Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Television AT&T

AT&T To Lose 1.1 Million TV Subscribers As DirecTV Continues Nosedive (arstechnica.com) 75

Posted by BeauHD from the downward-spiral dept.
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: AT&T expects to lose about 1.1 million TV customers in the third quarter as it faces pressure from an investment group that says AT&T's increased focus on the TV business was a giant mistake. In an update to shareholders yesterday, AT&T CFO John Stephens "said the company expects an incremental 300,000 to 350,000 premium video losses above the previous quarter's premium video results," according to AT&T. Since that's an incremental increase over the previous quarter's loss, that will amount to a three-month loss of more than 1 million TV customers.

In Q2 2019, AT&T reported a net loss of 778,000 subscribers in the "Premium TV" category, which includes its DirecTV satellite and U-verse wireline TV services. With AT&T expecting to lose that amount of subscribers plus another 300,000 to 350,000, the update to shareholders suggests the Q3 loss in the category will be between 1,078,000 and 1,128,000 subscribers. (An AT&T spokesperson confirmed to Ars that a projected loss of 1,078,000 and 1,128,000 subscribers in Q3 is accurate.) AT&T's update to shareholders attributed the expected loss to "aggressively managing costs with retransmission negotiations, some of which resulted in content provider blackouts; and from limiting promotional pricing." AT&T said it has been "holding a hard line in negotiations" with programmers to control costs, but the resulting blackouts of channels is driving TV subscribers away. What's not included in the projected loss is AT&T TV Now (formerly known as DirecTV Now). "AT&T also lost 168,000 subscribers of DirecTV Now/AT&T TV Now in the second quarter, but it didn't say how that service will fare in the third quarter," the report adds.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

AT&T To Lose 1.1 Million TV Subscribers As DirecTV Continues Nosedive More

AT&T To Lose 1.1 Million TV Subscribers As DirecTV Continues Nosedive

Comments Filter:

  • Intenet (Score:3)

    by Ryzilynt ( 3492885 ) on Thursday September 12, 2019 @07:19PM (#59188650)

    When satellite can can provide fast , affordable internet I might consider.

  • Easy (Score:5, Funny)

    by TimothyHollins ( 4720957 ) on Thursday September 12, 2019 @07:19PM (#59188654)

    I know what will solve it. Increase the price again for the remaining customers.

    • Re:Easy (Score:5, Interesting)

      by david.emery ( 127135 ) on Thursday September 12, 2019 @07:33PM (#59188698)

      That does seem to be their approach! The major reason we haven't ditched it is frankly laziness. The land-line alternative is Comcast, and I'm not sure I want to give them any of my $. We'll see what Apple's new service offers. There are only 4 or 5 channels we watch anyway (and that's a huge part of the problem; all that $$$$ for stuff we do not watch.)

      • ...The major reason we haven't ditched it is frankly laziness...There are only 4 or 5 channels we watch anyway...

        Let me assist you in your laziness, my good chum. Check out Suppose.TV [suppose.tv]
        They probably have data for your area and can suggest most available TV plans available for you based on channels you want to have.
        If you really have only 4 or 5 you might end up with a solution like Philo for only $16 a month.

        • There are two kinds of channels: those with scripted programming and those with live or otherwise timely programming. In theory, one could replace scripted cable programming with Netflix, Amazon Prime, Hulu/Disney+, etc. But two of my roommate's must-have channels (C-SPAN for Washington Journal and MSNBC for The Rachel Maddow Show) are timely, and those alone caused Suppose to recommend me a $57.99/mo plan from Dish. Sling is cheap but lacks C-SPAN.

          • Washington Journal is free on C-SPAN.org.

            • Washington Journal is free on C-SPAN.org.

              C-SPAN's TV Everywhere help page [c-span.org] states that its live coverage of proceedings on the House and Senate floors and congressional committees is available to all C-SPAN.org visitors, but other live programming requires authentication with a participating cable or satellite TV provider. If you were able to watch Washington Journal live this morning without entering a password, then either A. you had previously logged in to C-SPAN.org with credentials issued by your cable or satellite TV provider, or B. you have

              • Here is this morning's Washington Journal

                https://www.c-span.org/video/?... [c-span.org]

                Live coverage of government ... and Washington Journal are available without a subscription. It actually says that twice in the page you linked. Quoting:

                ---
                Livestreams of all federal government events covered by Câ'SPAN will continue to be available online with easy access from our home page to all visitors--no sign-in necessary. Watch live (or on demand) all House and Senate debates, committee hearings, events from the executi

          • In that case, your roommate should pay for cable, while you pay for Netflix.

