Update on Cord Cutting (Cable TV) 2017 - 2020

[RonBoyd]

Where do you see the requirement for a set top box? They are going to have two services...the renamed DirecTVNow and a different (but similar service) AT&T TV that will require the box. Nonetheless, with the price increases, glitchy software and now channels being blacked out due to carrier disputes, I am done w/ AT&T "whatever they call their crappy service this week" and cancelled it today.

More in-depth coverage of this issue can be found here: https://www.avsforum.com/forum/showthread2.php?p=58358424#post58358424

For instance:

So the main AT&T TV service will offer 500 hours of cloud DVR storage with a 90-day auto-expiration time limit on recordings. And it comes with (it would appear) one custom 4K HDR streaming box (the Osprey C71 box that has been beta-tested by select DTVN subscribers). It also will allow for 3 concurrent streams while DTVN only allows 2 (and charges an extra $5/mo for a 3rd stream). But we know that both services, AT&T TV and AT&T TV Now, will use the exact same app and it appears to me that they're going to offer the same channel packages, although we don't now that for sure yet. Only other difference I can imagine between the two is that AT&T TV Now will remain contract-free (note their use of the word "freedom" in the email about the name change) while we don't know if AT&T TV will require some kind of up-front commitment.

It'll be interesting to see how the pricing differs between the two services. I'm guessing $10 more per month for AT&T TV. On DTV Now currently, Plus and Max are priced at $50 and $70 (although they've been giving out discounts regularly on them). $10 higher on AT&T TV would put Plus and Max at $60 and $80. Or, OTOH, perhaps the pricing gets adjusted down a bit for AT&T TV Now. Perhaps Plus drops to $45 and Max to $65, meaning that those package would cost $55 and $75 on AT&T TV. If AT&T TV requires a significant up-front commitment, e.g. 12 months, then that augurs in favor of an even better cost-to-value ratio for it vs. contract-free AT&T TV Now.

Other question is whether upgrades will be offered on AT&T TV Now. Could you pay extra per month in order to gain the better cloud DVR and/or additional streams? Or will AT&T simply say, "If you want those better features, we'll simply need to transfer your account over to AT&T TV and send you the streaming box"? ​

I always look at AT&T with caution. What I don't see is important- and that is that the AT&T TV press release says that it can be watched via apps on portable devices. Nowhere do they say we can use Roku/Apple TV/Fire TVs. If we can only use their Osprey device, and that device has a monthly rental fee, no way would I sign up for this upcoming "AT&T TV" service- no matter what the price difference is. That was a big reason I left cable TV. I used a Windows Media Center setup for the final ~7 years I was on cable TV.

I have 5 TVs in my house. I will never ever pay a per TV rental fee ever again in my life. ​

 

[ExFlyBoy5]

More in-depth coverage of this issue can be found here: https://www.avsforum.com/forum/showthread2.php?p=58358424#post58358424

For instance:

Thanks for the "clarification" (not directed to you...but to AT&T).

This seals the deal for me. The more confusing they make it, the more you are apt to get screwed over. See you later AT&T, I won't miss you.

 

[Midpack]

Where do you see the requirement for a set top box? They are going to have two services...the renamed DirecTVNow and a different (but similar service) AT&T TV that will require the box. Nonetheless, with the price increases, glitchy software and now channels being blacked out due to carrier disputes, I am done w/ AT&T "whatever they call their crappy service this week" and cancelled it today.

Prelim info so far, but FWIW.

I haven't figured out how AT&T thinks they can compete with a streaming package that still requires a set top box for each TV. Using a

• Roku, Apple TV, or Amazon Fire TV etc.
• with Sling, PS Vue, YouTube TV, or Hulu Live, etc. for live broadcast streaming
• plus hundreds of other free and paid on-demand apps like Netflix, Prime, HBO Now, etc. (new offerings come around daily)

seems way more attractive. And the consumer can switch pieces parts as needed.

The AT&T website mentions using a "next gen device" repeatedly, I imagine that's the set top box (C71 Osprey?). As described to me, you go buy (not rent) the box at your local AT&T store, take it home, plug it in and stream TV. Oh, and you'll need that device for each TV (unless you want to move it around?).

Yesterday we learned a lot about the new AT&T live TV streaming service AT&T TV. Part of the news that came out was that if you want to use AT&T TV on your home TV you will need an AT&T branded Android TV streaming player. This likely means you will need an AT&T TV streaming player for each TV in your house. Also during the AT&T earning call last week AT&T’s executives repeatedly talked about AT&T TV using a cheap set-top box.

https://www.cordcuttersnews.com/att-tv-will-require-an-att-branded-android-tv-streaming-player/

 

[ExFlyBoy5]

Prelim info so far, but FWIW.

I haven't figured out how AT&T thinks they can compete with a streaming package that still requires a set top box for each TV. Using a

• Roku, Apple TV, or Amazon Fire TV etc.
• with Sling, PS Vue, YouTube TV, or Hulu Live, etc. for live broadcast streaming
• plus hundreds of other free and paid on-demand apps like Netflix, Prime, HBO Now, etc. (new offerings come around daily)

seems way more attractive. And the consumer can switch pieces parts as needed.

