo Stream 4k, very limited Play Store access (no Amazon Prime app, for example), no possibility of sideloading, no PBS, recordings expire in 90 days, 3 stream limit, 2 year contract with an ETF of up to $360 with the price of service doubling after year one.

The DVR is especially bad. It's very bare-bones, clunky and unreliable. It often misses recordings or records the wrong thing entirely. And most annoying of all, to me, is the Rube-Goldberg way they make you delete series recordings. Even when you think you've deleted them, there's a good chance they'll never go away. It's absolutely ridiculous.

Having said all that, I would have tolerated all of that if that had kept the price at a reasonable level. As it is, it's just not worth double what YTTV and others cost, to me at least. If I'm going to be paying traditional cable prices and be stuck in traditional cable contracts, I'd want all the perks of traditional cable - more than 3 streams, recordings that never expire, DVR that works, all locals including PBS, etc.

There's a very good reason AT&T is losing a million customers per quarter, not growing.


----------



## BillyClyde

mdavej said:


> @BillyClyde, I had AT&T TV NOW for 3 years, and the box you're talking about for 1 year. I really liked it over all. Lineup was great, user experience was exactly like a cable DVR (one button record, channel up/down/last, channel numbers, instant on), great picture, great sound, great voice control capabilities. That's the good.
> 
> The bad, as you know, is the price is exactly the same as traditional cable, DVR doesn't actually work very well, AT&T TV box has exactly the same "forced HDR" bug as the Tivo Stream 4k, very limited Play Store access (no Amazon Prime app, for example), no possibility of sideloading, no PBS, recordings expire in 90 days, 3 stream limit, 2 year contract with an ETF of up to $360 with the price of service doubling after year one.
> 
> The DVR is especially bad. It's very bare-bones, clunky and unreliable. It often misses recordings or records the wrong thing entirely. And most annoying of all, to me, is the Rube-Goldberg way they make you delete series recordings. Even when you think you've deleted them, there's a good chance they'll never go away. It's absolutely ridiculous.
> 
> Having said all that, I would have tolerated all of that if that had kept the price at a reasonable level. As it is, it's just not worth double what YTTV and others cost, to me at least. If I'm going to be paying traditional cable prices and be stuck in traditional cable contracts, I'd want all the perks of traditional cable - more than 3 streams, recordings that never expire, DVR that works, all locals including PBS, etc.
> 
> There's a very good reason AT&T is losing a million customers per quarter, not growing.


Thanks so much for the feedback! Was your experience mostly in the Beta realm? Reason I ask is the rep at AT&T said most if not all the issues you see if you read online were from the beta and initial limited release, but they're almost all fixed now.

I ended up grabbing two boxes from them and am going to try it for 14 days. Like I said mainly for my wife who is let's say "streaming challenged", haha! Can you just elaborate on how you felt it integrated both realms of traditional cable/satellite with the newer cord cutter/streaming technology, all in one box ease of simplicity, cost not a factor (believe me, it's worth it!)?

I played around with it last night and to me it seems like it does it's job and unlike many reviews from only tech savvy, new age "millennials" we'll call them, who only seem to see the world from their narrow, cutting edge lens and not from the majority of middle America, especially older ones stuck in their ways who aren't going to accept huge change.

I do believe it has its place and it does it pretty well. This would be a great first step for my parents. I already transitioned them from Comcast cable boxes to a Roamio Pro with 3 minis a few years ago, and this seems like the next logical step to me since the apps are so outdated and slow on TiVo.

The main issues I see so far is no Dolby Vision, the same as the Stream 4K I've been testing, but now TiVo updated and has DV. The always on HDR/DV has never bothered me and the image looks great. Not sure what all the fuss is about and don't want to debate it here again, but do agree it should be available as a choice.

The next biggest issue is it can be SO SLOW at times, like the memory isn't big enough to handle the load. I believe it's due to their always on background video they do to replicate the traditional cable box experience. The AT&T manager said he has these at his house and they were slow the first few days because it was doing a lot in the background after initially being activated, which makes some sense since TiVo is similar in this regard. Did you notice this behavior and improvement after a few days?

Can you also elaborate on not being able to sideload apps, the DVR issue and if you, your spouse or someone else in your household is not tech or streaming savvy coming from traditional cable/satellite and still wants that experience with streaming too? Not from the perspective that we here at TCF are coming from. I do see the normal apps used to side load in the App Store. Do they not work the same as on the Shield or TS4K?

