Skip to main content
AT&T Community Forums
Announcements
lmolter54

Scholar

 • 

182 Messages

Thu, Sep 17, 2020 9:08 PM

Does ATT TV NOW stream all content at 1080p?

I've asked a multitude of question awhile ago because I had *claimed* that the video stream from ATT was clearer and sharper than the other streaming services. TV of choice was a 65" Samsung 4K UHD and the Roku was set to 1080p. New TV is an LG, 4K HDR, and the Roku is still set to 1080p for the best quality picture. Still crisp and clear. I am trying Fubo for a week and it is "soft" and mushy. Changing the Roku to 720p may have helped, but I don't remember. So I'm back to, "What the (edited as per community guidelines) makes the ATT TV Now (nee Direct TV Now) picture so much better that the other services (for me only, it seems)"? Most respondents claimed good picture on all services. It's disconcerting because I seem to be locked into keeping ATTTVN because the picture (Edited per community guidelines) for everyone else. Actually, keeping ATTTVN isn't so bad since everyone else is raising their prices. Just wish that those of us that have grandfathered plans could get more DVR space.

Responses

Accepted Solution

Official Solution

Jrandomuser

ACE - Expert

 • 

8.8K Messages

a month ago

I can't really see comparing services on a channel per dollar basis - channels aren't fungible.  If they have the specific channels I want, it is good - if they don't, then it doesn't matter if they have 20 extra channels I have no interest in.  (Mind you, I've managed to maintain enough discounts that while I'm paying more than the $35, I'm paying well under $80 and still have the full slate of Go Big - still no PBS, but I have hopes - in the meantime, Locast or OTA...)

 

As far as why the AT&T picture appears better - that may well be due to them using a better codec and/or a higher bit rate than some of the others (likely the latter).  That would mesh with complaints that people have made about their data usage with the AT&T being higher than for equivalent usage with some of the others.

Award for Community Excellence 2020 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.
lydian

Professor

 • 

2.9K Messages

a month ago

I've never tried Fubo, but Sling TV's picture is also inferior. Youtube TV's picture is very close to AT&T, if not equal to it. However, the sound is inferior, only stereo instead of DD5.1.

 

I love all the other aspects of Youtube TV - unlimited DVR, 6 profiles, PBS, NFL Network and Redzone, guide integrated with OTA, Android TV support, quick and precise playback controls with thumbnails.

chriggsiii

New Member

 • 

143 Messages

a month ago

YouTube TV is a very good service -- at $50 or even $55.  Unfortunately, at $65, it is frankly overpriced.  I switched to AT&T TV Now back in July when YTTV implemented it's exorbitant/extortionate 30% price gouge, er, hike, and find that I don't miss much from YouTube TV, although needing to take five minutes out every few days to do a little cleanout in the DVR is sometimes a little irksome.

lydian

Professor

 • 

2.9K Messages

a month ago

If you compare on a per channel basis, AT&T TV NOW's cheapest plan is $55 for 55-ish channels, or a buck per channel. YTTV is $65 for 85-ish channels, or about 75 cents per channel, or 25% less than AT&T.

 

You think 30% is exorbitant, how about the 150% price hike I saw on AT&T before you ever thought of signing up (mine went from $35 to $80 plus I lost a ton of channels). So YTTV is far less greedy than AT&T in my experience. Plus, I've got to have PBS.

 

To each his own.

chriggsiii

New Member

 • 

143 Messages

a month ago

The greater number of channels on YTTV over AT&T TV Now is irrelevant if one is not interested in watching any of those additional channels.

 

As for the huge AT&T price hikes, AT&T was way under-priced when they started out with DirecTV Now, and that service was always destined to eventually rise to the price level of the others, though obviously that was a disappointment to those who chose that service and chose to put up with the teeny tiny infinitesimal barely visible DVR storage (needless to say, I wasn't one of those!).  

 

The bottom line:  the question is not who's greedy.  The question is how that price compares to comparable products on the market.  At the moment, most of the standard channels are available on AT&T TV, Fubo TV, Hulu Live, Sling and Vidgo, all at a lower price than YouTube TV.  The question is whether the additional perks from YouTube TV, primarily the DVR, is worth an additional $180 a year.  I decided not.

 

One other point.  PBS is available for free either through antenna or, if reception is poor in one's area, either from Locast for $5.50 or, for free through PBS sub-channels in many areas, from Local BTV, which is the way I'm getting my PBS.

(edited)

lydian

Professor

 • 

2.9K Messages

a month ago

The underpriced argument goes for YTTV too. But they did not hike nearly as much as AT&T.

 

Your comparisons are still flawed. Fubo is the same price, not cheaper and has less features. Hulu Live, Sling and Vidgo are cheaper, but not per channel. Why not mention Philo? It's only $20. Doesn't that make it a better value than both YTTV and AT&T since we're only judging by price regardless of lineup and features?

 

Locast and Local BTV are in very few markets.

