# Will the AT&T Directv make it better?



## PCampbell (Nov 18, 2006)

Will AT&T make Directv a better product or do you think the overall product will suffer.


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

you need a Don't know/ don't care option.


----------



## yosoyellobo (Nov 1, 2006)

You need a


peds48 said:


> you need a Don't know/ don't care option.


+ 1


----------



## PCampbell (Nov 18, 2006)

Better


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

Hopefully Better but , I don't know!

Sent from my Galaxy S5


----------



## n3ntj (Dec 18, 2006)

We won't know if it's better until we, as D* customers, know how it will benefit us. More HD channels, more DOD, etc.


----------



## PCampbell (Nov 18, 2006)

As a uverse internet user my hope is ATT will now use the bandwidth reserved for TV for internet. The fastest they offer here is 24 mps.


----------



## CraigerM (Apr 15, 2014)

Better.

PCampbell I am hoping if they add more higher speed plans that they could lower the prices on some of their lower speed plans.


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

"Better" than what? Better than Directv would have evolved without AT&T? I doubt it based upon AT&T's priorities in recent (last two decades) history compared to Directv's last two decades.


----------



## PCampbell (Nov 18, 2006)

Last two decades? ATT was bought by SBC and they started using the ATT name. ATT from the 90s is long gone.


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

phrelin said:


> "Better" than what? Better than Directv would have evolved without AT&T? I doubt it based upon AT&T's priorities in recent (last two decades) history compared to Directv's last two decades.


Agree. But I also doubt it will evolve significantly slower, either.


----------



## VLaslow (Aug 16, 2006)

Better? Just more expensive. At least DirecTV is tactful when they give us a price increase. Don't expect that from an AT&T run business.


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

ATT just announced is a done deal 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot (Jan 7, 2009)

Look at the PQ of AT&T Universe was willing to compromise on compared to the PQ of DirecTV and you will get your answer.

They have agreements in place for more channels - and will use lower PQ to put them all on the birds.

So you need to define what is "better" - better is not "better" for all customers.


----------



## RunnerFL (Jan 5, 2006)

Once it's approved and AT&T gets their tentacles into DirecTV service and quality will go downhill.


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

VLaslow said:


> Better? Just more expensive. At least DirecTV is tactful when they give us a price increase. Don't expect that from an AT&T run business.


When I started Att 9 months ago, I paid 230 per months for 3 smartphone lines and 2 GB of data.
That price went to 180 for now 4 smart phones and 10 GB of data. 
Don't tell me Att doesn't lower prices .

Sent from my Galaxy S5


----------



## wingrider01 (Sep 9, 2005)

funny the only 2 100 percent choices are Don't Know and Don't care, the other 2 are pure speculation and opinion. Been with ATT in some way shape or forum for over 45 years and have had little issues with landline service, paying less for landline now then I did when I first had it put in, started cell service with SBCGlobal and kept it through the various buyouts, mergers and renaming, I am paying more for that though since I have a smartphone rather then the bag phone I originally had. same with problems on it, anything that I did have was solved with one 1 call - the I do have to admit the accent was horrendous, the ladies southern drawl was one of the thickest I have herd in a long time. Me I am in the don't care column


----------



## carl6 (Nov 16, 2005)

I voted Don't Know, as it is way too premature to know (or even seriously speculate) what will come of this deal over the course of the next few years. On one extreme, it could be totally transparent to DirecTV customers. On the other extreme, DirecTV could cease to exist as we know it today. But any significant change won't happen for years, if ever.


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

damondlt said:


> When I started Att 9 months ago, I paid 230 per months for 3 smartphone lines and 2 GB of data.
> That price went to 180 for now 4 smart phones and 10 GB of data.
> Don't tell me Att doesn't lower prices .
> 
> Sent from my Galaxy S5


Well, to be fair T-Mobile had a lot to do with that

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## jerrylove56 (Jun 15, 2008)

Right now mine is "don't care". Seems to early for the wailing and gnashing of the teeth. Now if I was an employee if DTV.


----------



## CopyCat (Jan 21, 2008)

Just thinking about our local AT&T service, local phone service is ok, ADSL is terrible! can not even provide anything except 1200/250 here with fiber in the ground. Service personnel leave the boxes open all the time after service which does nothing but make matters worse. Very sorry to see they have made a deal today, maybe it's time to look elsewhere. Will wait and see what happens, but continue to look around.


Sent from my iPad using DBSTalk


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

peds48 said:


> Well, to be fair T-Mobile had a lot to do with that
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


In what fantasy world would that be?

Sent from my Galaxy S5


----------



## mnassour (Apr 23, 2002)

AT&T makes NOTHING better.

_*EVER.*_


----------



## mnassour (Apr 23, 2002)

damondlt said:


> In what fantasy world would that be?
> 
> Sent from my Galaxy S5


 The United States of America.

http://bgr.com/2014/02/24/t-mobile-uncarrier-verizon-att-sprint/


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

Since T Mobile barely has any coverage it really doesn't matter.
And has nothing to do with Directv or Att.
Sent from my Galaxy S5


----------



## sigma1914 (Sep 5, 2006)

damondlt said:


> Since T Mobile barely has any coverage it really doesn't matter.
> And has nothing to do with Directv or Att.
> Sent from my Galaxy S5


What map are you looking at?


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

sigma1914 said:


> What map are you looking at?


T mobile has weak coverage. Read their map, don't just look at it.
And who is their service partner?

Sent from my Galaxy S5


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

PCampbell said:


> Last two decades? ATT was bought by SBC and they started using the ATT name. ATT from the 90s is long gone.


Actually I was looking at SBC activities from about 1998 on, so I guess I should have said the last 15 years.


----------



## NickIndy (Feb 20, 2008)

I'm fine with the merger as long as the improvements go from DirecTV to AT&T and not back. I am a D* customer who left for Uverse and came back. If you've never experienced a Uverse STB, you do NOT want it. AT&T is years away from coming up with anything as good as the Genie.


----------



## Nighthawk68 (Oct 14, 2004)

I really hope Directv doesn't put all expansion plans on death-hold now, ie no launch for Directv14 or 15


----------



## wingrider01 (Sep 9, 2005)

jerrylove56 said:


> Right now mine is "don't care". Seems to early for the wailing and gnashing of the teeth. Now if I was an employee if DTV.


Given that it is a acquisition and not a merger, I will make a guess that very little will change since the two technologies are so different, the ones that may have a problem are the authorized retailers and contract outside service organizations. ATT made very few changes to Leap and Alltel after they acquired them


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

damondlt said:


> Since T Mobile barely has any coverage it really doesn't matter.
> 
> Sent from my Galaxy S5


In what fantasy planet would that be?

If it was not for T-Mo, the "big Two" would not have lowered the their prices as they did


----------



## Kaiser Bob (Aug 17, 2012)

jerrylove56 said:


> Right now mine is "don't care". Seems to early for the wailing and gnashing of the teeth. Now if I was an employee if DTV.