        • Locast ( https://www.locast.org/ [locast.org] ) gives you local content on your AppleTV or AndroidTV as an app. Works on your phone as well.

          Free local channels with no gimmicks. It's nice that it's totally legal as well. :-)

          • Where your definition of 'totally legal' includes : being sued by major broadcasters for not being legal :

            https://www.usatoday.com/story... [usatoday.com]

            Take that with a pinch of salt, mind. And full disclosure : I 'subscribe' to locast. The wife loves it, but without paying the $5 / month 'donation' you get rather horrendous ads (begs for donations) ontop of the regular actual TV ads that are on the channel you watch, and which 'suspend the service' and dump you back to the guide selection screen - on my Roku's.

            It's bey

      • I am in a similar boat.

        I have checked out all of the different streaming options and the only one that includes all of the networks I want is DirecTV Now. Even at $70/mo, it is almost $100 cheaper than Comcast for the same features.

        I pay $60/mo for 100Mbps Internet through CenturyLink, subscribe to Hulu and Netflix and the bill still comes up ~$20/mo less than what Comcast charged.

        Still, I hope that DirecTV Now doesn't go up any more.... or I may have to re-evaluate those few channels...

    • Works for Comcast!

    • I keep trimming my package, they keep raising the prices. They truly are clueless. FYI, my wife is the primary watcher, and doesn't want to get rid of it. I don't hate DirecTV, in fact they used to be one of my favorite companies before AT&T. They used to be awesome customer service, which had declined some before AT&T, but went to garbage after. Never mind the chaos of "merging" your accounts, and how that still breaks "provider" logins for things like HBO Go, Showtime, etc.

  • Little hope (Score:3)

    by Lije Baley ( 88936 ) on Thursday September 12, 2019 @07:24PM (#59188670)

    Between cord cutters going after the very temporary "better deal", kids who don't look past the flow of memes on their phones, and AT&T's gross mismanagement, what hope could there be for DirecTV, once a pinnacle of customer service and innovation?

    • I cut most cords decades ago, it's a significantly better deal. Customer service and innovation don't produce profits fast enough so they aren't prioritized.
      • Define better deal. Paying less for downsizing is not a better deal, It's just a smaller bill for less of what you had. And with programming costs going up those savings are being eroded.

        The only cost savings to be had is if you truly stopped watching TV and that's not happening.

    • Re:Little hope (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Ryzilynt ( 3492885 ) on Thursday September 12, 2019 @07:49PM (#59188720)

      Used to be an avid AT&T enthusiast. First cell phone I ever had was on AT&T and I stayed with them for about 12 years.

      Then I realized they have an Anti-loyalty business model. It isn't "oh hey this guy has been a loyal customer for 12 years".

      It was "oh hey look this guy is a fucking chump, he's too lazy to switch so we can steal his left kidney while he sleeps"

      Sorry AT&T you dirty fucking assholes, I'm out, have been for nearly a decade.

      Competition isn't much better.

      • Re:Little hope (Score:4, Insightful)

        by fuzznutz ( 789413 ) on Thursday September 12, 2019 @10:00PM (#59189068)
        I discovered the same thing with AT&T. When my cell phone was "paid off" at the end of my two year contract, they offered no discount to stay on their service. They only offered another "free" phone and another two year contract of indentured servitude.

        They unilaterally raised my prices during the period of my "contract", began charging for services that were previously free and tacked on random extra fees. My monthly cost increased by 25%. I unlocked my phone and left, never to return. That was nine years ago and I have never been in a contract since. I port my number elsewhere if a service starts playing games.