 

In any case, 5 of the 6 households that share my account can get PBS other ways. So it's not a huge deal, but it does add value. To be honest, if it weren't for one family member (not me), I wouldn't have any OTT service at all.

 

I totally get that you're mad about YTTV's price hike. I am too. But I'm far madder about AT&T's because is was not only massive but also a breach of contract. So mad in fact that I'm still on this board every day warning people about AT&T even though I cancelled a few years ago. I haven't made a peep on the YTTV forums (Reddit?) because their price hike was actually reasonable. AT&T's is not.

 

But I won't hold it against you when AT&T leapfrogs YTTV again on price a few months from now and you switch to something else.

(edited)

Jrandomuser

ACE - Expert

 • 

8.8K Messages

a month ago

(And I need to type faster...)

Award for Community Excellence 2020 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.
chriggsiii

New Member

 • 

143 Messages

a month ago

Lydian, the base lowest tier price for Fubo is NOT the same price as YouTube TV, it is $59.99, the Standard plan.

 

The per channel charge calculation is not really valid, as jrandomuser correctly pointed out.

 

As for not mentioning Philo, I divide live TV streaming services into categories, generalists and specialists.  The generalists are making a serious stab at replacing cable TV and therefore offer a general selection of channels from all genres.  In that category are the services I mentioned.

 

Then there are the specialists, who offer to a particular niche market.  In that category I would list Frndly, Locast and yes, Philo.

 

The spotty coverage of Locast and Local BTV is a problem for PBS, no question.  However if I didn't have fairly decent reception of my local PBS, plus both Locast and Local BTV in my area, there is yet another option.  PBS has added their live streams, free of charge, to their PBS app.  That PBS app is available nationwide for 92 of their stations.  The full list is here:  https://help.pbs.org/support/solutions/articles/12000069454-pbs-live-streaming-faq#Which-local-PBS-stations-offer-live-streaming-on%C2%A0PBS.org? . 

 

Whether I'm mad at YTTV or not, and yes, I'm mad at them about the hike, which was way more than anyone was expecting for eight measly Viacom stations without even adding an extra stream by way of compensation (they had circulated a survey to some of their subscribers suggesting that expanded stream possibility a few months previous), I'd have no hesitation going back to them if they did something to make it worth my while, like add an extra stream (I have five roomies so that would definitely cut my costs) or add a lower "skinny" tier.  So anger is not a controlling factor with me, although I'd love to see YTTV take a significant subscriber hit as a result of what they did, a hit which might even push them in the direction of one or two of those ideas I mentioned.

 

And if AT&T chooses to raise prices to parity with YTTV, I would have no hesitation in going back to YTTV, or in going to a third provider if a third one offered me my must-have channels along with a robust DVR.  So I'm very open to going any which way depending on circumstances.

 

However, regarding AT&T's "unreasonable" price hike, right now the AT&T TV Now Plus package, for $55, doesn't look so unreasonable at all.  In fact, it looks prophetic, and fits into a $50-60 niche which otherwise has rather slim coverage.  Sling is cheaper but with a teeny tiny infinitesimal barely visible DVR, Vidgo is cheaper but has no DVR at all and Frndly is cheaper but is way too skimpy in its channel list to replace TV Now.  Meanwhile Fubo and Hulu are TV Now's only competitors at that price and neither of them have AT&T TV's robust DVR, which is a must for me.  Whether by accident or design, TV Now Plus has landed in a place where it is unique, which may confer some added longevity to the service's current market space.

 

As for holding it against me if I switch, similarly I will not hold it against you if PBS ends up being even more available than is currently the case, and you change your mind and come back to AT&T TV Now!!

 

Seriously, had you heard about those 92 PBS stations that are now streaming for free on the PBS app?  Does that change your PBS equation?

(edited)

lydian

Professor

 • 

2.9K Messages

a month ago

Not sure where you're getting your prices, but Fubo says $64.99, same as YTTV:

https://www.fubo.tv/welcome/channels

 

That's not how the price hikes went at all. They didn't raise the price of Go Big from $35 to $55. The raised it from $35 to $80. The created a totally new $55 package with a fraction of the lineup of Go Big, which was totally unrelated to the increases I saw.

 

Not considering channel count makes no sense. Philo is no more niche than Sling TV. Yet they have more channels than AT&T and are less than half the price. If you can't accept Philo, then Sling TV wins. Heck OTA wins with 5 channels and a price tag of zero. I agree that 50 good channels trumps 100 bad channels. But in this case, we're talking about popular, valuable channels all of the above services. YTTV has far more quality channels in its entry level package than AT&T. If I bought a service based solely on price without regard to content, I'd stick with Pluto.

 

We've discussed PBS at length before. I'm aware of all the way to get PBS. YTTV is the most convenient. The PBS app only has the major programs, and you can only access most of them if you're a donor. As I said before, PBS is not a deal breaker for me, just another of the many advantages it has over AT&T.