Thankfully there isn't a ton of overlap between the 2 companies, upper management, legal team and possibly some CS call centers would be at risk... Benefits may improve for DTV employees with the better purchasing power of a combined AT&T/DTV.


----------



## prushing (Feb 14, 2007)

Nighthawk68 said:


> I really hope Directv doesn't put all expansion plans on death-hold now, ie no launch for Directv14 or 15


yeah that needs to be worked out asap, plus additional software and hardware boxes ... DTV will need to continue to improve encase the deal is not approved though


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

We have a thread for discussing the merger ...
This thread can remain open for the purpose of the poll - otherwise expect moderation.


----------



## Drucifer (Feb 12, 2009)

When have any super merger been better for the consumer?


----------



## Kaiser Bob (Aug 17, 2012)

wingrider01 said:


> Given that it is a acquisition and not a merger, I will make a guess that very little will change since the two technologies are so different, the ones that may have a problem are the authorized retailers and contract outside service organizations. ATT made very few changes to Leap and Alltel after they acquired them


Verizon (Wireless) aquired Alltel not AT&T.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Kaiser Bob said:


> Verizon (Wireless) aquired Alltel not AT&T.


AT&T got part of Alltel:


> U.S. telecom giant AT&T Inc. (T) announced that it has closed the acquisition of Alltel's wireless operations from Atlantic Tele-Networks Inc. (ATNI) for $780 million. The deal - announced in Jan 2013 - was completed after the Federal Communication Commission FCC) gave its nod.
> 
> The acquisition gives the telecom behemoth spectrum licenses, retail stores and network assets of Alltel. Additionally, AT&T gained Alltel's 585,000 subscribers spread across six states, particularly in the South and Midwest U.S.
> 
> http://finance.yahoo.com/news/t-completes-alltel-acquisition-212502475.html


----------



## Kaiser Bob (Aug 17, 2012)

James Long said:


> AT&T got part of Alltel:


Whoops missed this development, apologies wingrider. 6 months seems a bit premature to say what AT&T is doing with Alltel's operations, no? Anyway sorry to go off topic.


----------



## thelucky1 (Feb 23, 2009)

mnassour said:


> AT&T makes NOTHING better.
> 
> _*EVER.*_


I agree 100%! I hope the merger is NOT approved!!!

Sent from my iPhone using DBSTalk


----------



## acostapimps (Nov 6, 2011)

I can't predict the future for AT&T/Directv merger, but better? Maybe for their existing service Uverse TV,wireless etc, Not sure on Directv service itself, just don't modify it for the worst or touch PQ. So Not Sure is my answer. But of course all this is a moot point at the moment until FCC approves it.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## acostapimps (Nov 6, 2011)

And in terms of price or whatnot, I don't think that will change as long as sports keep raising their cost, price increases will continue unfortunately but who knows how much more, I just don't see customers would benefit from this merger, other than more options besides TV service, But even that I'm not sure since bundling was already provided for AT&T service and Directv.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Matt L (Nov 10, 2007)

There is absolutely no question in my mind, ATT will destroy DirecTV. Rapid price increases, poor customer service, and crappy crappy equipment is the mantra of ATT. One ATT starts playing with D I will simply load up my computer with Tuner cards, and shift to online services for stuff that I cannot get OTA.


----------



## mgavs (Jun 17, 2007)

Not just worse, a disaster is coming...


----------



## Diana C (Mar 30, 2007)

DirecTV survived News Corp trying to run it into the ground, I'm sure it will survive AT&T.


----------



## Jon J (Apr 22, 2002)

Diana C said:


> DirecTV survived News Corp trying to run it into the ground, I'm sure it will survive AT&T.


I'll (not so) humbly disagree.


----------



## yosoyellobo (Nov 1, 2006)

Jon J said:


> I'll (not so) humbly disagree.


Can we get a ruling from the grammar police on this sentence.


----------



## Jon J (Apr 22, 2002)

yosoyellobo said:


> Can we get a ruling from the grammar police on this sentence.


Parse the sentence and try again.

And, did you mean "may" instead of "can"?


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

Original sentence is all right.

"Can" and "May" are both acceptable, though have different meanings.


----------



## wilbur_the_goose (Aug 16, 2006)

Queue up "American Pie", and substitute DirecTV for the music and you get my opinion.


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

As to the influence of ATT on DIRECTV's service: It depends on where the majority of the influence comes from. If old telco people, watch out. If cell phone division has lead, probably O.K..


----------



## yosoyellobo (Nov 1, 2006)

Jon J said:


> Parse the sentence and try again.
> 
> And, did you mean "may" instead of "can"?


I had to repeat English four years in the summer to graduate but it try anyway. "You proudly disagree".


----------



## PCampbell (Nov 18, 2006)

I have no problem with my Uverse service. Customer support has been good also.


----------



## cypherx (Aug 27, 2010)

How many years until you start seeing Cisco or Arris making set tops for DirecTV (if any)?
Which software platform will survive (U-Verse's Erricson iptv os or DirecTV's in house HDGUI)?
ie) Will DirecTV software be ported to u-verse set tops or U-Verse be ported to DirecTV?
Or will a new unified look and feel html5 based software come out for both platforms?
What will happen to CE program?
Will DirecTV get MusicChoice instead of Sonic Tap (or run both)?
Or will DirecTV get any channels AT&T U-Verse carries that DirecTV doesn't?
Will U-Verse get the audience network and NFL Sunday Ticket, and all the other interactive special sports coverage like Australian open, PGA tour, etc..

I think were still going to be YEARS away from seeing any benefits. And I will have to take your word for it that U-Verse software / stb's stink. I just thought it was cool you could flip through the guide and see a live pip preview of the channel you were selecting, while the main channel continued to play in the background. U-Verse looks cool in screen shots, but what can I say... haven't ever used it to feel the delay or lag of the system.

Looks cool, but like I said, never used it to gauge responsiveness:







]

Could really use that extra half hour










Though color wise they are both very simular. I would see a good mixup of the two in 5 years down the road. A version that runs on both HR's and ViP set tops.


----------



## wingrider01 (Sep 9, 2005)

Kaiser Bob said:


> Verizon (Wireless) aquired Alltel not AT&T.


no they did not

http://www.att.com/att/alltel/index.html


----------



## gpsjunkie (Sep 13, 2009)

wingrider01 said:


> no they did not
> 
> http://www.att.com/att/alltel/index.html


They both acquired portions of Alltel. I was with Alltel, now it's Verizon. Another family member was switched from Alltel to ATT.


----------



## TDK1044 (Apr 8, 2010)

When any two companies merge, the result is less choice for the customers and more power for the merged companies.


