T-Mobile is reportedly ‘retooling’ its TVision platform


T-Mobile entered the streaming TV game one year ago with TVision, but there hasn’t been much news on it since then. That’s changing today.

T-Mobile is reportedly in the process of “retooling and redeveloping” the platform behind TVision that it acquired from Layer3 TV. That’s according to sources speaking to Light Reading, who say that T-Mo decided to rework the TVision platform because it didn’t scale the way T-Mobile would’ve liked and because of the lengthy process of merging with Sprint.

As part of the process of retooling TVision, T-Mobile is said to be working with MobiTV, a company who has made an app-based streaming platform used by cable operators and other service providers that works on a variety of streaming devices. T-Mobile said when it launched TVision last year that it planned on bringing the service to “popular third-party TV platforms” so you could download an app and begin watching, so a partnership with MobiTV makes sense.

One benefit of bringing TVision to third-party TV platforms is that many more people would have access to T-Mobile’s service. TVision is currently only available in Chicago, Dallas-Fort Worth, Los Angeles, New York City, Philadelphia, San Francisco, Washington DC, and Longmont, CO, but by working with MobiTV, T-Mobile hopes to deploy its video streaming service nationwide.

When asked about TVision, T-Mobile only said that “TVision and home entertainment remain important parts of our longer term strategy.”

It’s felt kind of strange that T-Mobile launched TVision last year and then hasn’t said much of anything about it since, but T-Mo’s silence makes a bit more sense when you consider what we’ve heard from today’s report about TVision. T-Mobile has put quite a bit into TVision so far, spending $325 million to acquire Layer3 TV and then launching and continuing to offer TVision, so it’s understandable that T-Mo would want to continue work on TVision and get it to a place where it could be offered nationwide across third-party platforms.

Now that the T-Mobile-Sprint merger is wrapped up — or very nearly, at least — maybe we’ll hear more about TVision in the near future.

Source: Light Reading

Tags: , , ,

  • TenEightyPeePee

    It is too expensive and it still requires you to run it on WiFi. Why do it in the first place if you aren’t going to compete with Youtube TV, Sling…etc. If they wanted to charge what they charge and provide the data transport (I.E. TV set top boxes with LTE/5G than includes the the data for the TV stream), THAT would be something. Then charge less to those who want to access from an app and use their own internet connection.

    • That’s exactly what I was saying. Way too pricey for this service to not include the data to stream.

  • zeiferx

    the service ends up being more than most triple play bundles. i went to the stores to check itr out, works good enough but the price is a NO GO.
    either retool to compete or let that go since you wont be a competitor in that market.

  • riverhorse

    I don’t think TMO has the “pipes” to deliver TV & home internet to the masses. If it did, cellular wouldn’t see depriorization hotspot streaming thresholds & limits, to begin with.

  • dcmanryan

    Unless they can offer what the others do for around $50 this is still DOA. Consumers are not stupid and will not pay more for less when it comes to TV.

    There’s always the Apple argument and people paying more for less in some opinions, but TV is TV and the only reason to pay SLIGHTLY more might be a better DVR, more simultaneous connections and channels. That’s it. For the few that have T-Mobile’s TV service now in it’s current form I have no idea why because it’s legal theft and no different than the current cable and satellite business model that T-Mobile has always been against.

  • mikeZo6

    At&t has Tv for $50 bucks plus year of HBO free, and Tmo is $90 bucks

    • dcmanryan

      Don’t fall for that BS. You HAVE to sign a 2 year agreement and the way the market is changing only a fool would sign that deal. Minimum package goes to $93 on months 13-24.

    • marque2

      I used Direct TV Now for about 6 months. Ended up we watched a lot during the first month then it got down to zero. They also coincidentally always seemed to have a problem with Fox news. At times it wouldn’t play at all and the DVD option seemed to rarely work.

  • ChiTownT3x

    Seriously, just do what the other TV providers are afraid to do.

    Have basic channel packages for X amount of dollars that exists now but also offer a real à la carte option. 1 dollar per channel, pick which ones you want.

    This way getting a package will probably be the better deal but your also now losing out on people who only are interested in a few channels. Getting 10 bucks a month from someone who is only interested in 10 channels is better than getting nothing at all.

    We live in a tech savvy world and even myself being in my 40’s; I already know how to get TV for free. Sure maybe I have to do a little bit of a setup and jump through some hoops but it’s easy enough to pirate these days. Pirating is only going to get worse as the younger generations get older because they will even be more tech savvy than someone such as myself.

    However if an a la carte option existed I would much rather just pay the $10 per month for the channels I want rather than go through the initial hassle of pirating them in the first place.

    Not to mention most people are willing to wait an extra day to watch their show on Hulu and simply pay $7 a month for that. Nobody cares about live TV shows anymore especially when TV companies are charging 100 bucks a month to do it.

    • Matt

      Same age bracket and I would argue that a better price point would be .50 a channel. There are literally only about 10-15 channels that I watch anyway. I don’t want to pay for a whole bunch of crap that I’ll never watch.

    • marque2

      It wouldn’t just be $1 per channel. It costs your cable provider 30¢ to $8 to get any particular channel. ESPN is the $8.

    • JG

      I agree, an à la carte system would be amazing. But I doubt we’ll ever see it happen…

      Why would Disney let Comcast to make ESPN optional, and only get $8/month for it from a couple hundred customers when they could have Comcast include it in everyone’s package and get $8/month from a couple million subscribers?

    • Bilesha Welton

      This is what Sling TV is basically. I just pay for the channels I watch and I don’t want sports add on. But it’s optional. And you can pay for different options.

      • marque2

        Sling forces you to accept a fixed package of channels as well and cleverly mix the good ones so most need to by both their options. It isn’t I want the Cooking Channel, Discover, MSNBC and that is it.

  • Matt

    It’s not a competitive offering and doesn’t do anything differently.

  • Charmed79

    Too expensive, so a no go for us as well!

  • nps_ca

    My Mrs and I figured outside of the major broadcast networks we need 20 other channels, THAT’S IT. We have DirecTV with hundreds more we will never watch. We could get by with YouTube TV and some paid annual online subs to a few channels not there and STILL come out MUCH MUCH lower than TVison or my DirecTV, big issue though is my ISP has a 1TB data cap. On YouTube TV same problem – I’m paying for some channels I will NEVER watch. We don’t do sports channels outside of sports on national broadcast channels.

    There needs to be a level of FCC interaction on this one, networks can’t hold hostage one channel over failing to carry others. They can provide bundle incentives but it shouldn’t be more than 2x the split price of one channel in the bundle. Plus the data caps we have that can fill a cap in a few hours of use need to be changed of removed. FCC should mandate something like 25% of full use of bandwidth across a month is MIN a cap should be, right now for many it’s 3-10 hours.

    Side note: When I lived elsewhere (Taiwan, Japan, France, Germany, etc) for work I could get Phone (with free intl calling) , IPTV, Internet (not metered) PLUS a 10GB a month data SIM card with voice for less than $70 TOTAL. Some providers were even cheaper than that. What do we have here? $100 for TV, $80 for mobile, $100 for Internet and $25 for phone (not that you need the latter anymore: $325?

  • Phil

    Roku, simple as that.