Select T-Mobile stores selling Layer3 TV service, T-Mo customers get discounted rate

layer3tvtmobilebox

T-Mobile announced earlier this year that it planned to launch a new pay TV service in 2018, and while we still haven’t heard anything about it, T-Mo is now selling Layer3 TV service in select markets.

T-Mobile stores in markets like Dallas, Chicago, Washington, D.C., and Longmont, CO are offering Layer3 TV service. Research firm Wave7 research found a Dallas-based T-Mobile rep tweeting that she had made a Layer3 TV sale on September 1st, while a T-Mo rep in Longmont said on September 5th that pricing was regularly $99.99 per month but dropped to $79.99 for T-Mobile subscribers, plus equipment and taxes and $10 for additional TVs. That Platinum allHD package includes more than 275 channels, DVR, and on-demand 4K content.

Looking at the Layer3 TV website, the pricing for service appears to vary by market. While the price in Dallas and Longmonth is $80 for T-Mobile customers and $99.99 for non-T-Mo subscribers, folks in Washington D.C. must pay $120 per month if they’re not a T-Mobile customer, while those that are on T-Mobile pay $80. The savings for T-Mo customers are applied in bill credits.

It sounds like T-Mobile is testing out its pricing strategy for Layer3 TV, trying to figure out a sweet spot price that would be appealing to most consumers. T-Mo hasn’t revealed much about it’s upcoming pay TV service, only teasing that it wants to disrupt the cable and satellite TV industry and that its TV offering will utilize its nationwide retail stores.

Does a TV service that offers more than 275 channels, on-demand 4K content, and DVR for $80 per month sound appealing to you?

Thanks, Marcus!

Source: FierceVideo

Tags: ,

  • The Borg

    I’ll stick with hulu and Netflix

  • randian

    The DVR is only appealing if you can fast forward through or skip commercials, and if it supplies outstanding video quality. Any reviews of the L3 product?

    I did a trial of DirecTV Now, and it failed miserably on both counts. It gets good reviews for video quality, but the reviewers forget to mention they must have only been looking at live streams. DVR “recordings” are heavily compressed compared to the live stream, in both video and audio, and downrezzed to 720p. They look like smeared crap. And it’s unreliable to boot, often delivering streams that are missing big chunks of the show, which you’d think would be impossible.

  • BostonFan

    Zero interest.

  • Kurt Schultz

    Anything above $40 is of no interest to me

  • Matt

    Nope, it’s overpriced.

  • the martian ambassador

    Wired home internet (Cable, DSL) is becoming obsolete. In a handful of years, everything will be wireless. Having wireless “cable” allows T-Mobile to compete in the home internet market where providers combine television and internet services. Although it is a shrinking market, they should be able to poach customers from Comcast and Verizon.
    I don’t think T-Mobile’s young customer base is going to be terribly interested in this service.

    • blokeinusa

      I would agree, but wireless is limited to environment and having cell reception…which is what people complain about cell companies. If you remember clear wire, they were well ahead of its time. Just too bad they didn’t have the technology we have now today.

    • Gardo

      I would never change my home fiber connection for wireless ever!! Downloading big files, gaming with low latency, cloud backups, security camera streaming, 4K streaming, try that over wireless and tell me how it goes.

      • the martian ambassador

        Some people will never want to give up their fiber, but realistically, most customers could get away with a couple of hundred GB/mo total of wireless data for all of their needs, which should be pretty easy to get when 5G becomes ubiquitous.

  • the martian ambassador

    All they have to do to provide home internet is to increase the tethering limit on your phone line. No extra equipment or technicians required!

    • They_Call_Me_Bruce

      How does that help when you leave the house? What good is home internet if the access point is with you at work? Do people need to add a line that stays home at all times?

      • Funny, because that’s exactly what I do now. I have 5 lines — 2 are mine, 1 is my fiancé, 1 is my father, and 1 is my always-at-home mobile hotspot, on which I have the unlimited 4G LTE add-on (RIP). Works extremely well, but I agree, it should not be a requirement to add a line for mobile internet. T-Mobile needs to be a disruptor, not a me-too cable company like Charter, Dish, Verizon, etc.

