Slashdot Mirror


AT&T Unveils DirecTV Now Streaming TV Service With Over 100 Channels (theverge.com)

ATT has officially unveiled its DirecTV Now internet TV streaming service, which launches Wednesday, November 30th, in the U.S. on iPhone, Android, Amazon Fire TV, Chromecast, and PC/Mac, starting at $35 per month. The Verge reports: Like its over-the-top rivals, DirecTV Now will let customers stream live programming on smartphones, tablets, and PCs -- no cable box necessary -- and requires no long-term contracts or commitments. For a limited time, ATT will offer the "Go Big" channel tier with 100 channels for $35 per month. If you sign up in time, the offer will remain valid each month until you cancel. But that $35 rate is not the long-term pricing for 100+ channels. DirecTV Now offers step-up subscriptions that include other channels and content for a higher monthly cost. ATT has signed programming agreements with nearly all major networks with the exception of CBS and Showtime; negotiations with those companies remain ongoing. DirecTV Now allows customers to watch up to two streams simultaneously. HBO and Cinemax can be added to any of these packages for just $5 extra (each) per month. DirecTV Now is "zero rated" for the company's wireless customers, so regardless of how much time they spend streaming, that activity will have no impact on data usage for their monthly bill. Importantly, while these are the subscription rates as of today, the company is being straightforward about the possibility of increases in the future. ATT also plans to air original shows including a Taylor Swift series.

80 comments

  1. In before... by Overzeetop · · Score: 3, Interesting

    In before the FCC scuttles net neutrality and Comcast (and all the other cable internet providers except AT&T) throttle this service to 100kbps.

    --
    Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
    1. Re:In before... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cite or STFU, loser bitch.

    2. Re:In before... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      NN didn't cover cell carriers, so this exception wouldn't matter.

      although I'll agree that this is a perfect example of why NN is needed.

    3. Re:In before... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's an expat seller who goes on a rant on the boards.

      'nuff cited!

    4. Re:In before... by Overzeetop · · Score: 1

      Oh, yes, I expect Verizon, T-Mobile, and Sprint to start free-streaming 4k content at full rate for AT&T content with no additional charge/no caps/no throttling any day now. /s

      --
      Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
    5. Re:In before... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fox will give it to you in the ass, DrumpfHerder, and without even spitting before they shove it in dry:

      http://www.foxnews.com/tech/20...

    6. Re:In before... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nice rant...

  2. close so close by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    it is good to see that the cable guys are finally getting "it". the fact of the matter is cable tv is dead. internet is all we want now a days. however trying to put a 35$ + tag on something that is 7.99 from netflix is off the mark.

    the only thing this will give is SPORTS ! that is the crunch of the entire industry. now that there is finally a way for folks to watch sports it is dead!

    better idea instead of 100 channels of shit i don't watch why not let us pick al a cart and pay like 1-2$ per channel ? oh thats right this way they can charge 35$ ... too bad

    1. Re:close so close by Locke2005 · · Score: 1

      Sports is the only content it makes sense for everyone to watch at exactly the same time (live, duh!). Any prerecorded show, you're better off timeshifting it to when it's convenient for you to watch. And, there are a lot of people ready, willing, and able to pay big bucks to watch their favorite sports (not me, I don't really care who wins, which makes it significantly less enjoyable.) So Sport is really the only product cable has left to sell.

      --
      I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
    2. Re:close so close by MoarSauce123 · · Score: 1

      The pricing is totally off. I looked into cable cutting and in the end I can save about 15$, but have to juggle between ITV, rabbit ears (none of these fine services do local channels!), and 3rd party VoIP services. With ITV you still need some device strapped to your TV set, so I might as well keep that cable box. The a la carte options are demanded by many, but cannot be delivered. Disney packages ABC and ESPN together with a dozen junk channels and the distributors either take the whole bag or nothing at all. Cutting out the junk will save you absolutely nothing. I bite when I get the full monty for 20$ a month, but not at 35$ for the starter set.

    3. Re: close so close by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Huh. I was paying dtv $170/months for fuck all. I just cancelled, got a roamio and mini, already had amazon prime, and pay $8/month for Netflix. Messed around with Hulu and sling, but couldn't justify.

      At this point I hate dtv sooooo much they'd have to pay me to take their service.

    4. Re:close so close by JackieBrown · · Score: 1

      TimeWarner in San Antonio already gets around the cord cutting by making it where basic cable is pretty much included with the cost of internet.

