A new FCC study confirms what most people already knew: when it comes to wireless coverage maps, your mobile carrier is often lying to you. From a report: If you head to any major wireless carrier website, you'll be inundated with claims of coast to coast, uniform availability of wireless broadband. But, as countless studies have shown, these claims usually have only a tenuous relation to reality, something you've likely noticed if you've ever driving across the country or stopped by mobile carrier forums. But just how bad is the disconnect? A new FCC study released this week suggests that wireless carriers may be lying about mobile coverage 40 percent of the time or more. The full study, part of the FCC's efforts to beef up wireless subsidies ahead of fifth-generation (5G) deployments, states that FCC engineers measured real-world network performance across 12 states. Staffers conducted a total of 24,649 tests while driving more than 10,000 miles.

"Only 62.3% of staff drive tests achieved at least the minimum download speed predicted by the coverage maps -- with U.S. Cellular achieving that speed in only 45.0% of such tests, T-Mobile in 63.2% of tests, and Verizon in 64.3% of tests," the FCC said. And while carriers have historically claimed they offer faster 4G LTE service to the vast majority of the country, the FCC found that wasn't actually true either. "Staff was unable to obtain any 4G LTE signal for 38% of drive tests on U.S. Cellular's network, 21.3% of drive tests on T-Mobile's network, and 16.2% of drive tests on Verizon's network, despite each provider reporting coverage in the relevant area," the agency said. But of course, the FCC also has no plans to punish the carriers.

A standard used by phone carriers around the world can leave users open to all sorts of attacks, like text message and call interception, spoofed phone numbers, and leaking their coarse location, new research reveals. From a report: The Rich Communication Services (RCS) standard is essentially the replacement for SMS. The news shows how even as carriers move onto more modern protocols for communication, phone network security continues to be an exposed area with multiple avenues for attack in some implementations of RCS. "I'm surprised that large companies, like Vodafone, introduce a technology that exposes literally hundreds of millions of people, without asking them, without telling them," Karsten Nohl from cybersecurity firm Security Research Labs (SRLabs) told Motherboard in a phone call.

SRLabs researchers Luca Melette and Sina Yazdanmehr will present their RCS findings at the upcoming Black Hat Europe conference in December, and discussed some of their work at security conference DeepSec on Friday. RCS is a relatively new standard for carrier messaging and includes more features than SMS, such as photos, group chats, and file transfers. Back in 2015, Google announced it would be adopting RCS to move users away from SMS, and that it had acquired a company called Jibe Mobile to help with the transition. RCS essentially runs as an app on your phone that logs into a service with a username and password, Nohl explained.

In early 2018, the Department of Justice launched an investigation into whether AT&T, Verizon and the GSM Association (GSMA) worked together to limit eSIM technology. Today, The New York Times reports that the DOJ is closing the investigation and has found no evidence of wrongdoing. From a report: The DOJ was initially concerned that AT&T and Verizon attempted to lock devices on their networks even if the device had an eSIM. But the parties have agreed to change how they determine standards for eSIM, which will allow consumers to use eSIM to switch carriers, rather than having to insert a new SIM card. And as a result, the DOJ is dropping the investigation.

Normally, major 5G network expansion news has been exciting enough for carriers to announce first thing in the morning, but AT&T just continued its already confusing 5G story by revealing a big change in the dead of night: It's launching a low-band 5G network across five cities in "the coming weeks," with promises to cover at least 15 cities by February 2020. From a report: This will be the carrier's first 5G launch targeted at regular customers. The good news: Some form of AT&T 5G service will soon be available in Indianapolis, Pittsburgh, Providence, Rochester, and San Diego, followed by Birmingham, Boston, Bridgeport, Buffalo, Las Vegas, Louisville, Milwaukee, New York City, San Francisco, and San Jose early next year. Initial service maps actually cover wide swaths of each city, in some cases extending into suburbs, and the carrier suggests the low-band 5G will work at roughly two-mile distances from towers, including "on the go," residential," "suburban," and "rural" usage.