 

While I'd also like to see YTTV lose lots of subscribers over the price hike, AT&T TV NOW certainly has over theirs. They went from a high of 1.5 million when I was a customer down to half that and losing more every quarter.

 

I did not truly hate AT&T until the 3rd price hike in a year. That was the last straw. YTTV was not previously even on my radar due to its high price and mediocre lineup. But AT&T far surpassed YTTV's price, leaving me no other choice. The buggy, unreliable software made the decision to leave even easier. The only silver lining was 2 free beta boxes I was able to sell for $200.

 

Even though I left AT&T over price, it sounds like you're more price conscious than me. The YTTV hike only cost you $2.50/month with a significant channel addition. The AT&T hike cost me $45/month with no additions whatsoever.

 

chriggsiii

New Member

 • 

143 Messages

a month ago

Lydian, Fubo hides it but the $59.99 Standard package is still there.  Go to https://www.fubo.tv/welcome/channels and click the Add-ons & More link.

 

Then scroll down to the very bottom of the page.  You will see a listing for the fubo Standard $59.99 plan.  The link is hidden on the words fubo Standard.  Put your cursor over those words and click the link and the sign-up for the Standard plan will load up at https://www.fubo.tv/signup?offer=standard-fubo-basic-v2 .

 

About each service's relative channel count, I stand corrected on Philo.  My understanding always was that it had a core group of entertainment channels and nothing else.  I had no idea they had as many as 61 channels.  By comparison, AT&T TV Now Plus has 53 channels and Sling Orange + Blue has 52 channels.  But it certainly is not a diverse complement, unlike the other two services.  The latter two services have a fuller menu, with all news channels CNN, Fox and MSNBC, entertainment channels like TNT and USA, sports channels like ESPN and NBCSN, etc. etc., none of which are available from Philo.  The number of channels may not be smaller, but the range is much narrower.

 

I flat out dissent on the matter of which service has more quality channels per dollar, TV Now or YTTV.  That is an entirely individual matter, based on which channels a subscriber needs and wants.  In my case, per dollar, TV Now costs less per each of my must-have channels than YTTV, simple.

 

You wrote "The PBS app only has the major programs, and you can only access most of them if you're a donor. "  

 

No longer correct.  92 PBS stations have now made their live streams available, for free, through the free PBS app.  No Passport needed, no cable TV subscription needed.  That is a game-changer, with more PBS stations almost certainly on the way.  To repeat myself, the full list is posted at https://help.pbs.org/support/solutions/articles/12000069454-pbs-live-streaming-faq#Which-local-PBS-stations-offer-live-streaming-on%C2%A0PBS.org? .

 

Now that AT&T TV Now has grabbed this price spot with its Plus option, at $55, will they start picking up subscribers from Fubo, Hulu and YTTV defectors, now that all three of those services have raised their prices?  It might send an interesting message to all of the live TV streaming services if that happens.

 

Regarding supposed "bugginess" of the software, I and my roomies have now used TV Now since mid-July, a total of about nine weeks.  We have not encountered any major bugs or glitches.  As AT&T has slowly added features to the service, such as the 500 hour DVR and the third stream, they may also have worked to improve the software.  Just over the past two months, they added visible thumbnail video to fast forward/rewind to their Roku app, something which I gather has never been available previously in any of the former cheaper versions of the service.

 

I confess I'm totally confused by that last statement that the YTTV hike only cost me $2.50 a month.  How do you figure?  They went from $50 to $65, a $15 per month/$180 per year increase.  Even if you only figure the difference from TV Now's $55 to YTTV's $65, that's still $10 a month/$120 a month.  So I'm missing your point and your math, I guess.

lmolter54

Scholar

 • 

182 Messages

a month ago

Ack! I've created a monster here. All I wanted was to ponder why ATTTVN looks better, not start a (Edited per community guidelines) contest (will this be blocked by the Censor?) about the merits of YTTV and Fubo and the others. Just kidding, of course. @Jrandomuser I think answered my question with bit rates. This leads me to believe that the other services will NOT look as good, but we don't want to go there. I'm perfectly happy with ATTTVN, even though I'm paying <gasp> $80+ a month for a grandfathered plan and an extra stream. 

 

 

(edited)

chriggsiii

New Member

 • 

143 Messages

a month ago

lmolter54, I presume you've checked out the AT&T TV Now Max plan, also for $80, and confirmed, in spite of its way-more-munificent 500 hr. DVR, that its channel complement is inadequate for you, yes?  If you weren't aware of that alternative, you might want to check it out.

lmolter54

Scholar

 • 

182 Messages

a month ago

@chriggsiii No. Haven't looked at it yet. Will do so now. Thanks.

chriggsiii

New Member

 • 

143 Messages

a month ago

Great!  Let me know what you think.  The details are posted at https://www.atttvnow.com/ .

Get started...

Ask a new question