        • I already complained about the T1 we were overcharged for at work.
          Get this.. they charged me a canceling fee. Then a late fee. Then when I paid the fee they tried to charge me a pay over the phone fee that was presumably supposed to turn into another late fee but I caught on and chewed the lady the fuck out.
          All in all cancelling took hours of my time.

      • Same experience I had with AT&T for corporate internet connections. They didn't give us better pricing until we wanted to quit.. then we quit.

      • I have been an AT&T pre-paid subscriber for many years and in that time it has gone up $5/mo but has otherwise been very stable and reliable. I am very happy with it.

      • Time Warner Cable/Spectrum is horrible about that. Basically told us to fuck off when we were leaving, then within 48 hours we had people hounding us to come back. Seeing AT&T buy one get one phone deals pisses me off. I assume most young people just switch carriers to constantly get sweet deals, but I don't have time for that kind of crap anymore.
      • Sadly many are still trapped on their marketing stunt like that.

    • Between cord cutters going after the very temporary "better deal", kids who don't look past the flow of memes on their phones, and AT&T's gross mismanagement, what hope could there be for DirecTV, once a pinnacle of customer service and innovation?

      AT&T chose... poorly.

    • It's only a "temporary better deal" if you're banking on the streaming video market. I just bought an antenna for local channels and occasionally watch stuff that's available for free online if it looks interesting. I don't pay for any streaming services, and while I have fewer options to watch TV shows, the options I have are adequate. If there's nothing worth watching among the options I have, I just do something else.

  • FYFY: "AT&T Forecasted to Lose 1.1 Million TV Subscribers As DirecTV Continues Nosedive"
    What is with Slashdot and these misleading titles? Even the spellcheck doesn't have "forecasted" in it's dictionary. I guess the clickbait runs deep.

  • scheduled vs on-demand (Score:5, Interesting)

    by roc97007 ( 608802 ) on Thursday September 12, 2019 @07:41PM (#59188706) Journal

    I see DirecTV or whatever they're calling it these days as another example of scheduled content, where the show is beamed to you when they want to beam it and the only way you can watch it on your own terms is to record it on your end. This gives the providers the added bonus of being able to rent you ridiculously expensive DVR units on top of the specialized equipment you need to receive the signal in the first place.

    With on-demand, in contrast, the content isn't sent to you until you request it. The medium is a standard internet connection, and the required hardware at your end is less complicated and considerably less expensive.

    So is anyone at all surprised that classic cable and satellite services are losing customers like crazy? I firmly believe that the only customers left are old fogies who still eat their dinners on TV trays in front of the boob tube because their shows happen to come on at dinner time.

    • " So is anyone at all surprised that classic cable and satellite services are losing customers like crazy? "

      Only the executive level folks who thought it was a grand idea to purchase a Satellite system AFTER folks were already manning the life boats.
      I honestly have no idea what they were thinking. ( Nor did they apparently )

      It's akin to buying up Oil Fields a decade after Solar and Wind have taken over. :|

      • Well they're at&t. They aren't known for stellar decision making. Maybe they saw it as a way to become a monopoly again.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by jmauro ( 32523 )

          You see, this phone system consists of a multibillion-dollar matrix of space age technology that is so sophisticated even we can’t handle it. But that’s your problem, isn’t it? So, the next time you complain about your phone service, why don’t you try using two Dixie cups with a string? We don’t care. We don’t have to. We’re the Phone Company.

          - Ernestine the Telephone Operator [jt.org]

        • They're trying to become vertically aligned media company. Like disney and comcast have.
          It's a stupid plan because they had the warner media catalog and that's it. That puts then in an unfavorable position making deals for other content.

    • I firmly believe that the only customers left are old fogies who still eat their dinners on TV trays in front of the boob tube because their shows happen to come on at dinner time.

      Don't forget live sports. That's going to be the last bastion of "classic" broadcast TV standing, mark my words. it's one of the few bits of content which you really can't time-shift because it's so much less fun to watch if you know the final score.

      • Even that is moving towards streaming. You used to be able to get those "packages" for around 150$ that would let you see every game - you still can, really, but you can instead just sign up for the streaming package instead. The cost is roughly the same, but you aren't tied to your TV provider.

        It is more the casual sports fan that wants to watch the local sports teams that aren't well served. Our local sports channel has steadfastly refused to sell streaming, so you are stuck with a TV package.