The AT&T website mentions using a "next gen device" repeatedly, I imagine that's the set top box (C71 Osprey?). As described to me, you go buy (not rent) the box at your local AT&T store, take it home, plug it in and stream TV. Oh, and you'll need that device for each TV (unless you want to move it around?).

https://www.cordcuttersnews.com/att-tv-will-require-an-att-branded-android-tv-streaming-player/

Yep...and this "set top box" looks like it could just as easily have "Your Asshat Cable Company" logo on it instead of AT&T. No thanks.

 

[explanade]

The box is a way for them to lock you in.

If their streaming service is just an app. on your Apple TV or Roku, much easier for people to switch.

The only way a proprietary box is an advantage for consumers is if it has good DVR features instead of the crappy cloud DVRs they're trying to push.

But I have UVerse boxes right now and they're crappy compared to Tivos.

 

[bUU]

There is a far simpler explanation for proprietary boxes for multi-channel linear service: The people we elected to federal offices failed to put in place regulations for standardized protocols that would allow commercial boxes to serve all the same objectives that proprietary boxes serve (akin to AllVid).

Of course, there are loads of people who myopically think that cable companies should operate like charities giving their services away to consumers without any profit motive whatsoever, so it might be hard for such folks to understand how something like AllVid would have been the right solution in a world where providers and consumers both exist and both matter.

 

[RetiredAndLovingIt]

I checked out LOCAST yesterday and it is well worth $5 a month. I'm getting 48 channels, I'm normally blocked by the mountains from getting OTA from Los Angeles so this is amazing. I have not paid yet but will today and the FAQ says log off and back on if it still nags you for money. I dumped Netflix last month since I had not watched it in three months, they've become way to political and I refuse to donate to their masters through my subscription and let them know that is the reason for my leaving. I have Pluto TV, hopefully LOCAST for a long time, Prime TV and share Hulu with my daughter so I have more TV than I can possibly watch at a very low cost.

 

[MichaelB]

Troubling news for Locast users https://www.theverge.com/2019/7/31/20748677/locast-streaming-tv-lawsuit-abc-cbs-fox-nbc

Today, all four of the big broadcasters — ABC, CBS, Fox, and NBC — filed a lawsuit against Locast under the argument that the free service is violating copyright law by retransmitting their also-free over-the-air television signals to its customers. The Wall Street Journal first broke news of the complaint.

 

[Cobra9777]

...hopefully LOCAST for a long time...

I don't like your odds.

 

[statsman]

As soon as enough people cut the cord, Internet provider costs will skyrocket up. There will be no free lunch.

 

[samclem]

There is a far simpler explanation for proprietary boxes for multi-channel linear service: The people we elected to federal offices failed to put in place regulations for standardized protocols that would allow commercial boxes to serve all the same objectives that proprietary boxes serve (akin to AllVid).

Is there a reason the cable companies couldn't design and field their own standardized protocol as an industry without a government mandate? Or, does each company maybe still see an advantage in keeping things proprietary (and thereby making it more cumbersome for customers to change providers?)

USB cables/devices are ubiquitous and the government didn't force that standard on anyone.

 

[camfused]

Deal alert: If you get a Fire TV (maybe Roku too?) streaming stick from Best Buy this weekend, you can sign up for Sling and get free DVR from Sling for life.

I was thinking of going back to Sling anyway. I miss TCM on Philo.

 

[Midpack]

Of course, there are loads of people who myopically think that cable companies should operate like charities giving their services away to consumers without any profit motive whatsoever.

I don't remember reading any member posts that naive or vindictive. Cable/satellite had their many years to make hay, and they certainly did, but those days may be coming to a close - and IMO there will be a new equilibrium, somewhere between current cable/satellite and live broadcast streaming prices. Or cable/satellite will cater to the niche that still wants 1000 channels and service technicians to come to their house. Cable/satellite operators finally have competitors with a lower cost (hardware and service) platform, and they're having to react. As it should be.

 

[bUU]

As soon as enough people cut the cord, Internet provider costs will skyrocket up. There will be no free lunch.

I don't think we'll see prices "skyrocket". Rather, as any reasonable person would expect, providers will price their product based on how much value consumers derive from that product. If consumers start deriving $180 worth of video entertainment from Internet service that they used to derive from cable television service, then that increase the value of the Internet service by $180. Eventually, the underselling of Internet service will be resolved by way of price increases for that service. However, it will be gradual.

 

[bUU]

Is there a reason the cable companies couldn't design and field their own standardized protocol as an industry without a government mandate?

Yes. They are competitors. When you want a whole industry to do something in the public's best interest rather than the industry's best interest, government has to force them to do it.