      I save no money by canceling cable. I tried to cancel out of principal but then lost one of the bundle deals that had reduced the cost of my internet and suddenly made my bill go up. I hate them.

    5. Re:close so close by Stickybombs · · Score: 1

      Disney, etc are only able to package all the channels together because the cable companies agree to it. If customers weren't willing to pay for their package deal, they'd have to sell individual channels or go out of business. But as long as enough people keep paying for crap they don't want to watch, the media companies are happy to keep bundling it.

  3. That's nothing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My service, and it's going to be soo good, I'm telling you. My service will have over 3,000,000 channels. It's huge. I mean it's the best thing available, trust me.

    1. Re:That's nothing by desdinova+216 · · Score: 1

      but will it have blackjack and hookers? on second thought forget the blackjack.

    2. Re: That's nothing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And the hookers. Ahh, screw the whole thing.

  4. Channels by SETY · · Score: 4, Insightful

    These clowns don't get it. I don't want to watch channels. I want to watch episodes, movies, and events on my schedule (with the exception of live events). Take everything direct tv has and stream it individually, now that is something worth paying for.

    1. Re:Channels by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sure, they will create a whole new ecosystem for you alone so they can get your $8/mo. Get real. You alone don't decide. I have internet TV and cable and my usage is 90/10 in favor of cable and this is what I see most people doing as well (those who have both). Only those who have only internet TV talk about episodes because that is all they have.

    2. Re:Channels by un1nsp1red · · Score: 2

      Though it has far fewer channels, SlingTV works kind of in a hybrid mode like that. You can switch to a channel and watch whatever is currently being broadcast live. However, you can also select a channel and click "down" on your remote and watch recorded content as well. Clicking an individual channel doesn't give you everything that channel has to offer, but it's usually relevant content. Hopefully they'll offer something similar. Sometimes I like the live broadcast for the simple sake of editorialized content (e.g., don't want to think about what I want to watch), and other times I have in mind exactly what I want to watch.

    3. Re:Channels by DidgetMaster · · Score: 1

      Lots of services let you do that, except they call it 'Pay-per-view' and they want to charge you something like $4.99 to watch some movie once that is 8 years old. You only have to watch a few programs before your bill is $40.

    4. Re: Channels by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cable is good if you have unlimited time and don't matter spending it watching low quality content filles with commercials. I suppose sports are the exception, but I could personally care less about sports. Netflix pegged it when broadband became widely accessible enough to stream.

    5. Re:Channels by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      But it's certainly better than 100 streaming services for $10 each. If the $35 covers a good variety of shows, it could be a viable cable replacement. Netflix is for me, but not for a lot of people ever since content holders started yanking the content away hoping to have their own streaming service or a bigger fee. True, I don't want to pay $10 for one single show (still missing Doctor Who ever since it was yanked). But I can wait too, there's so much on netflix that I can't watch all I want there anyway.

    6. Re:Channels by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      lol hooray for the people willing to watch whatever someone puts in front of them, and paying for the pleasure.

  5. Streaming is shit. by RightSaidFred99 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Don't want it unless they offer timeshifting and commercial skip. Why would I want to waste time watching commercials and be bound by when a show is actually airing, so I can party like it's 1993?

    In fact this is so fucking useless, to me and probably a lot of people, it borderline makes me angry.

    No thanks. I'll stick with my evil cable company and a Tivo.

    1. Re:Streaming is shit. by PRMan · · Score: 1

      And Dish just announced today that Sling TV is adding a DVR next month.

      --
      Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
    2. Re:Streaming is shit. by keith_nt4 · · Score: 1

      Just to play devil's advocate here: there was a relatively minor storm (minor for outside of california, somewhat signifcant for where I live) which caused the satellite service to lose signal or be horribly garbled. If I could have the same channels even without time shifting at least I could watch TV when there's a slight breeze/rain outside.
      Not sure it'd be worth it though, just saying maybe there is fact one use for it.

      --
      "UNIX is very simple, it just needs a genius to understand its simplicity." -Dennis Ritchie
    3. Re: Streaming is shit. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean they're finally adding the "cloud DVR" PlayStation Vue has had with the My Shows?

    4. Re:Streaming is shit. by Cro+Magnon · · Score: 1

      This! My experience with streaming is Netflix and Hulu (ad-free), which meets both those criteria. My DVR isn't ad-free, but it does allow me to FF past ads. I can't see using anything that doesn't allow FF or watching on my schedule.

      --
      Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
    5. Re:Streaming is shit. by Cro+Magnon · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I had that when I had Direct. Time Warner does a lot better, even with a 3rd rate DVR.

