AT&T Unveils 'DirecTV Now' Streaming Television Service

[pokerplayer73]

As an AT&T customer, cable-cutter, and HBO Now subscriber, this is sounding quite tempting.

Same here..$5 extra for HBO is great. Will it have a single streaming HBO channel or full set of streaming channels(Zone, Family, Comedy etc)? Or, is it going to be HBO GO type offering?
[doublepost=1480395726][/doublepost]

What's the upside here? Cord-cutters still have a "cord" in that they need internet and will subscribe to DirectTV (a content provider, that's essentially a cable company.) Seems like all this does is get around FCC regulations but in the end you have the same thing—a set top box and a monthly subscription. What's the difference between that and cable?

For me, good thing about cord-cutting is riddance from 20th century cable box, non-sensical fees, cable box fees etc. Brighthouse used to charge $6 for some regional sports fee or something, cable box that stored 20 hrs of HD programming, $19 for HBO + taxes on everything. It's annoying the price that they advertise and the final bill is nowhere near that. Cord-cutting gives me their high cost internet only package, but its with no data caps(will remain that for next 7 years with Spectrum)
[doublepost=1480396258][/doublepost]Does anyone know if it includes NBC, CBS, ABC and Fox?

 

[Santabean2000]

$30 a month is breaking the bank for you? No offense, but you're probably every companies worst nightmare type of customer that wants everything's for free and cries about anything and everything

You realize right now they make 5-10x what you would pay per episode per viewer watching one ad on broadcast tv? There is literally zero motivation for them to do anything different. You're living in a fantasy world. But you can get what you want right now in iTunes (or Google Play, or Amazon, XBox, etc). Hope in, buy an episode or entire season with touch ID. It's just going to cost a lot more that you seem to think it should.

You do realise that the US is not the world, right? What I'm saying is that for many folks in the world, you just can't buy the stuff now, even when you try to.

The industry divides the world up when in reality all content can be shared anywhere at any time; the technology is here. Now. For the last however many years already.

They make their kazillion dollars by selling and then reselling content through their geofenced, archaic model, and yes, they don't have a lot of motivation to change right now. Fat cats getting fatter at the expense of us shmucks.

The world has so much conflict because of the rich and powerful deliberately and systematically screwing everyone else.

We almost have a moral obligation to torrent the #### out of everything until their sorry-ass comes crawling back with a decent deal for everyone.

 

[Mtmspa]

Maybe a dumb question, but will this allow me to access other tv apps? Like if I get DirectTV Now, will it step in as a cable provider for other apps like ABC, NBC, etc. that require a provider to get at live tv and full access within those apps? Anybody know?

According to Reddit, this will not be an option. Can only use their app.

 

[MrXiro]

The $35/mo channel line-up looks very similar to Sling's Orange package for $20/mo + their $5 kids package. Looks like the only deal here is to buy three months, ebay the free Apple TV, then cancel and switch back to Sling...

Actually it has the Fox cable channels, NBC/Universal AND Disney... so it would be the Sling Orange and Blue at $40 plus $5 kids package. $35 is a helluva deal especially with a free Apple TV (as opposed to 40% off of one)
[doublepost=1480400126][/doublepost]

And then don't forget to add to that supposedly 'lower price' your ISP's bandwidth charges.

For now, we just can't seem to win.

I don't have bandwidth charges. So it's literally $70 a month total and all is covered. I save $30 from my bundled cable package.

 

[gleepskip]

According to Reddit, this will not be an option. Can only use their app.

Starting out, DTVN credentials will work only with WatchESPN and HBOGo. Like with most of the desirable features, more waiting is necessary.

 

[LethalWolfe]

I don't "subscribe" to movies. I see/rent movies "a la carte" with no regard for which studio made it. Movies also have enormous costs and risk, which are both spread across titles and business partners.

In fact, most major media types can be purchased on a per-title basis (movies, books, music). TV shows are almost there too, with many titles on iTunes being delayed by just a few days or even one day.

