AT&T Now Trying To Ditch DirecTV After Bungled Merger Spree

from the told-you-so dept

It wasn't supposed to go this way.

AT&T purchased DirecTV in 2015 for $67.1 billion (including debt). The company then gobbled up Time Warner in 2018 for a cool $86 billion. Together, these deals were supposed to cement AT&T as a dominant player in the video advertising wars to come. Instead, they created a convoluted mess that resulted in a mass exodus of pay TV subscribers. In fact, a combination of bungled integration, massive debt, price hikes, and confusing branding have resulted in AT&T losing 7 million subscribers since 2018. That's obviously not the kind of M&A fueled sector domination AT&T executives like Randall Stephenson (since "retired") envisioned.

Now AT&T is reportedly trying to offload DirecTV entirely:

"AT&T Inc. is seeking private equity investors to buy the majority of its DirecTV satellite-television business, helping it cope with a major drag on its operations, according to people familiar with the situation. Such a move could let AT&T remove DirecTV from its books while potentially still giving it access to some of the cash flow, said the people, who asked not to be identified because the deliberations are private."

Many investors balked at AT&T's 2015 plan to acquire a satellite TV provider on the eve of the streaming video and cord cutting revolution. AT&T stumbled forward anyway. Ultimately, AT&T attempted to pay off the debt load created by its M&A mania by raising prices on consumers, despite promising antitrust regulators that wouldn't happen. Those already price-sensitive customers then simply flocked to more affordable alternatives AT&T was trying to compete with in the first place. AT&T's confusing array of differently branded streaming efforts didn't help matters.

In mid-2018, AT&T had roughly 25.45 million pay TV subscribers across all of its TV services, including its IPTV service (formerly U-Verse), DirecTV, and its creatively named "AT&T TV" streaming platforms. As of last quarter, AT&T had just 18.41 million pay TV subscribers.

Even massive handouts from the Trump administration haven't helped the telecom and media giant. Both the deregulation at the FCC (repealing net neutrality, killing FCC broadband privacy rules, weakening overall FCC regulatory authority) and the $42 billion AT&T received from the Trump tax cuts were supposed to "drive investment" and boost employment. Instead, AT&T has laid off 41,000 employees since 2017 and dropped its overall 2020 CAPEX by around $3 billion.

Aren't mindless megamerger "synergies" and utterly captured regulators an amazing sight to behold?

Filed Under: failures, mergers, statellite tv, tv
Companies: at&t, directv

Dish Floats DirecTV Merger, Because What's A Little Mindless Monopolization Among Friends?

from the merge-ALL-the-things dept

We just got done with AT&T's $86 billion merger with Time Warner, a deal that immediately drove up costs for consumers and competitors alike. That was followed up with the recent approval of T-Mobile's $26 billion merger with Sprint, another deal the lion's share of objective experts say will reduce competition, raise rates, and end with thousands of pink slips as redundant positions are inevitably eliminated.

With the ink barely dry on both deals, Dish CEO Charlie Ergen is now (once again) floating a merger with DirecTV, insisting that such a union is "inevitable" as the company continues to reel from TV cord cutting. As the US press loves to do, the proposal was parroted rather unskeptically as a seemingly good idea:

"Ergen also on the call said a long-rumored merger of DirecTV and Dish was "inevitable" — despite reticence from AT&T to divest itself of the asset — as neither satellite TV-delivered linear TV service was growing..."You just can't swim upstream against a real tide of big players," Ergen argued. If AT&T eyes possible buyers for DirecTV, Dish is seen as an obvious suitor, especially after it tried and failed to merge with the satellite TV provider in 2002. Ergen on the afternoon analyst call also made another overture to the Sinclair Broadcast Group to possibly conclude a deal that would see the former Fox Regional Sports Networks return to his distribution platforms."

