AT&T Raises Prices Again

AlphaAtlas

[H]ard|Gawd
Staff member
Joined
Mar 3, 2018
Messages
1,713
According to recent reports, AT&T is raising subscription prices for their DirecTV Now streaming service. Citing their own sources, as well as an official confirmation from AT&T, Cord Cutters says that emails about the $10 price hike are supposed to go out today. AT&T also raised U-Verse and satellite subscription prices earlier this year, which wouldn't be particularly surprising were it not for the AT&T's controversial Time Warner acquisition last year. The company argued that the acquisition would make AT&T a more "competitive" company, and allow them to lower prices, but it seems that the DoJ's fears of price hikes during the case were well founded.

The principal reason is simpler: the government did not even begin to make a credible case that the merger would likely harm competition, substantially or even just a little. There is no sound evidence from which the Court could fairly conclude that retail pay-TV prices are likely to increase, that there will be coordinated withholding of content from virtual MVPDs, or that distributors will be unable to use HBO as a promotional tool. There is no proven harm at all-only proven benefits. And because there is no proven harm, there is no basis in law for any remedy, equitable or otherwise.
 

gamerk2

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jul 9, 2012
Messages
1,732
Remmeber everyone, less competition leads to higher prices.

Seriously, it's becoming clear Congress needs to pass a new anti-trust law that essentially makes being too large (say, greater then 20% reach in any market segment) itself monopolistic. So long as it's OK for just a handful of companies to "nominally" compete, we're going to get more and more of this.
 

drescherjm

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Nov 19, 2008
Messages
14,786
Financially the DirecTV acquisition did not turn out to be a good deal. As a shareholder I wish that they did not go through with it.
 

Domingo

Fully [H]
Joined
Jul 30, 2004
Messages
18,024
They probably did the math and figured that's the sweet spot where swapping to Dish isn't cost effective.
 

TonyZ

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jul 29, 2004
Messages
168
Just waiting for spectrum to release the streaming package with DVR for internet only customers for $15/mo and DTV Now will get an unsub...
 

alxlwson

You Know Where I Live
Joined
Aug 25, 2013
Messages
7,089
Just waiting for spectrum to release the streaming package with DVR for internet only customers for $15/mo and DTV Now will get an unsub...

I too am waiting for this. Sick of paying 80/mo for the first tier of channels on DTV. Really considering doing the Hulu thing- My parents have it and couldn't be happier.
 

AlphaAtlas

[H]ard|Gawd
Staff member
Joined
Mar 3, 2018
Messages
1,713
Financially the DirecTV acquisition did not turn out to be a good deal. As a shareholder I wish that they did not go through with it.
Yeah, I don't understand the value they saw in it. AT&T has plenty of existing media relationships, and DirecTV themselves are airing commercials about how satellite TV is becoming obsolete... on satellite TV.
 

Domingo

Fully [H]
Joined
Jul 30, 2004
Messages
18,024
Are they still pushing DirectTV relentlessly to their cellular customers? Back when I was on AT&T wireless they'd throw the kitchen sink at you to try and sign you up. Free TV's, wireless discounts, etc. It even got to the point where they'd automatically sign you up and you had to correct them before they rang you up.
 

jlbenedict

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
May 22, 2005
Messages
1,381
Youtube tv + Philo = $56 before taxes. Covers nearly 99% of what my family needs.
 
Joined
Mar 16, 2006
Messages
3,473
YoutubeTV has a lot of what DTVNow has (probably more now), plus a very well done DVR. If I were to switch from cable that's probably the route I'd go.
I did this 2 weeks ago. Video quality is as good or better than cable. The DVR could use a little improvement but it is still OK. Still almost half of what I was paying with cable TV service so it has great value. I use it almost exclusively for live sports (NHL. MLB, and F1).
 

SamuelL421

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jun 3, 2016
Messages
218
Yes that certainly won't cause more people to switch to another service. The reverse incentive drives me nuts, the longer you stay with a service provider the more they charge you.
With zero changes to my service, my internet via comcast has risen from under $60 to $85 in the past 2 years. I would switch immediately to another provider but there are two options where I live: Comcast at 150 down / 20 up or Verizon DSL at 10 down / 1 up.

