AT&T Already Backing Off Its Biggest Time Warner Merger Promise: Cheaper TV
from the wink-wink-nudge-nudge dept
AT&T has spent the last few months fending off critics of its planned $100 million acquisition of Time Warner. Most critics say the company's ownership of Time Warner will make it harder for streaming competitors to license the content they need to compete. Others warn that AT&T's decision to zero rate (cap exempt) its own content gives the company's new DirecTV Now streaming TV service an unfair advantage in the market. That's before you get to the fundamental fact that letting a company with the endless ethical issues AT&T enjoys get significantly larger likely only benefits AT&T.Responding to these criticisms, AT&T CEO Randall Stephenson spent the last few months repeatedly insisting that critics have it wrong, because the merger was allowing the company to introduce a new streaming video service that provides 100 channels of TV for just $35 per month:
"I'm not surprised [by the criticism]. They're uninformed comments," Stephenson said in response to a question from Wall Street Journal editor Rebecca Blumenstein at the newspaper's WSJDLive Conference. "Anybody who characterizes this as a means to raise prices is ignoring the basic premise of what we're trying to do here, again a $35 product we bring into the market."That $35 price point was used again and again by AT&T lobbyists and executives in selling the deal before Congress, the company insisting that only this new mega-merger could possibly make this kind of offer possible. Stephenson at several points proclaimed that the lower-cost option was "a way to drive pricing down in the marketplace," -- a surefire example of AT&T's dedication to intense video competition.
It's ironic then that the company is already backtracking and raising rates on its new streaming TV service.
As it turns out, that $35 for 100 channel offer was only a limited-time promotion. AT&T has already jacked the price of the service up to $60 per month as of January 9, and the company is already indicating that pricing for all of its streaming TV service tiers (despite now owning Time Warner content) will be going up sometime in the near future:
"After Jan. 9, new subscribers who sign up for DirecTV Now’s Go Big tier with after Jan. 9 will pay $60 per month. Existing subs will continue to pay the $35-per-month rate for now, but the company also said the fees may increase at some future date. In addition, “channels, features, and terms (are) subject to change & may be discontinued without notice,” AT&T said in a notice on the DirecTV Now website."And this comes as the outgoing FCC is clearly warning that AT&T is using usage caps to give this new content an unfair advantage over streaming alternatives. So while AT&T is busy claiming the Time Warner Merger will help it disrupt and compete with traditional cable, it's clear AT&T executives are more interested in building cable 2.0: the same old anti-competitive shenanigans and TV price hikes we all know and love, just with a shiny new layer of public relations paint. AT&T has a long history of bogus promises to get big deals approved, but it's rare to see the company already falling short on its promises before the ink is even dry.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: merger, promises, tv
Companies: at&t, directv, time warner
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
...
...
...
Huh, I don't see any hands up...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
talk is cheap
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: talk is cheap
~Most Americans
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Not ready for Prime Time
It is not a bandwidth issue either. I have comcast 100mb internet.
It may be good in the future, but I cant keep paying $35 for a broken product and unfortunately it isn't worth $60 a month if they get the bugs fixed.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Paraphrasing here but....
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The proposed deal would give AT&T significant holdings in the media industry; AT&T's competitor Comcast had previously acquired NBC Universal in a similar bid to increase its media holding
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: talk is cheap
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Not ready for Prime Time
It's a cab company selling all access passes for as many rides as you want to hundreds of people but only supplying 5 cabs.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: talk is cheap
[ link to this | view in thread ]
They didn't change anything
They did not say they were going to CHARGE $35 for it, they just said it is a $35 product.
Truthfully, they have done much better and are really producing about a $6 product (it seems about 40% less reliable than other streaming services).
It's time we applaud their efforts to bring more and more shoddy products to market each year.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Not ready for Prime Time
a cursory look might have revealed an alternate spelling...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: talk is cheap
People vote in Government.
Government created FCC.
FCC blessed these Monopolies.