AT&T is adding $10 to the monthly bills of customers with certain grandfathered mobile-data plans and not letting them switch back to their older packages. AT&T is pitching the change as a "bonus" because it's also adding 15GB to the customers' monthly data allotments. Ars Technica reports: "Enjoy more data," AT&T says in a support document. "Starting with your October 2019 bill, you'll get an additional 15GB of data on your Mobile Share plan. This bonus data comes with a $10 price increase." Paying an extra $10 for another 15GB isn't a bad deal as far as U.S. wireless prices go, but that's only true if you actually need the extra data. The plans getting the data-and-price increases already had between 20GB and 60GB of data per month at prices that ranged from $100 to $225. Now those plans have 35GB to 75GB and cost $110 to $235. (The data allotments can be shared among multiple people on the same family plan.)

These Mobile Share Value plans were introduced in December 2013 and are apparently no longer offered to new customers. This is at least the second time this year that AT&T has added $10 and extra data to customer bills; a previous increase took effect between March and May and mostly affected a different set of Mobile Share Value plans, according to another AT&T support document. AT&T confirmed that there's no way to opt out of the new $10 increase, The Verge reported yesterday.

Something strange is happening with text messages in the US right now. Overnight, a multitude of people received text messages that appear to have originally been sent on or around Valentine's Day 2019. From a report: These people never received the text messages in the first place; the people who sent the messages had no idea that they had never been received, and they did nothing to attempt to resend them overnight. Delayed messages were sent from and received by both iPhones and Android phones, and the messages seem to have been sent and received across all major carriers in the US. Many of the complaints involve T-Mobile or Sprint, although AT&T and Verizon have been mentioned as well. People using regional US carriers, carriers in Canada, and even Google Voice also seem to have experienced delays. At fault seems to be a system that multiple cell carriers use for messaging. A Sprint spokesperson said a "maintenance update" last night caused the error.

After dragging out the case for five years, AT&T has finally agreed to pay $60 million back to customers for throttling mobile data plans advertised as "unlimited." Ars Technica reports: The FTC, which sued AT&T in 2014, announced the settlement today. The deal ends a long saga in which AT&T unsuccessfully tried to cripple the FTC's regulatory authority over telecoms. A court loss last year basically forced AT&T to settle the case. "AT&T promised unlimited data -- without qualification -- and failed to deliver on that promise," FTC Bureau of Consumer Protection Director Andrew Smith said in the announcement. "While it seems obvious, it bears repeating that Internet providers must tell people about any restrictions on the speed or amount of data promised."

Under the settlement, AT&T did not admit or deny any of the allegations made by the FTC. AT&T's current and former customers who were affected by the throttling won't have to do anything to get their refunds, according to the FTC. The commission said: "The $60 million paid by AT&T as part of the settlement will be deposited into a fund that the company will use to provide partial refunds to both current and former customers who had originally signed up for unlimited plans prior to 2011 but were throttled by AT&T. Affected consumers will not be required to submit a claim for the refunds. Current AT&T customers will automatically receive a credit to their bills while former customers will receive checks for the refund amount they are owed." "AT&T must pay the $60 million within seven days after the settlement is approved by the US District Court for the Northern District of California," adds Ars. "AT&T would have to identify each eligible consumer within 30 days and give bill credits and refund checks to existing and former customers within 90 days. If there is any leftover money, it must be paid to the FTC, which would try to provide further relief to customers."

According to Reuters, AT&T is exploring an ad-supported tier for HBO Max that would launch in 2021. "That's one year after HBO Max is expected to launch as an ad-free subscription service," reports The Verge. "Reuters suggests that HBO Max is likely to cost more than HBO's current standalone streaming service, HBO Now ($15 a month), which is on par with earlier reports. However, FierceVideo recently reported that analysts believe HBO Max could cost as low as $8 a month through an ad-supported offering." From the report: The ad-supported option will allow AT&T to offer HBO Max at a lower cost than that of the traditional cable channel and HBO Now. HBO Max will offer more content than HBO Now, and is targeted at cord-cutters. The company will also offer HBO Max for free to the approximately 10 million AT&T customers who are also HBO subscribers. HBO reportedly had approximately 140 million subscribers globally as of 2018, with 35 million subscribers in the United States alone. The Verge has reached out to HBO for additional comment.

This doesn't mean those 10 million subscribers, or other customers that use HBO via cable packages and HBO Now, will start seeing ads. An HBO spokesperson previously told Bloomberg that "We will never carry ads on HBO." But HBO Max is still HBO to an extent. This is the issue with AT&T and WarnerMedia's decision to lean on the HBO brand name for its general service; people still see it as HBO. Jon Klein, former president of CNN and media expert, previously told The Verge that by adding HBO into the name, people are expecting a traditional HBO experience. Adding Max implies it's that experience, but more, Klein said. Advertisements haven't been part of the HBO experience -- at least until now.