      • the martian ambassador

        I used to have the prepaid hotspot which was ridiculously expensive at 2GB of 4G data, then unlimited 2G for $20/month. They could make those hotspots available for unlimited home internet. I’m just saying there’s no reason for all of these expensive boxes, and technicians when all you need is a simple mobile device to enable home internet. This keeps their costs low and enables them to keep prices low for internet access.
        Providing television “channels” is expensive and always will be. Cord cutters are interested in streamed programming at the lowest cost possible. They’re not so interested in getting wireless cable “channels”. I was hoping that T-Mobile would stick with providing the wireless “pipes” and not get into programming, which ends up making data-only customers second class citizens. Provide the data and let consumers pick their streaming service of choice.

  • KenLin

    If that price included internet service, maybe. I currently pay $35 for YouTubeTV. Is this more than 2x better? Not at first glance.

  • Steven

    This unfortunately does not appeal to me at all. 30 bucks total for Sling TV Orange plus the sports package for all my college football, done! Can’t beat it. Much cheaper and still great quality. I agree with other posts, if internet was included, then this would beat the $65 I spend on crappy Charter internet, which brings my monthly total to $95. In short, $80 for TV alone, not at all, not even close, $80 for TV and internet combined… we may have something here…

    • Tim Hotze

      The way Layer3 works, they actually use your local cable company to go the “last mile” to your home, and their agreements typically demand that you’re a current subscriber (to Charter, in your case, or Comcast, in mine), so for that reason, Layer3 CAN’T offer Internet.

      • Steven

        Until T-Mobile offers there unlimited wireless internet…

        But I agree with you and assumed that would be the case. I make my previous statement, not in hoping they actually provide that offering (TV and Inernet), but as a way of displaying how poor a deal it is compared to other options out there today.

      • Mike McDonald

        And this is precisely why TMO wants Sprint. That spectrum provides the needed bandwidth for a true home, fixed wireless offer. Until the deal w/ Sprint came out all John would say was “mobile wireless” for 5G. (PhoneDog, pls fact check that) John constantly badgered Red & Blue on their fixed wireless 5G plans.

        Side note: Dish has a huge swath of 2.5 GHz spectrum BUT no partner as of yet to deploy it.

  • Jose Gonzalez

    Not interested at that price. I currently pay $90 for cable with premium channels and 200mbs internet. If they offer Internet (a home hotspot device, not my phone) + TV for the $80, it will be perfect!

  • i pay 40 for yttv with unlimited dvr… not interested in this at all..what is tmobile thinking?

  • timmyjoe42

    That is way more expensive than I’d have expected. I pay $35 for YouTube TV. (The current rate is $40) which comes with more channels than I need and everyone that I want. I can’t imagine needing 275 channels. There just isn’t that much good content out there to justify that many stations.

  • PC_Tool

    Nope.

    Combine a service like Netflix and AndroidTV – and take my money.

    A DVR? If it’s a streaming service, all of the available shows should be on-demand. There shouldn’t be a need for a DVR at all.

  • Francisco Peña

    Spectrum in my area has for $89, home internet, phone and TV with DVR and wifi router.

    No way I’m spending $79 for just TMo TV.. they better slap 1 yr free on the Tuesday after they launch this tv service.. but only on Tuesday.

  • Larry Griffin

    Sooo in a time of streaming services like directv now and YouTube tv you release something that charges per tv?? Starting at $79.99 a month??!!! T-Mobile bumped its head—I smell a flop ASAP

    • slybacon

      Layer3 is existing service. It’s been around for many years. This isn’t T-Mobile TV.

  • If that price included home internet that’d be a deal (specially if it included taxes/fees). Otherwise pass.

  • Fernando Molina

    I don’t think it is meant to compete with Hulu, Netflix,etc. I have DirecTV with all the premium channels and I pay $ 140 with 4 receivers, remember the article mentions that the pricing is for their platinum all HD, I am sure they have other pricing if you want to compare it to sling TV. I personally tried Sling TV and it was $85 blue plus orange all the premium channels and the sport package but I didn’t like that sometimes it would start buffering. I have Spectrum 100 mbps

  • The One

    F*** NO!