Remmeber everyone, less competition leads to higher prices.

Seriously, it's becoming clear Congress needs to pass a new anti-trust law that essentially makes being too large (say, greater then 20% reach in any market segment) itself monopolistic. So long as it's OK for just a handful of companies to "nominally" compete, we're going to get more and more of this.
People immediately throw tantrums and cry about big government every time regulation of internet, anti-trust, or monopoly gets mentioned, but some sort of regulation or intervention needs to happen - whether it's under the umbrella of "net neutrality" or otherwise.

Supposedly the rules adopted when Wheeler was FCC chair didn't have firm legal standing. Fine, if you can't base internet law on 100 year old rulings regarding telephone monopolies, that is understandable. So why not pass a new law that DOES specify the internet? The internet is a public utility, or at least it should be.
 

BryanSTG

Gawd
Joined
Jul 29, 2009
Messages
778
Thanks for the clickbait title change...

"DIRECTV NOW Will Reportedly Raise its Price $10 a Month Next Week & Launch 2 New Packages"
 

Rahh

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jan 14, 2005
Messages
1,607
Yes that certainly won't cause more people to switch to another service. The reverse incentive drives me nuts, the longer you stay with a service provider the more they charge you.
still cheaper than verizon.
 

jlbenedict

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
May 22, 2005
Messages
1,381

Grimlaking

2[H]4U
Joined
May 9, 2006
Messages
3,250

jlbenedict

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
May 22, 2005
Messages
1,381
sounds like a conspiracy to me..
1) The cable companies can't get us for their $200 a month packages..
2) The media companies work behind the scenes with the streaming companies and negotiate package deals with the various streaming providers.. Certain players only carry certain packages , on purpose
3) To result in you the consumer, still having to subscribe to multiple streaming services, to get all the channels you would like..
4) Resulting in a bill, that is similar to cable pricing
5) Cable companies still win.. since they will raise the rates on internet-only subscriptions.. hit you with data caps.. etc..
Everyone wins, except for the consumer
 

sfsuphysics

I don't get it
Joined
Jan 14, 2007
Messages
14,065
Hardly shocking, when I was with DirecTV for quite a few years, way back when you had to buy the dish yourself want to say somewhere around 15-20 years ago, a "standard" package was $25/month and that wasn't a promotional price either, then over the years they did raise prices on a seemingly yearly or at least bi-annual basis, and then the nickle and diming started coming in, want HD access? That's $10/month extra, want to watch local channels? Yeah we'll charge you like $6/month for that, oh you want to record shit on a DVR that you had to pay extra for (to us) that's another $10/month fee... so before I knew it it was like $80/month for more or less that same "standard" package, desperately want to leave too but what options were there? Comcast who'd do the same exact thing, AT&T's acquisition however made the choice super easy though, and I did cut the cord... after a couple years with comcast, but managed to string them out for a 2 year promo deal and as soon as prices went up I went out.

Now how much was that $25/month in 2019 dollars? Yeah about $35... so this is just everyone wanting to make more money, so they pushed me to the point of doing the exact opposite, I'm not paying for TV... I'll pay for a VPN, and use Plex on a Roku, and you can come to your own conclusions to what happened then.
 

Domingo

Fully [H]
Joined
Jul 30, 2004
Messages
18,024
I still watch a decent number of channels that aren't on one of the big streaming platforms. At least not for free. Once I factor in the discount I get on my internet via Comcast I might as well just get the full ride cable package with every channel. Plus, seemingly every week another new streaming service springs up and wants their own subscription. It's maddening. I don't want more options and I don't want to pay 45 little bills every month instead of one big one.
 

nutzo

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Feb 15, 2004
Messages
7,380
Yes that certainly won't cause more people to switch to another service. The reverse incentive drives me nuts, the longer you stay with a service provider the more they charge you.
Exactly.
New customer, 50% discount.
20 year customer, lets raise your rates again.
 