 

[RetiredAndLovingIt]

Troubling news for Locast users https://www.theverge.com/2019/7/31/20748677/locast-streaming-tv-lawsuit-abc-cbs-fox-nbc

I agree but I think they have some really smart lawyers on their side and the non profit status might keep them alive for longer than you think. Having said that, I'm really surprised that they had not been challenged already in court, maybe they really do have a strong case. Do I think that Dish and AT & T are deeply involved, they probably are in an effort to reduce their costs to the networks. The bottom line for me is I'm happy to "DONATE" $5 a month for a well organized app with TV guide and for as long as it lasts. I'm just delighted to get these network channels again, that's always been the downside to cutting the cord for me, all I can pick up with my antenna is a couple of snowy analogue channels and 2 local digital TV stations and a PBS channel which has been down for a couple of months now while they move to another channel due to the digital repack.

 

[bUU]

<snip>

... or maybe after a while the industry will adjust to the consumer behaviors and it'll cost just about as much to be a cord-cutter as to enjoy the convenience of cable bundles.

 

[robnplunder]

This probably was covered before.

I recently switched from AT&T internet to Xfinity and found that Xfinity has free stream service where I can now watch past programs from HBO, etc..

For the record, I am now subscribed to Youtube Preimier, Netflix 4k, TVbayoplus (Korean program with two golf live channels which covers all of The Golf Channel live events). All of them combined are cheaper than my previous subscription to Dish.

 

[samclem]

Yes. They are competitors. When you want a whole industry to do something in the public's best interest rather than the industry's best interest, government has to force them to do it.

When smart competitors realize that they are being flanked by players using a very different approach/technology, they do what is necessary to remain competitive. That is in their interest singly and as a group.

 

[explanade]

MFL Thursday Night games will be streamed in 4K by fuboTV.

What's interesting is that Fox will be producing the 4K feeds but none of their stations are capable of broadcasting in 4K.

 

[Midpack]

... or maybe after a while the industry will adjust to the consumer behaviors and it'll cost just about as much to be a cord-cutter as to enjoy the convenience of cable bundles.

Which is what I’ve said repeatedly, a new price equilibrium somewhere in the middle. Awhile ago you were claiming cord cutting would (quickly) become just as expensive as cable/satellite as if the latter would be able to maintain their past pricing without any adjusting. I see you’re not saying that directly anymore...

 

[mpeirce]

Yes. They are competitors. When you want a whole industry to do something in the public's best interest rather than the industry's best interest, government has to force them to do it.

Why should the government be involved at all? Originally, the FCC regulated broadcast TV because TV followed the radio model and was using "the public airwaves" and those airwaves were viewed as a previous, limited resource. Internet video services have no such constraint.

And available bandwidth will continue to increase as we get better at squeezing bits over various delivery mechanisms.

 

[The Cosmic Avenger]

Why should the government be involved at all? Originally, the FCC regulated broadcast TV because TV followed the radio model and was using "the public airwaves" and those airwaves were viewed as a previous, limited resource. Internet video services have no such constraint.

And available bandwidth will continue to increase as we get better at squeezing bits over various delivery mechanisms.

Fine, if we're going to skirt Porky's territory, I'll answer your rhetorical question: we should want the government to be involved because most people don't have a choice of ISPs, and if those are a consumer's only access to the Internet, it harms consumers to allow the ISPs to throttle or prefer one source of data to another for their own profit: https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech...-if-your-isp-slowing-your-internet/898098001/

 

[bUU]

When smart competitors realize that they are being flanked by players using a very different approach/technology, they do what is necessary to remain competitive.

Stop making excuses for the governments failure to do what it was supposed to do and stop making excuses for the electorate failing to select legislators and leaders to make that happen.

As it is, the providers' efforts to kill net neutrality will pay off far better for them than your idea, and guess how that was allowed to happen.

Which is what I’ve said repeatedly, a new price equilibrium somewhere in the middle. Awhile ago you were claiming cord cutting would (quickly) become just as expensive as cable/satellite as if the latter would be able to maintain their past pricing without any adjusting. I see you’re not saying that directly anymore...

Because of the rude responses I get in response to saying so; I figure it is pointless to share a realistic view when the responses are so stubbornly resistant. Regardless, once we get there I predict as much belly-aching about how it "isn't the middle" and how "we're paying more today than we did for cable packages" as we see today about what some think competitors should have done.

Why should the government be involved at all?

Sure. Let all the companies leverage whatever advantage they can get over the marketplace. Let's see how that works out for consumers.

It is remarkable how much misplaced confidence some consumers have in laissez faire before-the-fact to moderate prices and how much anger there is after-the-fact when laissez faire allows net neutrality to be swept away and consumers start being adversely affected by the leverage providers have over them.

 

[bUU]

Fine, if we're going to skirt Porky's territory, I'll answer your rhetorical question: we should want the government to be involved because most people don't have a choice of ISPs, and if those are a consumer's only access to the Internet, it harms consumers to allow the ISPs to throttle or prefer one source of data to another for their own profit: https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech...-if-your-isp-slowing-your-internet/898098001/

Just this week I read about how a provider is now differentiating service on the basis of the type of content of the data stream (Xfinity Mobile surcharging the streaming of HD video). Get ready for more data caps and other tools that providers shall be using to ensure that all the money that used to go for cable packages ends up back in their wallets somehow or another.