      --
      Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
    6. Re:Streaming is shit. by Baloo+Uriza · · Score: 1

      Hell, I'll go so far as to say it's not worth it compared to fucking with the antenna or watching what hits Youtube Red (which I already have as part of Google Play Music subscription I use the hell out of at work) unless I can TiVo it. I don't want timeshifting to be at their mercy.

      --
      Furries make the internet go.
    7. Re:Streaming is shit. by Baloo+Uriza · · Score: 1

      Well, this should be interesting. TiVo's who ended up taking over TV Guide, Dish and Rovio, ultimately replacing TV Guide as the company with it's name at the top of the building at what was formerly known as TV Guide Plaza in Tulsa's San Souci neighborhood.

      --
      Furries make the internet go.
  6. 99 channels of shit on the tv tube by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    tell it like it is

    1. Re:99 channels of shit on the tv tube by Locke2005 · · Score: 1

      The actual line from Pink Floyd's "Nobody Home" is: "Got thirteen channels of shit on the T.V. to choose from"

      --
      I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
    2. Re:99 channels of shit on the tv tube by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No body read gay book. Picures only.

  7. Taylor Swift series? by Anubis_Ascended · · Score: 1

    Will it revolve around her quarter-life crisis?

  8. So ... SlingTV by jxander · · Score: 1

    I had this exact product a few months ago. It's called SlingTV (not Sling Box)

    It's alright, and most channels offered some Netflix-style streaming of their shows, in addition to watching live.

    But in the end, it was still too much for too little.

    --
    This signature is false.
    1. Re: So ... SlingTV by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I tried both SlingTV and PlayStation Vue and Vue took it for me. Only issue is now that they 'lost' Viacom, I dont have Comedy Central or ad many kids shows

  9. Limited to the US? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I assume this service is going to be geo-locked to the United States?

  10. Too expensive by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

    The price is $40 / month too high.

    --
    Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    1. Re:Too expensive by awfar · · Score: 2

      Agreed; and you just *know* that all they know how to do is increase it over time, wherever and whenever they can.

    2. Re:Too expensive by Pascoea · · Score: 1
      I'm curious, how much TV do you and your family watch in a month? I'm only asking, because the national average is 4:30 a day!. Realistically, if you are even anywhere near that (even say 1 hour/day) that's pretty damn cheap entertainment. There is literally no form of pay-for-use entertainment that is on-par with that.

      Hell, if that four-and-a-half hours per day stat is accurate, $150/month for cable is still a good deal. I'm just trying to figure out how a person can spend that much time in front of a TV...

    3. Re:Too expensive by MoarSauce123 · · Score: 1

      Like Netflix ...while cutting back offerings.

    4. Re:Too expensive by MoarSauce123 · · Score: 1

      The whole idea of ITV is to draw down cost, but in the end it cost exactly the same as the CTV package while being less convenient. Unless you happen to have that old Firefly remote hanging around. The cost comes at a price, we still get to endure the commercials. Commercial free for 150$ total (and without these made up fees) and no restrictions or limitations with a decent lineup and including at least 75 symmetric and worldwide unlimited calling...now we got something. Won't happen....

    5. Re:Too expensive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You want them to pay you $5/mo to watch TV?

    6. Re:Too expensive by TheCastro1689 · · Score: 1

      They get home between 3:30-6pm usually, TV primetime goes to 11, so easily someone turning on the TV when they get home, eating dinner in front of the TV and playing on their phone, tablet or laptop in front of the TV will easily hit that. If you catch 15-30 min of weather and news in the morning it's even easier, then you might have a TV in your work's break room, so another 30 min and you start wondering how a lot of people watch so little.

    7. Re:Too expensive by Baloo+Uriza · · Score: 1

      You do realize that places like Tulsa, Oklahoma already get like, 35 channels over the air, even if you have a relatively shitty antenna setup and are stuck using an indoor antenna in a basement apartment at the bottom of a hill, right? And that's like, basically, the big three and the rest are specialty channels that are easily on par in terms of watchability with early to mid 1990s basic cable. Go to my dad's place in Los Angeles with the same antenna setup and you're looking at 70 channels. Get the antenna up on the chimney and it's more like 135. For free.

      --
      Furries make the internet go.
  11. Not what customers want by markdavis · · Score: 2

    >" Like its over-the-top rivals, DirecTV Now will let customers stream live programming on smartphones, tablets, and PCs -- no cable box necessary"

    Are they kidding?

