AT&T set to switch on MediaFlo TV in May
Fri Mar 28, 2008 9:20AM EDT
See Comments (5)
After a long delay, the live TV service—which has been available on Verizon Wireless for about a year—is finally on tap for AT&T. That said, excitement over MediaFlo TV has cooled considerably since last year's launch, and it's not hard to see why.
All well and good, but the buzz surrounding MediaFlo itself, which delivers about 9 channels of live TV on Verizon Wireless (check out my eyes-on impressions), has been pretty weak in the past several months.
Indeed, outside of the wireless industry, I've yet to bump into anyone who actually uses MediaFlo TV, and I live in a MediaFlo market.
Part of the problem is that you can’t access MediaFlo TV on any old handset; you'll need one that's specifically geared toward the service (such as the Moto RIZR Z6tv on Verizon, or the upcoming Access).
Another big problem: MediaFlo was only available in a handful of cities at launch, and by May, it'll still be restricted to just 55 markets, including Los Angeles, New York, Chicago, and Philly, according to Yahoo! News.
And while MediaFlo does an impressive job of serving up live TV channels, you're stuck watching whatever happens to be on at the moment—and while networks such as CBS, NBC, MTV, ESPN, and Comedy Central are signed on, the channels tend to broadcast the same shows over and over (and over). Although the on-demand video clips you can already get on most 3G phones tend to be murky and jittery, at least you can watch what you want, when you want.Oh, and don't forget price. Verizon Wireless' Mobile TV starts at about $13 a month on top of your regular bill—ouch. No word on AT&T's pricing plans yet.
What do you think about MediaFlo—any AT&T subscribers out there who've been waiting to get access? Or is it just too pricey for what you get?
Related:
AT&T plans MediaFlo mobile TV service for May [Yahoo! News]
Comments on AT&T set to switch on MediaFlo TV in May
Post a Comment
Join in the discussion. Here you'll see the comments in the order they were posted.
-
2 Posted by warussell50 on Thu Sep 3, 2009 10:40PM EDT Report Abuse
OH!! MY GOD!!! I WANT It now!!! Oh wait, I can see some application, if its free, it is free ,right? No? I think I will wait. Bill
-
3 Posted by polyester06 on Thu Sep 3, 2009 8:16PM EDT Report Abuse
I'd have to pay $13 a month for 9 channels? No thanks, AT&T, you're already screwing me out of money with all the unnecessary advertising (I think people realize that AT&T is a phone company by now, right?).
-
4 Posted by l.knotek@att.net on Thu Sep 3, 2009 4:55PM EDT Report Abuse
Why would I want it? I have no interest in looking at a tiny little screen to try to distinguish what is going on in a game (sports would be my only interest, period). I would rather watch on my notebook. It isn't worth the money for the limited quality and selection.
-
5 Posted by pittsman_2000 on Thu Sep 3, 2009 8:13PM EDT Report Abuse
Years to increase our TV's to Big ones with great reception and now ??
1 Posted by ryanbonick on Thu Sep 3, 2009 8:57PM EDT Report Abuse
I have tried the old video service for AT&T, and it wasn't very good. The clips, and it's just clips, are blurry and tend to stop completely, requiring reloading it. I don't know if this service is going to be any better, but at least it's live. I won't get it, my city not being included in the original 55 cities, but I hope it helps people in big-name cities. Have fun with the mess!