Citizens do nothing to their representatives in Government over it.
Ergo... the citizens BLESS the FCC, a regulatory agency created by the government they voted in to screw everyone over. And you don't get it!
ATT makes money because many people do not have reasonable choices for alternatives because the government helped ATT to step on the little people.
But no worries, just keep going down that path of ignorance... things aren't getting worse are they? they are getting better! all the time!
The definition of stupidity is to keep doing the same thing you have been doing while expecting different results!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: talk is cheap
I know its tough, I boycott myself, but it makes for little progress if everyone else accept defeat.
ATT will not last long if there is big enough boycott or large enough campaign by the citizens to end the government blessed monopolies.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: talk is cheap
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: talk is cheap
From what I have seen it is the states that blessed the monopolies, and the states that sued the FCC when they tried to open up the markets in the states. Perhaps you need to do some research on how the final mile is controlled.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: talk is cheap
If every nation gets the blah blah blah, whine whine whine... what are you doing there little fellah... to help out... to change the government we have?
If your answer is nothing, then this:
But no worries, just keep going down that path of ignorance... things aren't getting worse are they? they are getting better! all the time!
The definition of stupidity is to keep doing the same thing you have been doing while expecting different results!
Applies to y00 as well, no?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: talk is cheap
point your keyboard and mouse at AT&T or your local congress-critter and try again...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: They didn't change anything
I signed up for the $35 deal, paying the 3 months to get the free AppleTV 4. Because that works out for $105. So I looked at is as getting a AppleTV 4 for $105 instead of the normal $149 and getting 3 months of all these channels I'll never watch anyway. So far I've watched very little of it. I hate commercials, and being forced to watch when the shows are on. There's no DVR function, which I know will be even more money whenever that comes. Come March, I'll drop it. I have to much to watch already. With a Antenna and TIVO, I get most of my TV I watch that way. Netflix fills in most everything else. Much more then that and maybe you're watching to much TV. Go outside, visit friends. Get a hobby.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Not ready for Prime Time
Anyway, I have monitored it and it is about 1gb an hour of bandwidth. If a 100mb connection can not handle 1gb an hour then I call BS on your assumption.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Not ready for Prime Time
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: talk is cheap
"I know its tough, I boycott myself, but it makes for little progress if everyone else accept defeat."
That makes it sound as if YOU DO have AT&T.
"if everyone else accept defeat" One win at a time right Brah? Start a movement, be the first. DO SOMETHING. My guess is that you will DO NOTHING. Other than come here to hypocritically berate users. But do go on because it's mildly entertaining.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: talk is cheap
I actively boycott ATT, I use none of their services. Thankfully I not not STUCK with them like many others are.
Two I do not vote in the R's and the D's because I am not suckered by their rhetoric like the great majority. George Washington was entirely correct about this nation tearing itself apart with them.
I actively try to help by writing my congress critters and in vain attempts to inform the vastly ignorant and more IMPORTANTLY apathetic citizens. But I am just one person.
You don't care, you act like you do... and run your mouth a lot to people like me... but you don't really care. You marching through your little lives and do nothing but run mouth. The declaration of independence said it best!
"...and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed..."
Read it again, and again, and again until you clueless losers figure this out.
"Every Nation gets the Government it Deserves."
~Joseph De Maistre
it is just EASIER for you all to sit around and run your mouths rather than to actually DO anything. And yes, I know this by experience... I am guilty of it as well, I am just saying lets stop.
We can't even get enough people together to stop the police from murdering and the courts from incarcerating innocents. There is no way we are getting a bunch of gamers and know-it-alls to do shit. But here I still sit and try and whine like a little school girl over it.
