AT&T has created a streaming television bundle that cable and satellite subscribers can appreciate. Replicating the kind of promotions familiar to DirecTV subscribers, AT&T debuted its new streaming TV service nationwide this morning with three promotionally priced packages that start at a relatively low price and end with a very high one.

AT&T TV is intended to fill the gap between bare bones, slimmed-down packages offered by services like Sling TV and the bloated television packages offered by traditional cable and satellite providers. The new service is part of AT&T’s plan to gradually wind down DirecTV satellite service and U-verse TV, delivering video content over the internet instead of by cable or satellite. AT&T has already ceased marketing its U-verse TV service and intends to do the same with DirecTV, which had been heavily advertised for years. The best new customer promotions will likely be targeted towards its new streaming service as well.

AT&T TV’s set-top box and remote control.

Unlike AT&T’s cord-cutting package — AT&T TV Now, AT&T TV features hundreds of channels, a 500-hour DVR that will store recordings up to 90 days, and over 40,000 on-demand shows. AT&T TV carries just about every cable channel imaginable, along with a healthy amount of regional and national sports, most local stations, scores of international channels in several languages, and premium movie channels galore. AT&T TV does not have the bandwidth and capacity constraints U-verse and DirecTV have, so the service can offer as many channels as customers can afford.

To watch, you need an internet connection with at least 8 Mbps for “optimal viewing.” If you want to bundle AT&T’s gigabit fiber service with AT&T TV, the company offers an extra $10/mo off for the first 12 months of your 24 month contract.

One of AT&T’s biggest selling points for its new TV service is its bundled set-top box, powered by Google’s Android TV. That gives subscribers access to apps in the Google Play Store, which means integrating Netflix, Hulu, and just about any other music or video streaming app is easy. Customers also can benefit from AT&T’s voice remote, which uses Google Assistant.

A careful review of the terms and conditions quickly reveals that this new service is not intentioned for cord-cutters. For starters, AT&T TV channel lineups are larger than other cord-cutting services, and are priced accordingly. The cheapest package on offer — Entertainment (~73 channels), is priced at $93 a month after the new customer promotion expires. AT&T TV also includes a two-year term contract satellite users are well familiar with. If you cancel early, you are subject to an early cancellation penalty of $15 for each month remaining on your contract. A sports programming fee of up to $8.49/mo is charged separately for some customers. A $19.95 setup fee also applies, along with equipment fees of $10/mo for each additional set-top box (the first one is included). Customers can also buy the box outright for $120.

AT&T protects its other video services from revenue cannibalization by disallowing new customer discounts for existing DirecTV and U-verse TV customers. For everyone else, here is what you can expect to pay:

• Entertainment: $49.99/mo for months 1-12, $93/mo for months 13-24.
• Choice: $54.99/mo for months 1-12, $110/mo for months 13-24.
• XTRA: $64.99/mo for months 1-12, $124/mo for months 13-24.
• Ultimate: $69.99/mo for months 1-12, $135/mo for months 13-24.
• Optimo Más: $54.99/mo for months 1-12, $86.99 for months 13-24.

Some other points:

• AT&T TV allows up to three concurrent streams.
• Regional Sports Fee of up to $8.49/mo. applies to Choice and higher packages.
• Additional set-top boxes are $10/mo or can be purchased for $120.
• A $50 AT&T Visa® Reward Card is available if you order AT&T TV online. Expires: 3/31/2020. For new residential customers only. Residents of select multi-dwelling units not eligible.
• Save an additional $10/mo. for 12 months on TV when you bundle with internet or wireless.
• $19.95 activation fee.
• Early termination fee of $15/mo for each month remaining on agreement.
• Equipment non-return fee may apply if you fail to return equipment when ending service.

The Federal Communications Commission will seek hundreds of millions of dollars in fines from America’s four largest wireless companies after company officials apparently lied to Congress and regulators about ending the lucrative sale of customer locations to third parties in early 2019.

