Same here. Been a DTVN person since it was available. Curious what the difference between the two are. Well, I pay $40 now because the free year of HBO ran out. Lol
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
AT&T Reveals $15/Month Streaming Service Without Sports, Launching 'in the Next Few Weeks'
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Same here. Been a DTVN person since it was available. Curious what the difference between the two are. Well, I pay $40 now because the free year of HBO ran out. Lol
Can't tell if this is a serious question. They picked the most easily identifiable garbage and removed it from the service. Even the weather channel and infomercials is more worth watching than sports.
This. Lots of us don't watch sports. Sounds like this is something that could be perfect.
Not really. I have the DTVN Beta with DVR and it's not bad; except it periodically decides I am not subscribed to a channel and won't display it until I exit the app and reopen it. It's not bad but not yet on par with cable; which is admittedly a low bar. You still need an internet connection so the cost savings isn't that dramatic.
If TM manages to come up with a package that can stream effectively from mobile device and a plan that is less costly internet plus streaming I an see where they'd be able to carve out a good niche.
[doublepost=1524257853][/doublepost]
It'd be nice if you could get a real cheap local TV plus CNN and not all the other junk that gets bundled with a subscription. I'd just as soon not pay for all the National Geographic, History, etc. channels I rarely watch. The problem is if tehy are offered a la carte many would fold due to insufficient revenue. Right now, the few pennies per subscriber tehy get is much more than their actual view base but since they get paid on total numbers they still can make a go of it.
This is just a way to get into a household and then hope people will upgrade to higher tiers because the one channel they want is not on the $15 package. By looking a streaming data yo can see what is popular and arrange packages so as they have some, but not all of the most watched non-sports channels. Sports fans are going to bu a sports package anyway so why not try to get consumers who won't pay $35 to pay $15 and then upset them?
I suspect it's also a way to show their proposed merger with Time Warner won't cause prices to rise by saying "See See? We have a skinny bundle available if consumers want it."
Last edited:
This is so true. I have been trying out the DirecTV Now service. I subscribed to the top package with all the premiums and really do like it for the most part but there are times when I want to watch something and can't find anything interesting. Besides the premium channels, there are probably a handful of channels that I do watch regularly.
For those complaining about no sports, let's not forget that ESPN already has a very low priced streaming service (ESPN+). You know that Fox Sports and NBC Sports will be soon to follow.
YouTube TV has an unlimited DVR that keeps content for 9 months. Hulu Live's DVR comes with 50 hours free. Direct TV Now DVR beta will give you 20 hours free.
Depending on individual circumstances & lifestyles, that may or may not for people, but most of the big streaming services have DVRs included with the minimum price.
[doublepost=1524260404][/doublepost]I'm curious if this will include locals or if it will be more like sling.
Curious to see the line up. I have the $35 (grandfathered) DTN tier, so I'm reluctant to leave that, but interested to see what this new skinny bundle includes.
Exactly, give me BBC America (better still BBC from the UK), Travel Channel, Disney Channel and affiliates (not ESPN), History Channel and maybe a handful of others and I am good.
Also make sure it has unlimited DVR capabilities, otherwise Philo will have the upper hand.
Exactly. ATT had no clue what it's doing in this space. Looks like they're regretting that DIRECTV merger. The CEO Randall Stephenson is also a straight up *******. He sends cease and desist to customers who try to contact him.
[doublepost=1524266722][/doublepost]I actually have DTN for now. Grandfathered into the $35 promo. Almost never use it. The interface sucks. Also too many restrictions on when and how you can watch. On Demand catalog is barely existent.
At this point it seems like Hulu is gonna be the way to go for on-demand cable tv. They're catalog has almost everything now since Netflix dropped Fox.
Do you have unlimited with AT&T? You get free HBO included with this.
I just realized you very well could be with Sprint, but I’ll still ask.
Then you have YouTube Tv best deal for sports and dvr right now. I switched to Direct because much better picture and I can sign into I think it’s up to 35 channel and network apps and watch on demand.
Yes, but your region isn't my region. DTV Now has some regionals but it's spotty, not a given like with the regular satellite service. I have Go Big too but no regionals.
FINALLY! PERFECTION. Some of us find sports absolutely boring and never watch ANY of those channels. I'd love a service that bypasses all that senseless crap.
What region are you in if you don't mind me asking? I'm in a small region to boot, which why I would find it weird it's fine here. I have ABC, CBS, NBC, and FOX for the locals as well. Seems odd little Oklahoma has these before most of the others. I even get the North Texas regional channels as well as the Oklahoma ones.
DirecTV Now is actually an incredible service. I love it. My only gripe is that I live on the West Coast and the channels stream in EST.
If they could cut out the stupid sports channels and make it even cheaper, that would be beautiful. I feel like I lose brain cells when sports are on TV.
If they could cut out the stupid sports channels and make it even cheaper, that would be beautiful. I feel like I lose brain cells when sports are on TV.
Last edited:
I wouldn’t touch this with a 10 foot poll.
To me, streaming services without live sports are pointless. But I know there is a market for those who simply aren’t interested in live sports.
For my wife and I, PS Vue, Netflix, Amazon Video and HBO Now work perfectly for our watching habits.
To me, streaming services without live sports are pointless. But I know there is a market for those who simply aren’t interested in live sports.
For my wife and I, PS Vue, Netflix, Amazon Video and HBO Now work perfectly for our watching habits.
For years people were complaining about not having an option to buy a streaming plan without sports channels. Then it happens and people complain about it not having sports. So you want every channel basically for free.
Yup. Some people if you gave them a $100 bill would complain you didn’t give them 5 20’s.
I want this except for January through April, when I want all of the ESPN access for NCAA women's gymnastics.
You may check out ESPN+ that just came out. I'm not sure of the details, but it will have more College Sports that are obscure when it comes to being on TV.
DC. I have all the locals. None of the region sports. It's not odd. It comes down to the carriage fees required and whether DTV Now can afford to pay them and come out ahead. In the DC area that seems to be a "no" at the moment.
I get the $35 DTN plan for $10 with the AT&T statement credit that comes with my unlimited plus plan. I’m curious what the implications are for that — seems like this new free streaming plan might canabalize?