To be clear, AT&T isn't likely to sell, but in the wake of recent court rulings and mindless M&A mania you can't rule anything out. AT&T bought DirecTV to gain additional scale and leverage in programming negotiations. Even with the service bleeding TV subscribers, it's not likely that it would want to offload DirecTV to Dish anytime soon, as it wants to slowly convert those satellite TV users to AT&T streaming subscribers. AT&T's also facing a massive merger backlash for $150 billion in debt caused by its costly obsession with merger mania, likely making AT&T sheepish.

You used to be able to look at a deal proposal like this and laugh at the mere mention of it, knowing it would likely be blocked. But in the wake of the utterly myopic and idiotic court rulings governing both the Time Warner/AT&T and Sprint/T-Mobile deals (in which mountains of evidence of market harm were almost flippantly and cheerfully ignored), you really can no longer make those assumptions. The US loves it some mindless merger mania; almost as much as it loves ignoring the monopolistic damage such deals cause on tech markets and consumers alike.

Merging AT&T directly with Dish, the only way this deal actually gets done, creates layers of problems. To get the T-Mobile merger approved, the DOJ signed off on a plan that would shovel some T-Mobile spectrum over to Dish Network, which would (theoretically) then build a replacement wireless carrier to Sprint over a period of seven years. Analysts and antitrust experts are already hugely doubtful that network ever gets built. But it would be even less likely to get built should Dish be sold to DirecTV/AT&T, which has a vested interest in ensuring a fourth replacement wireless competitor never materializes.

This deal probably never happens. Dish and DirecTV have floated these kinds of rumors for years just to fluff their stock valuations. Still, recent antitrust enforcement decisions have shown there's no bottom to US M&A myopia, meaning you can't rule such a deal out. Wall Street and executive desires seemingly mute all common sense and any interest in historical context, ensuring we learn absolutely nothing from history as we repeat the same mistakes over, and over, and over again.

Filed Under: antitrust, charlie ergen, competition, consolidation, doj, ftc, satellite tv
Companies: at&t, directv, dish

PSA: DirectTV Pushes Back By Mentioning All The Refunds For Blackouts Its Issued... To Customers That Asked

from the not-the-point dept

Earlier this month, we discussed how DirectTV was one cable operator the Colarado Attorney General is investigating over how it extracts varied and confusing fees from customers and more specifically how DirectTV managed to continue charging customers for a regional sports station that had been blacked out. The overall tenor of the post was, first, that cable operators charging fees in as confusing a manner as possible is par for the course and, second, that even in that landscape continuing to charge customers for a channel it wasn't offering sure felt like a bridge too far.

Well, apparently the folks over at DirectTV were listening in on our post and decided to email us with a statement. That statement said first that, by the time the story posted, the broadcaster had come to terms and was back on the air. Second came a claim that refunds had been issued... if customers specifically asked for one.

We are thrilled to once again provide our Colorado sports fans the ability to enjoy the NBA Denver Nuggets, NHL Colorado Avalanche, University of Denver Pioneers, MLS Colorado Rapids, National Lacrosse League Colorado Mammoth and other sports. We issued credits to thousands of our customers who asked about Altitude Sports while we worked toward getting it back on air. Customers who have questions about credits should visit tvpromise.com.

Let's first allow this to act as something of a PSA: if you're a DirectTV customer in Colarado with a subscription that includes Altitude Sports, go ask for your refund. You apparently have to, otherwise DirectTV will happily keep your money.

Which, given how cable television invoices look less like a ledger and more like word-and-number jumble, likely means that a whole bunch of people didn't realize what they were being charged for, didn't realize that Altitude was in their package, and therefore didn't realize that they were owed a refund, and so didn't ask for one. In which case DirectTV keeps that money for a channel it wasn't providing... and now wants credit for that? Interesting stance on ethics you folks have there.

What this really highlights is how cable operators construct their packages and invoices as though they were building ciphers to keep the Nazis from knowing where the troops were headed. Fix that and perhaps you'd have better informed customers who might ask for their refunds. Or, you know, DirectTV could do the refunds regardless of a request.