I believe they're losing customers mainly from satellite, no?


----------



## mdavej

BillyClyde said:


> Thanks so much for the feedback! Was your experience mostly in the Beta realm? Reason I ask is the rep at AT&T said most if not all the issues you see if you read online were from the beta and initial limited release, but they're almost all fixed now.
> 
> I ended up grabbing two boxes from them and am going to try it for 14 days. Like I said mainly for my wife who is let's say "streaming challenged", haha! Can you just elaborate on how you felt it integrated both realms of traditional cable/satellite with the newer cord cutter/streaming technology, all in one box ease of simplicity, cost not a factor (believe me, it's worth it!)?
> 
> I played around with it last night and to me it seems like it does it's job and unlike many reviews from only tech savvy, new age "millennials" we'll call them, who only seem to see the world from their narrow, cutting edge lens and not from the majority of middle America, especially older ones stuck in their ways who aren't going to accept huge change.
> 
> I do believe it has its place and it does it pretty well. This would be a great first step for my parents. I already transitioned them from Comcast cable boxes to a Roamio Pro with 3 minis a few years ago, and this seems like the next logical step to me since the apps are so outdated and slow on TiVo.
> 
> The main issues I see so far is no Dolby Vision, the same as the Stream 4K I've been testing, but now TiVo updated and has DV. The always on HDR/DV has never bothered me and the image looks great. Not sure what all the fuss is about and don't want to debate it here again, but do agree it should be available as a choice.
> 
> The next biggest issue is it can be SO SLOW at times, like the memory isn't big enough to handle the load. I believe it's due to their always on background video they do to replicate the traditional cable box experience. The AT&T manager said he has these at his house and they were slow the first few days because it was doing a lot in the background after initially being activated, which makes some sense since TiVo is similar in this regard. Did you notice this behavior and improvement after a few days?
> 
> Can you also elaborate on not being able to sideload apps, the DVR issue and if you, your spouse or someone else in your household is not tech or streaming savvy coming from traditional cable/satellite and still wants that experience with streaming too? Not from the perspective that we here at TCF are coming from. I do see the normal apps used to side load in the App Store. Do they not work the same as on the Shield or TS4K?
> 
> I believe they're losing customers mainly from satellite, no?


It does speed up eventually.

I'm very skeptical about the bug fixes given the fact I saw close to zero progress all those years, including an entire year of testing on two different hardware versions. I also see several posts per day in the AT&T forums asking about the same bugs I saw 3 years ago.

On the Stream 4k, you can allow apps from unknown sources and load apk files that aren't found in the app store. You can't do this on the AT&T box because the setting is nowhere to be found. So even if you install and run those sideloading helper apps, they won't have permission to actually install anything. If you find a way, I'm sure other AT&T customers would love to hear about it. There are lots of complaints in the forums about having no Prime Video app, among others.

The DVR issues have been there since the beginning and exactly as I described. About 5% of my recordings were either missed entirely or the wrong program got recorded. Chase play doesn't work very well either. When you get close to catching up to live all hell breaks lose. I'll leave the cancelling of a series recording as a fun exercise for you.

Nobody in my house cares about the traditional cable experience. But that was definitely my favorite thing about the AT&T box. I loved have a remote with channel and number buttons and not having to launch an app to watch TV.

As far as customer losses go, AT&T TV NOW used to have 1.5 million subs, by last Nov they had lost 700,000 of those, and an additional 138,000 just last quarter. If you consider the percentages, that's a massive 50% drop in less than 2 years. I speculate this was almost entirely due to the prices more than doubling. Keep in mind most of these losses occurred before AT&T TV existed, so it's not people simply switching from NOW.

I haven't seen any AT&T TV subscriber numbers. As a new service, I'd expect those numbers to grow from zero for the first few quarters then hit a wall due to the high price. I suspect the only people who would be interested in AT&T TV would be the traditional cable crowd who will only accept a traditional cable experience and have no problem paying a premium for it, a group that continues to shrink very rapidly. I simply can't afford to spend $100/month or more on cable TV content I barely watch.


----------



## lparsons21

The ATT TV box is sluggish, that’s just a fact of life and having it for an extended period of time doesn’t improve that at all.

It works well overall but it is slow doing many things. Voice controls work but sometimes take quite a bit of time to recognize and do what you ask. Button pushes to do something often don’t respond very quickly though it is hit or miss with them.