----------



## VLaslow (Aug 16, 2006)

damondlt said:


> When I started Att 9 months ago, I paid 230 per months for 3 smartphone lines and 2 GB of data.
> That price went to 180 for now 4 smart phones and 10 GB of data.
> Don't tell me Att doesn't lower prices .
> 
> Sent from my Galaxy S5


I think the T-Mobile comments are accurate. I don't necessarily see that kind of competition here. Competition could come from Comcast or Time Warner, but they won't be interested in reducing any prices either; just increasing their income for every quarter so that their stock prices remain as high as possible.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

For rural customers this may represent some problems. The conference call this morning promised that AT&T wouldn't adjust pricing for three years but after that, they may start localizing pricing which COULD mean that they'll get down and dirty where they have to and raise the prices where they don't to make up for it.


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

harsh said:


> For rural customers this may represent some problems. The conference call this morning promised that AT&T wouldn't adjust pricing for three years but after that, they may start localizing pricing which COULD mean that they'll get down and dirty where they have to and raise the prices where they don't to make up for it.


but it does not cost DirecTV anymore money to support a rural or an urban customer. is not like they need to run a mile long cable to their neighborhood. DirecTV service is localized


----------



## PCampbell (Nov 18, 2006)

cypherx said:


> How many years until you start seeing Cisco or Arris making set tops for DirecTV (if any)?
> Which software platform will survive (U-Verse's Erricson iptv os or DirecTV's in house HDGUI)?
> ie) Will DirecTV software be ported to u-verse set tops or U-Verse be ported to DirecTV?
> Or will a new unified look and feel html5 based software come out for both platforms?
> ...


The channel change is very fast, the rest of the functions are like HR24 speed.


----------



## booboo (Mar 3, 2011)

I really think this will be a good thing. IF! AT&T eventually drops UVerse tv in favor of DTV. So that it will free up better internet services to all of us that really like and enjoy our UVerse internet service. Then with the 2 merged I think we will get more HD tv channels. I know I'm not in the "know" with how it all works. But when you add two giants in their respected fields your bound to come out with one big great service. Yes my statement can and will be picked apart. I'm just in favor of this merger. I just hope they lock up Sunday ticket like they want to. If not AT&T can and probably wash their hands of the deal. As for everyone with bill troubles. We've had cell phones and UVerse internet for years. My bill has gone down several times on both ends. Not to mention my internet speeds have increased twice in 2 years. I also think they will have some killer bundles to over down the road. That's my 2 cents worth. Bash away if you please or agree. Really doesn't matter for opinions are just that. A free speech of what one thinks. 


Sent from my iPad using DBSTalk


----------



## cypherx (Aug 27, 2010)

On some cable boxes channel change can be fast too. Notice channel changes on DirecTV are dog slow. It retrains how you watch TV with DirecTV. With cable you can just pick a number and keep hitting channel up and do the old traditional "channel surfing". With DirecTV that behavior is so laggy that your better off browsing the guide and paging through it and selectivly picking something out of that guide to watch.... rather than try to discover new programming by 'flipping'.

So what could AT&T do better with DirecTV? Maybe the engineers behind both companies can design a faster, better user experience.

AT&T doesn't have wire-line broadband everywhere, but maybe a fixed 4g-lte or xlte or whatever they want to call it "cantenna" on the back of the DirecTV dish inserting internet over the deca channels where its picked off an all in one receiver's Ethernet port, some other deca like ICK or broadcast wifi from a built in reciever / gateway thing. Maybe the gateway just presents phone (via the 4G), Internet (via the 4G) and houses the hard drives, trans-coding (for GenieGo ), wifi and a few ports from its built in router, and then you have your small set tops at each TV all talking DECA (or even MoCA at this point).

There's a lot of technology that can be shared between the two. Just have to see if AT&T dumps Ericsson's IPTV platform in favor of existing DirecTV engineers porting that system over... or do they can the DirecTV engineers and just outsource it all to Ericsson? That wouldn't make sense... keep that cost and expertise in house rather than relying on a third party and their maintenance / licencing / support fees.

CONTENT wise, I would see all the sports stuff available on U-Verse, plus all the additional HD or even non HD channels U-Verse carries available to DirecTV. Maybe they will push all MPEG4 or HEVC to get all that extra content to DirecTV dishes. From fringe stuff like Africa Channel HD, CSPANS in HD, to more popular networks like Oxygen HD, We HD, GSN HD, Fuse HD, Reelz HD, etc...

So I'm thinking it COULD be good... potential is there on many fronts... experience, delivery, bundling and content. AT&T would control the network so the existing caps seen on smartphones need not apply as AT&T writes the rules here. So Download on Demand or even a multicast IPTV could work with HEVC and proper network control and maintenance. You could see Quad play bundles as well with your family plan or whatever all on the same bill. Lots of opportunities, though years away from any kind of integration that I don't think we will see this until closer to 2020. Not to mention we also have to see regulatory approval, which I think this has better chance than Comcast... and yet Comcast has so many people "greased" ie) lobbyists, that I think even though they have some vertical integration with content... they will also merge with TWC.


----------



## CraigerM (Apr 15, 2014)

I think merging the two companies will make the billing be better. Will that be one of the first changes we will see after the approval if it happens? We have DTV, UVerse Internet and ATT Lan Line on separate bills. With the new company could all those be on one bill and get a bundled price discount?


----------



## CraigerM (Apr 15, 2014)

cypherx said:


> On some cable boxes channel change can be fast too. Notice channel changes on DirecTV are dog slow. It retrains how you watch TV with DirecTV. With cable you can just pick a number and keep hitting channel up and do the old traditional "channel surfing". With DirecTV that behavior is so laggy that your better off browsing the guide and paging through it and selectivly picking something out of that guide to watch.... rather than try to discover new programming by 'flipping'.
> 
> So what could AT&T do better with DirecTV? Maybe the engineers behind both companies can design a faster, better user experience.
> 
> ...


Could they make an RG with a hard drive built in and have small HD Boxes or a persons own equipment with an APP be connected to that?


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

CraigerM said:


> I think merging the two companies will make the billing be better. Will that be one of the first changes we will see after the approval if it happens? We have DTV, UVerse Internet and ATT Lan Line on separate bills. With the new company could all those be on one bill and get a bundled price discount?


All possible, but really, no one except the SVPs in charge of accounts receivable know, and they won't tell us. So much speculation and questions re a deal that may not get done, and changes that will be rolled out over many years if at all.


----------



## dorfd1 (Jul 16, 2008)

Do you think DirecTV would be renamed to u-verse satellite?

Sent from my GT-P3110 using Tapatalk


----------



## cypherx (Aug 27, 2010)

Well here's a quote on multichannel news...