So I don't think it is somehow impossible to do "because it's TV". I find it difficult to believe that with so much potential profit on the table that studios would be unable to risk investment.

Books, movies, music, etc., are products sold to customers. TV shows are vehicles to sell customers to advertisers. The business models are polar opposites. This is why buying current TV shows on Amazon or iTunes includes the time delay. AMC, for example, prefers people to watch The Walking Dead on Sunday nights because the more people that watch on Sunday nights the more AMC can charge advertisers for commercial time. The more people that watch on Sunday Nights also means that AMC can fight for a higher subscriber fee from cable companies.

If/when the revenue from episode/season sales on places like iTMS and Amazon starts to rival what advertises pay for access to potential customers then we'll start seeing a shift in the audience priorities of the companies making the shows.

Another wrinkle is subscription services like ShowTime, HBO, Netflix, Hulu, Amazon, etc.,. The only way to see the current, original content from those services is to pay for those services. Even the back catalog is generally unavailable on competing streaming services (the only exception off the top of my head is the limited agreement HBO made with Amazon before HBO eventually launched HBO NOW). So if you want to stream House of Cards, Game of Thrones and Transparent you will need to subscribe to Netflix, HBO and Amazon respectively.

They make their kazillion dollars by selling and then reselling content through their geofenced, archaic model, and yes, they don't have a lot of motivation to change right now. Fat cats getting fatter at the expense of us shmucks.

If a single distribution company has the means to pay for the global distributions rights I'm sure a production company would be happy to sell them the global distribution rights. The problem is a single distribution company probably won't be able afford to pay as much as what would collectively be paid by multiple territories around the globe. Ex., if one person offered you $50 for your product but if 10 people offered you $10 each which deal would you go with?

The industry is certainly moving forward (just think of where we were in 2006 vs today in terms of content accessibility), but no business that want's to stay in businesses is going run past dollars to chase quarters in the hopes that one of the quarters might have a wadded up $5 bill hidden underneath it.

 

[JBaker122586]

I have no idea what you are talking about. I never said 10 cents for a show or $1 for a season. Or anything like that at all.

If someone else said that, perhaps you should respond to that quote instead of mine.

Definitely quoted the wrong person then, my bad.

 

[Zirel]

Would love an option to choose my channels a la carte, instead--no bundles! Wasn't Steve Jobs and Apple working on this year's ago?

It's impossible to do "a la carte".

E.g. if someone wants to get Game of Thrones, they'll have to pay like $60 for the season, or $8 per episode, most people will save that money, specially if the previous episode is not to their liking, that would limit creatives and make premium TV boring and repetitive and mind-numbing, and more people would resort to piracy.

Too much risk, there's why there are movies. TV is better nowadays, take the example of Westworld. It takes time to get into it, it takes time to get interesting, but it's okay, because you're paying a sub wether your like it or not, and HBO is doing well by making HBO Now, where you can watch their shows on-demand.

 

[chr1s60]

A la Carte will never happen.

If it ever does it will be at such a high price that it wouldn't be worth it to begin with.

 

[Santabean2000]

Definitely quoted the wrong person then, my bad.

That'd be me you were after.

 

[lsutigerfan1976]

Anyone want to talk about how bad that presentation was today? It was laughable at best.

After researching this further, I just don't see enough to get me to leave vue service. I don't have at&t service, and I already get unlimited internet at my house with charter. I feel like for those ppl with existing at&t services this is a no brainer though.

 

[Cloudkicker]

A la carte will never happen? Maybe for you Americans. The FCC doesn't regulate cable.

In Canada, the CRTC does. It's a double-edge sword, but on Dec. 1, 2016, every channel *has* to be offered a la carte &/or in packages of no more than 10 (typically cable/sat/fibe will offer 10 channels for $20).

Sure, Disney Channel may be $7 a la carte, but ditching -- to me -- useless sports channels, buying packages of no more than 10 (depending on niche) will be a money saver.

http://www.digitalhome.ca/forum/12-...s-providers/#/topics/233993?page=14&_k=pimic3

 

[keifer.street]

I used to think I wanted A la Carte channels, but even that is "backward" thinking. What I really want to watch are specific shows, not specific channels.