I’ve had no issue with the DVR portion of the service and I can live with the box, but it is typical ATT/DirecTV programming and box. Minimum hardware to get the job done seems to be a thing with them IMO.

The ATT TV app works so much better on Roku devices. It is faster in operation, voice controls are quick and so forth. The only downside is that the Roku remote doesn’t have all the buttons that the ATT TV box does, so sometimes you have to twiddle with it a big to get where you want to go. IMO, if the Roku device had HBO Max I’d be using it a whole lot more.


----------



## lparsons21

mdavej said:


> It does speed up eventually.
> 
> I haven't seen any AT&T TV subscriber numbers. As a new service, I'd expect those numbers to grow from zero for the first few quarters then hit a wall due to the high price. I suspect the only people who would be interested in AT&T TV would be the traditional cable crowd who will only accept a traditional cable experience and have no problem paying a premium for it, a group that continues to shrink very rapidly. I simply can't afford to spend $100/month or more on cable TV content I barely watch.


In two months I haven't noticed any speed up.

What I think will happen is that as ATT TV customers hit the end of the first year and see the rate nearly double that the drop in subscribers will be record setting!

In my case I signed up for the Entertainment subscription at $49.99/month, got a $100 rebate and free HBO/HBO Max for a year. Unless 2nd year pricing changes before my anniversery I'll cancel. Assuming I cancel the real cost per month will be $57/month for the 12 months taking into account the ETF and $100 rebate.

All that said, if you are one of those that just has to have it all from one service then ATT TV is the only one with that. Every other service is missing some things in their channel lineups that most subscribers will want.


----------



## dabig25

AT&T is a big FAIL

No other streaming service locks you into a contract. Then they screw you big time during that 2nd year by doubling your monthly price.

They're going to lose a lot of customers like they have with Directv


----------



## BillyClyde

dabig25 said:


> AT&T is a big FAIL
> 
> No other streaming service locks you into a contract. Then they screw you big time during that 2nd year by doubling your monthly price.
> 
> They're going to lose a lot of customers like they have with Directv


I found out you can actually use the no contract streaming version, AT&T TV Now, on the same box and it works exactly the same! So no contracts needed. Here is a summary I made in another thread which I think is appropriate here as well:

I've been testing the AT&T TV box and that's actually what I think a new TiVo should've been. The entire background operation and GUI *IS* AT&T TV, which is the way the TiVo app should've been on the TS4K! The menu floats over top of it with selections for Guide, My Shows, Discovery and then the apps. As I use it, it makes me think of what I wanted in the next gen TiVo, BIG time!

The big downsides are of course price and having a contract, but I actually tested signing up for AT&T TV Now instead which is the streaming version of AT&T TV with the contract and when you sign in with those credentials it actually WORKS and even then gives you channel numbers and the operation is exactly like when using the contract based AT&T TV! You can find the boxes easily on eBay for cheap, around the same as TS4K will be. The other downside for now is no Hulu or Amazon Prime, but they're apparently promised to be coming soon, but I take that with a grain of salt.

I'm in my two week trial window and I'll most likely return them for now. Once they add Hulu and Prime I'll probably buy boxes on eBay and use AT&T TV Now on them. I loved the experience of melding traditional legacy cable/satellite type box use with channel surfing, always on live TV, GUI overlay, etc. with much more advanced app use like the Google Play Store. This is what a new modern TiVo should have been!


----------



## mdavej

BillyClyde said:


> I found out you can actually use the no contract streaming version, AT&T TV Now, on the same box and it works exactly the same! So no contracts needed. Here is a summary I made in another thread which I think is appropriate here as well:
> 
> I've been testing the AT&T TV box and that's actually what I think a new TiVo should've been. The entire background operation and GUI *IS* AT&T TV, which is the way the TiVo app should've been on the TS4K! The menu floats over top of it with selections for Guide, My Shows, Discovery and then the apps. As I use it, it makes me think of what I wanted in the next gen TiVo, BIG time!
> 
> The big downsides are of course price and having a contract, but I actually tested signing up for AT&T TV Now instead which is the streaming version of AT&T TV with the contract and when you sign in with those credentials it actually WORKS and even then gives you channel numbers and the operation is exactly like when using the contract based AT&T TV! You can find the boxes easily on eBay for cheap, around the same as TS4K will be. The other downside for now is no Hulu or Amazon Prime, but they're apparently promised to be coming soon, but I take that with a grain of salt.
> 
> I'm in my two week trial window and I'll most likely return them for now. Once they add Hulu and Prime I'll probably buy boxes on eBay and use AT&T TV Now on them. I loved the experience of melding traditional legacy cable/satellite type box use with channel surfing, always on live TV, GUI overlay, etc. with much more advanced app use like the Google Play Store. This is what a new modern TiVo should have been!