"We're going to have a number of media by which we deploy and deliver video," Stephenson said. "I'm not getting too hung up on what the transmission medium is. We're going to find the lowest cost, most efficient transmission medium for whatever screen the customer is looking at and whatever architecture we have for that particular arrangement. What you will see over time, over a 3-4 year period, you will see the experience begin to merge. So the user interfaces will all look and feel the same; the content will look and feel the same; the cont arrangements over time will look the same. That will be the elegance and the beauty of being able to deliver this customer experience we're talking about. I don't see it displacing our fiber-fed video product in our U-Verse footprint." - See more at: http://www.multichannel.com/news/news-articles/white-att-deal-unlocks-potential/374653#sthash.Je4WxnKU.dpuf

Sent from my iPad using DBSTalk mobile app


----------



## CraigerM (Apr 15, 2014)

cypherx said:


> Well here's a quote on multichannel news...
> 
> "We're going to have a number of media by which we deploy and deliver video," Stephenson said. "I'm not getting too hung up on what the transmission medium is. We're going to find the lowest cost, most efficient transmission medium for whatever screen the customer is looking at and whatever architecture we have for that particular arrangement. What you will see over time, over a 3-4 year period, you will see the experience begin to merge. So the user interfaces will all look and feel the same; the content will look and feel the same; the cont arrangements over time will look the same. That will be the elegance and the beauty of being able to deliver this customer experience we're talking about. I don't see it displacing our fiber-fed video product in our U-Verse footprint." - See more at: http://www.multichannel.com/news/news-articles/white-att-deal-unlocks-potential/374653#sthash.Je4WxnKU.dpuf
> 
> Sent from my iPad using DBSTalk mobile app


So does this say which one they are keeping? UVerse or DTV?


----------



## wilbur_the_goose (Aug 16, 2006)

_*The last mile will kill this new company.*_


----------



## adamson (Nov 9, 2007)

There are no positives with AT&T. All this crap on how good this will be...really? Most mature folks by age I mean, know what a failure this company has been over time. A good thing will soon be wrecked, and we are going to pay more than we are today. So angered by this and Im sure nobody cares how I feel either.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

adamson said:


> There are no positives with AT&T. All this crap on how good this will be...really? Most mature folks by age I mean, know what a failure this company has been over time. A good thing will soon be wrecked, and we are going to pay more than we are today. So angered by this and Im sure nobody cares how I feel either.


You do realize that the "AT&T" that bought Directv is not the AT&T that you remember as the Bell monopoly, right? It is Southwestern Bell, one of the 8 companies that AT&T was split into, that grew over the years and eventually acquired parts of the original AT&T, including the name, which it decided to use.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

peds48 said:


> but it does not cost DirecTV anymore money to support a rural or an urban customer. is not like they need to run a mile long cable to their neighborhood. DirecTV service is localized


Just because it doesn't cost them any more doesn't mean they can't price differently in different markets. Cable companies charge very different prices, depending on if an area has a lot of competition or a little.

You don't really think it costs an airline 8x as much to fly a passenger in a seat that's wider and has more legroom in the front of the plane, do you? Price discrimination is used everywhere, and it always puzzled me why satellite TV doesn't practice it.


----------



## 456521 (Jul 6, 2007)

I'm going to cancel as soon as my contract is up if any of the following happen:

1. They change the name of the service.
2. They change their logo in any way, including changing the color.
3. Their email address changes.
4. The cost of the service goes down.
5. They get rid of the marionette commercials.
6. They make agreements with programmers such as Pac-12, CSNNW, etc.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

CraigerM said:


> > We're going to find the lowest cost, most efficient transmission medium for whatever screen the customer is looking at and whatever architecture we have for that particular arrangement.
> 
> 
> So does this say which one they are keeping? UVerse or DTV?


Both. Actually all. AT&T is not buying to shut down. They are buying to operate and make money.


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

slice1900 said:


> Just because it doesn't cost them any more doesn't mean they can't price differently in different markets. Cable companies charge very different prices, depending on if an area has a lot of competition or a little.


the problem with that is DirecTV is national as compared to these regional cable companies. and the result is folks gathering in forums asking who pays what and calling for discounts.


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

slice1900 said:


> You don't really think it costs an airline 8x as much to fly a passenger in a seat that's wider and has more legroom in the front of the plane, do you? Price discrimination is used everywhere, and it always puzzled me why satellite TV doesn't practice it.


Not sure about 8x, but it does cost them more money as they could fit two seats instead of one, thus losing money. SO they have to make up for it by raising prices.


----------



## jimmie57 (Jun 26, 2010)

AT&T charges different amounts for the exact same service in different areas of the country.
I know this for a fact since I am in Texas and my mother is in Georgia.
We both have AT&T for home phone service.
We both have talk unlimited nationwide plans.
We both have caller ID and call waiting and no other features.
My bill here in Texas is $53.xx. Mothers bill in Georgia is $70.xx.

I know this for a fact since I pay for both of them.
I called them just 2 weeks ago and discussed this with them. I was told that it was different prices in different areas of the country and that was the best they could do with her phone. I hung up and called back, got a different person. Explained this to them and got the same answer as before.


----------



## cypherx (Aug 27, 2010)

Some people have to pay an RSN fee. I'm lucky that I'm in an area that doesn't have that. But I guess that is the extent of different prices in different areas.


----------



## Pepe Sylvia (May 10, 2010)

Does ATT own any content? The bigger issue than the Comcast / TWC deal was the Comcast / NBC Universal deal. Directv has Root sports and their own Audience network.


----------



## whitewolf8214 (Jun 13, 2012)

Once this goes through I will give it a little time then I am gone from DirecTV or AT&T I should say.I hate all their services and they have terrible customer service and hope this doesn't go through!!


----------



## wingrider01 (Sep 9, 2005)

jimmie57 said:


> AT&T charges different amounts for the exact same service in different areas of the country.
> I know this for a fact since I am in Texas and my mother is in Georgia.
> We both have AT&T for home phone service.
> We both have talk unlimited nationwide plans.
> ...


compare the cost recovery fees, state, local and federal taxes, a good portion of that can be explained by those. They are different amounts for the states


----------



## satcrazy (Mar 16, 2011)

> compare the cost recovery fees, state, local and federal taxes, a good portion of that can be explained by those. They are different amounts for the states


Jimmie57, did you add up the taxes on both? How much for Texas, then GA? If the difference is not in taxes, isn't that price fixing?


----------



## Microphone (Jan 30, 2007)

This scarily looks like the situation I faced as an XM subscriber 6 years ago when Sirius came calling. The Sirius subscribers didn't seem concerned, but the XM ones were, at best, cautiously opotomistric but feared the product would be stripped down and diluted. Anyone who is a satellite radio subscriber knows how this ended up. On the surface you'd think it would be great, but as I saw with this, be careful what you wish for. I vote no.


----------



## fleckrj (Sep 4, 2009)

satcrazy said:


> Jimmie57, did you add up the taxes on both? How much for Texas, then GA? If the difference is not in taxes, isn't that price fixing?


It is not price fixing unless multiple companies collude to set the price. There is nothing that prevents a company from setting different prices in different locations as long as they are not working with other companies to agree to what each company will charge.

In addition to taxes, there are hidden costs that vary from state to state. For example, how much does it cost (construction, fees, permits, land usage charges, etc) to erect a tower in Texas versus Georgia. The cost of doing business in Georgia might be more than in Texas, and therefore, the fee will reflect that difference.


----------



## jimmie57 (Jun 26, 2010)

satcrazy said:


> Jimmie57, did you add up the taxes on both? How much for Texas, then GA? If the difference is not in taxes, isn't that price fixing?


