Friday, 30 December 2016

AT&T Scrapping $35 DirecTV Now Pricing In January; Bumping Bundle To $60

Well, that really didn’t last long. The promising $35-per-month price for AT&T’s DirecTV Now streaming bundle was always billed as “promotional” and time-limited, but that time appears to be short. Super-short. As in: ending on Jan. 9, in just over a week.

AT&T launched DirecTV Now exactly a month ago, on Nov. 30. The service is basically cable-free cable: like competitors Sling TV (Dish) and PlayStation Vue, it allows viewers to sign up for a bundle of linear (the fancy name for live TV) and on-demand networks delivered over the internet to a device of your choosing. It has its pros and cons, but one big selling point for the service was the price: $35 per month for a 60-channel bundle.

That time is now come and gone though. As Variety reports, the $35 option is going the way of the dodo, and will be replaced by a $60 fee for the same service tier for customers who sign up after Jan. 9.

At the time AT&T announced the pricing, it claimed that customers who signed up during the promotion would have their price grandfathered in if the cost went up around them. So if AT&T is trying to create a big spike in sign-ups before the first full week of January is out, this could be one way to do that.

However, as Variety notes, AT&T has said that fees can increase at a later date — and that channels, features, and terms of service are subject to change or be discontinued at any time, without notice.

AT&T, which finished acquiring DirecTV last year, has been arguing that its over-the-top (streaming) and mobile services will “disrupt” the traditional cable model. Part of that disruption includes bringing content in-house by acquiring Time Warner, but that deal is still very much pending.

But while on the back-end the system may be different — skipping satellite and cutting co-ax in favor of internet transmission — from the consumer perspective of bills that are too high for content bundles they may not want, it’s starting to look like the same-old same-old.


by Kate Cox via Consumerist

No comments:

Post a Comment