Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
AT&T Television Entertainment

AT&T CEO: DirecTV Now Streaming Service Will Cost $35 a Month (variety.com) 121

Posted by msmash from the big-deal dept.
AT&T's upcoming DirecTV Now streaming service is going to cost $35 a month, AT&T CEO Randall Stephenson said during a panel at the Wall Street Journal's WSJD Live conference. The package wlll include over 100 channels, he added. From a Variety report: This price point is a significant departure from the company's previous stance, when it suggested that it would launch a premium product that wasn't looking to undercut existing pay TV services. Stephenson argued that it can afford this lower price point because DirecTV Now doesn't require operator-owned set-top boxes, satellite dishes, and customer service home visits. AT&T is set to launch DirecTV Now next month. The service will include channels from cablers like A+E Networks and Scripps, as well as broadcasters like Fox and NBCUniversal.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

AT&T CEO: DirecTV Now Streaming Service Will Cost $35 a Month More

AT&T CEO: DirecTV Now Streaming Service Will Cost $35 a Month

Comments Filter:

  • Can I record it (Score:5, Interesting)

    by silas_moeckel ( 234313 ) <silasNO@SPAMdsminc-corp.com> on Tuesday October 25, 2016 @02:23PM (#53148743) Homepage

    if not it's worthless

    • Again, if not it's worthless. I'm tired of paying for stations and content that I would never in a million years want to watch. If one penny of my money goes to Bravo, for instance, there is no amount of value you could add elsewhere which would persuade me to help pay for their "reality"-TV drivel.

      • Again, if not it's worthless. I'm tired of paying for stations and content that I would never in a million years want to watch. If one penny of my money goes to Bravo, for instance, there is no amount of value you could add elsewhere which would persuade me to help pay for their "reality"-TV drivel.

        I'm holding out for the day I can get a la carte channels. We pretty much watch AMC (Walking Dead) ,History (Vikings), BTN/ESPN/2/3 (college football & basketball), Fox (Gotham) and HBO (GOT, Westworld, movies, etc.). Also throw in a dash of CNN/Fox News to get both sets of propaganda, and I'd be good to go.

        • you can get hbo on it's own now.

        • Again, if not it's worthless. I'm tired of paying for stations and content that I would never in a million years want to watch. If one penny of my money goes to Bravo, for instance, there is no amount of value you could add elsewhere which would persuade me to help pay for their "reality"-TV drivel.

          I'm holding out for the day I can get a la carte channels. We pretty much watch AMC (Walking Dead) ,History (Vikings), BTN/ESPN/2/3 (college football & basketball), Fox (Gotham) and HBO (GOT, Westworld, movies, etc.). Also throw in a dash of CNN/Fox News to get both sets of propaganda, and I'd be good to go.

          I mean... assuming HBO is $15 (because it is), and ESPN would be $15 (because they get a TON of money from cable and satellite companies now, by far the highest paid), you'd have to be able to get AMC, History, FOX, CNN and Fox News for a buck each to equal the $35 from DirecTV Now. Now granted DirecTV's service won't include HBO at that price point, but I'm not sure skinny bundles are going to save anybody money in the next few years compared to $35 to $55 fat bundles from Vue, Sling, now DirecTV, and comi

          • Except that ESPN is the main suck on the wallets of people who aren't watching it. Half the country couldn't care less about the sports they show, but ESPN has been very aggressive in ensuring that they're tied into bundles which don't let you avoid them without avoiding pretty much everything. If you're an ESPN viewer, you'll probably pay more overall a la carte because your bill isn't being subsidized by me. But if I take the literally two or three stations I actually want (AMC, BBC America and *perhaps*

      • Again, if not it's worthless. I'm tired of paying for stations and content that I would never in a million years want to watch. If one penny of my money goes to Bravo, for instance, there is no amount of value you could add elsewhere which would persuade me to help pay for their "reality"-TV drivel.

        If it's $35 for 100 channels and covers all the channels I care about, I could care less if $34.99 goes to Bravo. Honestly, as "attractive" as the concept of paying for the channels I want and nothing else, when I see the pricing of CBS All Access, HBO Now, etc, I'll just keep the 100 channels of PS Vue I have and be happy. Unless this is a slightly better package, then I'd switch.

  • Question (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward

    Are they going to spy on their customers through this service as well?

  • no dvr capability.. limited channels.. no locals.. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 25, 2016 @02:30PM (#53148807)

    it's a limited live streaming service, not a replacement for cable or satellite television... especially cable + homerun or tivo....

    and one that violates the very essence of net neutrality with at&t zero-rating this service's data on its own internet plans.

    this is exactly why internet providers should ONLY BE internet providers.. not content providers, telephone companies, cable or streaming or satellite tv companies, etc etc etc.

  • Do we get a discount (Score:4, Insightful)

    by nehumanuscrede ( 624750 ) on Tuesday October 25, 2016 @02:34PM (#53148835)

    if we agree to let AT&T spy on us ?

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by SeaFox ( 739806 )

      If you mean "discount" as in lack of a penalty charge, maybe.

    • Discount? AT&T has to do this, they're forced to. Otherwise they wouldn't make as much money. So since they are forced to do this, you're going to have to get charged for it. Sorry, but that's the only way.

    • No, you agree to let AT&T spy on us, and you still pay full price. Sorry!

  • Stephenson argued that it can afford this lower price point because DirecTV Now doesn't require operator-owned set-top boxes, satellite dishes, and customer service home visits.