A California man is suing AT&T after he says one of its employees allowed a hacker to access his cell phone number that resulted in his data being compromised and more than $1.8 million in cryptocurrency stolen from his accounts. ABC News reports: Seth Shapiro says that an AT&T employee allowed a hacker to swap his phone number from his phone to a separate device, which resulted in "the compromise of highly sensitive personal and financial information and the theft of more than $1.8 million," according to court documents. The process of so-called "SIM swapping" allows hackers a way to gain access to all the information tied to a phone number potentially giving them access to every email, photo, app and more on the phone.

The complaint filed on Oct. 17 claims that while third parties had control over his AT&T wireless number, "they used that control to access and reset the passwords for Mr. Shapiro's accounts on cryptocurrency exchange platforms, including KuCoin, Bittrex, Wax, Coinbase, Huobi, Crytopia, LiveCoin, HitBTC, Coss.io, Liqui, and Bitfinex." The digital currency "was accessed by the hackers utilizing their control over Mr. Shapiro's AT&T wireless number," the court documents added. The lawsuit alleges that hackers were able to access "accounts on various cryptocurrency exchange platforms, including the accounts he controlled on behalf of his business venture. The hackers then transferred Mr. Shapiro's currency from Mr. Shapiro's accounts into accounts that they controlled." "In all, they stole more than $1.8 million from Mr. Shapiro in the two consecutive SIM swap attacks on May 16, 2018," the complaint added. AT&T told ABC News in a statement that they dispute the Shapiro's allegations and shared information on how customers can help keep themselves safe from SIM swaps.

"We dispute these allegations and look forward to presenting our case in court," the statement said. "Customers can learn how to help protect themselves from this scam by going here -- https://about.att.com/sites/cyberaware/ni/blog/sim_swap."

The rise of streaming services could give cable companies an excuse to raise rates under a Federal Communications Commission order handed down on October 25th. From a report: The order, which comes in response to a petition by Charter, finds that AT&T's TV Now streaming service qualifies as reasonable competition for conventional cable, opening the door to a massive deregulation in monopoly cable markets. Under the Cable Act of 1992, local regulators are permitted to regulate cable prices in markets with only one provider. The provision is meant to prevent cable companies from leveraging that monopoly power to set unfairly high rates. When a new cable company comes to town, providers can file a petition to have those regulations removed. Charter's case centered on a small group of territories in Massachusetts and Hawaii, but Charter's new competition wasn't coming from a competing cable TV service. Instead, Charter argued that AT&T's streaming service, combined with the company's existing broadband offering, made up a close enough substitute for cable TV that Charter no longer counted as a local monopoly. Despite opposition from both Massachusetts and Hawaii state governments, the FCC ultimately agreed, leaving Charter free to raise its cable rates.

All four major U.S. carriers -- AT&T, Verizon, T-Mobile, and Sprint -- have each issued the same press release announcing that they are forming "a joint venture" called the "Cross-Carrier Messaging Initiative" (CCMI). It is designed to ensure that they move forward together to replace SMS with a next-generation messaging standard -- including a promise to launch a new texting app for Android phones that supports it in 2020. Dieter Bohn writes via The Verge: First and foremost, CCMI intends to ship a new Android app next year that will likely be the new default messaging app for Android phones sold by those carriers. It will support all the usual RCS features like typing indicators, higher-resolution attachments, and better group chat. It should also be compatible with the global "Universal Profile" standard for RCS that has been adopted by other carriers around the world. Doug Garland, general manager for the CCMI, says that the CCMI will also work with other companies interested in RCS to make sure their clients are interoperable as well -- notably Samsung and Google. That should mean that people who prefer Android Messages will be able to use that instead, but it sounds like there may be technical details to work out to make that happen.

Though people can still leave voicemail messages, "Some AT&T customers say they have not had access to their voicemail since the beginning of October," one local news site reported this week: An AT&T spokesperson sent the following statement to ABC11 about the issue: "We're aware that some customers may be having difficulty retrieving their voicemail due to a vendor server problem. We're in contact with the vendor as they work to fix it and apologize for any inconvenience this may cause."