The phone charges are different.
In Texas my package is a flat $42 plus all the other added charges.
In Georgia her phone is 2 separate line items, 1 for local service, call waiting and caller ID and a separate line item for long distance. Her phone charges are approximately $57 plus all the other stuff.


----------



## acostapimps (Nov 6, 2011)

Maybe this will create more registration to this forum from AT&T forum members, 

Seriously who in their right minds what to merge with this company, 

just read the forum on AT&T side and you'll see the lack of customer service, equipment issues, bills jumping really high all of a sudden, 

Anything worse you can imagine, Yes you might call them disgruntled customers, but they are customers nonetheless with unresolved issues that they were and are fighting for months, 

I hope they don't bring that same attitude on us or we're screwed.


----------



## sigma1914 (Sep 5, 2006)

acostapimps said:


> Maybe this will create more registration to this forum from AT&T forum members,
> 
> Seriously who in their right minds what to merge with this company,
> 
> ...


It's not a merger... it's an acquisition.

The AT&T forums are no different from DirecTV official foruma, enthusiasts don't frequent them. They're people with issues wanting answers and a lot of complaining.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

peds48 said:


> the problem with that is DirecTV is national as compared to these regional cable companies. and the result is folks gathering in forums asking who pays what and calling for discounts.


People can already compare cable pricing on forums at cable/ISP forums like dslreports.com, so what's the difference?

If people don't like that they're getting charged more than the next guy for the same Directv package, they can leave, but if the pricing is done correctly a guy who pays $10 more for Directv in one place probably has cable choices that are also $10 more in the same area, so it wouldn't benefit the guy to leave other than for the principle of it.

It can go both ways, I'm sure there are places with more active cable competition where Directv pricing is too high and they have few subscribers. Directv might lower prices a bit there and gain more subscribers to offset those who leave them in areas where prices become higher and they're upset that they're paying more than other people on dbstalk.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

Microphone said:


> This scarily looks like the situation I faced as an XM subscriber 6 years ago when Sirius came calling. The Sirius subscribers didn't seem concerned, but the XM ones were, at best, cautiously opotomistric but feared the product would be stripped down and diluted. Anyone who is a satellite radio subscriber knows how this ended up. On the surface you'd think it would be great, but as I saw with this, be careful what you wish for. I vote no.


Both Sirius and XM were in poor financial shape, because iPods killed a lot of the demand for satellite radio. It wasn't a merger of two successful companies that could both stand on their own, it was a merger of two companies that were going to be bankrupt in a few years if they hadn't combined and cut costs savagely to survive.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

CraigerM said:


> Another way I think it could be better by merging DTV's satellite fleet with theirs. Dumb question, does ATT have their own fleet? If so, what if ATT combined their fleet and DTV's and piped most of it over fiber? Could using both satellite fleets free up ATT's Internet bandwidth that way?


I'm sure they have satellites, but not DBS which is what they'd need for them to be useful for Directv or vice versa.


----------



## wingrider01 (Sep 9, 2005)

jimmie57 said:


> The phone charges are different.
> In Texas my package is a flat $42 plus all the other added charges.
> In Georgia her phone is 2 separate line items, 1 for local service, call waiting and caller ID and a separate line item for long distance. Her phone charges are approximately $57 plus all the other stuff.


Long distance service is optional on a POTS line, unless it is specifically stated as a line item on your bill it is not included.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

peds48 said:


> the problem with that is DirecTV is national as compared to these regional cable companies. and the result is folks gathering in forums asking who pays what and calling for discounts.


For advertising purposes cable companies can offer the same rate nationwide ... which makes it easier to run national advertising. The "after promotional period" rate would vary as needed. (I believe Comcast does this.)


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

James Long said:


> For advertising purposes cable companies can offer the same rate nationwide ... which makes it easier to run national advertising. The "after promotional period" rate would vary as needed. (I believe Comcast does this.)


Why would Comcast advertised in NY? or any other state when they do not provide service? this is what local ad inserts are for.


----------



## PCampbell (Nov 18, 2006)

The new subs numbers have been low for the last couple of years, I think Directv feels they can get more new subs if they can offer more bundle packages in more areas than they can now.


----------



## KyL416 (Nov 11, 2005)

peds48 said:


> Why would Comcast advertised in NY? or any other state when they do not provide service? this is what local ad inserts are for.


Comcast has several systems in the New Jersey portion of the NYC DMA, most notibly in the Jersey City area. In the past decade, especially after the Adelphia takeover, Comcast became large enough where it's cheaper to just buy a national ad on the networks and reach the entire country instead of buying local ads in every market they have a system.


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

KyL416 said:


> Comcast has several systems in the New Jersey portion of the NYC DMA, most notibly in the Jersey City area. In the past decade, especially after the Adelphia takeover, Comcast became large enough where it's cheaper to just buy a national ad on the networks and reach the entire country instead of buying local ads in every market they have a system.


I have never seen a Comcast ad in NY.


----------



## acostapimps (Nov 6, 2011)

sigma1914 said:


> It's not a merger... it's an acquisition.
> 
> The AT&T forums are no different from DirecTV official foruma, enthusiasts don't frequent them. They're people with issues wanting answers and a lot of complaining.


Either way it doesn't look good if they bring their own style way of service, If some didn't like U-Verse TV, what makes you think it would be any different with Directv, unless Directv and it's employees retain its own service seperately, and AT&T with their own than that's okay with me, just don't mix it up or modify it so they can charge more fees.


----------



## sigma1914 (Sep 5, 2006)

acostapimps said:


> Either way it doesn't look good if they bring their own style way of service, If some didn't like U-Verse TV, what makes you think it would be any different with Directv, unless Directv and it's employees retain its own service seperately, and AT&T with their own than that's okay with me, just don't mix it up or modify it so they can charge more fees.


Some don't like DirecTV service, either. AT&T even scored highest from JD Power in some regions, ahead of DirecTV, so I guess maybe they could teach DirecTV a thing or 2.
http://www.jdpower.com/press-releases/2013-us-residential-television-service-provider-satisfaction-study


----------



## hasan (Sep 22, 2006)

RunnerFL said:


> Once it's approved and AT&T gets their tentacles into DirecTV service and quality will go downhill.


Highly likely, I fear.

There was a pretty severe critique of the deal on Mad Money from yesterday. Bad for customers according to Cramer, and while complimentary of White, he had some pretty poor assessments of DirecTV service as a whole. He didn't like the rain fades (all to common, especially on HD) and dismissed SAT based TV as a dead end business model. He indicated he had D* for one reason and one reason only and that would be Sunday Ticket.

He also said that ATa&T has a backout clause that says if D* loses exclusive Sunday Ticket, the deal is off.

Interesting...


----------



## cypherx (Aug 27, 2010)

peds48 said:


> Why would Comcast advertised in NY? or any other state when they do not provide service? this is what local ad inserts are for.


Why not? I see Fios ads all the time. It's not available to me and never will be.

