dslreports logo
site
spacer

spacer
 
   
spc
story category
AT&T Aims 'U-Verse Screen Pack' At Netflix
$5 On Demand U-Verse Streaming Add On
by Karl Bode 03:30PM Monday Jan 07 2013
AT&T hopes to counter Netflix, Amazon and the upcoming Redbox and Verizon streaming joint venture with a new streaming video on demand service tied to its U-Verse Brand. According to AT&T, the company's new U-verse Screen Pack service will cost existing U-Verse users an additional $5 a month, and will deliver "an extensive library of movies" to your television or mobile devices.

Click for full size
The majority of AT&T streaming video efforts have been "me too" affairs thus far, including the company's Hulu clone video portal. Perusing the current Screen Pack catalog leaves one with the impression this is no exception.

While some outlets are painting this as a "Netflix killer," AT&T's limited catalog (and the availability only to U-Verse customers) is unlikely to keep RedBox, Verizon, Amazon or Netflix executives up at night anytime soon.

There's no word yet on whether this service will count against AT&T's bandwidth cap, which is 250 GB per month for U-Verse users (150 GB for DSL users) with $10 per each additional 50 GB overages.

view:
topics flat nest 
Beans5

join:2005-07-16
united state

iTunes

I would love to see Apple do a streaming service for a monthly fee. Maybe with AT@T.

skeechan
Ai Otsukaholic
Premium
join:2012-01-26
AA169|170
kudos:2
Reviews:
·Clear Wireless
·Cox HSI
·Verizon FiOS

1 recommendation

Now let's see how the hypocrites explain this...

They have low caps for "bandwidth management"...wonder if their streaming service will count against their cap or will they tacitly admit the only reason for the caps is to protect their video business from competitors like Netflix, Apple and Amazon.

CosmicDebri
Still looking for intelligent life

join:2001-09-01
Port Saint Lucie, FL

Re: Now let's see how the hypocrites explain this...

said by skeechan:

They have low caps for "bandwidth management"...wonder if their streaming service will count against their cap or will they tacitly admit the only reason for the caps is to protect their video business from competitors like Netflix, Apple and Amazon.

My thinking exactly. They keep shouting about how there is a bandwidth shortage, and the world is ready to collapse because we all use too much of it, yet they still introduce more and more ways to use more bandwidth at faster rates. Nothing oxymoronic or coincidental here, just business as usual for them.

They bank (literally) on the average consumer not noticing the layers of wool being pulled over their eyes, and they are very successful at it.

I used to be sure that people would eventually wake up and see all this for themselves, but It's just going further and further with no end in site. Seems people would rather get another job to pay for all this instead of realizing they shouldn't have to pay so much for so little.
--
Follow Your Bliss -- Joseph Cambell
I reject your Reality and substitute my own! -- Adam Savage, Mythbuster
en103

join:2011-05-02

Re: Now let's see how the hypocrites explain this...

just check what happened in Canada with Bell and their VDSL with 'fibe' and on demand + TV and bandwidth caps.
34764170

join:2007-09-06
Etobicoke, ON
Because those bits and bytes are in short supply and you know paying for them will allow them to generate more.

Rangersfan

@sbcglobal.net
There are no bandwidth caps being enforced for U-verse internet; therefore, there is nothing to explain.
elray

join:2000-12-16
Santa Monica, CA
Reviews:
·Time Warner Cable
·EarthLink
said by skeechan:

They have low caps for "bandwidth management"...wonder if their streaming service will count against their cap or will they tacitly admit the only reason for the caps is to protect their video business from competitors like Netflix, Apple and Amazon.

Dense much?

AT&T's service is not traversing the public internet.

When Netflix, et al, co-market their services with local caching at AT&T, Verizon, and the CableCos, they too, can enjoy cap-free assured delivery.

skeechan
Ai Otsukaholic
Premium
join:2012-01-26
AA169|170
kudos:2
Reviews:
·Clear Wireless
·Cox HSI
·Verizon FiOS

Re: Now let's see how the hypocrites explain this...

Dense much? BW from the CO or other AT&T infrastructure to the Publik Internetz is DIRT CHEAP, pennies per GB yet they charge $10 for 50GB, whether you actually use all 50GB or not. So whether it is locally cached or not makes no difference in the cost to deliver a streamed program. A 4GB HD program is pennies and subscribers already pay to deliver the content.

So obviously their overage fees have ZERO to do with managing network traffic and everything to do with protecting video revenues. Use our service, not theirs and we do that by pricing competitors out of the market through the use of caps and unjustifiable overage penalties.

Rangersfan

@sbcglobal.net

Re: Now let's see how the hypocrites explain this...

said by skeechan:

So obviously their overage fees have ZERO to do with managing network traffic and everything to do with protecting video revenues. Use our service, not theirs and we do that by pricing competitors out of the market through the use of caps and unjustifiable overage penalties.

