AT&T encountered some issues during the launch of its DirecTV Now platform this week, while Sprint kicked some sand in the face of 600 MHz spectrum.
Hello! And welcome to our Friday column, Worst of the Week. There’s a lot of nutty stuff that goes on in this industry, so this column is a chance for us at RCRWireless.com to rant and rave about whatever rubs us the wrong way. We hope you enjoy it!
Over the past couple of years, telecom operators have begun to spread their areas of interest outside of their traditional domain and into the greater world of “entertainment.” These moves have included various acquisitions of media brands and distribution channels, as well as more internally focused efforts to mediate the strain streaming content is placing on wired and wireless telecom networks.
I have watched these transactions and technology evolutions with a form of amusement as they seem to indicate a level of confidence these companies have in terms of mastering their current telecom domain and thus need something new to conquer. There is also my more cynical side that sees these companies having realized they can’t squeeze any more money from their current operations without significant investments, thus why not go grab some of that low-hanging fruit from that tree over there.
These views were reinforced this week by AT&T, which with much hoopla launched its DirecTV Now service that among other things is designed to provide a new options for consumers looking to watch high-definition television content on a small screen.
I know we have been told repeatedly that today’s youths no longer want to view video content on large-screen televisions, which I can only assume is because that’s what their parents do and who want’s to do what their parent’s do? And thus the mass move towards platforms allowing those with good eyesight to show off in front of those without.
However, it appears the idea of such small-screened offerings delivered over nontraditional links is easier said than done as the initial launch of DirecTV Now has been plagued by issues, or at last claims of issues across social media.
Depending on the outlet, the launch has been “really bad,” “plagued” and a “total nightmare.”
I know we live in an exceedingly hyperbolic world where anything that was invented yesterday, but doesn’t work beyond expectations is deemed a curse against humanity.
(Never gets old!)
But from a marketing standpoint these are probably not the terms AT&T was hoping for when it launched the service.
A knee-jerk reaction could be in asking what the hell AT&T was thinking in launching a much-hyped service that obviously was not quite ready for the consumer response from all that hyping? Was it a lack of resources at AT&T? After spending $48.5 billion to acquire DirecTV was there nothing left in the coffer to pay for the new distribution platform?
With all the talk from company executives about the importance of these video platforms to the future of AT&T, you would think they might have stress tested the service before hitting the “on” button. And I know most of AT&T’s management is more baby boomer than Baby Einstein, but I would think they are aware of social media and just how fast word spreads across small screens these days.
Is DirecTV Now doomed? Probably not, as I would assume AT&T will now make sure to throw the necessary resources into the effort it maybe should have been throwing in the first place.
But, if it’s true the kids of today are turning away from traditional television programming and channels, what’s the point of migrating those same services to smaller screens? I know AT&T is attempting to entice viewers with “channel” partnerships for a handful of celebrities and entertainers, but is hitching the future of a company to the whims of celebrity really a good business model?
So, good luck AT&T. Let’s hope week two sees a bit more stability for one of the significant pillars of the company’s future.
Thanks for checking out this week’s column. Here’s a quick extra to get you through the weekend:
–Looks like Sprint is getting its swagger back.
Sprint CFO Tarek Robiatti this week, while speaking at an investor conference, threw some serious shade at the Federal Communications Commission’s ongoing 600 MHz incentive auction proceedings. The executive said the low-band spectrum up for bid is old-school thinking, as the massive amount of bandwidth needed for “5G” requires much wider spectrum channels and greater capacity found in higher bands.
(It should also be noted that Sprint is the lone nationwide operator that has stayed out of direct participation in FCC spectrum auction’s since the PCS auction heydays of the mid-90s, though it did have to spend in excess of $35 billion through various acquisitions to pocket its now vast 2.5 GHz spectrum holdings. Also, Sprint does rely somewhat on its 800 MHz spectrum holdings to bolster coverage for its LTE network.)
While there are endless arguments that can be made as to Sprint’s thinking on the matter of 600 MHz spectrum, I just enjoy the fact the carrier thinks it’s in a good enough place to actually be throwing insults around. I know CEO Marcelo Claure has attempted to bolster the carrier’s street credibility by attacking T-Mobile US CEO and social media hound John Legere, but it’s good to see maybe some of that attitude is trickling down the ranks.
I welcome your comments. Please send me an e-mail at dmeyer@rcrwireless.com.
Bored? Why not follow me on Twitter.
