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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
Will it revolve around her quarter-life crisis?
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.
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.
The price is $40 / month too high.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
>" 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?
but will it have blackjack and hookers? on second thought forget the blackjack.
watch feeds not full ones for some channels and the push to the full directv
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?
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 $50 per month for unlimited data use because of data use limits now in force. I see very few channels that don't have commercials. I HATE commercials.
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act. George Orwell
People do not want to stream hundreds of channels. People want to stream the few channels that they are interested in, at a reasonable price, with the relevant material (when not live) available all the time, any time. It would seem that piracy will stay with us for a long, long time.
You don't see most people doing that, because you don't see most people.
He never said he was quoting Pink Floyd. Pink Floyd doesn't deserve credit for every future sentiment to one he/they expressed.
The pricing is totally off. I looked into cable cutting and in the end I can save about 15$, 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.
I named my boat after Jenny. I love you Jenny! My Jenny! :)
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!
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.
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.
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?