I guess I only implied that in my earlier post. But I could have told you all that since I used the box with NOW for a year, 2 boxes actually.

I sold my boxes for $100 each. Good to see they're down to $50 now.

Funny thing about Prime and Hulu is we had both on the box during beta testing and they worked fine. They pulled them for money reasons not technical ones.

Enjoy!


----------



## dabig25

AT&T Increases the Price of AT&T TV and DirecTV | Cord Cutters News


----------



## Alex_7

^ was just about to post this

seems like everyone is increasing prices: fubotv, youtubetv..

There are more streaming choices than ever - why are prices going up?


----------



## rczrider

Alex_7 said:


> ^ was just about to post this
> 
> seems like everyone is increasing prices: fubotv, youtubetv..
> 
> There are more streaming choices than ever - why are prices going up?


Yep, and that's why we're seeing a rise in online piracy again. Between losing net neutrality and a more tech-savvy generation of consumers getting annoyed with fragmentation in the streaming sector - _and_ the cost of these streaming services going up - VPNs are seeing a surge in subscribers and torrent sites are seeing a significant increase in content.

The idiots driving these companies don't seem to understand what they're doing. Not too long ago, piracy was relatively low because it was easier and cheaper to just pay for the service. Now folks are going to realize they can reasonably get away with just taking what they want since the content providers seem intent on biting the hand that feeds them.


----------



## tenthplanet

Prices go up on everything. Food, rent, cars, books, some people's wages, street repairs, coffee beans... internet costs. The average person doesn't torrent either. Piracy is a moral failing, thieves will always steal because they can. Capitalism is expensive people, get in the game, or get out.. The future has no mercy.


----------



## Alex_7

Inflation


----------



## convergent

BillyClyde said:


> I've been feverishly working to find a service which replicates the legacy cable/satellite box and DVR experience, but also allows more streaming integration into that single solution.


You might want to take a look at Channels DVR, because it does what you are talking about. One seamless Live TV and DVR experience that pulls together all your sources - streaming live TV, cable companies, antenna, and Locast. It uses TV Everywhere for streaming/cable, HD Homerun for antenna, and Locast.


----------



## BillyClyde

convergent said:


> You might want to take a look at Channels DVR, because it does what you are talking about. One seamless Live TV and DVR experience that pulls together all your sources - streaming live TV, cable companies, antenna, and Locast. It uses TV Everywhere for streaming/cable, HD Homerun for antenna, and Locast.


Funny you mention that, because I've been using it for awhile now, and with the recent integration of the remote buttons to work directly in Channels, it is indeed much like what I was looking for now!


----------



## convergent

BillyClyde said:


> Funny you mention that, because I've been using it for awhile now, and with the recent integration of the remote buttons to work directly in Channels, it is indeed much like what I was looking for now!


Cool! I've been using it on an Apple TV but receiving a TS4K today and looking forward to seeing the remote integration.


----------



## Dan203

tenthplanet said:


> Prices go up on everything. Food, rent, cars, books, some people's wages, street repairs, coffee beans... internet costs. The average person doesn't torrent either. Piracy is a moral failing, thieves will always steal because they can. Capitalism is expensive people, get in the game, or get out.. The future has no mercy.


I don't think it's the prices of the individual services that's the issue, I think it's the combined total of subscribing to all of them that's the problem. At this point there are a dozen or more individual services that want $7-$15/mo from you, all with original content. If you subscribe to them all you can easily spend more than the cost of cable. Add to that the fact the cable companies have a monopoly on broadband internet in most markets and are also raising prices to offset their declining video subscriptions, and you've got a situation where "cutting the cord" actually costs more.

People use to complain about bundling and having hundreds of channels they didn't watch, but it turns out a-la-carte is worse. Turns out that having millions of people share the burden of paying for content that they may not watch, but you did, actually made things cheaper. Same applies to advertising revenue. As less people watch ads, more of the cost of producing content is passed on to the viewers.