        T

        • You used to be able to get those "packages" for around 150$ that would let you see every game - you still can, really, but you can instead just sign up for the streaming package instead. The cost is roughly the same, but you aren't tied to your TV provider.

          Last year, I was trying to get my teams. It seems there were a few choices. I could get a package from NHL.com but that was subject to blackout dates. Basically any game broadcast nationally (read: "any interesting game") could not be streamed. You could get other packages like ESPN and CBS All Access. Those also had issues. Finally there are a ton of "virtual DVR" services like YouTube TV, which run about $40-$50/month. Those have other issues.

          As near as I could tell, creating an appealing sports streaming

          • And with each one of these streaming services there is another monthly fee. I fear we will achieve a balkanization of the streaming market with too many players with inflated ideas as to what their stuff is worth.

            You start to add up the monthly fees for all of these, and pretty soon normal cable TV will seem reasonable.

        • Absolutely I used to live in Bristol, CT which is the home of ESPN. My friends still there say the area is really concerned that the network will either close down completely or downsize so much that they move out of their current campus and into an office building somewhere else. That is inevitable of course. ESPN ignored the trend of cord cutting and kept signing giant broadcast contracts with sports organizations. Their revenue is going to keep dropping in lockstep with cable subscribers and they can

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by codlong ( 534744 )
        I was one of those old fogies. I had DirecTV for 23 years, dropped it last month. The final straw was when AT&T decided they'd charge me $22 a month for my fourth receiver, up from $5, that I rarely watch. We switched to Hulu+Live. I'm embarrassed to say, that switch saved me $130 a month! The only complaint I've had about it so far is they don't carry NFL Network, so I can't watch the Thursday night games, but if I really care that much (I don't) I could pick up another streaming service and still have
    • A DirecTV or DirecTV Now (ATTNow) subscription allows you to to stream on demand the content of the channels you subscribe to. Well, most of the channels - there are few stubborn ones which still refuse to give on-demand access to their library. The traditional, scheduled content is just for if you don't know what to watch and resort to channel surfing.

      So that's not what's killing DirecTV. What's killing them is reduction of services (DirecTV Now dropped the Discovery channels among others from their l
    • I've said it a bunch of times over the years, the best thing the networks and content producers could do would be to switch away from channels. Channels were an answer to a problem, but are just plain dumb in 2019. Basically think their on demand stuff, but more fleshed out, more curated, and it would have to run much faster. People won't tolerate crappy/slow UIs in this day and age.

  • AT&T can rot in fiery Hell. They've pulled so many slimy tricks on our family. The other (only) alternative is only slightly better. They also can get in Hell line behind AT&T.

  • Maybe they should... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by skam240 ( 789197 ) on Thursday September 12, 2019 @07:53PM (#59188724)

    Maybe they should restructure their business to what consumers actually want rather than trying to milk every penny out of the customers they have. With every single asshole out there trying to capitalize on streaming and thus ruining the reason people flocked there to begin with they could market themselves as the solution.

    They won't of course as all most major corporations seem to care about today is satisfying investors for the next quarter to come rather than establishing the roots of proper wealth.

    • They definitely need to re-organize their business and service to coop up with the changes and behaviors of the clients.
    • business isn't about what consumers want, it's about what business wants.
      • That doesn't work all the time. Happy customers become loyal customers and spread the word that helps a business grow.
    • thats called greed economics. its everywhere these days. big business trying to squeeze every dime from you. employers doing the shit with that how many more billions can we make by paying are employees less.
    • They won't of course as all most major corporations seem to care about today is satisfying investors for the next quarter to come rather than establishing the roots of proper wealth

      They aren't even doing THAT anymore. They are pissing off EVERYONE, including their investors

  • Why in God's good name would anyone willingly pay to have advertising shoved into their eyeballs? Broadcast TV can FOAD.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by tsqr ( 808554 )

      Why in God's good name would anyone willingly pay to have advertising shoved into their eyeballs? Broadcast TV can FOAD.

      LOL. The reason it's called "Broadcast TV" is because it's broadcast, as in, transmitted over the air. You don't have to pay for it if you have the brains to connect an antenna.

