Jump to content

TV Carriers


Recommended Posts

My question is does anyone have AT&T Now? Is the fine print $8.49 Regional Sports Fee I see added to your plan? I would need at least the Extra or higher plan. How is the picture, ease of use, etc? 

I don't see myself going back to Satellite/Cable. YTTV (and several others) dropped Sinclair owned FS Regionals, Tennis Channel, etc...There also appears to be at least a few other non sports channels that YTTV doesn't carry that AT&T Now does. YTTV customer service has declined quite a bit as well.

Sinclair is using on screen sports gambling as an additional revenue stream. I don't see any deals on the horizon for Sinclair and these carriers.

I know Sinclair is expected to come out with their own direct to consumer viewing later this year. But that isn't expected any time soon. Some of SLU's FS Midwest games have been carried on ESPN+, which has been a positive.

 NBA, NHL, MLB have more than two thirds of their home markets on FS Regionals.

What are other people doing? Thx.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, courtside said:

My question is does anyone have AT&T Now? Is the fine print $8.49 Regional Sports Fee I see added to your plan? I would need at least the Extra or higher plan. How is the picture, ease of use, etc? 

I don't see myself going back to Satellite/Cable. YTTV (and several others) dropped Sinclair owned FS Regionals, Tennis Channel, etc...There also appears to be at least a few other non sports channels that YTTV doesn't carry that AT&T Now does. YTTV customer service has declined quite a bit as well.

Sinclair is using on screen sports gambling as an additional revenue stream. I don't see any deals on the horizon for Sinclair and these carriers.

I know Sinclair is expected to come out with their own direct to consumer viewing later this year. But that isn't expected any time soon. Some of SLU's FS Midwest games have been carried on ESPN+, which has been a positive.

 NBA, NHL, MLB have more than two thirds of their home markets on FS Regionals.

What are other people doing? Thx.

ATT TV Now is the best. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, billikenfan05 said:

ATT TV Now is the best. 

Except that it's ATT. The amount of hours spent on the phone that I'll never get back again due to their ineptitude and lies... Never again. I'll go straight radio before they get another penny from me. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, crymdg2 said:

Except that it's ATT. The amount of hours spent on the phone that I'll never get back again due to their ineptitude and lies... Never again. I'll go straight radio before they get another penny from me. 

This is where I’m at.

It takes a lot for me to get angry but ATT turns me into a screaming and cursing psycho.

Every time I get off the phone with them I head straight for the whiskey cabinet.

My conversations with them have taken years off my life. 
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I appreciate the feedback.

I am doing a free trial with AT&T now. Overall I prefer the user experience with YTTV. (Better layout, unlimited storage, more channels, better price etc...) But AT&T Now is not bad, good picture, returns you to previous station. It has a few sports channels that others dropped. Perhaps even better streaming connection, at least for me. 

It seems to be the only streaming option for the Sinclair owned channels until Sinclair comes out with their direct to consumer option later this year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/5/2021 at 11:06 AM, courtside said:

Do you have $80 Max plan? That appears to be the only option. How does ease of use and picture compare to YTTV? Thx.

I switched from Hulu live to ATT TV and haven’t had any issues. 
 

Why is anyone calling customer service on the phone these days? I’ve been able to resolve my issues online. Perhaps I just haven’t had an issue that warranted a phone call yet.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, Slu let the dogs out? said:

I switched from Hulu live to ATT TV and haven’t had any issues. 
 

Why is anyone calling customer service on the phone these days? I’ve been able to resolve my issues online. Perhaps I just haven’t had an issue that warranted a phone call yet.  

Previously with YTTV, you could only send a message online. You could either solve your problem online or request a call. A call came within seconds from California. Very good service.

Perhaps there was a picture or connection issue, billing issue etc...or perhaps you want to negotiate a longer free trial to try a service, or to negotiate a better deal for premium services. Many things may require conversation and negotiation. A phone option was very helpful early with YTTV. It wasn't needed as much later on. 

But that all changed during the pandemic. No online and no phone for a while. Now if you request a call it routes to International Customer Service. International Customer Service there and often times other places do less negotiating back and forth. 

It's also much easier to negotiate with someone in person or at minimum a phone discussion as opposed to online. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, courtside said:

Previously with YTTV, you could only send a message online. You could either solve your problem online or request a call. A call came within seconds from California. Very good service.

Perhaps there was a picture or connection issue, billing issue etc...or perhaps you want to negotiate a longer free trial to try a service, or to negotiate a better deal for premium services. Many things may require conversation and negotiation. A phone option was very helpful early with YTTV. It wasn't needed as much later on. 

But that all changed during the pandemic. No online and no phone for a while. Now if you request a call it routes to International Customer Service. International Customer Service there and often times other places do less negotiating back and forth. 

It's also much easier to negotiate with someone in person or at minimum a phone discussion as opposed to online. 

Interesting, I guess I’ve just never had an issue that required a phone conversation. I used to “live chat” when I had Directv and that was really effective. Never had any issues with Hulu Live and none thus far with ATT TV Now. Another reason I prefer the streaming apps with monthly subscriptions: don’t have to go through the ole song and dance of threatening  to cancel every year just to get a better price on the contract (no contract - another plus). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, Slu let the dogs out? said:

Interesting, I guess I’ve just never had an issue that required a phone conversation. I used to “live chat” when I had Directv and that was really effective. Never had any issues with Hulu Live and none thus far with ATT TV Now. Another reason I prefer the streaming apps with monthly subscriptions: don’t have to go through the ole song and dance of threatening  to cancel every year just to get a better price on the contract (no contract - another plus). 