----------



## rczrider

Dan203 said:


> I don't think it's the prices of the individual services that's the issue, I think it's the combined total of subscribing to all of them that's the problem. At this point there are a dozen or more individual services that want $7-$15/mo from you, all with original content. If you subscribe to them all you can easily spend more than the cost of cable. Add to that the fact the cable companies have a monopoly on broadband internet in most markets and are also raising prices to offset their declining video subscriptions, and you've got a situation where "cutting the cord" actually costs more.
> 
> People use to complain about bundling and having hundreds of channels they didn't watch, but it turns out a-la-carte is worse. Turns out that having millions of people share the burden of paying for content that they may not watch, but you did, actually made things cheaper. Same applies to advertising revenue. As less people watch ads, more of the cost of producing content is passed on to the viewers.


----------



## Dan203

rczrider said:


>


Exactly! Except that list is missing CBS All Access, Peacock and the million Go/Now versions of every channel that ever existed. (i.e. Comedy Central Now, Fox Now, Bravo Now, etc...)


----------



## ncbill

Dan203 said:


> I don't think it's the prices of the individual services that's the issue, I think it's the combined total of subscribing to all of them that's the problem. At this point there are a dozen or more individual services that want $7-$15/mo from you, all with original content. If you subscribe to them all you can easily spend more than the cost of cable. Add to that the fact the cable companies have a monopoly on broadband internet in most markets and are also raising prices to offset their declining video subscriptions, and you've got a situation where "cutting the cord" actually costs more.
> 
> People use to complain about bundling and having hundreds of channels they didn't watch, but it turns out a-la-carte is worse. Turns out that having millions of people share the burden of paying for content that they may not watch, but you did, actually made things cheaper. Same applies to advertising revenue. As less people watch ads, more of the cost of producing content is passed on to the viewers.


There are always specials...I bought 3 years of Disney+ for $140, 1 year of Peacock for $30, free month of CBS All-Access then next two months at half-price...& they're all easy to drop until I get another cut-rate offer.


----------



## Dan203

ncbill said:


> There are always specials...I bought 3 years of Disney+ for $140, 1 year of Peacock for $30, free month of CBS All-Access then next two months at half-price...& they're all easy to drop until I get another cut-rate offer.


It all adds up though.


----------



## ncbill

Dan203 said:


> It all adds up though.


Still a whole lot cheaper than a standard cable package @ $60-$80/month regular price.


----------



## rczrider

ncbill said:


> Still a whole lot cheaper than a standard cable package @ $60-$80/month regular price.


By that argument, they're still a whole lot more expensive than nothing.

Also, how do y'all have so much free time on your hands that you're just looking to get all of the streaming services available? I feel like folks should, I don't know, go outside once in a while.


----------



## Dan203

ncbill said:


> Still a whole lot cheaper than a standard cable package @ $60-$80/month regular price.


That's about the cost of a typical cable package when you look at just the video part, removing fees, internet, and equipment rental. Plus a lot of cable companies charge an additional $10/mo if you only have internet with no video package. In my case, with Spectrum, it would cost ~$90/mo for an internet only package. Compared to my current $178/mo bill which includes HBO and ShowTime, which cost $15/mo and $11/mo respectively when subscribed to via streaming.

Internet - $90
Netflix - $16
Prime - $10
Hulu - $12
Disney+ - $7
HBOMax - $15
Sho - $11
CBS All Access - $10
Peacock - $10
YouTube Premium - $12
____________
$193

And if you want regular channels you have to subscribe to a skinny bundle type service which can range anywhere from $30-$90/mo.

Now I know you can turn these subscriptions on/off as needed to lower costs but when you have a family who are all potentially watching different things managing that can become a PITA.


----------



## lparsons21

Right now it is hard to justify any live streaming/cable/sat as there is so little new and interesting on them.

I’ve got AT&T TV Entertainment level @$50
Netflix - $16
Hulu basic - $6
Prime - 0 since I’d have it without video anyway
Disney - about $4
HBO Max - $0
SHO - $11
CBS All Access - $8.34 (paid annually)
Peacock - $5 Watch on AppleTV very low ad load
Internet increase because of caps - $20

Total for TV - $121

If I had cable = $179 (no premiums)
HBO max = $15
Netflix = $16
Disney = $4
SHO = $11
Peacock = $5

Total = $230


----------



## moyekj

A lot of these discussions don't factor in convenience factor which is a huge thing. Having all these different applications means you are jumping all over the place to play content even if you have a decent aggregator of some sort to keep track and find things in the first place. I miss the days where you could get everything decent you wanted via linear channels without having to subscribe to all this extra crap to get the odd good show here and there.