The Wall Street Journal reported the FCC has sent Notices of Apparent Liability to Verizon, AT&T, T-Mobile, and Sprint accusing the companies of continuing to sell the real-time locations of customers after telling Congress they would stop.

The companies allegedly routinely sold personal customer data to middlemen companies that had very few controls over who ultimately received that information. Clients included private investigators, debt collectors, police agencies, and even potentially ex-partners engaged in stalking. Customers have never been clearly informed that their location data was subject to resale to third parties, and privacy concerns were immediately raised after revelations data aggregators LocationSmart, Inc., and Zumigo, Inc., were selling data to inappropriate entities and individuals.

After being exposed in early 2019, all four carriers promised to end or curtail the practice, but an FCC investigation found carriers were not being forthright.

In January, FCC Chairman Ajit Pai disclosed the practice because of ongoing oversight by the House Energy and Commerce Committee, which had demanded an investigation by the FCC early last year. In a letter to the Committee, Pai wrote that the agency found U.S. carriers “apparently” broke the law by continuing to sell location data.

“I am committed to ensuring that all entities subject to our jurisdiction comply with the Communications Act and the FCC’s rules, including those that protect consumers’ sensitive information, such as real-time location data,” Pai wrote.

Too little, too late, according to Rep. Frank Pallone (D-N.J.), who chairs the Committee.

(Image by Brad Jonas originally for Pando.com)

“Following our longstanding calls to take action, the FCC finally informed the Committee today that one or more wireless carriers apparently violated federal privacy protections by turning a blind eye to the widespread disclosure of consumers’ real-time location data,” Pallone said in a statement in January, 2019. “This is certainly a step in the right direction, but I’ll be watching to make sure the FCC doesn’t just let these lawbreakers off the hook with a slap on the wrist.”

Today’s revelations infuriated Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) who tweeted:

“Ajit Pai has failed to protect consumers at every turn. This issue came to light after my office and dedicated journalists discovered how wireless carriers shared Americans’ locations without consent. He investigated only after public pressure mounted.”

Consumers often unwittingly share their real-time locations with cell phone providers whenever their phones are switched on and connected to a cellular or Wi-Fi network. Carriers have developed a lucrative business reselling that information to third parties, typically data aggregators that combine location information with data collected from other companies and sell it on. Buyers often include law enforcement agencies and private investigators, but one reporter found it simple as an individual to get real-time data about his location by paying $300 to a data aggregator. Privacy advocates worry that stalkers could easily track their victims through such services, with victims unaware their own cell phone company betrayed their location in return for money.

A Notice of Apparent Liability demands a written response from a targeted individual or company to explain why they should not be subject to the monetary penalty specified in the letter. Many companies win significant reductions or fine waivers through negotiations with the FCC. The Journal reports that so far, the FCC has not been willing to offer settlements, but that could change as carriers try to negotiate a settlement through the agency’s administrative process.

The article does not specify the exact fines targeted for each carrier. AT&T and Verizon have more than adequate financial resources to pay almost any fine in full. But a multi-million fine against T-Mobile and Sprint could complicate the final agreement between T-Mobile and Sprint to merge, which is expected to happen in the coming weeks. Under the revised merger agreement, both companies agreed to split any expenses related to liabilities up to $200 million, leaving Sprint investor-owner SoftBank responsible for the rest.

Canoe Ventures

The impact of video cord-cutting and a growing intolerance for heavy advertising loads seem to be taking a toll on the cable industry’s lucrative advertising business.

Canoe Ventures, owned by Comcast, Charter Spectrum, and Cox, reports the number of ads being viewed by video-on-demand users rose just 4% in 2019, just a fraction of the growth the company reported over the past three years.

Many ad-supported cable networks make parts of their programming libraries available for on-demand viewing by video subscribers. Cable companies sell advertising that fills the original commercial breaks, sometimes resulting in a viewing experience comparable to live viewing — ads and all. But customers are increasingly turning away from cable video-on-demand, either because they are canceling their video packages or are becoming more intolerant of heavy ad loads.

