dslreports logo
AT&T Survey Hints At Streaming TV Service
Either Run By AT&T or In Partnership With Someone Else
AT&T's video streaming services have been decidedly "me too" affairs, ranging from a video portal that was effectively a Hulu clone to the U-Verse Screen Pack, which was touted as a "Netflix killer" but suffers from a limited catalog and is only available to U-Verse users for an additional $5 a month. However, a new survey being sent to U-Verse customers indicates AT&T is pondering expanding these options. Variety notes that the survey hints that the service might not be directly run by AT&T:
quote:
A customer survey sent out March 14 to AT&T’s U-verse subscribers asked whether they would be interested in signing up for, or even inquiring about, a “new video and Internet service” that would: Stream to customers’ own devices without a receiver box; include local broadcast channels and “popular sports and entertainment” cable channels; the option to bundle one streaming service such as Netflix or Amazon Prime; and better picture quality and shorter wait times for streaming, All this would be offered “at a significantly lower price than traditional pay TV services” and without usage charges for streaming.
As we noted recently, U-Verse users currently aren't being charged for overages but AT&T DSL users are. AT&T's curiosity in such a project comes after Verizon recently launched a streaming video service in conjunction with RedBox.
view:
topics flat nest 

TechyDad
Premium Member
join:2001-07-13
USA

TechyDad

Premium Member

IP Cable Providers

AT&T is looking at streaming TV services. Time Warner Cable already released a Roku channel so you can stream TV if you are a TWC subscriber. How long until one of them decides to allow people to sign up for a "streaming cable only" and thus expand their subscriber base to the entire USA?

Boricua
Premium Member
join:2002-01-26
Sacramuerto

Boricua

Premium Member

Re: IP Cable Providers

Probably never. As long as there are caps and the infrastructure not updated/upgraded, if it happens it will be a long time.

TechyDad
Premium Member
join:2001-07-13
USA

TechyDad

Premium Member

Re: IP Cable Providers

I think the bigger issue will be that the coverage area gains cut both ways. While Time Warner Cable could launch an IP Cable product to expand into Comcast's neighborhood, they know that it wouldn't be long before Comcast did the same and got into previously "safe" Time Warner Cable areas. Any competitive advantage of being the first would be short lived and the "disadvantage" of suddenly having to compete for TV customers in areas where they previously held a virtual monopoly would be severe.
en103
join:2011-05-02

en103

Member

Caps anyone

Doesn't AT&T also have some relatively low caps on Uverse VDSL.
What would be the point of paying $5 for the service and $10 for overages.

mackey
Premium Member
join:2007-08-20

mackey

Premium Member

Re: Caps anyone

Only on paper. They're not (yet) enforcing the 250GB cap on Uverse.

/M
elray
join:2000-12-16
Santa Monica, CA

elray to en103

Member

to en103
said by en103:

Doesn't AT&T also have some relatively low caps on Uverse VDSL.
What would be the point of paying $5 for the service and $10 for overages.

One need not worry about caps - they don't apply to this offering.

AT&T needs to make sure they're offering a lot more content than Netflix, not launching another pathetic Redbox/Blockbuster/Amazon library.
Skippy25
join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO

Skippy25

Member

Without usage charges?

What do they mean by "without usage charges"?

Does that mean it doesnt go against the silly caps they have?
If so, I think we are venturing into the land of neutrality violations.

And before the silly arguments begin, dont even start with the stupid on network/off network angle as that does not make a bit of difference in last mile (their real concern) and whether or not they are picking winners and losers.
silbaco
Premium Member
join:2009-08-03
USA

silbaco

Premium Member

Re: Without usage charges?

With good lawyers, they could beat net neutrality rules by saying they have a cap on internet usage, but not on intranet usage. That is essentially what they will do with their existing video service assuming they start enforcing the caps.
Skippy25
join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO

Skippy25

Member

Re: Without usage charges?

The internet from the public's view and perceptions starts at the modem/router that sits at their home and I would agree with that 100%.

It is also marketed and sold as such by every single ISP out there which is the exact meaning of ISP (internet service provider).

If the traffic comes across that modem/router in an IP form, then it is internet traffic regardless of where it originated or where its destined.

They can try to use smoke and mirrors to create their dream of little intertubes and toll ways and a lot of less intelligent people will fall for it, I however will not.
FactChecker
Premium Member
join:2008-06-03

FactChecker

Premium Member

Re: Without usage charges?

said by Skippy25:

If the traffic comes across that modem/router in an IP form, then it is internet traffic regardless of where it originated or where its destined.

This makes no sense in networking. Just because traffic is IP does not mean it is the Internet. Look at AT&T Uverse, Verizon FiOS, Google Fiber, MSO moves to IP video, Verizon Fios phone, Comcast digital voice. Understand backbones and metros are converged IP infrastructures, commercial traffic and residential traffic over the same access infrastructure, etc

People should either become more educated in networking and the Internet or avoid making absolute statements which are highly inaccurate.

mjh2901
@fuhsd.org

mjh2901

Anon

No more boxes

They could be looking at something that would eliminate the non dvr STB's. You could have a choice bring your own, use a computer, ipad, android tablet or rent one from AT&T. This would be a price enhancement over cable where every TV has to have a rented box, remember Comcast just announced they are going to start charging everyone a fee for each box, including the ones they already installed that where no fee boxes. While ATT would be giving up profit from the box rental racket they also dont have to screw with setting up all those extra boxes.

Maybe there $14 a month wireless box is not doing as well as they had planned. That box is a screw job on their installers, when I originally was getting Uverse the installers talked about wireless boxes coming and they would not have to run cables a lot of the time. By charging a fee above and beyond the normal box fee for wireless no one probably wants it. We actually move one of the STB's between one of our bedrooms and the garage since the garage is used in the summer and the bedroom is used more in the winter, both have CatV.
tmc8080
join:2004-04-24
Brooklyn, NY

tmc8080

Member

pity the fool

I pity the fool that try streaming without REAL broadband speeds!

»www.youtube.com/watch?v= ··· Km6ftPu0