At least Amazon through Amazon channels was going in the direction of providing one place where you can stream most everything you want, but now that's fallen apart.


----------



## mdavej

lparsons21 said:


> Right now it is hard to justify any live streaming/cable/sat as there is so little new and interesting on them.
> 
> I've got AT&T TV Entertainment level @$50
> HBO Max - $0


That's gonna skyrocket when your promo runs out. AT&T TV part will double, and you'll have to start paying for HBO.

Welcome to the convergence of streaming and cable TV prices. Same old crap (contracts, massive price increases, hidden fees), different cable.


----------



## lparsons21

mdavej said:


> That's gonna skyrocket when your promo runs out. AT&T TV part will double, and you'll have to start paying for HBO.
> 
> Welcome to the convergence of streaming and cable TV prices. Same old crap (contracts, massive price increases, hidden fees), different cable.


No, my price won't skyrocket! My plan going in was get it, use it a year and cancel. Counting the discounted price 1st year ($50/month), free HBO Max and the $100 rebate and paying the $180 ETF at the end of the year the final average monthly cost is $57/month.

Now if ATT comes to their senses in the next 9 months I have left and either offers a much better price for that 2nd year or a nice discount I'll stick around.


----------



## NashGuy

lparsons21 said:


> No, my price won't skyrocket! My plan going in was get it, use it a year and cancel. Counting the discounted price 1st year ($50/month), free HBO Max and the $100 rebate and paying the $180 ETF at the end of the year the final average monthly cost is $57/month.
> 
> Now if ATT comes to their senses in the next 9 months I have left and either offers a much better price for that 2nd year or a nice discount I'll stick around.


For anyone contemplating AT&T TV, the first-year promo rates have gone up about $10/mo since the service first launched. The base Entertainment package is now $60/mo the first year, then increases to the regular $93/mo. But if you hesitate a bit on the checkout screen at sign-up, you'll get a pop-up offering you an additional $50 Visa gift card, so you get $150 total. And the early termination fee is still $15 per month left on the contract.

So if you signed up now, kept it a year and then cancelled, your average monthly price would be $62.50 (plus tax), which is pretty good for what you're getting. If you can combine it with AT&T home broadband service, it's an even better deal because you get a bundle discount ($10/mo, I think). And if you sign up for both at the same time, you get additional gift card money plus the $100 broadband installation fee is waived, I think.


----------



## NashGuy

moyekj said:


> A lot of these discussions don't factor in convenience factor which is a huge thing. Having all these different applications means you are jumping all over the place to play content even if you have a decent aggregator of some sort to keep track and find things in the first place. I miss the days where you could get everything decent you wanted via linear channels without having to subscribe to all this extra crap to get the odd good show here and there.
> 
> At least Amazon through Amazon channels was going in the direction of providing one place where you can stream most everything you want, but now that's fallen apart.


Well, Amazon Channels was never going to be able to incorporate Netflix, Hulu or Disney+. And if Amazon doesn't relent on distributing HBO Max, I guess they'll lose HBO too. The nearly 5 million folks who subscribe to HBO via Amazon Channels will have to find a different way to subscribe. (It won't be hard.)

The way forward is for devices to offer a content-centric UI that spans all the various apps/services that are willing to opt in, like the TV app on Apple TV. Looks like Google will have something similar in the redesigned Android TV homescreen that will debut with Google's forthcoming device.

The "channels" model, where a company like Amazon insists on hosting the content on their own servers and offering it all inside their own app/UI, was never going to expand beyond smaller services that needed the help of a turnkey distribution partner. Once HBO is out, Showtime, Starz, Epix and CBS All Access will be the biggest services still available in the channels model. (Those are the main 4 now touted by Apple TV Channels.) And I'm not even sure that CBS AA and Showtime will stay there after CBS AA expands and rebrands with a new redesigned app next year. We'll see...


----------



## lparsons21

NashGuy said:


> For anyone contemplating AT&T TV, the first-year promo rates have gone up about $10/mo since the service first launched. The base Entertainment package is now $60/mo the first year, then increases to the regular $93/mo. But if you hesitate a bit on the checkout screen at sign-up, you'll get a pop-up offering you an additional $50 Visa gift card, so you get $150 total. And you still get HBO Max free the first year. And the early termination fee is still $15 per month left on the contract.
> 
> So if you signed up now, kept it a year and then cancelled, your average monthly price would be $62.50 (plus tax), which is pretty good for what you're getting. If you can combine it with AT&T home broadband service, it's an even better deal because you get a bundle discount ($10/mo, I think). And if you sign up for both at the same time, you get additional gift card money plus the $100 broadband installation fee is waived, I think.