    2 TV’s will cost me $90/mo BEFORE taxes and fees. I’m already paying that now for more channels and it includes internet.

    They need to cut the channel lineup to about 100 channels and add a free LTE hotspot service for this to be a reasonable value.

  • LFERG

    A BUNCH of channels I have no interest in for a price that’s inline with cable/satellite? Give me home internet service on top of that and I’m in, otherwise, this is the ONE TMO thing I could careless about.

  • Adam Thodey

    im not typical person. i don’t watch too much TV and what i do watch, i have available from netflix, amazon prime and showtime and access to Comcast supported tv… so i don’t need to spend anything but home broadband internet at $G LTE speeds for $50 per month unlimited data, i’m all in for home internet access from T-mobile. i think i keep asking the reps on twitter every quarter or two about that.

  • blokeinusa

    If I needed all those channels, I’d get it just because it’s not comcrap! Using youtube tv, I barely have time to watch that either. The only reason I’m keeping it, is because the parents can use it at no additional cost. Even then, I’m still considering cancelling it.

  • JaswinderSinghJammu

    This isn’t much different than regular cable. A whole of channels lumped up that no one watches. $80-$120 price point isn’t disruptive at all.

    • slybacon

      Layer3 has been around for a while. This isn’t what T-Mobile is planning, its just what they purchased and are continuing to offer it until their new service is out.

  • JaswinderSinghJammu

    Verizon’s Broadband 5G sounds more disruptive at $50 per month with no equipment to buy. If you live in their 5 cities launch area. It’s coming October 1st

    • bciocco

      That is a deal. I might go for that. I am a 15 year T-Mobile customer and would consider switching for a deal like that.

      • slybacon

        You can try it out (if you live in one of three cities) for $70 first without switching your cell phone over.

  • $80 a month is about what we pay for directvnow (3 streams plus HBO) Netflix and Hulu combined. The problem with 275 channels is are they garbage? Secondly what made us get away from Comcast over a year ago was the equipment cost. We are a family of 6 with six TV’s. Renting six cable boxes got old. If I could continue to use my apple TV’s to stream layer3 I might look into it but if I have to pay an additional $20-$40 a month to rennt stuff from then then it’s not worth the money. Especially when Playstation Vue has a top end package at around the same cost.

  • Rene Shabastari

    Needs to beat DirecTV Now $40 in order for me to consider since I don’t need many channels. Sadly it doesn’t even beat DTV’s next higher tier, so probably no one will consider this disruptive

  • Tim Hotze

    Layer3 does a really good job of hiding the fact that you need home broadband to get their service. Although Layer3’s signal doesn’t go over the public Internet, unlike Sling/DirectTV Now/YouTube TV (and so may have higher bandwidth/lower latency and won’t count towards a broadband cap), that puts it MUCH closer in competition to those companies in my mind.

    I only occasionally watch “live” network TV, so I really don’t feel like paying more than the $40 I give for DirectTV Now (though their HBO for $5 keeps me from jumping ship), and certainly don’t need the channels – or cost – of Layer3.

    • skywalkr2

      That’s what I was wondering… how in the world can they justify a $99 pricetag for something so similiar to Sling/DirecTV Now.

      • SirStephenH

        They think that offering 4k justifies their outlandish price tag, which it does not.

    • Rob P

      Didn’t know that thought internet was included I won’t even be looking at this now

      • SirStephenH

        Internet is not included with Layer3, but it is required.

    • SirStephenH

      “Layer3’s signal doesn’t go over the public Internet”

      I don’t think you get how the internet works. Layer3 is internet TV requiring broadband internet to use and therefore goes over the “public internet”. They are not laying their own infrastructure because they use the internet just like every other modern day streaming platform.

