Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Days After Buying Time Warner, AT&T Launches New TV Service (apnews.com)

Posted by msmash on from the so-it-begins dept.

AT&T is launching a new streaming service incorporating television networks from the Time Warner company it just bought. From a report: The WatchTV service, a cable-like package of more than 30 TV channels delivered over the internet, is an example of the "skinny bundles" coming from telecom and broadband providers as more people watch TV online. Competitors include Sling TV, PlayStation Vue and AT&T's own DirecTV Now. WatchTV will be free for subscribers of two unlimited wireless plans AT&T is launching. Others can get WatchTV for $15 -- $20 less than DirecTV Now, but with just half the channels.

31 of 52 comments (clear)

  1. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 1

    They 'cut the cord', LOL

    Yeah sure you did. Same shit, different delivery method, and you're still paying for it. Want to really 'cut the cord' and stop paying for TV? Get an antenna.

    B-b-b-but Rick, I can't get any stations where I live!

    Move to where the food is. Otherwise I guess it sucks to be you.

    1. Re:Meet the new boss, same as the old boss by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 1

      B-b-b-but Rick, I can't get any stations where I live!

      Move to where the food is. ...

      Nice Sam Kinison reference.

      --
      It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    2. Re:Meet the new boss, same as the old boss by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 1

      And people wonder why this site is seen as nothing but a playground for anti-social assholes.

      You're here, so I guess that proves it.

      I gloat at people because as soon as I heard about this 'cord cutting' phenomenon, and how they were all then paying to watch shit on the internet instead, I said "you're not cutting anything, you're just paying for TV anyway", for which I got "LOL it's totally different you're a luddite etc etc etc". Now a few years later we see that I was 100% correct, you're all a bunch of fools, and in the end you so-called 'cord cutters' will end up paying more than you did for just cable TV, because you pay for Internet as well -- and most of you are still being subjected to ads and commercials anyway. Meanwhile I'm here with no Cable TV, and an antenna on my roof, and a DVR more full of stuff to watch than I have time to watch it all, and I pay nothing for all that content.

      Same goes for all you fools and your 'streaming music' services: you're paying to rent music, instead of owning copies of it, so you're literally lighting your money on fire. Meanwhile if I like something I'll buy it and listen to it as much as I want for free, and I don't need an internet connection, that your 'streaming service' is also collecting usage data from, to listen to any of it.

      The overall theme here is that you fools keep paying to rent things more and more, and own them less and less. You're lighting your money on fire every time you do this, giving it away to rich corporations who just get richer, while you get poorer and poorer. You even more and more do the same thing with housing and your vehicles: renting and leasing things instead of owning them, being saddled with the responsibility and costs and extra rules, and getting no long term benefits from it. Meanwhile The Rich own more and more of everything. It's like you want to be sharecroppers, or indentured servants or something. Get a clue.

    3. Re:Meet the new boss, same as the old boss by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 1

      That's just my flippant way of saying "not my problem if you can't get TV stations where you are, that doesn't invalidate OTA TV as being a good thing".

    4. Re:Meet the new boss, same as the old boss by tepples · · Score: 1

      And for fuck's sake put on some pants!

      Did Jesus wear pants?

    5. Re:Meet the new boss, same as the old boss by Gojira+Shipi-Taro · · Score: 1

      What content? Network drivel and a bunch of low def shit that's in the public domain? I haven't been interested in a single thing the major networks have put over the air in over a decade (The CW's DC Comics shows are decent from what little I've seen).

      I have an antenna, I'm 200 feet above the ground in my apartment. I get 30+ stations, but several of them are duplicates from different metro areas, a dozen are religous broadcasting, and of course the spanish language networks, which I'm not fluent enough to care about. and EVERY SINGLE ONE is riddled with LOUD ads.

      About the only thing it's good for is pro sports, should I happen to not go OUT to watch the game, and still care enough to put the game on.

      --
      "Oh my God. This is terrible. This is the end of my Presidency. I'm fucked."; ~ Donald J. Trump
    6. Re:Meet the new boss, same as the old boss by erp_consultant · · Score: 1

      Well.... :)

      Before I moved to my new house I was paying $240/month for internet, tv and a landline phone. First thing to go was the phone.

      Now I pay $80/month for internet, nothing for landline phone and nothing for tv. T-Mobile is my cell provider and they throw in a base Netflix subscription for free. I oped to pay $2/month more for 4K streaming and multiple screens. Amazon, which I had before at the old place, I use for tv and movies that comes with the Prime subscription. If you want to count that it's about $8/month. I bought an OTA antenna for $17 and that brings in local channels including a lot of NFL games and some other sports - for free. I set up a PLEX media server that has add on channels so I can watch shows like SWAT and Hawaii-5-0 for free and some of the channels strip out all the commercials to boot.