    Sorry, but we don't want forced streaming of channels which include commercials and other crap with no DVR and no time shifting. If streaming, we want to stream SHOWS and ONLY shows.

    Haven't they learned anything from the relative failure of things like HULU?

    1. Re:Not what customers want by Cro+Magnon · · Score: 1

      Agreed! I don't really give a damn about "live programming". I wouldn't mind being able to stream on my phone on occasion, but I can do that with Netflix, without any annoying commercial breaks.

      --
      Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
    2. Re:Not what customers want by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, you do not want "dvr & time shifting" you want "on demand" ala Netflix programing. Why watch ABC/CBS/NBC/Fox programming on a cloud dvr? Stream it when you want not based off of a limited hard drive amount.

    3. Re:Not what customers want by Baloo+Uriza · · Score: 1

      Hulu wasn't bad when it was possible to adblock that for 3 minutes of silence and didn't charge. Or you can pitch 'em $10/mo and get it commercial free. Their current model's the worst of both worlds.

      --
      Furries make the internet go.
    4. Re:Not what customers want by markdavis · · Score: 1

      >"Hulu wasn't bad when it was possible to adblock that for 3 minutes of silence and didn't charge. Or you can pitch 'em $10/mo and get it commercial free. Their current model's the worst of both worlds."

      Yep, and that is one of the most major problems with "streaming", it gives the content provider 100% control over the delivery. At least with cable and DVR, it doesn't matter what they throw into the program, you can at least fast forward through it. Providers are VERY VERY tempted to use their power to control us. Look at what happened with DVD/BluRay! It was bad enough when they added unskippable anti-pirate warnings (yeah, I bought this disc and now you are going to PUNISH me for it!) But then they started adding unskippable previews, commercials, and PSA's!

  12. Re:Dear John 770-651-0127 by turkeydance · · Score: 0

    867-5309

  13. Re: Dear John 770-651-0127 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    867-5309?

  14. watch feeds not full ones for some channels by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

    watch feeds not full ones for some channels and the push to the full directv

  15. Re: Dear John 770-651-0127 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's Jenny's number

  16. Free Apple TV - that's kinda cool by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 1

    From the article:

    Customers can get an Apple TV included with 3 months pre-paid of any DIRECTV NOW package.

    The base 32GB Apple TV is currently $149. Looking at it another way, AT&T will sell you an Apple TV at a $44 discount and throw in three free months of live TV programming. That's actually a sweet deal.

    PS: This is the first and probably only time you'll hear me describe anything from AT&T as being a decent value.

    PPS: In before "apple tv sucks fanboyz lol etc". I have an Apple TV and I like it. You may prefer something else. Yay, here's your cookie. But if you were thinking about buying an Apple TV for Christmas, here's a $44 coupon off.

    --
    Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
  17. Fuck AT&T by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Worst. Company. Evar.

  18. Let me pick my channel choices by Streetlight · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Of all of those channels, I only saw two or three that I would want to watch. I don't want ESPN. Should I completely cut the cable, let me choose the 10 channels I want, some of which aren't listed, for $1.00 each, and I might be all in. I might need to pay Comcast an extra $50 per month for unlimited data use because of data use limits now in force. I see very few channels that don't have commercials. I HATE commercials.

    --
    In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act. George Orwell
    1. Re:Let me pick my channel choices by jittles · · Score: 1

      Of all of those channels, I only saw two or three that I would want to watch. I don't want ESPN. Should I completely cut the cable, let me choose the 10 channels I want, some of which aren't listed, for $1.00 each, and I might be all in. I might need to pay Comcast an extra $50 per month for unlimited data use because of data use limits now in force. I see very few channels that don't have commercials. I HATE commercials.

      That would be ideal but that is exactly the situation that the channel owners / networks do not want. They force you to pay for channels you don't want to get the things you do want. The demographic that always gets screwed the most? Latin American soccer lovers. You want to get Univision Deportes? It's only ever in the most expensive package. I love soccer, but I am not crazy about it. There's no way I am paying for that pack just to watch a few soccer games.

      To put this cost into perspective, though, I just picked up gigabit internet last week. The provider offered me something akin to this 60 channel package and wanted over $60 a month for it. I knew this was going to be unveiled soon and figured I would wait and see. It's honestly a bit of disappointment, but I might sign up for 3 months to try it out and get the free Apple TV.

    2. Re:Let me pick my channel choices by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's the beauty of streaming though... no contract (at least not with SlingTV) and add-on packages as needed.