• I want to watch Star Trek, not CBS.
• I want to watch Walking Dead, not AMC.
• I want to watch Westworld and Game of Thrones, not HBO.

I want to watch Deadpool, and I don't care if it's Starz or Netflix or HBO or Cinemax or NBC or FOX or whoever else that provides it to me.

The ultimate TV interface just displays all movies and shows from all providers, makes them available on day 1 same as anywhere else, doesn't have commercials, has a single login/account, charges a fair price for what I watch, and has great UI for search, organization, reviews, etc.

I think that is what Steve Jobs hinted at what he was working on, and where Apple is still trying to get to. He was absolutely right--the current interfaces we use are absolute garbage.

With things like universal search, we are taking steps to get there--but they are baby steps.

This guy gets it. It's the shows that people should really care about - not the network channels or subsidized bundle packages. You see it's the content that drives consumer interest. It's the content itself that makes or breaks a network.

So many here have been blasting ala carte TV or in the above case also carte content. I will summarize all of the opposition arguments from this view in quotes below, then I'll tell you why these are irrelevant and why ala carte is still better and what everyone should want.

"You ignorant millenials have no idea how the business model works. It costs a lot of money to create content. If you take away subsidized content, the number of channels would go down, reducing choice and driving up costs for the individual channels, so you'd be paying just as much for your ten channels as you would for 60, reducing choice. Content providers would also cater to the content that gets the best ratings with the most people, so content creators and networks would take less risk"

Sure, the prices will go up on a per channel basis. Yep, I understand that I may pay the same or nearly the same for 10 ala carte channels as I would for 60. For me, it's never been about saving money per se. It's about 'trimming the fat'. Subsidies of any kind are bad. Period. Whether it's government subsidies on sugar or network channel subsidies from cable providers, they all have one thing in common: they hinder the beautiful model of free market capitalism.

Sure, many (barely watched) networks/channels would die, but I would submit to you those that survive would thrive because they'd be driven (hard) to produce content that people actually want to watch. I don't have a problem with content providers being driven by the 'lowest common denominator' if that means that they simply are driven to create content that the majority of people want to watch.

The free market would decide which channels can stand on their own based on the content they have and those who would be willing to pay for said content. It would drive up competition between networks even further, which always increases customer satisfaction and reduces price (in this case on a per channel basis).

Free market calitalism is great mmmmk. Forcing the networks to compete against each other based on their content would also be great. Letting other networks die because they have crap content would be great. Others would rise to take their place. Reducing the clutter of garbage channels and content that nobody wants to watch would be great.

 

[yngrshr]

You do realise that the US is not the world, right? What I'm saying is that for many folks in the world, you just can't buy the stuff now, even when you try to.

The industry divides the world up when in reality all content can be shared anywhere at any time; the technology is here. Now. For the last however many years already.

They make their kazillion dollars by selling and then reselling content through their geofenced, archaic model, and yes, they don't have a lot of motivation to change right now. Fat cats getting fatter at the expense of us shmucks.

The world has so much conflict because of the rich and powerful deliberately and systematically screwing everyone else.

We almost have a moral obligation to torrent the #### out of everything until their sorry-ass comes crawling back with a decent deal for everyone.

Nah, the USA pretty much is the world. I mean, I get why you'd disagree and all, but it is for all intents and purposes the world in terms of business ventures and advertising.

 

[MacGizmo]

DVR features are what's left out of any/all of these offerings. And you can bet if they offered it, you would be paying another $10 per month for that.

In the end, unless you enforce a Netflix-only cord-cutting plan, you end up paying nearly as much if not the same as just paying for the cable service to begin with.

 

[Santabean2000]

Nah, the USA pretty much is the world. I mean, I get why you'd disagree and all, but it is for all intents and purposes the world in terms of business ventures and advertising.