ABC11 received several messages from frustrated AT&T customers.

"I have been told multiple times that it would be fixed the same day. Today I was told there is no estimated repair date. I don't know what to do. I am a psychologist and people who have mental health issues call me," one said. "They get my message and leave me a voicemail. There is no indication that I won't be able to access it."

"Voicemail is a crucial function on most people's devices. Having it down for weeks is unacceptable," another said. "If they don't fix this issue they will be losing lot of customers. I am been calling daily, but no result."
Slashdot reader amxcoder writes today that AT&T eventually cited their vendor's server issue back on October 9th in their help forum, and that in the 11 days since, "the problem appear to be spreading." After contacting Tech Support on October 20th, it appears that Level One tech support is not aware of the problem, and Level Two reports the problem is affecting Alabama, Louisiana, Arkansas, Maryland, Florida, Mississippi, Georgia, Kentucky, North Carolina and Tennessee. However California and possibly other states seem to be affected as well.

Because AT&T is being tight-lipped about this outage, even to it's own customers that it is affecting, it's difficult to know how many customers this is impacting. No official statement is being sent to customers, nor are customers being updated on progress or given an ETA on resolving the problem. Some online chatter is wondering if AT&T is trying to keep this "under the radar" as long as they can because of something more nefarious, such as a data breach, hacked servers, or even ransomware. Anyone's guess is a good as another without official public statement from AT&T.

"AT&T has been charging business Internet customers a 'property tax' fee, claiming it needs to charge this to recover AT&T's own property taxes," reports Ars Technica. "AT&T has been charging the fee for at least a couple of years and just hit customers in California with an increase that more doubled the fee." From the report: Scott Phillips, owner of a small business called Valley View Media in Santa Clarita, California, signed up for AT&T fiber Internet service and a block of static IP addresses, agreeing to an all-in price of $95 a month. His order summary, which he shared with us, specifically says that the $95 ongoing monthly price includes taxes and fees. The document makes no mention of property taxes. But when Phillips got his first bill on July 1, which he also shared with Ars, it contained this notice: "Effective October 1, 2019, there will be an increase in the AT&T Cost Assessment Charge used to recover AT&T property taxes. The monthly rate will change from 2.92% to 7.00% of your total AT&T Business Internet, Phone and/or U-verse TV monthly charges. This charge is not a tax or fee that the government requires AT&T to collect from its customers."

That first bill included exactly $95 in recurring charges, consisting of $60 for 100Mbps download Internet and $35 for the static IP addresses, just as AT&T promised. (There was also a one-time installation fee of $99.) While the property-tax fee notice on that first bill suggested he was already paying a 2.92% charge on top of the $95, the first few bills didn't actually include a separate property-tax fee. But when Phillips' October bill came, AT&T imposed the 7% property-tax fee, adding $6.65 to the $95 base price. The actual billing increase was thus for the full 7%, not just for the difference between 2.92% and 7%. The report notes that AT&T has been charging the property-tax fee to business customers since at least mid-2017. At the time, the then-new fee was 1.08% of the monthly bill, but an AT&T customer reported earlier this year that the fee was raised from 2% to 6.69%.

In a (vague) statement, AT&T said: "Like others in the industry, we regularly evaluate and adjust our prices based on the costs to deliver our services, as well as costs associated with government and regulatory mandates. We communicated these changes to our customers and will continue to work with them to best meet their needs."

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: AT&T and other mobile carriers are trying to hide detailed 5G maps from the public despite constantly touting the supposed pace and breadth of their 5G rollouts. With the Federal Communications Commission planning to require carriers to submit more accurate data about broadband deployment, AT&T and the mobile industry's top lobby group are urging the FCC to exclude 5G from the upgraded data collection. "There is broad agreement that it is not yet time to require reporting on 5G coverage," AT&T told the FCC in a filing this week.