Sent from my iPhone using DBSTalk


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

cypherx said:


> Why not?
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using DBSTalk


why waste money where you will see no ROI


----------



## 456521 (Jul 6, 2007)

sigma1914 said:


> Some don't like DirecTV service, either. AT&T even scored highest from JD Power in some regions, ahead of DirecTV, so I guess maybe they could teach DirecTV a thing or 2.
> http://www.jdpower.com/press-releases/2013-us-residential-television-service-provider-satisfaction-study


Don't try to bring relevant data into an argument based on emotions!!


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

Biggest surprise that in the above mentioned survey, Time-Warner and X-finity/Comcast are in the bottom group in every poll!


----------



## KyL416 (Nov 11, 2005)

peds48 said:


> why waste money where you will see no ROI


He's in Berks County, PA which is in the Philadelphia DMA, portions of which, including the city of Philadelphia itself has FiOS TV available so Verizon isn't "wasting" money when they buy ads for FiOS TV on the Philly stations.

Right now there is no hyper local ads for broadcast TV like there is for cable, it's either a local buy for the entire market or a national buy for the entire country.


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

KyL416 said:


> He's in Berks County, PA which is in the Philadelphia DMA, portions of which, including the city of Philadelphia itself has FiOS TV available so Verizon isn't "wasting" money when they buy ads for FiOS TV on the Philly stations.


Then that is totally different. My comment was for those cities/states where a cable company does not cover. I used NY cause that is where I live. but you can substitute any state/city instead.


----------



## KyL416 (Nov 11, 2005)

peds48 said:


> Then that is totally different. My comment was for those cities/states where a cable company does not cover. I used NY cause that is where I live. but you can substitute any state/city instead.


The NYC market is more than just the 5 boroughs and Long Island. Comcast has multiple systems in the New Jersey portion of the market, they also have a few in Putnam, Dutchess and Westchester counties in upstate NY:
http://www.comcast.com/Corporate/shop/Products/local/new-york.cspx
http://www.comcast.com/Corporate/shop/Products/local/new-jersey.cspx


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

KyL416 said:


> The NYC market is more than just the 5 boroughs and Long Island. Comcast has multiple systems in the New Jersey portion of the market, they also have a few in Putnam, Dutchess and Westchester counties in upstate NY:
> http://www.comcast.com/Corporate/shop/Products/local/new-york.cspx
> http://www.comcast.com/Corporate/shop/Products/local/new-jersey.cspx


STOP focusing on NY, that was only an example. here was my comment Why would Comcast advertised in _______ (filling the blank) or any other state when they do not provide service? this is what local ad inserts are for.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

Jon J said:


> I'll (not so) humbly disagree.


I dont why why anyone thinks DIRECTV will close stuff and fold into Att. I see it the other way around if anything because I think DIRECTV is probably cheaper to run customer service centers than att is.

But I'm not sure they can consolidate customer service that much anyway in terms of sheer numbers.


----------



## KyL416 (Nov 11, 2005)

peds48 said:


> STOP focusing on NY, that was only an example. here was my comment [background=#e6edf0]Why would Comcast advertised in _______ (filling the blank) or any other state when they do not provide service? this is what local ad inserts are for.[/background]


You were given the answer, Comcast is HUGE. They have a presence in nearly ever major and large market along with a lot of smaller and midsized markets. Eventually you get to a point where it's a lot cheaper to just buy a national ad on the network instead of buying local ads in all those markets.

It's no different than Hardee's or Carl Jr's buying national ads when they have no stores in the northeast.


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

KyL416 said:


> You were given the answer, Comcast is HUGE. They have a presence in nearly ever major and large market along with a lot of smaller and midsized markets. Eventually you get to a point where it's a lot cheaper to just buy a national ad on the network instead of buying local ads in all those markets.
> 
> It's no different than Hardee's or Carl Jr's buying national ads when they have no stores in the northeast.


again, I have yet to see any Comcast ads. and what is Carl Jr and Hardees? motorcycles? they don't advertised here...


----------



## KyL416 (Nov 11, 2005)

peds48 said:


> again, I have yet to see any Comcast ads. and what is Carl Jr and Hardees? motorcycles? they don't advertised here...


Unless you have enough time in your day to watch every network and syndicated show with national advertising you can't just dismiss it as not happening because you never saw them. I've seen national Comcast ads just last week on the NYC stations. You asked why would they if they're not in all areas and you were given an answer: with a presence in nearly every major and large market among others it's a lot cheaper to buy one national ad than it is to buy 100+ local spots in only the markets you provide service.

Carl's Jr and Hardee's is a fast food chain that's mostly in the west coast, midwest and south and advertise nationally on cable all the time on channels like USA, Comedy Central and TBS, they were even the presenting sponsor for several episodes of Monday Night Raw, the highest rated show on cable, this past year.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

peds48 said:


> again, I have yet to see any Comcast ads. and what is Carl Jr and Hardees? motorcycles? they don't advertised here...


I live in a Comcast market and subscribed to Comcast for Internet for eight months (until something cheaper came along). I can't remember the last Comcast ad that I saw on local TV (other than a sponsor logo on a broadcast TV weather sub-channel). Should we categorically state that Comcast doesn't advertise on local TV just because *I*, one viewer with the ability to skip commercials with a press of a button, does not recall seeing any?

Meanwhile in this entire "I have not seen any" argument you completely missed the point of what was said.


----------



## acostapimps (Nov 6, 2011)

sigma1914 said:


> Some don't like DirecTV service, either. AT&T even scored highest from JD Power in some regions, ahead of DirecTV, so I guess maybe they could teach DirecTV a thing or 2.
> http://www.jdpower.com/press-releases/2013-us-residentially-television-service-provider-satisfaction-study


Me personally I never had a problem with either Comcast for internet or Directv TV service, matter of fact I've been getting free upgrades over the years and credits from Directv, and 6 months credits continually from Comcast, I'm paying $19.99 a month for 12 months for Blast HSI 50/10 on internet only, no double or triple play bundle, On the other hand I've been swindled by AT&T for unexpected high bill charges for phone service, back when I used to have that service, granted it was 6 years ago, but I know it hasn't changed, I now have wireless cell service for 2 years now, and I know I'm not entitled to anything, but when it comes to helping me out with bills, they just flately say no and hang up on you, I know it's not everybody's experience but that's how I was treated. So I have as everybody else have a right to expect the worst from AT&T.

Sent from my iPad using DBSTalk


----------



## Dude111 (Aug 6, 2010)

RunnerFL said:


> Once it's approved and AT&T gets their tentacles into DirecTV service and quality will go downhill.


Totally agree...... I have seen at&ts history AND IT IS NOT GOOD!!!

They bought this voice mail system in the 90s from OCTEL COMMUNICATIONS in california..... (The system was called "OCTEL" - THE BEST VOICEMAIL SYSTEM OUT THERE!!!!!)

At&t turned it into a piece of trash!!!!!


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

peds48 said:


> again, I have yet to see any Comcast ads. and what is Carl Jr and Hardees? motorcycles? they don't advertised here...


