AT&T raises DirecTV Now prices, making chumps of those who backed Time Warner merger

[Zorro]

From the day in 2016 when AT&T announced its $85.4-billion merger with Time Warner, through three years of antitrust wrangling over the deal, the big telecommunications company promised that it would mean lower prices and more choices for consumers.

Now AT&T has a message for everyone who believed the pitch: Suckers!

That’s the best conclusion to be drawn from the company’s recent price increase of $10 a month for its DirecTV Now non-satellite online streaming service. The change, announced to subscribers earlier this month, will raise the monthly fee for the service’s existing packages to as much as $85.

New customers can choose from a package of more than 40 channels for $50 a month, or one with more sports programming for $70. That’s a pared-down offering from what’s been available for existing customers, who could choose from five packages of as many as 125 channels. (The company says existing subscribers can keep their packages but will be charged the additional $10 monthly fee.)

https://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-hiltzik-att-price-rise-20190318-story.html

[still_one]

1. Did they increase the price because the channels they offer raised their prices? If so, then that

is out of there control.

As an aside, if anyone thinks I am somehow a DirectTV/ATT fan, far from it. After being a customer of AT&T and DirectTV for over 20 years, I dropped them like a hot potato.

Main reason was their customer service had been going done hill for sometime, and the secondary reasons they charged me for an international service plan I didn't have, and after 6 months of them telling me they would adjust accordingly, and nothing happened, I dropped their mobile service as well.

[dalton99a]

2. Shocking, indeed

[Dennis Donovan]

3. I've never seen telecom mergers that ultimately helped customers...

I'm a DTV Now subscriber (existing, with the Live A Little plan + HBO). Unfortunately, I'll have to stick with them for the time being because they have local channels (Unfortunately, the nearest local stations are far enough away that, even with a 60 mi antenna, it breaks up during the day).

That said, what fucking business STAYS in business by jacking up their prices while removing product (channels)?

[mwooldri]

5. How about YouTube TV? AFAIK they have locals.

Though HBO would have to be a stand alone prospect as YouTube TV doesn't have HBO.

[Dennis Donovan]

6. I hadn't checked them in a while...

...so I just did and they added my locals! Thanks for reminding me!

[Qutzupalotl]

4. More anticompetitive behavior:

AT&T wants Dish Network to pay a price for HBO that is higher than their number of subscribers. They want Dish to pay as though 33% of their customers subscribe, whereas only about 15% of Dish customers are HBO subscribers. Dish refused; so AT&T pulled HBO and Cinemax off of Dish Network.

Now my options are 1) try to stream HBO on the only decent wireless network that covers my area, AT&T; or 2) get DirecTV, which is owned by ... AT&T ... and costs more.

They know full well that we rural Dish customers have no other option than to rush to the giant corporate arms of AT&T, which makes this whole thing galling.