      So for instance, on SlingTV you get the basic package for $20 then add the sports package which includes Univision Deportes for $5 for a total of $25 a month. When soccer season ends (does it end cause I have no clue), then you can cancel the additional $5 package and go to $20 a month, or the entire thing and pay nothing at all to SlingTV. Then just fire up your SlingTV account next year for another season of Univision Deportes!

      I've had SlingTV now for 7 months (basic package of $20) and I'm really happy with it. I watch History and CNN, the wife watches Lifestyle and Food Network, the kids watch Disney. Otherwise, we watch local broadcast stations (ABC, CBS, NBC, FOX) over-the-air for free. When something good like a new season of Game of Thrones or a movie we are interested in comes out on a particular station (HBO, Cinemax), we just pay for that one month the access it then cancel it.

    3. Re:Let me pick my channel choices by Baloo+Uriza · · Score: 1

      How about American cricket fans? Cricket Ticket costs more, by itself, than I pay for gas, car insurance, electricity and water combined. And required an insane tv subscription as a prerequisite.

      --
      Furries make the internet go.
    4. Re:Let me pick my channel choices by jittles · · Score: 1

      How about American cricket fans? Cricket Ticket costs more, by itself, than I pay for gas, car insurance, electricity and water combined. And required an insane tv subscription as a prerequisite.

      That's because only you 1%ers have the leisure time to sit around and watch a match for 5 days ;)

  19. They still don't get by OneHundredAndTen · · Score: 1

    People do not want to stream hundreds of channels. People want to stream the few channels that they are interested in, at a reasonable price, with the relevant material (when not live) available all the time, any time. It would seem that piracy will stay with us for a long, long time.

    1. Re:They still don't get by Jason+Levine · · Score: 1

      And sometimes it's not even the "channels" but specific shows that we are interested in. Sure, some of those shows might cluster around a specific group of channels, but it's the shows we want, not the channels they happen to air on over cable TV.

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    2. Re:They still don't get by OneHundredAndTen · · Score: 1

      You are absolutely right.

    3. Re:They still don't get by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This.

      The only thing that makes sense here is a package that bundles all the sports channels.

      Otherwise, why bother with the channel format. Just get straight to the content.

    4. Re:They still don't get by Cro+Magnon · · Score: 1

      Exactly! I barely even know what channel my shows are on. I just let my DVR handle it.

      --
      Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
  20. Re:Seeing most people by hackwrench · · Score: 1

    You don't see most people doing that, because you don't see most people.

  21. Re:actual line by hackwrench · · Score: 1

    He never said he was quoting Pink Floyd. Pink Floyd doesn't deserve credit for every future sentiment to one he/they expressed.

  22. Re: Dear John 770-651-0127 by saloomy · · Score: 1

    I named my boat after Jenny. I love you Jenny! My Jenny! :)

  23. Who wants these channels?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Seriously, existing broadcast is terrible. Services like http://pluto.tv/ have actually interesting channels (like a channel that's JUST MST3K!) and are free.

  24. Bait and switch by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's just more advertising filled channels with bait and switch pricing. I would settle for Netflix Hulu or even Amazon Prime before I went back to anything that resembled the old TV format it's a waste of my life. Old TV format is never going to work again unless it's dirt cheap and doesn't have advertising

  25. no xbox support? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    seriously no DVR/ Xbox / PS4 support? Are these guys smoking something?

  26. Netflix and amazon prime got it wrong! by the_Bionic_lemming · · Score: 1

    FINALLY! I can pay to watch TV with Commercials again!

    And thankfully, It's more expensive! //weeps with tears of joy

    --
    _ _ _ Go for the eyes Boo! GO FOR THE EYES!
    1. Re: Netflix and amazon prime got it wrong! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Seriously. I do not pay to view ads. You pay *me* to view ads, or you fuck of.

  27. The cost of bandwidth by lfp98 · · Score: 1

    So let me get this straight. I can pay $35 and watch, say, 3 hr of streamed wireless video every day, and AT&T will give me the necessary ~100GB of bandwidth free. But if I just buy an extra unrestricted 10GB of wireless data from Verizon, they charge $45. Makes you really wonder what it actually costs the telco's to provide each GB. Seems like either Verizon's data charges must be ~90% profit at least, or else AT&T is so desperate to stay relevant in the content space that they are willing to endure massive losses by providing bandwidth way below their cost. Maybe a little of both?

  28. Questions... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    1.) Does it have ads, if so: how frequent, how long, and is the volume normalized?
    2.) Is my local PBS station's HD broadcast included in the 100+ channels?
    3.) How long are episodes available for viewing after they air?