Ha ha ha aha. It's funny because you actually think that's true.

 

[malexandria]

I don't understand the point. At these prices you might as well stick with cable. Especially when for someone like me Xfinity charges $80 for Broadband Only and I'm currently on a special where I get everything including HBO and Showtime for $110 a month for 2 yrs. And the nice thing about Xfinity is they allow all the Network Apps on almost all devices.
[doublepost=1480419526][/doublepost]

I agree. I just want around ten channels for a reasonable price, not all the garbage channels I'll never watch.

Also, what about DVR services? 4K content? There will no doubt be extra fees. This is going to get expensive, just like cable is today.

I don't understand the point. At these prices you might as well stick with cable. Especially when for someone like me Xfinity charges $80 for Broadband Only and I'm currently on a special where I get everything including HBO and Showtime for $110 a month for 2 yrs. And the nice thing about Xfinity is they allow all the Network Apps on almost all devices.
[doublepost=1480419526]

Tired of people complaining about this Paying $50 for a bundle of channels isn't that crazy a price even if there are channels you never watch. Ala cart channels would cost at least $10 each ANYWAY. So the only people who benefit would people who don't watch much TV ANYWAY. You are already close to an ala cart option with all the various apps now. And even if they ever do Ala Cart people would whine about paying for a channel that shows commercials. This generation is just too spoiled, cheap and expect everything handed to them, exactly how they want and when they want it.

I don't understand the point. At these prices you might as well stick with cable. Especially when for someone like me Xfinity charges $80 for Broadband Only and I'm currently on a special where I get everything including HBO and Showtime for $110 a month for 2 yrs. And the nice thing about Xfinity is they allow all the Network Apps on almost all devices.
[doublepost=1480419526][/doublepost]



4K Cable will be here at the end of next year, I don't think it'll cost much extra to get it. Hopefully.

[doublepost=1480419934][/doublepost]

This guy gets it. It's the shows that people should really care about - not the network channels or subsidized bundle packages. You see it's the content that drives consumer interest. It's the content itself that makes or breaks a network.

So many here have been blasting ala carte TV or in the above case also carte content. I will summarize all of the opposition arguments from this view in quotes below, then I'll tell you why these are irrelevant and why ala carte is still better and what everyone should want.

"You ignorant millenials have no idea how the business model works. It costs a lot of money to create content. If you take away subsidized content, the number of channels would go down, reducing choice and driving up costs for the individual channels, so you'd be paying just as much for your ten channels as you would for 60, reducing choice. Content providers would also cater to the content that gets the best ratings with the most people, so content creators and networks would take less risk"

Sure, the prices will go up on a per channel basis. Yep, I understand that I may pay the same or nearly the same for 10 ala carte channels as I would for 60. For me, it's never been about saving money per se. It's about 'trimming the fat'. Subsidies of any kind are bad. Period. Whether it's government subsidies on sugar or network channel subsidies from cable providers, they all have one thing in common: they hinder the beautiful model of free market capitalism.

Sure, many (barely watched) networks/channels would die, but I would submit to you those that survive would thrive because they'd be driven (hard) to produce content that people actually want to watch. I don't have a problem with content providers being driven by the 'lowest common denominator' if that means that they simply are driven to create content that the majority of people want to watch.

The free market would decide which channels can stand on their own based on the content they have and those who would be willing to pay for said content. It would drive up competition between networks even further, which always increases customer satisfaction and reduces price (in this case on a per channel basis).

Free market calitalism is great mmmmk. Forcing the networks to compete against each other based on their content would also be great. Letting other networks die because they have crap content would be great. Others would rise to take their place. Reducing the clutter of garbage channels and content that nobody wants to watch would be great.

You can do this now. It's called BUYING the shows or movies you want to watch.
[doublepost=1480420137][/doublepost]

This guy gets it. It's the shows that people should really care about - not the network channels or subsidized bundle packages. You see it's the content that drives consumer interest. It's the content itself that makes or breaks a network.