Filed Under: colorado, fees, refunds, sports network, tv blackouts
Companies: at&t, directv

DirectTV Forgot To Stop Charging Customers For Channels That Were Blacked Out

from the whoopsie dept

As we've detailed for some time now, while contract blackouts have almost always been an annoyance in the cable television industry, they are becoming increasingly prevalent alongside the rise of cord-cutting. Normally when we discuss cable blackouts, the discussion revolves around the entirely predictable strategy by both the broadcaster and cable operator to blame one another, all while paying customers sit without the channels they're paying for. While annoying, that is usually the extent of our comments on the matter.

But DirectTV has forged a new path on how to handle broadcast blackouts. In Colorado, both DirectTV and Comcast were hit with a blackout of the Altitude Sports Network, the broadcaster for the Denver Nuggets, Colorado Avalanche, and more. ASN wanted, as per usual, higher fees for its broadcast rights. DirectTV and Comcast did not want to pay those higher fees. But, as part of a larger investigation into the fees Comcast and DirectTV assess their customers, the Colorado AG is looking into why DirectTV kept charging customers the regional sports fee for the channel it was no longer showing.

DirecTV and Comcast are being investigated by Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser, who objects to the TV providers continuing to charge regional sports network (RSN) fees despite not providing one of the major regional sports networks. While Comcast is giving customers partial bill credits, DirecTV apparently hasn't done so.

Weiser sent letters to the AT&T-owned DirecTV and Comcast on October 23, asking why the companies kept charging RSN fees after they stopped providing the Altitude Sports network. The network broadcasts games played by the state's major professional basketball, hockey, and soccer teams (the Denver Nuggets, Colorado Avalanche, and Colorado Rapids, respectively). The AG's letters said that Comcast's and DirecTV's conduct "may constitute a deceptive trade practice under the Colorado Consumer Protection Act" and "may result in the imposition of civil penalties up to $20,000 per violation." The letters also said the AG is investigating other potentially misleading fees.

As noted, Comcast is trying now to make this right by offering partial refunds. DirectTV, at the time of this writing, apparently isn't trying to make this right at all. It's one thing to charge fee after fee in a complicated invoice constructed specifically so that paying customers have no clue what they're actually paying for, but to specifically continue to charge for a network that isn't even being broadcast at the time is especially sinister.

For what it's worth, the AG both gave DirectTV some time to respond with its plans. When DirectTV didn't bother to respond on time, it probably didn't do the company any favors with respect to the AG's interest in investigating further.

Weiser's office gave both companies until November 7 to respond. Comcast said it will provide an additional, more detailed response to the AG by then. AT&T's DirecTV division hasn't responded to Weiser's office yet, Weiser's office told Ars today. We contacted AT&T today and will update this article if we get a response.

The actions of DirecTV, which apparently hasn't offered credits to customers, have been "very concerning," Weiser told The Denver Post.

"Based on early conversations with DirecTV and AT&T, we didn't believe they were taking the request with the seriousness that they should," a spokesperson for Weiser also told the Post.

Interestingly, this is just the tip of the spear when it comes to the AG's investigation. Weiser letter also informed both cable operators that the AG was looking into how both companies assess customers fees generally, with an eye towards whether such fees would violate state law on deceptive trade practices. This, of course, is the cable television standard, so it's good to see at least one state taking a hard look at how cable TV customers are being bilked out of money with bullshit fees.

Filed Under: blackouts, broadcast fees, colorado, fees, phil weiser, regional sports network, tv
Companies: altitude sports network, at&t, comcast, directv

AT&T Ponders Dumping DirecTV After Investor Backlash, But It's Not Likely To Help

from the yeah-that's-not-gonna-work dept

As we just got done noting, investors have finally started to grumble about AT&T's obsession with merger mania (aka "growth for growth's sake"). AT&T, you'll recall, spent more than $150 billion to acquire Time Warner and DirecTV in a bid to dominate the streaming video and online advertising space. But the deals saddled AT&T with so much debt, it forced the company to raise rates despite rising competition, driving many of these customers to the exits. Oh, and AT&T's being sued by other investors for allegedly lying about it. It has also largely bungled its TV branding in general.