I just saw an add the other day for Comcast triple play offer, for the X1. I get NY locals.
I've seen IO, Time Warner, Verizon Fios and Comcast ad's form NY locals. None of which are available to me. But drive 30 minutes in any direction and every one of those companies can be found.

Sent from my Galaxy S5


----------



## 242424 (Mar 22, 2012)

At least there are 67 (or 79) honest people that voted. lol


----------



## Microphone (Jan 30, 2007)

slice1900 said:


> Both Sirius and XM were in poor financial shape, because iPods killed a lot of the demand for satellite radio. It wasn't a merger of two successful companies that could both stand on their own, it was a merger of two companies that were going to be bankrupt in a few years if they hadn't combined and cut costs savagely to survive.


Don't disgaree, but the questions was asked does 1+1=2. You'd figure two prominent companies that do some of the same things and do some things different would merge the existing philosophies that run concurrent and weed out the inefficiencies that the partner has. I wished it worked that way, that was my point


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

242424 said:


> At least there are 67 (or 79) honest people that voted. lol


I agree that we cannot know, but this is an opinion poll. To characterize those who voted Yes or No as dishonest is, well, maybe not dishonest, but flat out wrong.


----------



## 242424 (Mar 22, 2012)

It doesn't say "What's your opinion?"........ Might be the best thing ever, might be the worst thing ever and it may fall in between.


----------



## fleckrj (Sep 4, 2009)

I have lived through several mergers and have had dealings with many other merged companies. It is impossible to predict what will happen. In theory, the merged company should be better than either company was prior to the merger. Sometimes that happens, and other times it does not. In this case, because AT&T and DirecTV have such different areas of strengths and weaknesses, my guess is that the customer will not see much of a change. I doubt AT&T will expand Uverse beyond its current footprint, but I also doubt they will dismantle DirecTV. I voted "don't know", because that is the only honest choice. I might have voted for "no difference" if that was an option, because I think that is the most likely outcome, but at this time, the only honest answer is "don't know".

I have witnessed one example of a poorly run entity buying a much better run entity, and the result ended up being much better than expected. When First Union Bank bought Wachovia Bank, First Union had a horrible reputation. After the merger, the First Union name was dropped, and the Wachovia name and operating procedures were retained. The former Wachovia customers (I was one of them) noticed no difference in service, but the former First Union customers saw big improvements.

Years later, Wells Fargo bought the new Wachovia and ran it into the ground. With both mergers, I decided to wait to see what would happen. I elected to stay with Wachovia after First Union bought them, but about a year after Wells Fargo bought them, I switched.


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

242424 said:


> It doesn't say "What's your opinion?"........ Might be the best thing ever, might be the worst thing ever and it may fall in between.


Opinion is implied. That's what polls are for.....opinions. And that's a fact! 
Regardless, your calling anyone dishonest is plain, flat-out wrong.


----------



## wingrider01 (Sep 9, 2005)

KyL416 said:


> You were given the answer, Comcast is HUGE. They have a presence in nearly ever major and large market along with a lot of smaller and midsized markets. Eventually you get to a point where it's a lot cheaper to just buy a national ad on the network instead of buying local ads in all those markets.
> 
> It's no different than Hardee's or Carl Jr's buying national ads when they have no stores in the northeast.


gone to hardees in the north east - which is carl jr's


----------



## ejbvt (Aug 14, 2011)

AT&T is incompetent. I regret getting involved with their inferior cell network and braindead customer service. Verizon refused to upgrade my broken phone. At the time, I felt that I had no choice. The Internet is fine - and I get ESPN3 where I don't with TWC - but the constant billing errors and stupidity of the employees in the 4 central NC stores I have visited, over the phone, and via email doesn't make it worth it. AND THEY CALL ME ALL THE TIME TRYING TO GET ME TO SIGN UP FOR UVERSE TV WHEN U-VERSE IS NOT OFFERED IN MY PART OF TOWN.

One of my best friends used to work for AT&T. He simply couldn't handle them anymore. He paid for a Verizon phone because AT&T screwed up his bill all the time.


----------



## sigma1914 (Sep 5, 2006)

acostapimps said:


> Me personally I never had a problem with either Comcast for internet or Directv TV service, matter of fact I've been getting free upgrades over the years and credits from Directv, and 6 months credits continually from Comcast, I'm paying $19.99 a month for 12 months for Blast HSI 50/10 on internet only, no double or triple play bundle, On the other hand I've been swindled by AT&T for unexpected high bill charges for phone service, back when I used to have that service, granted it was 6 years ago, but I know it hasn't changed, I now have wireless cell service for 2 years now, and I know I'm not entitled to anything, but when it comes to helping me out with bills, they just flately say no and hang up on you, I know it's not everybody's experience but that's how I was treated. So I have as everybody else have a right to expect the worst from AT&T.
> 
> Sent from my iPad using DBSTalk


So, your general overall concern is simply from your bad experience and that means it'll transfer over as a whole here? By that logic of emotions, I guess we're doomed if DirecTV has control because I've had far more billing issues with DirecTV than AT&T in about 10 years with both. DirecTV will destroy them if they're over billing. The sky is falling because DirecTV has been worse to me.


----------



## brett_the_bomb (Oct 24, 2009)

I think it comes downs to a few things. Bandwidth, negotiating power and reducing running costs. my opinion is that if uversetv can be moved to dtv and use the data feed from att's land line to increase available bandwidth for internet then it would be an improvement. plus having 2 companies merge means that a lot of redundant positions can be eliminated like HR, board members, etc, and with the combo of both customer bases i think the should have better channel negotiating power. and a side benefit may also be some fun mobile streaming options and content delivery that dtv couldnt really break into on its own. fingers crossed that its a positive...


----------



## sigma1914 (Sep 5, 2006)

ejbvt said:


> AT&T is incompetent. I regret getting involved with their inferior cell network and braindead customer service. Verizon refused to upgrade my broken phone. At the time, I felt that I had no choice. The Internet is fine - and I get ESPN3 where I don't with TWC - but the constant billing errors and stupidity of the employees in the 4 central NC stores I have visited, over the phone, and via email doesn't make it worth it. AND THEY CALL ME ALL THE TIME TRYING TO GET ME TO SIGN UP FOR UVERSE TV WHEN U-VERSE IS NOT OFFERED IN MY PART OF TOWN.
> 
> One of my best friends used to work for AT&T. He simply couldn't handle them anymore. He paid for a Verizon phone because AT&T screwed up his bill all the time.


Another example where emotions from a personal bad experience mean it's going to be doom and gloom. For everyone one of those, there's at least 1 or more with the opposite experience. You bring up their cell service as being incompetent. Interesting -
AT&T Ranks Highest in Wireless Customer Care Performance among Full-Service Carriers - See more at: http://www.jdpower.com/press-releases/2014-us-wireless-customer-care-full-service-performance-study-and-us-wireless#sthash.KiKWZSa0.dpuf


----------



## Drucifer (Feb 12, 2009)

Does this deal kick off Television v2? Television programing with true Internet interaction.

