Skip to main content
AT&T Community Forums
P

New Member

 • 

3 Messages

Mon, Aug 3, 2020 2:19 PM

ATT TV works with Roku?

I've been thinking of "cutting the cord".

I have two TVs with ATT Uverse. One TV has a Roku device. If I switched over to ATT TV could I simply buy/get an ATT TV device for my second TV and leave the Roku on the other one? 

Looking for the lowest cost. 

Responses

lydian

Professor

 • 

2.9K Messages

2 months ago

The lowest cost would be AT&T TV NOW and two Roku's. AT&T TV is very expensive, with or without AT&T boxes. Both AT&T TV and AT&T TV NOW can run entirely on Roku (or other streaming device). An AT&T TV device is not required.

 

Realize that if you switch from Uverse you lose PBS, your recordings expire in 90 days, and you can only ever have a max of 3 TVs.

 

Have you considered Youtube TV? It has PBS and recordings can be kept 9 months.

 

Here's a good way to find the best streaming service:

Suppose Compare TV Services

chriggsiii

New Member

 • 

143 Messages

2 months ago

Well, with AT&T TV Now, you don't have to get an ATT TV device at all.  It will work on a Roku, on a Fire, etc. etc.  Their best app is on the Roku, however.

New Member

 • 

3 Messages

2 months ago

I have to find out the difference between "ATT TV" and "ATT TV Now". I didn't know they were two distinct services. 

ACE - Expert

 • 

15.5K Messages

2 months ago

Bear in mind that if you cancel Uverse, you won't be able to get it back since they are not selling it anymore.

I've reached that age where my brain went from "You probably shouldn't say that"

...to...

"What the heck, let's see what happens."

Award for Community Excellence 2019 Achiever*
*I am not an AT&T employee, and the views and opinions expressed on this forum are purely my own. Any product claim, statistic, quote, or other representation about a product or service should be verified with the manufacturer, provider, or party.

New Member

 • 

3 Messages

2 months ago

I saw that but I'm paying almost $350 a month to Uverse; I think I can do better. 

chriggsiii

New Member

 • 

143 Messages

2 months ago

PasadenaVictor, first, I note that this message was posted under the Using ATT TV Now topic.  Was that your choice, or was your message put there by the moderators?

 

I ask because your OP referred to ATT TV, not ATT TV Now, and those are two separate services, of course.  I guess I just assumed you were talking about ATT TV Now because you posted this message in the Using ATT TV Now topic.  On the other hand, if you DIDN'T deliberately post this message in the Using ATT TV Now topic, if that placement was done by the moderators, then perhaps you were talking about AT&T TV all along, and never intended to refer to AT&T TV Now.  I don't know.  (Which would mean the moderators made a mistake in putting your message in this topic.)

 

Which means that you may have no interest in AT&T TV Now at all.

 

On the other hand, if you intended all along that your message be in the Using ATT TV Now topic, and if you always meant to refer to AT&T TV Now and not to AT&T TV, you may very well find the difference between AT&T TV and AT&T TV Now very relevant and useful, and here are those differences.

 

AT&T TV Now is a month-to-month no-contract no-ETF live TV streaming service, exactly like YouTube TV, Sling, Hulu Live and Fubo.  And, just like those other services, it will run fine on any of the standard boxes, like Roku, Fire TV, Apple TV, etc. etc.  All seven packages available with this option are listed on the Now web site at https://www.atttvnow.com/ , and they range in price from $55 a month to $135 a month.

 

AT&T TV, on the other hand, is a more traditional legacy/contract/ETF service, which requires proprietary equipment and which involves a price increase in the second year to an amount that is not told you in advance and is not known.  The seven packages available from this brand are listed at https://www.att.com/buy/bundles/atttv/plans , and they only post first-year prices, ranging from $59.99 to $130.

 

Of the two, the Now service is infinitely the better deal, obviously.