As evidence of that "broad agreement," AT&T cited comments by CTIA -- the mobile industry lobby group that represents AT&T, Verizon, T-Mobile, and Sprint. "[A]s CTIA points out, service standards for 5G are still emerging, precluding reporting of service-level coverage for 5G networks (other than the 5G-NR submissions already required)," AT&T wrote. That's a reference to 5G New Radio, the global standard for 5G. CTIA told the FCC in September that it doesn't object to the 5G-NR requirement because "the 5G-NR standards are technical ones; they do not establish what service level consumers should be able to expect when using 5G." But CTIA said requiring more than that would be "premature" because "industry consensus is still emerging around how best to measure the deployment of this still-nascent technology." Verizon also told the FCC in September that "adoption of standardized parameters is premature" for 5G. "Calling 5G a 'still-nascent technology' that can't properly be measured yet raises the question of why carriers have been telling the FCC and public that 5G is guaranteed to revolutionize modern life and that carriers need regulatory favors to speed its rollout," adds Ars Technica. "The mobile industry didn't think it was 'premature' for the U.S. government to preempt local regulation of 5G deployments, an action FCC Chairman Ajit Pai took more than a year ago."

According to The Wall Street Journal, AT&T has agreed to sell its Puerto Rican and U.S. Virgin Islands businesses to Liberty Latin America for $1.95 billion in cash (Warning: source paywalled, alternative source), "allowing the telecommunications giant to shave its debt load and move closer to repurchasing shares." From the report: AT&T's operation in Puerto Rico provides cellular, landline and internet connections. It had 1.1 million wireless subscribers. As part of the deal, about 1,300 AT&T employees will be transferred to Liberty Latin America. The two companies said they expect the deal to close within six to nine months. Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands account for a small sliver of AT&T's domestic operations, but shedding the unit will help it work down a large debt load accumulated through its $80 billion-plus acquisition of Time Warner last year. The deal signals progress on AT&T's goal of selling noncore assets, something activist investor Elliott Management Corp., which recently disclosed a stake in the company, is also pushing. AT&T has also sold its stake in streaming service Hulu.

After releasing it in South Korea and the UK, Samsung is finally ready to say when the Galaxy Fold will go back on sale in the US: September 27th. Samsung says it will be available both in an AT&T version and a standard unlocked version. It's a smaller launch than the first time around, as it will only be available in "select" AT&T and Best Buy stores -- plus Samsung Experience stores (it should also be available to order online). The Verge adds: Unfortunately, it seems that the "fixed" version of the Fold is still extremely fragile. And based on a new video Samsung released begging owners to treat their new phones with a "special level of care," Samsung knows it. A new durability test from popular YouTube channel JerryRigEverything proves it. With the first iteration of the Fold, there were multiple issues that reviewers encountered, like dust getting into the hinge and damaging the display, nicks and dings on the soft plastic, and the accidental removal of a thin display layer that looked like (but was not) a screen protector. Samsung reportedly fixed most of these issues with the 2.0 Fold by extending the top screen layer beneath the bezels so it would be impossible to peel it off, shrinking down the gaps by the hinge, and adding plastic caps to prevent dust or debris from getting in.

Despite all that, Samsung's video exhorts owners to handle their $1,000-plus phones with kid gloves. Some of Samsung's requests are more logical: the company advises against adding any additional screen protectors (which could interfere with the folding display). Others, though, like not applying "excessive pressure" to the touchscreen when tapping it, are a bit more unusual for a phone. Samsung also cautions that the Fold isn't water or dust-proof and that the magnets that hold it shut can interfere with other magnetic products, like credit credits, hotel room keys, or medical devices. Unfortunately, despite all those warnings, it looks like the new Fold is still almost absurdly easy to break.

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Motherboard: AT&T is arguing that its customers can't sue the company for selling location data to bounty hunters, according to recently filed court records. AT&T says the customers signed contracts that force them into arbitration, meaning consumers have to settle complaints privately with the company rather than in court. The filing is in response to a lawsuit filed by the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF). The issue circles around mandatory arbitration; that is, forcing consumers to settle complaints privately with the company rather than in court.

"Each time they entered into a new Wireless Customer Agreement with AT&T, they [the plaintiffs] not only agreed to AT&T's Privacy Policy but also agreed to resolve their disputes with AT&T -- including the claims asserted in this action -- in arbitration on an individual basis," AT&T's filing from last week reads. When the plaintiffs, who are AT&T customers, accepted AT&T's terms and conditions when, say, purchasing a new phone, they also agreed specifically to the arbitration clause, AT&T argues. The Arbitration Agreement on AT&T's website reads, "AT&T and you agree to arbitrate all disputes and claims between us. This agreement to arbitrate is intended to be broadly interpreted." The class-action lawsuit comes after multiple investigations found that T-Mobile, Sprint, and AT&T were selling access to their customers' location data to bounty hunters and others not authorized to possess it. All of the telecom giants have since stopped selling the data, but that hasn't stopped lawyers from filing class-action lawsuits.