In what appears to be an intentional leak designed to suggest that AT&T is taking these concerns seriously, a report emerged this week in the Wall Street Journal (non paywalled alternative read here), suggesting that AT&T may now try to offload DirecTV after paying $67 billion for the company back in 2015:

"The telecom giant has considered various options, including a spinoff of DirecTV into a separate public company and a combination of DirecTV's assets with Dish Network, its satellite-TV rival," the Journal report said, citing "people familiar with the matter." It's still early in the process, so AT&T could end up sticking with DirecTV. "AT&T may ultimately decide to keep DirecTV in the fold. Despite the satellite service's struggles, as consumers drop their TV connections, it still contributes a sizable volume of cash flow and customer accounts to its parent," the Journal reported."

AT&T's decision to spend billions of dollars on a satellite TV company on the eve of the cord cutting revolution was always seen as a shaky bet. Especially given AT&T's decision to freeze most serious investment in the company's fixed-line broadband business. That said, the money DirecTV is currently making is helping to pay off the company's enormous debt load (AT&T's currently in the running for the most heavily-indebted company public letter wasn't kind to AT&T. Notably, the investors took issue with AT&T's belief that you dominate a space by throwing billions of dollars at mergers, something Wall Street usually is keen on thanks to short term gains:

"We firmly believe that AT&T’s M&A strategy has not only contributed directly to its profound share price underperformance, but has also caused distractions that have contributed to the Company’s recent operational underperformance."

That's a polite way of saying AT&T can't just buy its way to domination. But Elliot's suggestion to offload DirecTV won't help much.

The debt from a decade of merger mania would remain, and while the announcement of a sale might boost the markets slightly (allowing Elliot to exit semi-gracefully), it wouldn't fix what's broken at AT&T. Telcos like AT&T and Verizon still suck at wandering outside of their core competencies (building and running networks, lobbying to crush competitors), the result of being government-pampered monopolies for the better part of a generation. As we've seen with Verizon's Go90, AOL, and Yahoo face plants, these companies simply aren't good at adaptation and competition because it's an alien construct.

AT&T executives desperately want AT&T to be Google and Facebook, and have eyed both companies' ad revenues jealously for the better part of the last two decades, thinking that money is somehow owed to them because they own the underlying network (that's really what the net neutrality fight was about). They seem to believe growth for growth's sake and lobbying are the path to domination, but while that worked well in the broadband space, it's not going to work quite as well in helping them gain stature in other markets.

Especially given that as lumbering monopolies fused to the nation's intelligence agencies, neither AT&T nor Verizon has the ability to actually innovate in the space, which is why AT&T's current TV branding efforts look a lot like road kill. AT&T will remain saddled with millions of aging copper and phone lines it is (like most US telcos) too cheap to upgrade despite billions in tax cuts and regulatory favors. Mindless merger mania won't fix the DNA-level problems that plague Ma Bell, and neither will selling off a core component of the company's bumbling, but ongoing, attempt to dominate the video advertising space.

Filed Under: competition, consolidation, cord cutting, divestitutre, mergers, satellite tv, streaming, tv
Companies: at&t, directv

AT&T Hopes A Confusing Rebranding Will Help Its Muddled Video Plans Make Sense

from the good-luck-with--that dept

Despite spending more than $150 billion on mergers intended to help it dominate the video space, AT&T's video ambitions are falling flat. The company just posted a loss of more than 778,000 "traditional" video subscribers last quarter (satellite TV, IPTV), but also lost another 168,000 subscribers at its DirecTV Now streaming service. The reason? The company's acquisitions of DirecTV ($67 billion) and Time Warner ($86 billion) saddled it with so much debt, the company was forced to raise rates. This, in turn, helped drive AT&T's customers to the exits.