    I don't know what they are talking about. Every TV services I've ever been with has required me to rent/buy the dish/set top box. And I've never had to have home service visit. Even if I did have 1 or 2, then I would have paid for it 15 times over with the inflated rates my cable providers charge me.

  • can i pick the 100 channels otherwise, off to the obsolescence graveyard with you.

  • On-demand programming? (Score:3)

    by sinij ( 911942 ) on Tuesday October 25, 2016 @02:41PM (#53148915)
    No on-demand programming? Has commercials? If so, not interested.

  • Doomed to fail (Score:5, Insightful)

    by duke_cheetah2003 ( 862933 ) on Tuesday October 25, 2016 @02:53PM (#53149011) Homepage

    This is just silliness. The trend is very much toward being able to pick and choose what shows we want to watch, when we want to watch them. Preferably commercial-free. (I pay don't even mind paying for commercial-free content, I already pay Hulu the extra $4/mo.)

    The idea of 'channels', 'stations', 'broadcasters', and someone else picking out the programming we might be interested in going the way of the floppy drive. Telling someone like me you're offering 100 channels is nonsense and useless information. I'm more interested in what programming/content there will be to choose from, and if I can't choose, not going to subscribe, end of story.

    Bad business choice on AT&T's part. Will never make money. Will definitely not lure 'cable cutters.' We're a whole new breed of content consumer, unlike the cable-television junkie of old.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      They are probably going after people who can't quite imagine not having TV channels and only watching on demand. People not quite ready to cut the cord, and who will thus pay 4x the going rate.

      • They are probably going after people who can't quite imagine not having TV channels and only watching on demand. People not quite ready to cut the cord, and who will thus pay 4x the going rate.

        Yeah, that makes about as much sense as selling horses and wagons when we're all driving cars. It's bad business, targeting a type of consumer that is dying off or moving on to the modern world of streaming programming, on demand.

    • This sounds a lot like Comcast's XFinity, where you sign in to a website to watch cable TV. Good job guys, you've finally done what Comcast did 3 years ago... And you managed to limit it to only your channels. Now I can get less than 1/5th of the total channels for 1/3 of the price. What a bargain.

      • This sounds a lot like Comcast's XFinity, where you sign in to a website to watch cable TV. Good job guys, you've finally done what Comcast did 3 years ago... And you managed to limit it to only your channels. Now I can get less than 1/5th of the total channels for 1/3 of the price. What a bargain.

        Yup. Their channels. Plus tons of others from other companies. Also the merger was just announced, and not approved yet. They don't really own those channels yet.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by eWarz ( 610883 )
          1/3rd of the price? Even in my market (which competes with AT&T Uverse, DirectTV, Dish, and Google Fiber) that's a stretch at best if you even bothered to review channel/network listings.

    • This is just silliness. The trend is very much toward being able to pick and choose what shows we want to watch, when we want to watch them. Preferably commercial-free. (I pay don't even mind paying for commercial-free content, I already pay Hulu the extra $4/mo.)

      The idea of 'channels', 'stations', 'broadcasters', and someone else picking out the programming we might be interested in going the way of the floppy drive. Telling someone like me you're offering 100 channels is nonsense and useless information. I'm more interested in what programming/content there will be to choose from, and if I can't choose, not going to subscribe, end of story.

      Bad business choice on AT&T's part. Will never make money. Will definitely not lure 'cable cutters.' We're a whole new breed of content consumer, unlike the cable-television junkie of old.

      I'm a cable cutter. Playstation Vue subscriber. And depending on the particulars (locals, cloud DVR, specific channels in the 100 package, etc), I might even switch. In my market, Vue has locals (CBS, FOX, NBC + On Demand only ABC). They have all the local sports regionals, plus all the major cable sports (BeIn, NBCSN, FS1, FS2, all the ESPNs, SEC, etc). That alone is easily worth half the $45 I pay. Cable News, plus eight other cable channels I watch at least one show on easily pays for the other half. My

  • Particularly in my case, I want a service that will offer MASN and MASN2. Without those I can't see 90% of Orioles games. I was hoping Playstation Vue was going to have them because they said they'd have local sports channels, but they don't have those two key channels so it's a bust. I keep hoping there going to add them, but so far no dice.

  • If you're not paying for the product, *you're* the product, so goes the common wisdom. However ...

    AT&T Is Spying on Americans For Profit, New Documents Reveal

    ... there's nothing to say that you can't pay *and* be the product. Your choice of viewing is just more grist for AT&T's info-mill

    As an aside, is it just barely possible that the TimeWarnerAT&T corporate name might be TWATT(tm)? Pleeeez?

  • It's the only solution, in the song of Fire and Ice!

  • They need to lower their pricing again, $35 ain't low enough for the so-called quality of popular entertainment these days.

  • Over 100 channels of reruns, infomercials, and old Simpsons and South Park episodes! Over 100 channels of rehashed drivel and propaganda masquerading as news! A hundred channels of stupid people slapping each-other and cursing! A hundred channels of the same AP story described with the same talking points in the exact same phrasing by people hired by one of three media conglomerates! One. Hundred. Channels. If no one would buy it they would give it away for free. You are the product.

  • I subscribe to Sling TV to get ESPN (only during football season). That's $20 per month, and comes with about 25 channels that I never watch. If DirecTV came down to $20 a month, I might consider switching!

  • Too late for me. I am saying goodbye to AT&T's price gouging cell service. I have already booted directTV as well. I am tired of paying top dollar for shit.

Slashdot Top Deals

Before Xerox, five carbons were the maximum extension of anybody's ego.

Close