According to The Wall Street Journal, AT&T is exploring parting with its DirecTV unit as customers are leaving the service in droves. From the report: The telecom giant has considered various options, including a spinoff of DirecTV into a separate public company and a combination of DirecTV's assets with Dish Network, its satellite-TV rival, the people said. AT&T may ultimately decide to keep DirecTV in the fold. Despite the satellite service's struggles, as consumers drop their TV connections, it still contributes a sizable volume of cash flow and customer accounts to its parent. AT&T acquired DirecTV in 2015 for $49 billion. The company's shrinking satellite business is under a microscope after activist investor Elliott Management Corp. disclosed a $3.2 billion stake in AT&T last week and released a report pushing for strategic changes. Elliott has told investors that AT&T should unload DirecTV, The Wall Street Journal has previously reported.

Jettisoning DirecTV would be an about-face for Mr. Stephenson, who billed the acquisition of the company as a bold move to diversify beyond the wireless phone business and tap into a growing media industry. The deal made AT&T the largest distributor of pay TV channels, ahead of Comcast. DirecTV is now part of an entertainment and consumer wireline unit that made up 27% of AT&T's $173.3 billion 2018 revenue. For Mr. Stephenson, who has helmed AT&T for 12 years, parting ways with DirecTV would be an acknowledgment that a major cornerstone of his diversification strategy hasn't gone as planned. It also adds pressure for AT&T to deliver on the promise of the Time Warner deal. Mr. Stephenson has signaled he is prepared to step down as CEO as soon as next year, the Journal reported last week. The Journal goes on to say that AT&T may ultimately decide to keep DirecTV because of "AT&T's towering net debt load, which stood at more than $160 billion earlier this year. The cash generated by the pay-TV giant has helped pay down that debt and fueled other investments in the rest of the company."

"Any spinoff of DirecTV would be unlikely until mid-2020 at the earliest, five years after the deal closed, to make it a tax-efficient transaction for AT&T," the report adds.

A lawsuit seeking class action status says AT&T is inflating AT&T TV Now -- previously known as DirecTV Now -- subscriber numbers by creating fake users. From a report: It's accusing the company's management of carrying out the scheme in an effort to make the service look good in the eyes of investors even though it was struggling with serious technical and financial problems. The management did so, according to the lawsuit, by encouraging employees to add DirecTV Now subscription fees to subscribers' accounts without their knowledge or consent. One of the methods employees allegedly used is tacking on up to three accounts to a single customer's phone number -- including those who just signed up for a free trial -- and running their credit card three times. In some cases, customers were reportedly charged for a subscription even though they made it clear that they didn't want it. Sales employees allegedly made and used fake email accounts in both instances.

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: AT&T expects to lose about 1.1 million TV customers in the third quarter as it faces pressure from an investment group that says AT&T's increased focus on the TV business was a giant mistake. In an update to shareholders yesterday, AT&T CFO John Stephens "said the company expects an incremental 300,000 to 350,000 premium video losses above the previous quarter's premium video results," according to AT&T. Since that's an incremental increase over the previous quarter's loss, that will amount to a three-month loss of more than 1 million TV customers.

In Q2 2019, AT&T reported a net loss of 778,000 subscribers in the "Premium TV" category, which includes its DirecTV satellite and U-verse wireline TV services. With AT&T expecting to lose that amount of subscribers plus another 300,000 to 350,000, the update to shareholders suggests the Q3 loss in the category will be between 1,078,000 and 1,128,000 subscribers. (An AT&T spokesperson confirmed to Ars that a projected loss of 1,078,000 and 1,128,000 subscribers in Q3 is accurate.) AT&T's update to shareholders attributed the expected loss to "aggressively managing costs with retransmission negotiations, some of which resulted in content provider blackouts; and from limiting promotional pricing." AT&T said it has been "holding a hard line in negotiations" with programmers to control costs, but the resulting blackouts of channels is driving TV subscribers away. What's not included in the projected loss is AT&T TV Now (formerly known as DirecTV Now). "AT&T also lost 168,000 subscribers of DirecTV Now/AT&T TV Now in the second quarter, but it didn't say how that service will fare in the third quarter," the report adds.