So many here have been blasting ala carte TV or in the above case also carte content. I will summarize all of the opposition arguments from this view in quotes below, then I'll tell you why these are irrelevant and why ala carte is still better and what everyone should want.

"You ignorant millenials have no idea how the business model works. It costs a lot of money to create content. If you take away subsidized content, the number of channels would go down, reducing choice and driving up costs for the individual channels, so you'd be paying just as much for your ten channels as you would for 60, reducing choice. Content providers would also cater to the content that gets the best ratings with the most people, so content creators and networks would take less risk"

Sure, the prices will go up on a per channel basis. Yep, I understand that I may pay the same or nearly the same for 10 ala carte channels as I would for 60. For me, it's never been about saving money per se. It's about 'trimming the fat'. Subsidies of any kind are bad. Period. Whether it's government subsidies on sugar or network channel subsidies from cable providers, they all have one thing in common: they hinder the beautiful model of free market capitalism.

Sure, many (barely watched) networks/channels would die, but I would submit to you those that survive would thrive because they'd be driven (hard) to produce content that people actually want to watch. I don't have a problem with content providers being driven by the 'lowest common denominator' if that means that they simply are driven to create content that the majority of people want to watch.

The free market would decide which channels can stand on their own based on the content they have and those who would be willing to pay for said content. It would drive up competition between networks even further, which always increases customer satisfaction and reduces price (in this case on a per channel basis).

Free market calitalism is great mmmmk. Forcing the networks to compete against each other based on their content would also be great. Letting other networks die because they have crap content would be great. Others would rise to take their place. Reducing the clutter of garbage channels and content that nobody wants to watch would be great.

Trimming the fat? Then don't watch the channels you don't like. Is it really that difficult? Your logic is flawed and based solely on your own selfish wants and desires and this idea that this is a Utopia world where everything is catered strictly to you. As the original poster said, your idea would totally destroy television. If money isn't an issue and you want to "trim the fat" then cut the chord and purchase all your shows ala cart.

 

[OldSchoolMacGuy]

Sadly, a la carte is unlikely and would come with a number of downsides.

Right now ESPN is the most in-demand channel bundled into your cable package. In an a la carte situation, you're looking at paying around $20/month for it alone, likely more. Why? Because without subscription packages there would be less people overall that subscribe to it. They'd need to charge what they receive now or more to make up for the loss in the number of subscribers.

Does that sound like a lot? It gets worse.

Without bundling, the majority of channels would go out of business. I hope you only like the 10 or so most popular channels because there simply wouldn't be enough people interested in subscribing to the others to keep them in business.

With bundles even the lesser popular channels get a cut and can continue to exist. I'm sure you'll say screw them if they can't survive but the truth is that while they may not be your thing, they are channels many people enjoy. It's like if Apple had gone out of business in the '90s because they were the less popular choice, even if many did like them.

Adding to the likelihood that most channels would fail, even the less popular channels would have to charge a good amount. Right now they get a couple cents or a couple dollars from your monthly bundle price. If you unbundle they now have to charge not $1/month they receive from the current bundle but $5/month because so many less folks would subscribe to their channel. Again, you may say screw that but we're talking about real people losing their jobs at countless TV channels and content creators across the country/world.

You may still think a la carte is the way to go. Sadly it only means less choice for us all. Much of what's produced by the channels which would go out of business is content that ends up on Netflix where people re-discover it. With Netflix already cutting back drastically in non-original content, it would mean even less for you to watch there. Netflix is already investing mostly in their own content. While much of it is great, if you don't like it, soon you'll have no choice. With Netflix investing in their own content and less in that from others, plus many of the smaller content producers going out of business, less and less choice is already around the corner.

 

[cfj2222]

What troubles me is that if you subscribe to DirecTV Now, streaming it is free on AT&T Mobile. But if you subscribe to Netflix or Sling, PAY UP!