Despite its voracious appetite for M&A, it's not entirely clear the company knows what to do from here. The same week it announced record subscriber losses, AT&T proclaimed it would be engaged in a rebranding that will kill off the DirecTV brand. AT&T's DirecTV Now streaming video service will now be, quite creatively, named just AT&T TV Now:

"AT&T is eliminating the DirecTV Now brand name it uses for its struggling Internet-based TV service. DirecTV Now will become "AT&T TV Now" later this summer, AT&T announced today. DirecTV Now (the future "AT&T TV Now") offers a bundle of linear TV channels, similar to traditional cable or satellite services, and AT&T said its core offering won't be changed."

The problem, as some were quick to point out, is that AT&T, Time Warner, and HBO all now offer video via an immensely confusing array of options. There's HBO Go, HBO's streaming service for those with cable. There's HBO Now, HBO's streaming service for those without cable. There's AT&T's Watch TV, which is a live, discounted bundle of 35 channels. There's also AT&T TV, which is delivered over IPTV. Then there's AT&T TV Now, which is a rebranded version of DirecTV Now, its on demand streaming option. There's also HBO Max, AT&T's new streaming platform slated for next year. Not confusing at all, right?

Both AT&T and Verizon desperately want to topple Google and Facebook in the video advertising space, but there remains little indication that lumbering, government-pampered monopolies have the flexibility to actually accomplish that goal. Verizon's Go90 streaming video service, you'll recall, was supposed to dominate the Millennial video space, but wound up being scrapped after nobody gave much of a damn.

It's frankly hard for pampered monopolies to seriously compete because, with the exception of some tepid, non-price competition in wireless, actual hard-nosed competition is alien phrenology to them. As are innovation, disruption, and quick adaptation. Companies like AT&T and Verizon have spent thirty years responding to competition by lobbying government to make life hell for their competitors at every turn. And because giants like AT&T all but own numerous federal and state lawmakers, that's routinely been pretty easy. That's not going to work in a streaming space where actual competition is starting to explode.

In a sector where many traditional cable operators have only doubled down on the same dumb behavior that drives cord cutting in the first place, AT&T at least had the courage to offer its own streaming alternative. Many companies are so terrified of accelerating the cord cutting losses to traditional video revenue, they refuse to offering compelling, more flexible, and cheaper alternatives. AT&T deserves credit for taking risk, even if the path forward should have been fairly obvious.

That said, it's not entirely clear AT&T knows what it's doing. In addition to a scattered brand presence and endless price hikes, the company seems fixated on turning HBO from a boutique channel filled with popular, higher-quality risk taking, to a an outlet that craps out shorter form content en masse. This shift in focus to quantity over quality isn't likely to help in the way AT&T execs seem to think it will. And while the death of net neutrality and AT&T's domination of broadband will certainly help AT&T tilt the playing field here and there, even that may not be enough to keep AT&T relevant in the streaming wars to come.

Filed Under: streaming
Companies: at&t, directv

AT&T Loses 1 Million Video Users After Spending Billions On Mergers To Dominate Video

from the whoops-a-daisy dept

This wasn't how it was supposed to go for AT&T. In AT&T executives heads, the 2015, $67 billion acquisition of DirecTV and the 2018 $86 billion acquisition of Time Warner were supposed to be the cornerstones of the company's efforts to dominate video and online video advertising. Instead, the megadeals made AT&T possibly one of the most heavily indebted companies in the world. To recoup that debt, AT&T has ramped up its efforts to nickel-and-dime users at every opportunity, from bogus new wireless fees to price hikes on both its streaming and traditional video services.

Not too surprisingly, these price hikes are now driving subscribers to the exits.

