AT&T Drops ESPN 3D Complains About High Price, Low Demand While companies like Cablevision and DirecTV offer access to ESPN's 3D channel for free -- AT&T had been charging $10 a month extra for the channel -- and have now dumped the channel entirely. "The price tag for ESPN 3D was too high, especially considering the low demand we’ve seen from customers," AT&T said in a statement released to the press. "For our customers who subscribe to the U-verse 3D Technology Package, it will be automatically removed from their bills and any charges after the channel has been removed will be credited," says the company. On a broader note, despite best efforts from cable companies and hardware vendors, 3DTV remains a barely-interesting gimmick to most people, with consumers generally turned off by cumbersome glasses and high set prices







News Jump SpaceX Providing Internet To Towns Hit by Wildfires; Verizon Launches New 5G Home Hardware In Twin Cities; + more news Stark New Reality In The Telco Business: Dumb Pipes No Longer Cut It; AT&T Unveils Mix and Match Plans; + more news AT&T Extends Overage Charge Waiver; Verizon And T-Mobile Each Insist Their 5G Strategy Is The Right One; + more news War Of Words Heats Up: T-Mobile Fires Back At Verizon, AT&T; Amazon Intros Gaming Service To Take On Stadia; + more news Starlink's Network Faces Huge Limitations; AT&T Whines T-Mobile Merger Put Too Much Spectrum In One Place; + more news WISPs Get CBRS Range As Great As Six Miles At 100 Mbps Speeds; Windstream Officially Exits Bankruptcy; + more news Charter Relaunches Free 60-day Internet And Wi-Fi Offer; NCTA: FCC Should Stick With 25/3 Speed Threshold; + more news Comcast Shuts Off Internet for Subs Who Were Sold Service Illegally; AT&T, Verizon Team To Stop T-Mobile 5G; + more news California Defends Its Net Neutrality Law; AT&T's Traffic Up 20% Despite Data Traffic Actually Being Down; + more news Are The Comcast-Charter X1 Talks Dead In The Water?; AT&T May Offer Phone Plans With Ads For Discounts; + more news ---------------------- this week last week most discussed view:

topics flat nest

Transmaster

Don't Blame Me I Voted For Bill and Opus

join:2001-06-20

Cheyenne, WY Transmaster Member Jumping the Gun ESPN wasn't thinking on this one wait 2 years and maybe.

footballdude

Premium Member

join:2002-08-13

Imperial, MO footballdude Premium Member Blame Avatar For some reason, everyone assumed the success of Avatar was going to usher in a new era of 3D everything. It just isn't that interesting. 3D TVs aren't selling, Nintendo's 3DS isn't selling. On to the next gimmick to try and sell electronics.

celeritypc

For Lucky Best Wash, Use Mr. Sparkle

Premium Member

join:2004-05-15

Caldwell, NJ celeritypc Premium Member Re: Blame Avatar said by footballdude: For some reason, everyone assumed the success of Avatar was going to usher in a new era of 3D everything. It just isn't that interesting. 3D TVs aren't selling, Nintendo's 3DS isn't selling. On to the next gimmick to try and sell electronics.

I totally agree. After the initial "Wow" factor it becomes the "Eh" factor pretty quick. Also, there are no really good 3D glasses for those of us who wear glasses to begin with. I have stopped paying extra for the 3D experience in the theatre and now will only see the 2D version of a movie. As for the home experience, I have already rejected it when I bought my most recent tv in January.

aaronwt

Premium Member

join:2004-11-07

Woodbridge, VA 778.1 820.3

Asus RT-N56U

Asus RT-ACRH13

aaronwt Premium Member Re: Blame Avatar said by celeritypc: said by footballdude: For some reason, everyone assumed the success of Avatar was going to usher in a new era of 3D everything. It just isn't that interesting. 3D TVs aren't selling, Nintendo's 3DS isn't selling. On to the next gimmick to try and sell electronics.



I totally agree. After the initial "Wow" factor it becomes the "Eh" factor pretty quick. Also, there are no really good 3D glasses for those of us who wear glasses to begin with. I have stopped paying extra for the 3D experience in the theatre and now will only see the 2D version of a movie. As for the home experience, I have already rejected it when I bought my most recent tv in January. You need to get your own glasses. You can buy your own Real3D glasses that will fit comfortably over your existing glasses.

hhawkman

Premium Member

join:2001-02-08

Port Hueneme, CA hhawkman to footballdude

Premium Member to footballdude

The problem isn't the "gimmick" aspect of it, it's the way they priced the gimmick. Close to $300 additional (if not more) for the set, and over $100 for each pair of glasses, and they sit surprised that very few are buying the technology.