      • Tim Hotze

        I get how the Internet works – I don’t think you get how Layer3 works. Layer3 is using its own infrastructure, and the service has a lot more in common with say, X1 from Xfinity than it does say, Sling TV or Netflix. It’s IPTV, but it’s not like a client’s set top box sends a HTTP request over the Internet to a server to request a stream.

        Layer3 has leased a fiber backbone that it manages itself (not the public Internet) and that then goes to a community that Layer3 serves. At THAT point, Layer3 uses a telco (typically a cable company) to go the last mile to a users’s home via coax to your router. That’s why Layer3 is only available in some areas – they need to get fiber to that city, and then an agreement with the cable company for the last mile.

        Think about it – why else would they require a specific set top box, instead of just an app on Roku/Apple TV/whatever. Why not use WiFi? It’s because it’s a different kind of technology.

  • bciocco

    I can only watch one channel at a time. I would consider $60, if it included internet (unlimited hotspot with enough bandwidth to stream Amazon prime).

  • skywalkr2

    I have no idea what this is and why it would cost so much more than Sling/Directv NOW / etc.

    • SirStephenH

      It’s basically standard cable TV streamed over the internet with YouTube integrated.

  • frankinnoho

    Will they offer Internet only plans? For a much more reasonable prices? Because I not sure T-Mobile is aware, but it’s 2018 now, and only retired people sit around watching commercial television.

    I used to like T-Mobile, but now they seem just like any other overbearing, clueless corporation.

    • iCrap

      I think this is going to be a two pronged attack against telecom and cable companies to offer tv and internet service to all of North America. 80 bucks does seem high though

      • frankinnoho

        Don’t care…. I don’t f’ing care… I don’t watch commercial television, and if they try to bundle their wireless 5G internet as a TV bundle, I, like apparently everyone else, I will pass. If they feel like they HAVE TO offer TV to sell internet, then a slim bundle of maybe 40 channel AT NO COST!!!, then maybe.

        I DO NOT WATCH COMMERCIAL/SCHEDUALED TELEVISION EVER T-Mobile. These days it seem fewer people do. The people who do tend to be much older, and are set with what they have and very set in their ways. This is stupid.

        I’ve had cable, a waste of money. I had comcast with a minimal TV bundle because the internet portion was cheaper if you got some TV. I’ve had Sling. Had it for a year. Never watched it. Got DirecTV for the free Apple TV and the $5 HBO. As soon as Game of Thrones ended (which I watched thru HBO Go app), I cancelled.

        I know the corps love to bundle things, but I hate bundles. I hate bundles that give a little of what I want, internet, and a lot of what I don’t, commercial TV. I’ve checked the listing lineup… Fox Sports and ESPN…. Those companies charge a lot of money per subscriber, and I don’t watch them. Never have, Never will. But with a bundle, you have to pay to support them whether you watch them or not. Why? Because it’s part of the f’ing bundle.

    • SirStephenH

      All of Layer3 is internet only. Layer3 is just a cable TV streaming service with YouTube integrated. It’s essentially the same thing you get from the cable companies, live commercial based TV with a limited number of commercial-free On Demand options.

  • Nate

    Ummm, no. Not interested at that kind of price point.

    All I really need is access to my local channels, for local news and weather and maybe a few a la cart channels and ability to access these channels from my mobile device whenever I need or want. Most everything else is covered by Hulu, Amazon and Netflix.

  • Iphart

    Crazy expensive.
    Aquasition of L3 by TMo was a mistake imo.

    $90 (including the STB) discount is a joke.

  • Gator5000e

    If it doesn’t have Dolby Digital 5.1sound this will be a pass for me. One of the TV service providers have Dolby sound, including DitrcTV Now, PlayStation Vud and Sling. Will have to see if T-Mo’s service has it when launched.

  • Rob P

    Very interested but will they buy put my Verizon contract on cable I got a good 18 months left.

  • SirStephenH

    You can get nearly the same thing, minus the 4k, through the cable companies for the same price but with internet included. This service is priced far too high to succeed, especially when you consider that internet is required but not included, nearly doubling the cost in most areas.