But at least, someone is saying something instead of rolling the fuck over! AND at least I am not part of the crowd working AGAINST a change while running my mouth in favor for one! You guys are you own worst enemies! Get a clue!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: talk is cheap
But it can change, however that requires support by the People which is very non existent at the moment. So for now, they have near carte blanche over the entire telecom estate.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: They didn't change anything
Agreed. We need more of this.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: talk is cheap
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
before the ink is even dry
[g pyle] surprise, surprise. [/g pyle]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Not ready for Prime Time
Of course the blame-game question is who's fault is it. You have put the blame on AT&T (probably rightly) and not your ISP because you can tell that you still have more than enough bandwidth for other things. There is a reason why Netflix went thru such trouble to get their own CDN servers setup in ISPs and junctions as close to the users as possible. AT&T doesn't seem to have learned this lesson.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
The problem I see down the road is that both the Cable provider and AT&T have their own "content". If I wanted crap content I would still have cable TV and a TiVo.
Content and internet access need to be completely separate. The same company should not be allowed to provide both. Or alternately, (network neutrality) the internet provider should not be allowed to favor its own content over other content providers, like Netflix / Hulu / HBO / Starz / etc, etc.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: talk is cheap
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
http://spaceflightnow.com/launch-schedule/
According to this, Iridium is replacing its entire constellation of satellites.
http://www.wusa9.com/news/local/ashburn/va-company-replacing-satellite-constellation-/382 182854
So 21st century sat phone / internet. Reachable anywhere on the planet -- like in a deep desert, or antarctic, or middle of the ocean.
Also others, like Elon Musk talk about building similar LEO satellite networks to provide internet access.
I am convinced that it will inevitably happen. Now if we can just keep them from offering their own content and favoring it over competitors.
What will China do if someone can have a sat phone / sat modem in their basement that doesn't go through the great firewall?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: talk is cheap
If a movement were to start... do you think its leaders would consider you an asset or an adversary based on your posts?
You are so wound up you would self destruct any movements you joined.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
This is why they need those nasty trade deals... so they can force equipment manufacturers to not help those they seek to control. Or to force governments into criminalizing certain avenues of content.
Imagine a business suing a country in ISDS court because all of its citizens have now just went rogue and are using "unauthorized" services causing them a profit loss?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Unsuprising
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: talk is cheap
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Talk is indeed cheap, almost as cheap as calling for the impossible
So I'm curious, what bit of magical shenanigans are you using to connect to the internet without going through a company like AT&T?
Boycotting an ISP sounds great on paper, but as several articles have demonstrated with the 'highly competitive' internet service available in america(which is bound to get even more competitive in the next few years) it's simply not feasible for vast numbers of people to do so, who are presented with the options of 'Pay scummy ISP for internet service' or 'Don't have an internet connection, at all.'
Now, it's nice that you can boycott internet service entirely(which again brings up the question of how exactly you're posting here), but for many that's simply not a reasonable or acceptable action, and with no alternative available to go to a boycott is simply not feasible, as effective as it might be.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: talk is cheap
Seriously though, back yard gardens are becoming more plentiful. I expect the trend to continue.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Talk is indeed cheap, almost as cheap as calling for the impossible
Every time I propose "boycott or bend over" I hear the same arguments: Who do you think you are, using the internet to tell me to boycott the internet.
Look, a successful boycott requires at least 3 things: significant numbers, organization and (gasp) SACRIFICE.
No one wants to sacrifice. Look at a historical successful boycott--> the Montgomery Alabama Bus Boycott. The boycotters had an ORGANIZED/UNIFIED GOAL: end the Jim Crow laws in Alabama. Those willing to boycott our local ISPs need an ORGANIZED/UNIFIED GOAL: end local ISP monopolies. If we can have competing gas stations, with their required-in the ground infrastructure, then we can also have competing ISPs with their in the ground, on the poles, and on the towers infrastructure.
Next, we the boycotting consumers need to SACRIFICE. Again, the Montgomery bus boycotters still had to work and eat during the boycott. Some of them walked to work (SACRIFICE), some carpooled (SACRIFICE), and unfortunately some even lost their jobs (SACRIFICE). That sucked, but in the end they achieved their goal of ending the stupid Jim Crow laws on the public buses in Montgomery Alabama. I find it hard to believe that some/most of us can't SACRIFICE broadband internet access through our local ISP monopolies for slower/less reliable wireless broadband through a local wireless carrier during this boycott.