So it is still a good deal if you sign and cancel at the end of a year.
BTW they took HBO Max away from Entertainment level so the price increase is much worse than just the $10/month, more like $25 if you want HBO Max. Of course unless you are a complete idiot just taking Choice instead of Entertainment turns out to be cheaper even with the RSN fee.


----------



## NashGuy

lparsons21 said:


> So it is still a good deal if you sign and cancel at the end of a year.
> BTW they took HBO Max away from Entertainment level so the price increase is much worse than just the $10/month, more like $25 if you want HBO Max. Of course unless you are a complete idiot just taking Choice instead of Entertainment turns out to be cheaper even with the RSN fee.


Oops, thanks, I edited my post above to delete the bit about betting HBO Max for free. Yeah, if HBO Max is something you would normally pay $15/mo for every month anyhow, then it makes more sense to go with the next tier up, Choice, for that first year. Costs $65/mo + the RSN fee (up to $8.50/mo) the first year, so still a bit less additional cost than the $15 that HBO Max costs on its own.

Anyone signing up for AT&T Fiber these days just gets HBO Max for free indefinitely as a part of gigabit service, which is now the only speed tier available...


----------



## Dan203

moyekj said:


> A lot of these discussions don't factor in convenience factor which is a huge thing. Having all these different applications means you are jumping all over the place to play content even if you have a decent aggregator of some sort to keep track and find things in the first place. I miss the days where you could get everything decent you wanted via linear channels without having to subscribe to all this extra crap to get the odd good show here and there.
> 
> At least Amazon through Amazon channels was going in the direction of providing one place where you can stream most everything you want, but now that's fallen apart.


I agree. Just remembering to finish something I started watching is hard with a dozen apps. It was much easier at the height of the TiVo era when everything I watched was recorded in a single list.

But the variety and quality is better now.


----------



## Dan203

lparsons21 said:


> Right now it is hard to justify any live streaming/cable/sat as there is so little new and interesting on them.
> 
> I've got AT&T TV Entertainment level @$50
> Netflix - $16
> Hulu basic - $6
> Prime - 0 since I'd have it without video anyway
> Disney - about $4
> HBO Max - $0
> SHO - $11
> CBS All Access - $8.34 (paid annually)
> Peacock - $5 Watch on AppleTV very low ad load
> Internet increase because of caps - $20
> 
> Total for TV - $121
> 
> If I had cable = $179 (no premiums)
> HBO max = $15
> Netflix = $16
> Disney = $4
> SHO = $11
> Peacock = $5
> 
> Total = $230


Yeah, cable + streaming is really expensive. I know first hand. In addition to my $178 cable bill I also subscribe to most of those services I listed above.


----------



## lparsons21

Dan203 said:


> Yeah, cable + streaming is really expensive. I know first hand. In addition to my $178 cable bill I also subscribe to most of those services I listed above.


That's what I was noting too, especially when my cable 'deal' was expiring. And since I subscribed to most of those I listed already it was an easy jump to all streaming with a live streaming service. Saved a fair bit of money at the expense of the real convenience of Tivo with cable.

But these days it is harder to even want a live streamer, especially for people like me that aren't into sports all that much. I can get all the sports I want with ESPN, FS1 and locals. And there isn't much in the way of the kind of shows I do like that is new and/or interesting. Right now I only have 5 shows set to record and that's an all time low for me!


----------



## ncbill

rczrider said:


> By that argument, they're still a whole lot more expensive than nothing.
> 
> Also, how do y'all have so much free time on your hands that you're just looking to get all of the streaming services available? I feel like folks should, I don't know, go outside once in a while.


My point is streaming services do not "cost more than cable"...there's no need to subscribe every month to every one...unlike cable they can easily be added/dropped as one wishes & they often offer deep discounts (50% off) or free month promos.


----------



## Dan203

lparsons21 said:


> That's what I was noting too, especially when my cable 'deal' was expiring. And since I subscribed to most of those I listed already it was an easy jump to all streaming with a live streaming service. Saved a fair bit of money at the expense of the real convenience of Tivo with cable.
> 
> But these days it is harder to even want a live streamer, especially for people like me that aren't into sports all that much. I can get all the sports I want with ESPN, FS1 and locals. And there isn't much in the way of the kind of shows I do like that is new and/or interesting. Right now I only have 5 shows set to record and that's an all time low for me!