It works similar.

When I began YTTV, I negotiated a 30 day free trial on two accounts instead of a shorter 7 or 10 length. 

A live person waa helpful whenever there were any connectivity challenges early on etc...which lessened over time.

 

Whenever there is a price increase and/or whenever channels get dropped it's an opportunity to negotiate for something in return, price, added complimentary premium channels etc...it was helpful having a live person at YTTV to negotiate how they would keep my business. 

But now, things have changed a lot with YTTV customer service, and not for the better.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 5 months later...
15 hours ago, Compton said:

It's behind a pay wall, but I'm pretty sure the headline and blurb say it all: 

Media Views: Bally Sports Midwest expected to charge $20-$30 monthly for direct access

Channel that carries Cardinals, Blues and some SLU games is planning to be offered à la carte beginning next spring.

 

I saw that this morning. That's pretty expensive for a stand alone service. By the time you add any youtube or Hulu if you're just streaming, cable or an AT&T plan would probably be cheaper. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, slufanskip said:

I saw that this morning. That's pretty expensive for a stand alone service. By the time you add any youtube or Hulu if you're just streaming, cable or an AT&T plan would probably be cheaper. 

Agee.

It’s especially true considering their content is complete garbage besides live sports. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, slufanskip said:

I saw that this morning. That's pretty expensive for a stand alone service. By the time you add any youtube or Hulu if you're just streaming, cable or an AT&T plan would probably be cheaper. 

I don’t know what Bally Sports, or Fox Sports previously, gets per month from the cable/satellite bundle, but if it’s less than what they’re going to charge for the standalone subscription, my worry is that eventually they’ll expect to get that from the bundle, and when they don’t get it, they’ll pull Bally’s Midwest from that. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, DeSmetBilliken said:

I don’t know what Bally Sports, or Fox Sports previously, gets per month from the cable/satellite bundle, but if it’s less than what they’re going to charge for the standalone subscription, my worry is that eventually they’ll expect to get that from the bundle, and when they don’t get it, they’ll pull Bally’s Midwest from that. 

This is my worry. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This problem is not going away any time soon. The Cardinals’ brass were dumb enough to sign-on for 15 years, extending through the 2032 season. Oh, and to make matters worse, the Cardinals own a minority stake in the network.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, BilliesBy40 said:

This problem is not going away any time soon. The Cardinals’ brass were dumb enough to sign-on for 15 years, extending through the 2032 season. Oh, and to make matters worse, the Cardinals own a minority stake in the network.

What problem? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When a channel is tied to some cable package, everyone complains that they don't want to pay for all those channels that they don't want just to get the few that they do.  People say "why can't I just choose the channels I want?"

Now, folks are being given an option to just choose a channel they want, and those same people who complained before are saying "That's too expensive, why can't it just be part of that inexpensive package I chose when I Cut the Cord?"

You can't have it both ways.  It is a service.  It has a price.  You pay that price whether its part of a package of channels or standing alone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, cgeldmacher said:

When a channel is tied to some cable package, everyone complains that they don't want to pay for all those channels that they don't want just to get the few that they do.  People say "why can't I just choose the channels I want?"

Now, folks are being given an option to just choose a channel they want, and those same people who complained before are saying "That's too expensive, why can't it just be part of that inexpensive package I chose when I Cut the Cord?"

You can't have it both ways.  It is a service.  It has a price.  You pay that price whether its part of a package of channels or standing alone.

I don’t know. They are just figuring out what people are willing to pay. I just won’t pay it. That said, I look forward to the day that the sports teams cut out the middle man and start placing their content in an online platform themselves. It would be more money for them, and potentially expensive for us, but if I could just have Billiken Basketball, then I would pay $5-$10 per month without concern.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, cgeldmacher said:

When a channel is tied to some cable package, everyone complains that they don't want to pay for all those channels that they don't want just to get the few that they do.  People say "why can't I just choose the channels I want?"

Now, folks are being given an option to just choose a channel they want, and those same people who complained before are saying "That's too expensive, why can't it just be part of that inexpensive package I chose when I Cut the Cord?"

You can't have it both ways.  It is a service.  It has a price.  You pay that price whether its part of a package of channels or standing alone.

I agree with you if people are complaining about paying $5 for ESPN+ or some other service. The reason people wanted to cut the cord in the first place was to only pay for the content they want at a fair price. The proposed price for Ball Sports Midwest’s standalone streaming service will quickly drop because consumers won’t pay for it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, AnkielBreakers said:

I don’t know. They are just figuring out what people are willing to pay. I just won’t pay it. That said, I look forward to the day that the sports teams cut out the middle man and start placing their content in an online platform themselves. It would be more money for them, and potentially expensive for us, but if I could just have Billiken Basketball, then I would pay $5-$10 per month without concern.

UT @ Austin has started down that road with the Longhorn Network. Although it's not available (yet) as a standalone streaming service. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...