Most of the complaints about the technology come from people who can't afford the technology. When done right, it can be an awesome experience. Would I like it on everything?, No. Do I like to have a choice, Yes.



There was a mini story going around not long ago called "You Can't Kill Hitler". It was basically a simulation of a discussion board in the future where time travel becomes routine for a small group. The premise being that if you went back in time and Killed Hitler, there would be no war, no rockets, no space Program, no computers, and eventually up the time-line, No Time Travel.



Well the current state of 3D, is part of the curve. Without it, there won't be any future 3D without glasses, or holographic TV. Stop bitching about it. Stop over-hyping and overpricing it, and sooner than you think, we will laugh at the 2D systems of today like we do now of the old B&W systems.

dvd536

as Mr. Pink as they come

Premium Member

join:2001-04-27

Phoenix, AZ 1 recommendation dvd536 to footballdude

Premium Member to footballdude

said by footballdude: For some reason, everyone assumed the success of Avatar was going to usher in a new era of 3D everything. It just isn't that interesting. 3D TVs aren't selling, Nintendo's 3DS isn't selling. On to the next gimmick to try and sell electronics.

until glasses go away, nausea and dizziness issues go away 3D will just be a fad.

maartena

Elmo

Premium Member

join:2002-05-10

Orange, CA maartena to footballdude

Premium Member to footballdude

said by footballdude: For some reason, everyone assumed the success of Avatar was going to usher in a new era of 3D everything. It just isn't that interesting. 3D TVs aren't selling, Nintendo's 3DS isn't selling. On to the next gimmick to try and sell electronics.



The problem that AT&T has with ESPN3D, is that it isn't worth $10 a month, which is why there is little demand. No one is going to pay $10 a month if they only watch 1 or 2 sports events in 3D.



DirecTV offers it for free. Well, that is.... I am sure they recover the cost somewhere of course, but it isn't an extra package, it is just added to the regular channel packages. You do need HD access, but even that is free these days, and no longer charged as extra - when you sign up for auto-bill-pay.



3D is cool if you have a 3D TV anyways.... and you get a few channels to try and see if you like it. No one is going to say.... let pay some good money each month to see if we like it. 3D channels need to be offered at no additional cost over HD, if it is going to work.... and AT&T is just sabotaging itself with this.



And no.... I am not rushing out to buy a new 3D TV, I have a 40" HDTV from 2008, and a 32" HDTV from 2010, and with a little luck they will last another 10 years without any need to upgrade them. Maybe I will add a big-ass 60" TV or something in a few years, and it will probably be 3D..... but I am not spending money specifically for 3D. And in this economy, no one is.



So if you happen to have a TV that can do 3D.... no one is going to pay $10 for the one channel.



If you do want 3D, DirecTV now has 3 full-time 3D channels (ESPN3D, 3net (Discovery/Sony/Imax combo channel) and N3D, DirecTV's own 3D channel), as well as 3D pay-per-view options (2 channels) for movies etc. 3D is almost standard now on any TV you buy. You need a new TV? It comes with 3D, just like it comes with 4 HDMI ports, a USB slot, a ethernet port, and dolby surround built in. It's just one of those things that will be standard on all new TV's within the next 2 years or so.The problem that AT&T has with ESPN3D, is that it isn't worth $10 a month, which is why there is little demand. No one is going to pay $10 a month if they only watch 1 or 2 sports events in 3D.DirecTV offers it for free. Well, that is.... I am sure they recover the cost somewhere of course, but it isn't an extra package, it is just added to the regular channel packages. You do need HD access, but even that is free these days, and no longer charged as extra - when you sign up for auto-bill-pay.3D is cool if you have a 3D TV anyways.... and you get a few channels to try and see if you like it. No one is going to say.... let pay some good money each month to see if we like it. 3D channels need to be offered at no additional cost over HD, if it is going to work.... and AT&T is just sabotaging itself with this.And no.... I am not rushing out to buy a new 3D TV, I have a 40" HDTV from 2008, and a 32" HDTV from 2010, and with a little luck they will last another 10 years without any need to upgrade them. Maybe I will add a big-ass 60" TV or something in a few years, and it will probably be 3D..... but I am not spending money specifically for 3D. And in this economy, no one is.So if you happen to have a TV that can do 3D.... no one is going to pay $10 for the one channel.If you do want 3D, DirecTV now has 3 full-time 3D channels (ESPN3D, 3net (Discovery/Sony/Imax combo channel) and N3D, DirecTV's own 3D channel), as well as 3D pay-per-view options (2 channels) for movies etc. quintin3265

join:2008-06-07

State College, PA quintin3265 Member Live sports are the "killer app" While there are many people who complain about 3D, I have yet to meet anyone who has watched a live sporting event in 3D have a negative experience. The statistics back that up, too - something like 80 or 90% of people who own a 3D TV are satisfied with the experience.