If it weren't for my wife I would have dumped cable long ago. I hardly ever watch TiVo any more. But she still records and watches a bunch of stuff so she wont let me get rid of cable. I looked at Fubo, which has all the channels she watches, but it's essentially the same price as cable and the DVR isn't as hood as TiVo so we passed.


----------



## convergent

NashGuy said:


> For anyone contemplating AT&T TV, the first-year promo rates have gone up about $10/mo since the service first launched. The base Entertainment package is now $60/mo the first year, then increases to the regular $93/mo. But if you hesitate a bit on the checkout screen at sign-up, you'll get a pop-up offering you an additional $50 Visa gift card, so you get $150 total. And the early termination fee is still $15 per month left on the contract.
> 
> So if you signed up now, kept it a year and then cancelled, your average monthly price would be $62.50 (plus tax), which is pretty good for what you're getting. If you can combine it with AT&T home broadband service, it's an even better deal because you get a bundle discount ($10/mo, I think). And if you sign up for both at the same time, you get additional gift card money plus the $100 broadband installation fee is waived, I think.


Don't put much stick in the AT&T gift cards. We got $250 worth of them promised when we switched to U-verse and only ever saw $100, even with screen prints and a dozen frustrating phone calls.

We have OTA + Philo for live TV w/Channels DVR, and Netflix, Hulu, and Disney+ for streaming. That is about $64/month including taxes (my daughter pays for Disney). We also have HBOMax free with mobile and Prime that I subscribed to prior to video. Add gigabit AT&T fiber at $59 and I'm about $125/month.


----------



## tenthplanet

Dan203 said:


> I don't think it's the prices of the individual services that's the issue, I think it's the combined total of subscribing to all of them that's the problem. At this point there are a dozen or more individual services that want $7-$15/mo from you, all with original content. If you subscribe to them all you can easily spend more than the cost of cable. Add to that the fact the cable companies have a monopoly on broadband internet in most markets and are also raising prices to offset their declining video subscriptions, and you've got a situation where "cutting the cord" actually costs more.
> 
> People use to complain about bundling and having hundreds of channels they didn't watch, but it turns out a-la-carte is worse. Turns out that having millions of people share the burden of paying for content that they may not watch, but you did, actually made things cheaper. Same applies to advertising revenue. As less people watch ads, more of the cost of producing content is passed on to the viewers.


True. Scale is everything, just ask anyone who's ever run a large restaurant.


----------



## NashGuy

convergent said:


> Don't put much stick in the AT&T gift cards. We got $250 worth of them promised when we switched to U-verse and only ever saw $100, even with screen prints and a dozen frustrating phone calls.
> 
> We have OTA + Philo for live TV w/Channels DVR, and Netflix, Hulu, and Disney+ for streaming. That is about $64/month including taxes (my daughter pays for Disney). We also have HBOMax free with mobile and Prime that I subscribed to prior to video. Add gigabit AT&T fiber at $59 and I'm about $125/month.


<shrug> I've signed up for AT&T services a few times through the years and always got the full amount of gift cards I was promised with no problem.


----------



## compnurd

NashGuy said:


> <shrug> I've signed up for AT&T services a few times through the years and always got the full amount of gift cards I was promised with no problem.


Ditto. I signed up for ATT TV about 3 days before the price increase and got 200 dollars in giftcards and 30 bucks in ebates. One GC was virtual which i got in 2 weeks from sign up and the other was physical which i received about 3 weeks after sign up. zero issues at all


----------



## convergent

NashGuy said:


> <shrug> I've signed up for AT&T services a few times through the years and always got the full amount of gift cards I was promised with no problem.





compnurd said:


> Ditto. I signed up for ATT TV about 3 days before the price increase and got 200 dollars in giftcards and 30 bucks in ebates. One GC was virtual which i got in 2 weeks from sign up and the other was physical which i received about 3 weeks after sign up. zero issues at all


Good you didn't have problems, because when you do its a nightmare. They are handled through some other group and their customer service people just keep shuffling you off to dead ends. I eventually gave up, which I assumed was their goal. I really hate that kind of stuff and wish they would just give you discounts or credits on your account rather than the gift card crap. They are just putting a potential in the pipeline to not make good on the offer... card doesn't get there, customer loses card, customer doesn't use all the value of the card, etc. Its part of the slimey crap that for now the streaming services get you away from.


----------