      So by my estimation I went from paying $240/month to about $90/month. At first it was a bit of an adjustment but now I have found that I have much better selection of programming and I can watch it when I want. I'm never going back to cable.

    7. Re:Meet the new boss, same as the old boss by thewolfkin · · Score: 1

      B-b-b-but Rick, I can't get any stations where I live!

      Move to where the food is. Otherwise I guess it sucks to be you.

      That's just my flippant way of saying "not my problem if you can't get TV stations where you are, that doesn't invalidate OTA TV as being a good thing".

      no but it does invalidate OTA as being the solution for everyone. Solution for some people sure, solution for most people maybe but a lot of us need the cord. We don't deny that OTA would be nicer and cheaper but it's not an option for us.

      --
      Just another second banana
    8. Re:Meet the new boss, same as the old boss by Aqualung812 · · Score: 1

      but it's not an option for us.

      Where is that? What ZIP code, if you don't mind?
      I'm just curious where we have gaps in OTA coverage in the USA.

      --
      Grammer Nazis - I mod you "troll" unless you actually add something on-topic. Yes, I know I have mispellings in my sig.
    9. Re:Meet the new boss, same as the old boss by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 1

      Well then it sucks to be you. Move somewhere else so you can join the OTA TV master-race.

    10. Re:Meet the new boss, same as the old boss by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 1

      To be fair (to even the smartass contrarians around here) there are people who live in canyons (either the natural sort or the man-made sort) that even if they put up and antenna the best they get is fringe signals. I've even seen some people in more rural areas, where you can get away with it, literally put up a telephone pole or a tower in their yard, just to get the high-gain antenna they have as far off the ground as possible. These people, I feel sympathy for. Who I don't have sympathy for, however, are people who either can't be bothered, or that try convince me that I should be paying for TV like they do, I guess so they don't feel cheated (or maybe just Crab Mentality?).

    11. Re:Meet the new boss, same as the old boss by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 1

      Go take your meds and stay off the Internets.

  2. Re:Monopoly by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 1

    Only if I get to be the Car.

  3. Ah, a new market entrant by SeaFox · · Score: 2

    Good thing AT&T got in on this. They needed a service in this category and they had no existing brand to leverage here. Oh wait...

    1. Re:Ah, a new market entrant by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      This is exactly why they killed net neutrality. Now anyone who competes with them, will have their service crippled across AT&T cables, forcing AT&T users to buy their service or buy someone else's broken service, simply not enough bandwidth to run. All about monopolistic internet publishing, hi new model, say hello to the old model, brought to you by corrupt political practices and psychopathic selfishness and greed.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
  4. We want that! by CanadianMacFan · · Score: 1

    Cried nobody ever for a package of channels that you hate just to get the one or two channels that you do want.

  5. Channels, what are channels? by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I can get Netflix for under $10/mo? Channels? Who needs channels? A la carte movies, shows, and documentaries. If I want to watch sports, I can watch some on air HDTV or just go to a bar.

    1. Re:Channels, what are channels? by zlives · · Score: 1

      i am still not sold on this whole watching of sports... i mean yes you can waste multiple hours but in the end its the score that maybe matters... i say maybe because why does it matter again?

    2. Re:Channels, what are channels? by Gilgaron · · Score: 1

      Much like fishing or hunting, it is an excuse to get together with the guys and drink heavily. Alternatively, a sociologist might say that instead of honing killing skills in the former, you're honing highly abstracted, ritualized combat skills via either participating or observing.

    3. Re:Channels, what are channels? by reboot246 · · Score: 1

      I watch football because I love the game. I'm way too old to play anymore, but I like watching the games. And I much prefer to watch alone. Having other people around me is a distraction.

      I get plenty of exercise on my job by walking all day. Not the kind of walking you'd do for exercise, but more like cross-country walking - through yards, up hills, down hills, through the woods - usually covering 10 to 15 miles per day. When I get off from work the LAST thing I want to do is go somewhere and exercise.

    4. Re:Channels, what are channels? by pr0fessor · · Score: 1

      More like the last 4 to 5 minutes I hate watching credits.

    5. Re:Channels, what are channels? by HeckRuler · · Score: 1

      i mean yes you can waste multiple hours but in the end its the score that maybe matters... i say maybe because why does it matter again?