 

Unfortunately rumors are flying that precisely because it is a better deal for the consumer, AT&T plans to get rid of it.  Bluntly put, it gives their customers a stronger hand than they want them to have, and takes too much control away from AT&T.  AT&T has been around for a long time, and they're used to having the upper hand over their customers, and used to treating them as subordinates and as subservient to the company.  This new trend of live TV streaming service, with no-contract month-to-month relationship, is something that's fundamentally at odds with AT&T's traditionally more autocratic way of dealing with customers.

 

Nevertheless, the Now service itself is now quite good.  If you look at reviews, both from professional critics and customers, you will see that Now's predecessor, DirecTV Now, came in for some heavy criticism early in its life.  It was buggy, it was unreliable, their DVR was a pathetic joke, their "beta" rollouts lasted for years instead of months, and, in general, they got very bad press and very bad word of mouth during those early years.  And I completely ignored them for those reasons when I first cut the cord some years ago and switched to Sony's late lamented PlayStation Vue.

 

Lots of things have changed since then, to the point where I am now a happy subscriber to AT&T TV Now's Plus service, for $55 a month.  The service is now very mature, has almost no bugs, I've had smooth sailing, and I'm quite happy with it.  While the service may not be around for much longer, I am looking forward to using it for the brief time it will continue to be available.

 

And all may not be lost.  After YouTube TV implemented an outrageously exorbitant price hike way beyond what was justified for their acquisition of some Viacom channels, there were many people besides myself who probably switched to the TV Now Plus service.  If enough people switch from YTTV to Plus, that may have the effect of prolonging Now's life.  One can hope for that anyway.

 

However, insofar as the existence of these two brands, TV and TV Now, fosters confusion, some analysts have speculated that that may be quite deliberate, as AT&T may actually want people to be confused, as a way of getting them to go with AT&T TV rather than AT&T TV Now, another indication, if you will, of the company's desire to eventually kill Now.  If that is indeed the case, then I'd say the answer to that is for more and more people to subscribe to Now.  If nothing else, that could strengthen word-of-mouth for the service and make it harder for AT&T to kill it off.  At any rate, again that is my hope.

 

Anyway, I hope that helps you understand the difference between the two services.

lydian

Professor

 • 

2.9K Messages

2 months ago

Switching to AT&T TV isn't really cutting the cord. It's functionally identical to cable TV - it has contracts, hidden fees, early termination fees, regional sports fees, promo price doubles in the second year, etc.

 

For the lowest cost, you should take AT&T TV out of the running and consider other services like Philo ($20), Sling TV ($30 and up), Hulu Live TV and Youtube TV ($65). While AT&T TV NOW is cheaper than Youtube or Hulu Live, it only has half the channels those do. So you need to factor the channel lineups into your comparison.

 

To answer your original question, yes, if you got AT&T TV, your 2nd TV could be a Roku. In fact, your first TV could also be a Roku. There's no requirement that you have to use the AT&T box they give you, although it is quite convenient.

 

If you're paying $350 for U-verse, then you must have everything (equivalent to Premiere). In that case, AT&T TV plus internet is going to cost about the same in the second year and beyond. So you really haven't cut the cord or gained anything. If you're serious about cutting the cord, look at NOW and its competitors.

chriggsiii

New Member

 • 

143 Messages

2 months ago

Much of what Lydian says makes a lot of sense, Pasadena Victor.  However I would add the following.

 

Yes, Now has fewer channels than YouTube TV or Hulu Live, but it not only is cheaper but it also has a better DVR deal than Hulu Live, a guaranteed 500 hours versus Hulu Live's smaller 200 hour DVR for $10 more.  

 

This is why Lydian's suggestion about running your needs through the Suppose.TV web site makes so much sense.  While TV Now may have fewer channels than YTTV or Hulu, it may very well be that it has all the channels you need and want.  If that should turn out to be the case after you fill in the form at Suppose, then it is clearly a better deal for you than the more expensive YTTV or Hulu Live, given that it combines your must-have channels with a larger DVR.  So it is essential that you look and evaluate for yourself.  Every single one of these services is different, with different strengths/plusses and weaknesses/minuses.  Only you can know which of those are deal-killers or deal-makers for you.

Get started...

Ask a new question