The company's latest earnings report indicates that AT&T not only lost another 778,000 "traditional" video subscribers last quarter (satellite TV, IPTV), but it lost another 168,000 subscribers at its DirecTV Now streaming service -- due to "higher prices and less promotional activity":

"The service had lost 83,000 subscribers in the first quarter after a 267,000 drop in the fourth quarter of 2018. As of the end of June, the service had 1.3 million subscribers. Cowen analyst Colby Synesael had predicted DirecTV Now would lose 50,000 subscribers in the second quarter. The company also lost 778,000 traditional pay TV subscribers in the second quarter between its DirecTV satellite TV and U-Verse services after losing 544,000 in the first quarter, citing "an increase in customers rolling off promotional discounts, competition and lower gross adds due to a focus on the long-term value customer base."

Keep in mind this is happening before the playing field gets flooded with new competitors, like Disney's new Disney+ service, which is expected to launch this November. Disney's pulling most of its content off of services like Netflix and making it exclusive to its platform. Other companies, like Apple and Comcast, also have new streaming ventures in the works with a similar focus on exclusives. As competition heats up, many of these companies are going to be happy to take a temporary loss to establish market share. AT&T can't do that because it's swimming in debt.

Granted, AT&T still has some tricks up its sleeve. Its successful lobbying gambit to kill net neutrality and erode FCC authority over telecom means nobody will really be minding the store as AT&T begins using its dominance of broadband to its tactical advantage. While ISPs have tried to remain on their best behavior as they wait for the result of the multi-AG lawsuit against the FCC (which would restore the net neutrality rules if the FCC loses), AT&T has still managed to try and test the waters with anti-competitive moves like only making usage caps apply to competitors' services.

Should the FCC win its lawsuit, you can expect AT&T's anti-competitive efforts to quickly become far more creative and way less subtle. Because if there's anything history tells us about natural, government-pampered monopolies like AT&T, they're terrible at innovating their way through direct, head to head competition, as these latest quarterly numbers clearly attest. And when you can't win in fair head to head competition, you cheat. It's the American way!

Filed Under: competition, mergers, video
Companies: at&t, directv, time warner

Cable's Response To Surging Streaming Competition? More Price Hikes

from the unhealthy-markets dept

We've noted for years how when the cable and broadcast industry is faced with new challenges, its very first reaction is almost always to double down on dumb ideas. When consumers began complaining about the volume of ads during prime time, the industry's first response was to try and edit down or speed up programs so they could shovel more ads into every viewing hour. When consumers began using new DVR ad-skipping tech, the industry's first reaction was to sue companies offering such advancements.

In a healthy market, companies respond to the rise in new competition by competing on service quality and price. Not the cable industry. Despite a soaring variety of new, cheaper streaming options, every year the industry's first impulse has been to raise cable TV prices, in turn driving more users than ever to "cut the cord" and embrace these streaming options instead. As a new year rolls in, its a phenomenon that's once again repeating itself as Comcast, Dish, AT&T, and most other pay TV providers once again raise rates for 2019:

"Giants including Comcast, Dish, and DirecTV plan to raise rates again in the new year, a move that could boost revenue but risks alienating subscribers who have been ditching their traditional TV subscriptions in record numbers. Cable and satellite providers are hoping to squeeze more money from consumers who remain loyal to their packages with hundreds of channels, Philip Cusick, a JPMorgan Chase analyst, said in a note this week, even though "this strategy could accelerate video sub declines."

While most cable operators will place the blame for these higher rates exclusively on the shoulders of broadcasters, that's not really always true. Yes, much of the unsustainable rate hikes you'll see in cable TV are due to programmers constantly wanting more money for the same content. That, however, ignores that most cable operators contribute to the rate-hike festivities by also socking consumers with a universe of higher rates for things like DVR and cable box rental, not to mention the universe of fees, many of which are completely made up with no tether to any real-world cost.

