Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
AT&T Television Businesses Communications Desktops (Apple) Network Networking Programming Software The Almighty Buck The Internet Entertainment

AT&T Unveils DirecTV Now Streaming TV Service With Over 100 Channels (theverge.com) 80

Posted by BeauHD from the appification-of-TV dept.
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.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

AT&T Unveils DirecTV Now Streaming TV Service With Over 100 Channels More

AT&T Unveils DirecTV Now Streaming TV Service With Over 100 Channels

Comments Filter:

  • In before... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Overzeetop ( 214511 ) on Monday November 28, 2016 @05:47PM (#53380845) Journal

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

  • Channels (Score:5, Insightful)

    by SETY ( 46845 ) on Monday November 28, 2016 @06:04PM (#53380983)

    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.

    • 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 co
    • 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.

    • 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 anyw

  • Streaming is shit. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by RightSaidFred99 ( 874576 ) on Monday November 28, 2016 @06:07PM (#53380997)

    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.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by PRMan ( 959735 )
      And Dish just announced today that Sling TV is adding a DVR next month.
      • 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.
    • 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.

    • 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.

    • 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.

  • Will it revolve around her quarter-life crisis?

  • I had this exact product a few months ago. It's called SlingTV [sling.com] (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.

  • The price is $40 / month too high.

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by awfar ( 211405 )

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

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Pascoea ( 968200 )
      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! [recode.net]. 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

      • 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....
      • 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.
      • 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 an

  • Not what customers want (Score:3)

    by markdavis ( 642305 ) on Monday November 28, 2016 @06:41PM (#53381211)

    >" 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?

    • 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.

    • 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.

      • >"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

  • 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 buy

  • Let me pick my channel choices (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Streetlight ( 1102081 ) on Monday November 28, 2016 @07:21PM (#53381445) Journal
    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.

    • 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,

      • 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.

        • 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 ;)

  • 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.

    • 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.

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

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

  • 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 e

Slashdot Top Deals

Keep up the good work! But please don't ask me to help.

Close