Joined
Sep 7, 2004
Messages
2,912
YoutubeTV has a lot of what DTVNow has (probably more now), plus a very well done DVR. If I were to switch from cable that's probably the route I'd go.
I have YoutubeTV, I have to admit I don't watch too much TV aside from sports so $40 a month wasn't going to kill me. I tried DirectTV Now for a month before that it was like $55 or 65 a month for a few more channels. The quality of the stream on YouTubeTV is better and the interface is a bit more responsive.

As for DirectTV Now I'm not sure why those idiots keep raising prices while continously losing customers every time....isn't that counter productive.
 

NickJames

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Apr 28, 2009
Messages
6,672
Yeah, I don't understand the value they saw in it. AT&T has plenty of existing media relationships, and DirecTV themselves are airing commercials about how satellite TV is becoming obsolete... on satellite TV.
Yeah they lost me on that one. U-Verse network cable is 10x better than having a shit dish mounted to the side of your house. The acquisition of dying tech like DirecTV made no sense outside of removing competition.
 

Dion

2[H]4U
Joined
Oct 2, 2004
Messages
3,732
Yes that certainly won't cause more people to switch to another service. The reverse incentive drives me nuts, the longer you stay with a service provider the more they charge you.
They are banking on people being stupid and forgetting to cancel there subscriptions when price hikes comes. It's literally a con job lol
 

nutzo

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Feb 15, 2004
Messages
7,380
With zero changes to my service, my internet via comcast has risen from under $60 to $85 in the past 2 years. I would switch immediately to another provider but there are two options where I live: Comcast at 150 down / 20 up or Verizon DSL at 10 down / 1 up.
And my only choices are COX, or use cell phone/hotspot, even though I live in the middle of 100,000 population city, surrounded by multiple other similar cities.
I can't even get DSL any more, since the best they could do was 384kb due to my house being at the end of a long street.


People immediately throw tantrums and cry about big government every time regulation of internet, anti-trust, or monopoly gets mentioned, but some sort of regulation or intervention needs to happen - whether it's under the umbrella of "net neutrality" or otherwise.

Supposedly the rules adopted when Wheeler was FCC chair didn't have firm legal standing. Fine, if you can't base internet law on 100 year old rulings regarding telephone monopolies, that is understandable. So why not pass a new law that DOES specify the internet? The internet is a public utility, or at least it should be.
While I'm normally against more government regulation, something needs to change. My preference would be for some kind of forced competition to break up the monopolies.
And yes, if my only choice is a single cable company, or cell phone data, then the yes, that is effectively a monopoly.

Same goes with the media companies. Main problem with high cable TV bills is the forced bundling.
I don't need or want 120+ channels. I don't watch ESPN, so why do I have to pay for it?
 

NKD

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Aug 26, 2007
Messages
7,856
I get that it looks bad but if you actually compare the channel offering even the cheapest package isn't bad. I have tried dish and ps vue and youtube. Dtv now really hands down offers better channels and packages including all locals for me. I guess I have att so I get the monthly discount on the dtv service.

I think they are just aligning it with other companies. Because when I last compared to other services they certainly had better offerings. Given you still get HBO for 5 bucks or for free if you have wireless service. I would switch if there was something cheaper and better but clearly not when comparing direclty with other streaming options.

I mean if you think about it and wonder why the fuck they are doing it even though subscribers were leaving. It just means that they are losing money on current pacakges, so they would rather have low subscribers as long as its profitable.

Well fuck let me edit my comment after I read some details on the new plans below lol-

The 2 plans do seem like they are thinned out. Not the best deal but if you are on the older ones and get to keep them its still an option. Because new plans clearly not the same lol. looks like they are including premium channels to entertain customers. But damn those packages make me eat my words about earlier packages. I thought these were add on packages but they seem to be replacing the old packages.
 
Last edited:

robjordan406

Limp Gawd
Joined
Oct 22, 2018
Messages
158
Well at least current subscribers are not going to loose or be boosted or changed in price... reportedly.
I noticed that statement: "It is important to remember if you have DIRECTV NOW you will reportedly get to keep your current package..."
 

