The math for AT&T TV is no different than it is for Directv satellite. They have NEVER tried compete with the cable bundle on price, because the cable bundle sells TV at a loss. There is no point in trying to compete for customers who have that option and value all cable/satellite providers equally, because as you say Directv will lose to those who can do math. If you care about PQ you aren't going to consider Comcast the equal of Directv. If you want NFLST you aren't going to consider any cable bundle the equal of Directv. If you look at it purely in dollars or cents, you will never choose Directv. So why should Directv offer an option that loses them money to chase those customers? If Uber offers rides to the airport at $20 because they are subsidizing them so much they lose $5 billion in a quarter, should the local cab company offer $20 rides that cost them $25 in expenses? Of course not, they should charge more and compete for customers who dislike Uber's business practices, are loyal to locally owned businesses or whatever. Where is written that a company needs to offer something that makes sense for every consumer? Apple seems to do pretty well even though there are a lot of people who would never spend anywhere near what they charge for a phone. They simply don't compete for the cheapskates at all. Not saying Directv is comparable to Apple, or they should try to emulate them in every way. But not trying to cover every market segment is a pretty basic fact of business. A full service restaurant doesn't try to compete with McDonalds on price, because they would go broke selling burgers for $2.99 no matter how many they sold!