In the end, if we are unwilling to stop paying our local ISP monopolies to take advantage of us, then we're going to continue in the downward cycle of higher rates and lower service. Instead of just throwing our hands up in frustration on this forum, we could get together (strength in numbers), write out a simple goal (local ISP competition among all national ISPs in all major US cities), and sacrifice by using inconsistent wireless phone companies for internet access during our boycott of these local ISP monopolies.
I don't know everything, and I'm sure I'm missing some points, but at least I'm proposing something positive. What about you?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Talk is indeed cheap, almost as cheap as calling for the impossible
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Talk is indeed cheap, almost as cheap as calling for the impossible
dialup?
Is that even available anymore?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Talk is indeed cheap, almost as cheap as calling for the impossible
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Talk is indeed cheap, almost as cheap as calling for the impossible
No one wants to sacrifice. Look at a historical successful boycott--> the Montgomery Alabama Bus Boycott. The boycotters had an ORGANIZED/UNIFIED GOAL: end the Jim Crow laws in Alabama.
A problem which could be fixed literally overnight simply by removing the law from the books, which is very much not the case when it comes to ISP monopolies, effective or actual.
Take the cases where you've literally got the ISP's writing state laws to keep out competition for example. Say you successfully boycott that long enough to get the law removed, you're not going to get a competing service to show up overnight, which means you're right back to paying the scummy company until that happens, something you can be sure they'd know full well.
I find it hard to believe that some/most of us can't SACRIFICE broadband internet access through our local ISP monopolies for slower/less reliable wireless broadband through a local wireless carrier during this boycott.
And if that alternative does not exist, or is from the same company you're trying to boycott, what then? Just do without the internet entirely for several months(at least)?
Boycotting a form of transportation still leaves you with alternatives as you yourself noted, but when it comes to the internet that's really not the case, especially given the problem is the current monopoly/duopoly in the market. You either get service from the scummy companies or you don't get it, period, in far too many areas.
Should there be competition? Absolutely. Should the laws prohibiting that competition written by the companies be removed? Very much so. Would competition be the 'best' way to keep companies honest and offering actual service for decent prices? Almost certainly. Is the above as simple as removing a bad law(or several as the case may be)? No, though that would certainly be a good start.
My point is that it's complex and not something that's going to be easily changed, and given the problem is about the lack of choices completely doing without internet for months is simply not a viable option for many, making the calls for a boycott unreasonable, even if I can understand and support the sentiment behind it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Talk is indeed cheap, almost as cheap as calling for the impossible
Name calling.
Yep, hypocrite all right.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: talk is cheap
E.g. when we were protesting ACTA the left were all over it because they believe that copyright enables artists and creatives to make a living (...something something hand or brain...). I spent a lot of time trying to reason with them about that. Progressives were more willing to help out but many lefties finally came over because of the threat to the NHS. Many liberals supported ACTA because trade. Literally, that is what they said to me when I asked Liberal MEPs for support. That's because free market ideology is embedded in their DNA and it's why they're supportive of ISDS. Most conservatives (Tories) were in favour of ACTA because trade, private property (they're very big on that), and "we must enforce the rule of law." UKIP — Nigel Farage's party — were the most helpful because they wanted to stick it to the EU.
I disagree with all of them for many reasons but I took what I could get from wherever I could get it and am proud to say that ultimately we won. We killed ACTA on 04/07/2012: Internet Independence Day. Cristofer Fjellner's tears were delicious!
So what I'm saying is, there are plenty of people to work with if you're willing to put ideological differences aside for the sake of getting stuff done. It's just a matter of knowing where to find them. I'd start with local pressure groups and take it from there. Pressure works, my friends, it really does. The trick is to keep the pressure on.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]