  • they bought Direct TV for the streaming infrastructure. That's it. They could care less about the satellite TV.

    • they bought Direct TV for the streaming infrastructure. That's it. They could care less about the satellite TV.

      The streaming infrastructure is a steaming pile of shit. Particularly the DTV web interface. It barely works. The login process is agonizing, failing two or three times per attempt. Close browser, reopen, try again over and over. When you finally are able to log in and watch, it times you out in like 15 minutes if you, I don't know, go to the bathroom and take a dump. They treat online users like criminals. It uses Flash. It uses FLASH! The "helper" application is 32 bit (on macOS) with no sign of being up

      • I can't wait for their last satellite to fall out of orbit and die a fiery death.

        As long as it lands on your house...

    • They *couldn't* care less.
  • Why pay for tv and then have to wade thru 20 minutes of commercials every hour? It's dumb.

  • Ha! (Score:1)

    by rlwinm ( 6158720 )
    Well, it's pretty sad when I say this but (at least for Internet, I don't give a single crap about TV - streaming or otherwise) Comcast is leaps and bounds better than AT&T. Comcast Business actually has decent customer service too. I now have a blanket "no AT&T" rule. My business DSL went out and they say they can't look at it for 6 days? C'mon. Never again AT&T. Never again.

  • for TV with commercials.

  • they have outright said they hate streaming and low profit tv packages. so they did everything they could to drive people away from direct tv now and even drove people off there tv service if they where not paying for the top tier package. like most stupid people behind a desk who makes way to much money they thought it would drive people back into there overpriced tv. it did not people are just walking away from paid tv at this point.
  • A big part of what propped up DirecTV for years was that they were the only ones that had NFL Sunday Ticket. I tried the online-only version a few years ago and it was fucking horrible. If it was not down -- a big IF -- it was constantly dropping out and games would go dark in the middle for no reason. I am guessing their revenue was really been hit by the plethora of illicit streams on game day. People aren't going to pay over $400 for 17 weeks of sucky service -- not anymore, when the pirated product
    • Rural America. Lots of wide open spaces for a satellite dish, but no cable/fiber run underground to your farmstead/country home. After over-the-air TV went digital, many lost the ability to use rabbit ears.

    • I picked up Hulu Live this year just for the NFL season.

      Getting the local channel games plus ESPN games is enough for me. Totally worth not having to battle Direct TV's subscription pricing games every 6-12 months to keep the pricing reasonable.

  • and the new HBO service hasn't even launched yet. These services are all in competition with each other. The untenability of this situation should be obvious to anyone that isn't a massive conglomerate where the right hand barely knows the left exists.
  • My local telco is switching to fiber on Oct 5th -- I will be hooked up a couple weeks later, then I get to make the call I've been wanting to make for 5 years, "Cancel my DirecTV service."
  • Try getting unlimited Internet from AT&T without bundling TV and/or cell phone service. In my service area, if you don't bundle other services with Internet, you have to deal with bandwidth limits that result in increased charges with Internet usage over relatively small data limits. The U.S. needs real competition in the Internet Service space. I'm tired of being told that we have the most expensive Internet service in the world, when the only reason behind it is corporate greed.

  • The content producers realize that they can get better deals and maybe even foolishly perhaps, do the distribution themselves. This fact is making any negotiation tough for AT&T.

    At my ISP we offer Gig speeds and no TV of any kind. Hasn't hurt my business at all.. everyone streams.

  • As a data point, I've had several aggressive pitches from AT&T to schlep me off of fiber-delivered Uverse and onto dish-delivered TV. They are shooting themselves in the foot by artificially increasing churn.

  • I have been an on/off subscriber to Direct TV over the last 6-7 years or so. The service is pretty nice, but the way they bill customers is just so aggravating. Not that it's very much different than how other internet providers work - but there is no internet service here to make the battle for reasonable rates every 6 months to a year worth fighting.

    Geniuses at Direct TV: Offer a 40-50 dollar a month FOR LIFE package that I can get all my local channels and some basic cable sports channels and not have

Slashdot Top Deals

Some people manage by the book, even though they don't know who wrote the book or even what book.

Close