So why does a company like Comcast continue to raise rates on traditional cable TV, knowing this is just driving more users to cut the cord? For one, while streaming video is increasingly popular, most TV watchers (around 90 million Americans) still subscribe to traditional TV, making these rate hikes a quick, all-too-tempting source of up front cash they've grown used to. Many cable executives still believe that cord cutting is a temporary storm they'll be able to weather without having to make too many concessions (like lowering rates or improving historically terrible customer support).

Companies like Comcast also have an ace in the hole when it comes to weathering this particular storm: their growing monopoly over broadband. While users may be able to quit Comcast cable TV, it's statistically unlikely they'll have the choice of another broadband provider, especially at speeds over 25 Mbps. As a result, Comcast leverages that monopoly by imposing all manner of unnecessary usage limits should you stream video from competitors, a lovely bit of leverage Comcast will only exploit more fully should net neutrality not be restored.

As a result, the normal response to more competition (actually trying harder) is replaced by a sort of stoic indifference by cable giants, who know their broadband monopolies (not to mention current control over FCC policy in the Trump era) will protect them from having to actually adapt anytime soon.

Filed Under: cable, competition, cord cutting, price hikes, streaming, tv
Companies: comcast, directv, dish

Fresh Off Its Merger, AT&T Jacks Up Price Of Streaming Video Service

from the history-repeats-itself dept

It didn't take long for AT&T's promises of merger synergies to magically evaporate. During the company's sales pitch for its $86 billion acquisition of Time Warner, AT&T repeatedly stated how the merger would result in all manner of "synergies" and savings that would be passed on to the consumer. In reality, the massive debt load acquired in the wake of the deal has AT&T doing everything in its power to try and trim its M&A-bloated balance sheet... to the immediate detriment of the company's customers.

Last week we noted how AT&T had begun flexing its muscles in the wake of a Judge's comically-myopic ruling in the Time Warner case. First, AT&T raised the price of some of its "unlimited" data plans, then axed a deal that provided HBO for free to some wireless customers. Then the company set to work raising a misleading, nonsensical and unnecessary "administrative fee" from $0.76 to $1.99, effectively providing AT&T with roughly $800 million in additional revenue every year. Such garbage fees are routinely used to help broadband providers falsely advertise a lower rate.

Not to be outdone, AT&T is also now informing the company's DirecTV Now streaming video customers that they can look forward to a new $5 price hike starting in August. The hike is necessary, AT&T claims, in order to bring "the cost of this service in line with the market":

"In the 18 months since our launch, we have continued to evolve our DIRECTV NOW products to serve this new customer set and compare favorably with our competitors. To continue delivering the best possible streaming experience for both new and existing customers, we’re bringing the cost of this service in line with the market—which starts at a $40 price point."

You're to forget, apparently, that one of AT&T's core selling points during the merger approval process was that owning "must have" content like HBO was going to make it easier for AT&T to provide users cheaper, better TV service. From an AT&T brief (pdf) filed at the tail end of arguments during company's recent merger skirmish with the DOJ:

"The evidence overwhelmingly showed that this merger is likely to enhance competition substantially, because it will enable the merged company to reduce prices, offer innovative video products, and compete more effectively against the increasingly powerful, vertically integrated 'FAANG' [Facebook, Apple, Amazon, Netflix, and Google] companies."

Yeah, or, you know, not. AT&T also forgot, apparently, that the whole reason users cut the cord and head to streaming services in the first place is because they're tired of often bi-annual rate hikes on traditional TV service (Dish Network's Sling TV is also issuing a $5 price hike to its own Sling TV service in perfect symmetry).

Again, none of this is new. Time and time again, Americans are promised a world of synergies and savings that can only be provided if already-massive companies are allowed to grow even larger without much oversight. And time and time again, we quickly learn that the lion's share of those promises are horse shit. We then fail utterly to actually learn anything from the experience. Meanwhile, with net neutrality on the chopping block, you can be damn sure that sneaky fees and vanilla price hikes are going to be the least of our problems in the face of a reconstituted Ma Bell.

Filed Under: directv, prices, streaming video, synergies
Companies: at&t, directv