Eyes-on with AT&T's Mobile TV service

Tue May 6, 2008 3:06PM EDT

See Comments (5)

Launched earlier this week in 58 markets (including Atlanta, Dallas, L.A., New York, Seattle, and Washington, D.C.), AT&T's new video service gives you about 10 channels of streaming TV—but is it worth an extra $15 a month? Also: AT&T's TV-ready phones, the Access and the Vu.

If AT&T's new Mobile TV service sounds familiar, you're probably thinking of Verizon Wireless' competing V Cast Mobile TV, which launched last spring. Both services are powered by Qualcomm's MediaFlo network, and each offers the same core of basic channels, including mobile versions of ESPN, MTV, Nickelodeon, CBS, NBC, Fox, and Comedy Central.

AT&T adds a couple of "exclusive" channels to the mix: CNN, which represents the only 24/7 streaming news channel on either AT&T or Verizon (not counting on-demand video clips), and Pix, a previously announced all-movie channel that carriers a few dozen movies from Sony Pictures (including "Memento," "In the Line of Fire," "Groundhog Day," and "Resident Evil"). AT&T initially said that Pix would be part of a pricier Mobile TV tier, but for now at least, it's included in the basic channel lineup.

What makes AT&T and Verizon's MediaFlo-powered TV channels different from the standard video clips you can stream on 3G phones is the video quality—much sharper and smoother, although still murkier than standard TV—and the fact that it only takes a second or two to change channels (as opposed to the 15-20 second wait for a typical video clip to buffer).

And indeed, AT&T Mobile TV looked pretty sharp on the Vu—the new touchscreen phone from LG—and the non-touch Samsung Access. Colors looked bright and vivid, and the video looked relatively smooth, with only occasional choppiness.

That said, "talking head"-type shows fare the best when it comes to mobile TV; when I tried watching "Flatliners" on the Pix channel or "Bones" on Fox—both of which had plenty of dark scenes with quick bursts of action—the images looked pretty murky, and the glare from the plastic screens made matters even worse. Good luck watching "Bones" outside, in broad daylight.

The touchscreen Vu benefits from its roomy, 3-inch display (although the 4:3 video image only takes advantage of about 2.6 inches worth), and you can also tap the screen to bring up the programming grid or change channels. The Vu also has a extendable antenna, but I got solid reception with the antenna retracted.

The Samsung Access's 2.4-inch screen looks considerably smaller than the Vu's—for example, CNN's news ticker is much tougher to read on the Access—while the phone itself is actually slightly bigger and heavier than the svelte Vu. That said, the Access doesn't need an external antenna at all for viewing TV, and at $199 with a two-year contract, the Samsung phone is $100 cheaper than the pricey Vu.

Then there's the fee for AT&T Mobile TV itself: $15 a month for all 10 channels (plus the bonus CNCRT music channel, which will only be around for the next 60 days), or $30 a month when bundled with AT&T's other data services (such as Web browsing, CV mobile video clips, and downloadable music).

The AT&T bundle is about $5 a month more than Verizon's comparable V Cast Mobile TV package—although the Verizon Wireless TV lineup lacks the CNN and the Pix movie channel.

So, are 10 channels of streaming TV worth the extra $15 (or $30) a month? Depends on what kind of viewer you are. Personally, I'd rather watch on-demand videos or shows/movies that I've sideloaded to my phone—but I'm also a bit of a news junkie, and the addition of CNN to the mobile TV lineup is pretty attractive.

And if you're someone who, say, finds yourself waiting in airports or commuting on the train for hours on end, the ability to snack on live TV might be worth the extra cash.

That said, 10 channels (or eight in the case of Verizon) is slim pickins—and in the case of Fox, CBS, and NBC, you might find yourself watching one too many reruns of "CSI," "30 Rock", and "Back to You."

So, what do you think—would you pay $15 a month extra for AT&T Mobile TV? What other channels or services (such as DVR-type abilities) would you like to see? Or would you be just as happy with sideloaded videos?

Comments on Eyes-on with AT&T's Mobile TV service

Post a Comment

Join in the discussion. Here you'll see the comments in the order they were posted.

  • 1 Posted by magpagbst on Thu Sep 3, 2009 7:03PM EDT Report Abuse

    . . . nope . . . not yet . . . let's see what at&t is going to do with the 3g iphone . . .

  • 2 Posted by sciencetroll@verizon.net on Thu Sep 3, 2009 9:08PM EDT Report Abuse

    I think that i would rather stick to regular side loaded videos for now. only having 10 channels isn't that much considering that sometimes theres nothing to watch on the 100+ i get now. it sounds like a good service for people that are always waiting for things.

  • 3 Posted by kenlc3 on Thu Sep 3, 2009 4:49PM EDT Report Abuse

    Ya! what ever happened to 3g being unveiled in Maine? It was supposed to happen last year. Now they are saying first quarter of this year... Oh, look at the date. I signed up for the internet service expecting it to come soon.

  • 4 Posted by ispeak3 on Thu Sep 3, 2009 4:25PM EDT Report Abuse

    not really dont want to pay that much for 10 channels

  • 5 Posted by kumaramitabh on Thu Sep 3, 2009 4:54PM EDT Report Abuse

    This is a broadcast TV service and the quality tells the difference. Hopefully the operators would be able to exercise some control on the content to make it more local and related to travel and weather. Having a common network, there is not much to differenciate between the two operators.

More Posts: 1

Post a Comment