    • benthebuilder

      absolutely. They should have gone OTT.

  • SirStephenH

    I wish they’d go un-cable. Why is the “un-carrier” pricing streaming cable over that of standard cable and forcing box rentals on us when streaming is cheaper than building out infrastructure and this could all be done though standard streaming devices such as a Chromecast Ultra? Lower the price and ditch the box rentals in favor of something like a Chromecast Ultra on EIP and they might have something here.

    • benthebuilder

      100% agree

  • Charmed79

    No thanks, not at that price! We pay $93 a month for internet, can add cable for our 3 tvs for another $50, why on earth would anyone want to pay over $100 and still have to pay for internet?

    • Jay Holm

      Precisely!!!

  • TaskForce141

    No sale.
    Safe to say, many of us would rather spend the $80 on pot.

  • Sandy

    What about internet??

  • Brad

    HELLO T-Mobile is anyone there? I have Sling, HBO, DVR, Hulu, Netflex and Internet for $85 a month! I wouldn’t pay $93 plus internet a month! But, that’s me! If it were $25 a month I might be interested.

  • purenupe1

    Only if they include the boxes at no additional cost. Otherwise the true cost gets closer to the competition

  • M42

    I have an antenna and get 26 free HD channels. My tv is a smart tv and has several apps for free movies and shows. My monthly out of pocket is the 11 bucks I pay for Netflix. The cable companies, dish networks and now T-Mobile still don’t get it.

    • Francisco Peña

      only 26? you need a stronger antenna. We can pull much more than that in west central FL.

  • Bklynman

    Only if we get some kind of discount with our cell phones,like other have posted this does’t come internet,so even if they have discount on cell service,what the point if people have paid for the net.

    • Jay Holm

      Agree, if it had some sort of in-home wifi hotspot type of offering, for the same price, that would be nice.

  • Phil7474

    Nah I’ll stick with my promo DirecTV Now price and be happy with my 100 and something channels. Way cheaper than this. .. ..

  • Kevin

    Verizon will kill them with their 5g internet/tv combo at $50 for Verizon customers. If Tmobile had that pricing it would be a no brainer. But $80 + hardware rentals…nope.

  • Jay Holm

    I was really hoping this Layer3 purchase was going to bring some sort of offering to smartphones. . .

  • Reagan1

    Well, I must have low expectations because I would be all in if this cost $120 (base plus 4 additionals) a month, IF it included internet, as well. Would save me $100/month with Crapcast. Since it sounds like internet would be separate, this is hardly attractive at all.

  • tony77

    I’m optimistic about this service because I assume it will ultimately stream over T-Mobile’s 5G network. Otherwise, it’s currently an expensive also-ran and makes no sense for anyone to sign up.

    I used Zip code 20001 to walk through the purchase path. $80 for the same crummy channels I can get from Comcast, plus $10 for each screen to rent a proprietary box. And I still need internet service from Comcast, which is the part I really want to dump. Wake me up when the real product is ready for sale!

  • ccccc

    This seems misguided. Nobody wants 250 channels of garbage at an insane price these days

    • (J²)

      Right! Although it does look like their channel line could compete with those of traditional TV provided. I don’t pay $80 for TV + DVR now, so I’m certainly not interested. I only watch the same 5 channels lol, so I don’t care what they throw in – I’ll pass.

  • Erich Gray

    Living in Dallas, I have this service after a horrible experience with Direct TV Now and their constant lagging, buffering and horrible DVR package. And that’s with my ATT Fiber connection. I only pay 60 for fiber so adding 79.99 for Layer 3 seemed nice as I get 160+ channels, 400 hours of DVR where I can record 8 shows at once, room for 8 profiles that program what I watch from the home screen. On demand service and you tube as well as pandora with more to come (i.e hulu, netflix). It’s just really a nice feature and function for me. In the meantime if I need hulu or netflix I just use my remote to input over to my roku. Easy peasy

  • Francisco Peña

    not for $80. I can get similar for less around here, plus factor in costs for internet, and that $80 isn’t appealing. I’d rather just bundle if I had too.