Let's try this again. There are no bandwidth caps OR overage fees being applied to U-verse internet.

djrobx
Premium
join:2000-05-31
Valencia, CA
kudos:2
Reviews:
·Time Warner Cable
·VOIPO

Re: Now let's see how the hypocrites explain this...

said by Rangersfan :

Let's try this again. There are no bandwidth caps OR overage fees being applied to U-verse internet.

I suspect that's only because their friends at Time Warner threw them a curve ball, and are currently claiming that they will maintain the availability of an unlimited tier.

When TWC did trials of very low caps in Beaumont, TX, AT&T followed suit, lock-in-step, in the same area. AT&T had the marketing material for a 250GB U-verse cap ready to go.
--
AT&T U-Hearse - RIP Unlimited Internet 1995-2011
Rethink Billable.

skeechan
Ai Otsukaholic
Premium
join:2012-01-26
AA169|170
kudos:2
Reviews:
·Clear Wireless
·Cox HSI
·Verizon FiOS

1 edit

Re: Now let's see how the hypocrites explain this...

People should actually read their terms of service.

»www.att.com/esupport/article.jsp···ahUXQ-id

If they aren't being billed, it's just because AT&T hasn't figured out how to do it yet.

said by ATT :
If you exceed your data plan in any subsequent billing period, we'll provide you with an additional 50 GB of data for $10. You'll be charged $10 for every incremental 50 GB of usage beyond your plan.
Importantly, if you do not receive a notice from AT&T, it means that you have not exceeded your data plan. In some cases, it may mean that we cannot measure your usage yet. Either way, you should not be concerned about your usage patterns for billing purposes.
Meanwhile that 50GB costs them pennies and they charge $10 whether you use 100KB of it or all of it. And while AT&T claims this is for bandwidth management we all know it is utter bullshit. Don't worry about getting ripped off for overage penalties until we figure out how to rip you off. Nice.

Rangerfan

@sbcglobal.net

Re: Now let's see how the hypocrites explain this...

Baloney. There is no issue with not knowing how to bill. Several ISP's have overage clauses in their terms of service agreements, but those clauses are not enforced.

I see that you are not a U-verse customer, so it is understandable that you do not know the facts.
Skippy25

join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO
Really? So they are only trying to stop congestion between them and companies like level 3 that has much more bandwidth then they do? I assume they are doing this at Level 3's request right? So when I am using net traffic that never leaves AT&T's network, that doesnt count too?

said by elray:

When Netflix, et al, co-market their services with local caching at AT&T, Verizon, and the CableCos, they too, can enjoy cap-free assured delivery.

We are going with the traversing public internet argument again huh? I think really what you are saying by your very dense statement here is that it is OK to violate net neutrality and to only deliver traffic for "free" that you have extorted money from the company for.

How about we flip this and say when AT&T, Verizon and the CableCos decide to start paying Netflix to put caching services on their networks to assist them in reducing their transit cost (if they have any) and to provide a superior service to their ISP consumers?

What consumers of AT&T, Verizon and the CableCos want falls on them to provide as the ISP. It does not fall on the object of those consumers desire to make sure the ISP will provide them the intertube. That is not the internet, which those ISP's are a part of and are the service they are selling. If they want to break off and create their own portal with their own walled garden so be it. But be sure they speak with AOL before doing so to see how that will go.

skeechan
Ai Otsukaholic
Premium
join:2012-01-26
AA169|170
kudos:2
Reviews:
·Clear Wireless
·Cox HSI
·Verizon FiOS

Re: Now let's see how the hypocrites explain this...

What Netflix ought to do is drop AT&T ESPN3 style. Have AT&T, no Netflix for you and AT&T customer will cancel right and left. Google should do the same. Facebook should do the same. No content provider should tolerate AT&T extortion attempts when it is AT&T's customers who have already paid for and are requesting the content be delivered.

Without content, AT&T subscribers don't need AT&T's service.
elray

join:2000-12-16
Santa Monica, CA
Reviews:
·Time Warner Cable
·EarthLink
said by Skippy25:

Really? So they are only trying to stop congestion between them and companies like level 3 that has much more bandwidth then they do? I assume they are doing this at Level 3's request right? So when I am using net traffic that never leaves AT&T's network, that doesnt count too?

said by elray:

When Netflix, et al, co-market their services with local caching at AT&T, Verizon, and the CableCos, they too, can enjoy cap-free assured delivery.

We are going with the traversing public internet argument again huh? I think really what you are saying by your very dense statement here is that it is OK to violate net neutrality and to only deliver traffic for "free" that you have extorted money from the company for.

Network neutrality applies to public internet traffic only.
Period.
Skippy25

join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO

Re: Now let's see how the hypocrites explain this...

The entire internet is public, stop trying to make this more confusing to fit your desire to create pay tolls.

skeechan
Ai Otsukaholic
Premium
join:2012-01-26
AA169|170
kudos:2
Reviews:
·Clear Wireless
·Cox HSI
·Verizon FiOS

Re: Now let's see how the hypocrites explain this...

Meanwhile it is all completely irrelevant since AT&T's subscribers ALREADY PAY FOR DELIVERY OF THE CONTENT. The cost of delivery of an additional GB of content is virtually ZERO.