The home run derby was a prime example of how 3D adds to live sports. When you watch baseball on TV, you get used to certain things, like not being able to know whether a long fly ball is a home run or not. But in 3D, you can tell exactly how far a ball is going, you know whether something is fair or foul, and you can call balls and strikes, because that information is not lost in the television broadcast.



Watching a baseball game in 3D is a better experience than attending the game in person. You can see everything you would see at the game, but nobody is standing in front of you and you have the best shots of all the action.



And I still don't understand what this big deal about the glasses is. I wear glasses all the time, so what's the issue with putting another pair of glasses over the top of them for an hour or two? I put sunglasses over my glasses when I go outside. When I drive during the winter, I wear two pairs of glasses for eight hours a day to deal with the snow glare with no problems.



I really hope that this dropping of ESPN 3D doesn't mean that 3D sports will take a hit, because that would be a shame. tired_runner

Premium Member

join:2000-08-25

New York tired_runner Premium Member Re: Live sports are the "killer app" To each their own, I guess.



I've watched 3D sports. It's nice, not necessarily a must-have for me. quintin3265

join:2008-06-07

State College, PA quintin3265 Member Re: Live sports are the "killer app" I think that part of the reason that people have different experiences is that some of the cable providers are significantly cutting the resolution instead of increasing bandwidth.



For example, instead of doubling bandwidth, DIRECTv sends 120 640x720 frames per second, rather than the 120 1280x720 frames that a Playstation 3 would send. The reduced resolution is noticeable.



There are times I play PS3 games in 2D not because I hate 3D, but because there is no HDMI specification to output at 1920x1080x120p. Therefore, I have the choice of playing at 720p 3D or 1080p 2D.



Technology is supposed to improve, but lately it seems that technology only introduces tradeoffs. Instead of 24/96 lossless 5.1 audio, people copy 128kbps stereo 16/44.1 MP3 files because they can listen to them on a smaller device. And now we're forced to choose between hi-res 2D or lo-res 3D. tired_runner

Premium Member

join:2000-08-25

New York 232.2 37.4

·callwithus

tired_runner Premium Member Re: Live sports are the "killer app" For me personally, the cost wasn't worth the technology. But I've stopped being an early adopter for some time now.



DirecTV has compressed their signal to shit for years now. Any action beyond someone turning around, even just moving their head on TV, and the pixelation is apparent. It's stupid that people find that kind of experience worth paying for. Cable TV's HD experience isn't much different where I live compared to DirecTV, but I hear Comcast doesn't compress their feeds so it may be worth it in their market.



As to audio... Well... I find it acceptable to listen to music at 192 Kbps using my Sprint Android phone with 16 GB microSD card. I'll concede not the best, but good enough for me. quintin3265

join:2008-06-07

State College, PA quintin3265 Member Re: Live sports are the "killer app" Well, the compression scheme is great if you spend a lot of time listening using your phone. But I'm one of the majority of people who spends 90% of their time either at home or at work, and so I have never seen a need to invest in a phone that plays poor quality audio.



I had Comcast cable until 2008, when I dropped it because DirecTV had many more HD channels. Comcast's channel lineup was very poor. Now, I hear that they really expanded their HD channels - and they added channels that can't be gotten in HD elsewhere, like TruTV.



On the other hand, one thing that Comcast is good at, believe it or not, is Internet service. I download as much as I want, have all sorts of servers hosted on my network, and my $60 12/2 business class connection has never gone down or had any sort of congestion, ever. I never heard a peep from them about bandwidth usage and it just works, with ping times better than FiOS.



Comcast deserved its poor reputation in 2008, when they had their shady bandwidth cap practices and their cable service was awful. But I'm starting to change my mind about them. jjeffeory

jjeffeory

join:2002-12-04

Bullhead City, AZ jjeffeory to tired_runner

Member to tired_runner

Comcast absolutely compresses their signal; at least in DC...