Canoe Ventures claims its slowed growth comes from selling out ad inventory on the cable video-on-demand platform. But during the first six months of 2019, 13.1 billion ads were collectively viewed by customers, which is nearly identical to the 13 billion ads viewed during the same months in 2018. Assuming Canoe Ventures has nearly sold out all available space on its ad insertion platform, that should result in consumers seeing more ads. But with ad viewing almost flat, that likely means less video-on-demand content is being watched.

Cable system overbuilder WideOpenWest, better known to customers as WOW!, has begun offering its customers subscriptions to streaming video competitors fuboTV, Philo, Sling, and YouTube TV, in what could be a gradual move away from selling its own video packages.

WOW!, like every cable operator, is losing cable television customers to cord-cutting. As of the end of 2019, the company had just 381,000 video subscribers remaining, down another 6,300 in the last three months. Because of its small size, WOW! does not qualify for the steep volume discounts offered to cable television and satellite TV companies that have tens of millions of video customers. As a result, it either has to continue to raise prices or watch its cable television packages become unprofitable. WOW! has apparently decided it is smarter to partner with nationwide video streaming providers, if only to keep its broadband and television customers from switching to a competitor.

“WOW! has always put a high value on offering choices to consumers,” said WOW! CEO Teresa Elder. “This is one more way we’re empowering customers to determine when, where and how they consume information and entertainment. Our robust broadband network is the natural choice for high-speed data customers […] who want to access streaming services on their terms.”

WOW! specializes in providing service in communities already served by another cable operator. Many of its systems are in the Midwest, where it competes with Charter Spectrum, Cox, or Comcast.

WOW! will offer customers one free Amazon Fire TV Stick and a $25 rebate that can be used to buy other set-top boxes that will support streaming TV alternatives.

If successful, it may not be too long before WOW! stops selling cable television altogether, to focus on its broadband business.

Only former TWC Maxx customers in Southern California qualify for bill credits.

If you were a Time Warner Cable internet customer in California, Charter Communications may refund you up to $180 if the company did not deliver the internet speed it advertised.

Charter has settled the lawsuit filed by the district attorneys of Los Angeles, San Diego, and Riverside that alleged Time Warner Cable knowingly sold customers internet speed it could not deliver. Charter will pay $16.9 million, most of which will be returned to affected customers in the form of a bill credit.

“This historic settlement serves as a warning to all companies in California that deceptive practices are bad for consumers and bad for business,” said Los Angeles County District Attorney Jackie Lacey. “We as prosecutors demand that all service providers — large and small — live up to their claims and fairly market their products.”

There are three tiers of relief for impacted customers:

• Customers subscribed to Time Warner Cable Maxx internet service in the past will be offered one of two free services. Cable TV and internet customers will receive three free months of Showtime (current subscribers excluded). Internet-only customers will receive one free month of Spectrum Choice, a slimmed down streaming TV package (current subscribers excluded). Both services will automatically be disconnected at the end of the free service period, protecting customers from future billing unless they subsequently subscribe.
• Internet customers subscribed to a premium Time Warner Cable Maxx speed tier will receive a one time credit of $90.
• If the customer was also supplied a legacy cable modem unable to support the subscribed premium internet speed tier, the subscriber will receive a one time credit of $180.

Charter Communications will automatically notify impacted subscribers and apply service credits within the next 60 days, but you will have to call Spectrum to activate the Showtime or Spectrum Choice offers.

The settlement also sets aside a payment to the plaintiffs of $1.9 million, to be split evenly between the three cities.

The lawsuit and corresponding settlement are similar to the 2017 internet speed case filed against Time Warner Cable by the New York Attorney General’s office. New York and Los Angeles were among the first cities upgraded to Time Warner Cable Maxx service, which raised internet speed for customers up to 300 Mbps. In New York, the lawsuit alleged Time Warner Cable knowingly advertised higher internet speed its network could not always support because of congestion and antiquated cable equipment and modems.