      I think I'm probably an outlier here and only entering the conversation under a technicality, but I occasionally watch foil and epee fencers. Not because I care about who advanced or what the score ends up as, but to see the tactics and motions. Ideally, so I can try the same stuff on the strip when I occasionally go fencing. But clips on youtube I can rewind and watch a dozen times are better for that than... ESPN or something. Do they even show fencing?

      (A surprising amount of "OMG look at this amazing fencer!" videos are just both guys missing and then a sloppy remise. And so many clips are badly cut. Don't just show the final action you twits, all the stuff leading up to it matters!)

    6. Re:Channels, what are channels? by Obfuscant · · Score: 2

      i mean yes you can waste multiple hours but in the end its the score that maybe matters

      There are people who enjoy seeing the competition and the effort and the skills demonstrated. All some people care about is that Portugal tied Spain in World Cup at 3-3, but there was a lot of enjoyable sport that took place to get there. If all you know is the score you might not realize that the actual result was Ronaldo 3, Spain 3.

      And if all you know about this morning's match is that Croatia beat Argentina 3-zip, you would have missed the elation of the Croatian team and fans over beating a team that should have whipped them, and Messi's utter humiliation at losing (priceless). Also the very skillful first Croat goal based on the failure of the Argentinian goalie to clear the ball.

      But you are free not to watch. Not everyone enjoys this stuff, and that's what makes the world interesting, huh?

  6. Re:Happy Friday From The Golden Girls! by cayenne8 · · Score: 1
    Actually, that's another one hit wonder of the 70's by Andrew Gold....

    In the good old days, when how you played, sang and composed songs mattered more than how you looked on TV.

    --
    Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
  7. Re:Is it Ad free? by zlives · · Score: 1

    lol

  8. Bummer by nospam007 · · Score: 1

    When I begin reading the title I had a foreshadowing of possible shows :

    Obviously first the CEO-EGO-Show, or a new Online Religion Contest, looking for the new media-friendly Faith-'healer', (only 99 cent per vote) and some more insalubrious versions of CEO-EGO.

  9. Thanks goodness net neutrailty is gone by Revek · · Score: 1

    Now if a competing cable company doesn't like this they can just block it. No harm done to anyone but AT&T who will of course give a refund. Sigh, its great to be living in such interesting times.

  10. Online bundling of channels by HeckRuler · · Score: 1

    more than 30 TV channels delivered over the internet,

    This made me realize that I'm unhappy with how Netflix does business. I loathe how cable companies bundle channels together and refuse to sell them ala cart. Power to the people, let me choose, let the free market decide, ra ra, all those slogans. And it only just now hit me that this is exactly what Netflix is doing.

    Prior, I considered the "netflix model" to be rounding up all the old IP that no one was using anymore and selling it en bulk online. It was the "old movie" bundle. It made customers happy with far-reaching access to shows they liked but probably couldn't see. It made content owners happy because those things weren't making them ANY money prior. All was well. And then they found out there was money here and the price of old IP shot up. Now Netflix doesn't have near the selection of old stuff it used to, and their source of content is... themselves. They're producing a god-awful number of shows. It's big money. They're no longer acting like netflix, they're just another TV network. Just online. Google Play's model of renting/buying individual shows is better philosophically, but ugh, that price tag.

  11. mod parent up - funny by bussdriver · · Score: 1

    LOL! Down Syndrome is genetic plus the poster spelled it wrong. The poster is showing how slow they actually are.

    --
    Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
  12. Re:No sports by MerlTurkin · · Score: 1

    This is true. I get no sports now after cutting cable. TV antenna doesn't pull in any networks. I'll get over it, I can still listen on the radio.

  13. To big to be rational or efficient by sabbede · · Score: 1
    That's AT&T for you. They already have a streaming TV service! What sane company releases redundant services? Do they intend to compete against themselves?

    I figure it's because AT&T is too big. Nobody knows what's going on anywhere else in the company. I know for a fact that they can't maintain their internal phone directories (that'd better be why I get transferred to out-of-service numbers when I call business support), so it would hardly be a surprise to find out that the cellular division just didn't know the TV division already had a streaming service.

    Every time I have to deal with AT&T I come away shocked that they're still around. Like how the person who runs lines into a new service location can't be the person who installs and connects the equipment. Nor can they be there on the same day. And if you need anything serviced, forget it. I had a tech miss two appointments in a row because they couldn't find the office, and when he finally did show, he said somebody else would have to come out because he couldn't service fiber. The fiber tech "only" missed one appointment. One might think that the company running lines into a building would know where that building was or what kind of lines were run to it, but they'd be disappointed.

    That's AT&T. So big that nobody knows what's going on.