The ONLY reason they cap and charge overages is to defend their video revenues. It isn't a coincidence that AT&T wasn't interested in capping until they became a video services provider.

Rangersfan

@sbcglobal.net

1 edit

Re: Now let's see how the hypocrites explain this...

said by skeechan:

The ONLY reason they cap and charge overages is to defend their video revenues. It isn't a coincidence that AT&T wasn't interested in capping until they became a video services provider.

I will repeat, there are no bandwidth caps or overage fees being applied to U-verse internet.
Skippy25

join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO
Not sure why I cant respond to you directly Fan, but yes currently they do not meter because they can't get their crap straight to do it correctly and accurately.

However, once they figure that out they will enforce the caps that they have inserted into their TOS.

skeechan
Ai Otsukaholic
Premium
join:2012-01-26
AA169|170
kudos:2
Reviews:
·Clear Wireless
·Cox HSI
·Verizon FiOS

Re: Now let's see how the hypocrites explain this...

Click for full size
Clock is ticking fanboys
AT&T fanboys can deny it until they're blue in the face. If they aren't getting it now, it is only a matter of time. They are already hitting DSL users with the overages. AT&T states in their FAQ that the users not getting slammed now are only off the hook because they haven't figured out how to meter them yet....YET. They'll get the meter fixed and AT&T U-Verse subs will have their fat overage bills soon enough.

The fact is the caps and overage penalties are AT&T policy.
Skippy25

join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO

I will have to check it out...

Currently they want between $4 and $9 for onDemand movies, which is quite ridiculous and funny. They can't compete with Redbox with that rate in my opinion as there are so many of them around one surely is within a couple minutes making the $2+ dollar savings worth the trip.

Bill Neilson
Premium
join:2009-07-08
Arlington, VA

Awesome, so another average-at-best try

at something that is destined to fail...all the while allowing AT&T to bring up my rates in the near future?

NotTheMama
What Would Earl Do?

join:2012-12-06

Welcome to the neighborhood...

Can you spell "me too" boys and girls? ...I knew you could.
--
"...but ya doesn't hasta call me Johnson!"
BiggA

join:2005-11-23
EARTH

Not going to catch on

It's not going to catch on with much more limited device support than Netflix.
BiggA

join:2005-11-23
EARTH

1 recommendation

Re: Not going to catch on

That, and U-Verse sucks in the first place.
etaadmin

join:2002-01-17
Dallas, TX
kudos:1

Can't wait

to see how overly compressed the video streams will be.
chgo_man99

join:2010-01-01
San Jose, CA

out of limits for u-verse internet only subscribers

u-basic or higher required. meh.

r81984
Fair and Balanced
Premium
join:2001-11-14
Katy, TX

Re: out of limits for u-verse internet only subscribers

Which makes no sense.
If you cant get Uverse TV but have UVerse internet then why would they not offer this to you??
--
...brought to you by Carl's Jr.
chgo_man99

join:2010-01-01
San Jose, CA

Re: out of limits for u-verse internet only subscribers

I can get TV, but Im saving money for vacations instead. I don't watch a lot of tv or even rental movies so for me paying >$50 for something I dont use a lot doesn't make sense. While they offer a local package for $20 a month, you still have to pay for installation if you go for lowest package, extra $10/m for HD and this basic package is a lot slimmer than Comcast's, it even won't include Comedy Central.

r81984
Fair and Balanced
Premium
join:2001-11-14
Katy, TX
Reviews:
·row44

Pointless

I cant get Uverse TV.
I have Uverse DSL, so why wont they let me get the streaming service??
No one is going to buy this as the people that would cannot.
I thought ondemand is already included with Uverse TV.
--
...brought to you by Carl's Jr.
chgo_man99

join:2010-01-01
San Jose, CA

Re: Pointless

u-verse tv is att's big cash cow. They only did that so you would order their movies not just when you at home, and in addition for that they ask extra $5 a month. Isn't comcast or fios ondemand online free? They like to charge absurd fees.

Sr Tech
Premium
join:2003-01-19
New Britain, CT
kudos:1

No Thank you

With netflix I can stream from anywhere (Wii, Android, PC, Xbox and so on). Att should rethink what Netflix can actually do that they do not provide in other areas, again maybe that's why they chose to charge $5 not $8.

dcaldwell04

@embarqhsd.net

u-verse screen pack

free trial started yesterday...the movies are beyond old. straight to dvd b movies.... THIS IS NOT A NETFLIX SUBSTITUTE by any MEANS... only some of the movies are in HD, anything that is currently on television is not available. they do have different catagories etc.. you can watch them on your android, tablet etcs... but to be honest...they took the oldest movies they could find. my daughter and i were reduced to watching ,,"THE GIRL WITH BRAINS IN HER FEET"....... YOU KNOW ITS BAD WHEN THEY HAVE NOT ONE DISNEY MOVIE ON THE LIST. IM DISCONNECTING BY THE 13TH AND MAYBE COME BACK IN A FEW YEARS~!!!!