I compared Fios to Comcast, and there is a HUGE difference. rifleman69

join:2006-04-12

Beaverton, OR rifleman69 to quintin3265

Member to quintin3265

said by quintin3265: While there are many people who complain about 3D, I have yet to meet anyone who has watched a live sporting event in 3D have a negative experience. The statistics back that up, too - something like 80 or 90% of people who own a 3D TV are satisfied with the experience.



The home run derby was a prime example of how 3D adds to live sports. When you watch baseball on TV, you get used to certain things, like not being able to know whether a long fly ball is a home run or not. But in 3D, you can tell exactly how far a ball is going, you know whether something is fair or foul, and you can call balls and strikes, because that information is not lost in the television broadcast.



Watching a baseball game in 3D is a better experience than attending the game in person. You can see everything you would see at the game, but nobody is standing in front of you and you have the best shots of all the action.



And I still don't understand what this big deal about the glasses is. I wear glasses all the time, so what's the issue with putting another pair of glasses over the top of them for an hour or two? I put sunglasses over my glasses when I go outside. When I drive during the winter, I wear two pairs of glasses for eight hours a day to deal with the snow glare with no problems.



I really hope that this dropping of ESPN 3D doesn't mean that 3D sports will take a hit, because that would be a shame.

You must have a depth perception problem if you can't tell how far a ball is going, or whether it's a fair or foul ball without watching 3D Sports. tpkatl

join:2009-11-16

Dacula, GA tpkatl Member It's not the technology, it's the idiotic pricing that will It's not the technology, it's the pricing that will kill 3D.



AT&T charges $10/month for a half-assed product that others are giving away for free. Then it fails. And they discontinue it.



What Sales/marketing idiot at AT&T decided to charge for it in the first place? And what was the break-even point they calculated? Did they do any market research, or was this just a poorly thought out experiment?



If I were a cynical and suspicious person (which, of course, I am not), I might come to the conclusion that AT&T did this ESPN 3D experiment *hoping* that it would fail, so that they could say in the future "we tried and it didn't work, so we don't need to try again."



Really, you sell a product that no one wants, and charge more for it than anyone else, and you are surprised that you can't sell it?



That's Sales 101.....sell what the market wants to buy, at a price the market is willing to pay. talz13

join:2006-03-15

Avon, OH talz13 Member Re: It's not the technology, it's the idiotic pricing that will Or they could use this 'failure' in future contract negotiations with Disney/ABC/ESPN? "We know this channel isn't worth the bandwidth it's streamed on, so how about lowering the price?"

FFH5

Premium Member

join:2002-03-03

Tavistock NJ FFH5 Premium Member Re: It's not the technology, it's the idiotic pricing that will said by talz13: Or they could use this 'failure' in future contract negotiations with Disney/ABC/ESPN? "We know this channel isn't worth the bandwidth it's streamed on, so how about lowering the price?"

I'd like to see more MSOs play hardball with Disney. Their prices are too high and they account for about 1/3 of everyone's cable TV bill with their MUST carry their crap channel bundling contracts just so you get ESPN.

heat84

Bit Torrent Apologist

join:2004-03-11

Fort Lauderdale, FL heat84 Member How can 3D work on a system that barely has enough bandwidth for HD anyway?

maartena

Elmo

Premium Member

join:2002-05-10

Orange, CA maartena Premium Member Re: How can 3D work said by heat84: on a system that barely has enough bandwidth for HD anyway?

ESPN (and ESPN3D) is 720p, not 1080i. Which is why ESPN is one of the few channels on U-Verse that actually does look decent in HD. One of the VERY few.

David

Premium Member

join:2002-05-30

Granite City, IL 215.3 11.9

David Premium Member I can see the point behind this one... Hell I don't even have HD much less 3dtv and still 3dtv's are really a hard sell. I would agree if it was a bit more mainstream like HD, but even HD tv's didn't really start going mainstream right out the gate.



for 3dtv it seems like the investors in it, want their returns now.

StudioTech

Off The Air

join:2001-10-10

Edison, NJ StudioTech Member Cablevision has never carried ESPN 3D Just an FYI. firedrakes

join:2009-01-29

Arcadia, FL firedrakes Member Re: Cablevision has never carried ESPN 3D price and simple this most content is not film in 3d. its post production added. which 90% time is awful. remember class of the titans in 3d??? post production. your comment..