 

[markscl]

What's the upside here? Cord-cutters still have a "cord" in that they need internet and will subscribe to DirectTV (a content provider, that's essentially a cable company.) Seems like all this does is get around FCC regulations but in the end you have the same thing—a set top box and a monthly subscription. What's the difference between that and cable?

It benefits me greatly. I am a cord-cutter mostly because I don't want the high bill of cable, ANOTHER box in addition to ones I already have, never ending rental fees for equipment that I can't shop around for and a coax connection required everywhere I want to put a TV. This (as well as PS Vue and Sling) solves all those problems. Sling doesn't work for me because it doesn't have Fox News. DirecTV Now, at least with the introductory pricing and free Apple TV, provides a better value than PS Vue...unless Roku support and DVR functions are important to you.

 

[bbeagle]

And unless things have changed dramatically in the 2 years since I last had DirecTV satellite service (and had it for over 10+ years), the cost of their equipment is ridiculous. I was required to pay for the set-top boxes upfront ($199 and STILL had to return them to DirecTV when I cancelled service) plus the monthly lease cost per box. DVR service---another additional cost and the whats involved in having everything installed...not a simple process to wire every room for service. The big ugly dish on the roof..another bonus. And if you want the best pricing, have to sign up for 2 years.

DirecTV will now install up to 4 rooms with their high-end DVRs for free. That's like a $800 savings there - which they will require you to have a 2 year contract. You've got to return the boxes at the end of your contract. They will give you packages to put them in and pay for shipping. They're really no use without the DirecTV service anyways.

So, in essence, all you're paying for is their service now.

Oh, PLUS a rental fee. When I signed up with them in the late 90's, if they said $79 a month it was exactly $79 a month no matter how many rooms you had. Now they charge $15 for the first room, $7 for each additional room on top of their monthly fees, same way the cable companies do.

My DirecTV monthly bill is $90 with all their channels except for the premium ones (HBO, Cinemax, etc).

I think it's a good deal as streaming isn't as reliable yet, especially during primetime hours. Sometimes, even with the best internet, it's very difficult streaming 7-9 at night. It's all because the way our cable internet works - the internet bandwidth is shared in our entire neighborhood and everyone is using streaming during those hours. I have no problem with DirecTV during those hours since I'm not streaming it.
[doublepost=1480424720][/doublepost]

What troubles me is that if you subscribe to DirecTV Now, streaming it is free on AT&T Mobile. But if you subscribe to Netflix or Sling, PAY UP!

Sounds normal. AT&T and DirecTV are the same company - they want you to use THEIR company over the competition. How is that 'troubling'? Microsoft wants you to use Windows, Google wants you to use Android. etc. etc.

 

[blizaine]

This service looks tempting. But nothing was said about how many simultaneous streams? Cloud DVR? Use your Login creds for Video Apps? These will be deal breakers.


Edit: Looks like Engadget says there will be 2 simultaneous streams.

 

[gorkt]

Interesting, particularly with $5/month HBO plus the ability for free streaming on all my AT&T devices. I may do the 1 week trial just to see how the UI is. I am also interested in more details on the DVR service, since that is a must have for my family. I wonder if it would work with a TIVO or external DVR? The lack of CBS is also annoying, but I could spring for $6/month all access and still come out ahead.

 

[ssl0408]

This service looks tempting. But nothing was said about how many simultaneous streams? Cloud DVR? Use your Login creds for Video Apps? These will be deal breakers.


Edit: Looks like Engadget says there will be 2 simultaneous streams.

I believe that it's only two simultaneous streams, and DVR won't be available until next year.

 

[johngordon]

Correct. And in which case customers will pay around $30 per show (assuming they buy a season pass). As people have mentioned, when you want to buy less of something the per unit costs go up. It's not much different than buying one can of Coke vs a twelve pack vs buying in bulk.

It's just bad math when people look at their 200 channel cable package for $100 and assume that, if split out, all their channels should cost $0.50 each.

Exactly - people seem to think that if they only watch 10 channels out of 100, it should cost 10% of what they pay.

Its never going to work like that.