NKD

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Aug 26, 2007
Messages
7,856
I noticed that statement: "It is important to remember if you have DIRECTV NOW you will reportedly get to keep your current package..."
Well it does say customers can keep current packages but you will see $10 increase. So it really depends on if you are wireless customer with ATT. I think the monthly discount for having wireless service helps out.
 

Exavior

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Dec 13, 2005
Messages
9,683
sounds like a conspiracy to me..
1) The cable companies can't get us for their $200 a month packages..
2) The media companies work behind the scenes with the streaming companies and negotiate package deals with the various streaming providers.. Certain players only carry certain packages , on purpose
3) To result in you the consumer, still having to subscribe to multiple streaming services, to get all the channels you would like..
4) Resulting in a bill, that is similar to cable pricing
5) Cable companies still win.. since they will raise the rates on internet-only subscriptions.. hit you with data caps.. etc..
Everyone wins, except for the consumer
The issue is that #1 isn't due to the cable company. Most make damn near nothing off video. The fucking cost of retransmitting fees goes up and up every year. We have a local station that thinks in order for us to offer it to our customers that we should pay them $8.25 per subscriber.... Needless we have never added that station and require people to just put up an antennae if they want that one station which is way up in channel numbers. Every year when the contracts come due most media companies start with we want 3x the amount of the last contract. After some back and forth normally they settle with around 18%. The $200 package is the only one that normally will give them about $8 in profit off of you. This is actually why many companies (read non Comcast) are starting to get away from evening offering video / cable packages anymore. I know of a larger cable company that just a few weeks ago announced that they are dropping video in all of their areas. They would rather spend the money on building out fiber to the home than spend a few million upgrading tv equipment. Many others have found that they can just drop tv and instead of loosing a few hundred thousand a year just make the money back by selling faster internet packages.
 

Aioeyu

Weaksauce
Joined
May 24, 2017
Messages
71
I recently subscribed to YouTube TV because the older members of my family weren't happy being cable-less. Quality is better than cable was, price is better, channel selection is better, and they can watch pretty much whatever they want when they want. There was a slight learning curve for my 80 year old father in law, but he seems happy now that he's figured it out. DVR is better than cable too.
 

NKD

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Aug 26, 2007
Messages
7,856
The issue is that #1 isn't due to the cable company. Most make damn near nothing off video. The fucking cost of retransmitting fees goes up and up every year. We have a local station that thinks in order for us to offer it to our customers that we should pay them $8.25 per subscriber.... Needless we have never added that station and require people to just put up an antennae if they want that one station which is way up in channel numbers. Every year when the contracts come due most media companies start with we want 3x the amount of the last contract. After some back and forth normally they settle with around 18%. The $200 package is the only one that normally will give them about $8 in profit off of you. This is actually why many companies (read non Comcast) are starting to get away from evening offering video / cable packages anymore. I know of a larger cable company that just a few weeks ago announced that they are dropping video in all of their areas. They would rather spend the money on building out fiber to the home than spend a few million upgrading tv equipment. Many others have found that they can just drop tv and instead of loosing a few hundred thousand a year just make the money back by selling faster internet packages.
This is actually true! Channels want shit load of money and since they don't directly charge consumers they get away with it and everyone goes to blame the streaming provider. While they have some power its just the cost of programming that really makes it look like all the blame is on service providers.
 

Dead Parrot

2[H]4U
Joined
Mar 4, 2013
Messages
2,831
Wonder how many AT&T executives gave testimony under oath during the merger hearings that the merger would lead to lower prices? If any did, they likely did so after coaching from legal staff. Now that prices have done just the opposite and soon enough after the DOJ lost the case that sudden economic changes can't really be cited as a reason, maybe charging said AT&T executives with perjury for lying under oath about pricing direction after the merger and with conspiracy for planning the lying under oath would be an option. And the attorneys for helping with said crimes.
 
Top