E.g. - Bringing up your customize player's stats on screen as he comes up to bat.


----------



## fleckrj (Sep 4, 2009)

The problem with AT&T wireless is that they have very little low-frequency allotment. This puts them at a distinct disadvantage compared to Verizon or Sprint, because the AT&T signal does not penetrate buildings as well as Verizon's or Sprint's. The only one that is worse than AT&T is T-Mobile, which has no low-frequency options.

The frequency allocation has everything to do with why AT&T wireless is not as good as Verizon or Sprint, but nothing to do with what will happen to DirecTV when AT&T takes over.


----------



## Diana C (Mar 30, 2007)

peds48 said:


> I have never seen a Comcast ad in NY.


Who watches commercials? 

Seriously, Comcast DOES advertise on the NYC broadcast stations (not surprisingly, quite a bit on WNBC).


----------



## acostapimps (Nov 6, 2011)

fleckrj said:


> The problem with AT&T wireless is that they have very little low-frequency allotment. This puts them at a distinct disadvantage compared to Verizon or Sprint, because the AT&T signal does not penetrate buildings as well as Verizon's or Sprint's. The only one that is worse than AT&T is T-Mobile, which has no low-frequency options.
> 
> The frequency allocation has everything to do with why AT&T wireless is not as good as Verizon or Sprint, but nothing to do with what will happen to DirecTV when AT&T takes over.


It all depends on the area coverage and amount of towers in your area, for me when I had Sprint in my area several miles north of the Chicago area, it was terrible, little to no signal with no LTE or 4G, It was worst at home with no signal, even if I did had 4G or LTE it felt like dial up internet type phone, with AT&T I have a lot better coverage although 1 or 2 bars at home, but better and faster overall, I'll give AT&T that much for improvement at least in my area, But when it comes to their "other" services, they've really fell off the high horses, I have a friend who have U-Verse TV and he keeps getting frustrated with his service that keeps getting cut-off or freezes picture, and I told him did you called to have it checked? And said I did but I keep getting the runaround on when they'll show up, dates after dates scheduled and none showed up, He already called to cancelled service and it's looking for either Dish or Directv, of course I'd recommended him Directv, and gave him my account number and the 800 number to call, Of course I told him to get the Genie, no other receiver it's only 1 TV, He most likely get the HR44 since that is what techs are installing now that i've seen.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

fleckrj said:


> The problem with AT&T wireless is that they have very little low-frequency allotment. This puts them at a distinct disadvantage compared to Verizon or Sprint, because the AT&T signal does not penetrate buildings as well as Verizon's or Sprint's. The only one that is worse than AT&T is T-Mobile, which has no low-frequency options.
> 
> The frequency allocation has everything to do with why AT&T wireless is not as good as Verizon or Sprint, but nothing to do with what will happen to DirecTV when AT&T takes over.


They have 700 MHz bands in some places, but not nationally.

The FCC is going to do a new "600 MHz" auction next year, basically UHF channels 31-51 will be vacated in most markets (it is a voluntary auction, so stations don't have to sell, but it would be hard to turn down the millions the carriers will be offering) Once the auction is done the FCC will "repack" the channels to fit closer together, some will voluntarily move to VHF hi, others will be moved around in UHF, and the FCC will use some of their cut of the auction proceeds to compensate stations for their costs in moving (new transmitters, letting TV viewers know, etc.)

So AT&T will have a chance to get more low frequency spectrum, unless they get outbid.


----------



## Dude111 (Aug 6, 2010)

fleckrj said:


> I have lived through several mergers and have had dealings with many other merged companies. It is impossible to predict what will happen. In theory, the merged company should be better than either company was prior to the merger.


Look at what happend to XM radio.... TOTALLY MADE CRAP BY THAT IDIOT AT SIRIUS!! (Who has now left the company!!)


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Dude111 said:


> Look at what happend to XM radio.... TOTALLY MADE CRAP BY THAT IDIOT AT SIRIUS!! (Who has now left the company!!)


Would XM still exist if it were not for the merger with Sirius?
At the time of the merger (2007) neither company had turned a profit. Sirius was valued at $5.2 billion, and XM at $3.75 billion. XM was ahead in subscribers - 8 million to 6 million. The combined company finally had a profitable quarter one year after the merger was completed.

The quality of the service is debatable (preferably in the appropriate forum - we have a SiriusXM forum here at DBSTalk). But there would likely be no service if it were not for the merger.

Not the problem AT&T or DirecTV are having ... both are doing well without a merger. But SiriusXM was an issue of survival.


----------



## wingrider01 (Sep 9, 2005)

Dude111 said:


> Look at what happend to XM radio.... TOTALLY MADE CRAP BY THAT IDIOT AT SIRIUS!! (Who has now left the company!!)


Problem is both of the companies where crap to start off with


----------



## wilbur_the_goose (Aug 16, 2006)

XM's product was a lot better than SIRI, yet the much smaller SIRI acquired XM. SIRI programming soon was broadcast on XM, and audio quality decreased to the point that it's now not even as good as AM HD. And FM HD is at least three times better than SIRI/XM today.

Yes, friends, SIRI killed off the innovative XM. XM lost.

Just as D* will lose to the bean counters and morons at American Telephone and Telegraph. (Yes, I know they dropped the original name, but I'm trying to make a point)


----------



## RarefiedAir24 (Mar 18, 2008)

Well, I just switched over from Uverse back to DirecTV. I've had and still have Uverse phone and internet, with this buyout perhaps I'll get price break similar to when I had Uverse TV along with Uverse phone and internet. Right now, I'm getting the standard 5.00 from bundling. But I was getting a great bundle package when I had all services through AT&T.


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

wilbur_the_goose said:


> XM's product was a lot better than SIRI, yet the much smaller SIRI acquired XM. SIRI programming soon was broadcast on XM, and audio quality decreased to the point that it's now not even as good as AM HD. And FM HD is at least three times better than SIRI/XM today.
> 
> Yes, friends, SIRI killed off the innovative XM. XM lost.
> 
> Just as D* will lose to the bean counters and morons at American Telephone and Telegraph. (Yes, I know they dropped the original name, but I'm trying to make a point)


Siri is an Apple product, seriously. 

The AT&T that's buying DIRECTV is not your father's AT&T. The original name you cite probably hasn't been used by the company for 75 years, except in SEC filings.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

Laxguy said:


> Siri is an Apple product, seriously.
> 
> The AT&T that's buying DIRECTV is not your father's AT&T. The original name you cite probably hasn't been used by the company for 75 years, except in SEC filings.


The AT&T that's buying Directv is actually Southwestern Bell. Your father's AT&T no longer exists, though Southwestern Bell (after swallowing a couple other baby bells and changing their name to SBC) eventually bought some remaining pieces of your father's AT&T, including the name, which they decided to use.


----------



## wilbur_the_goose (Aug 16, 2006)

I know it's not really the original AT&T


----------



## cypherx (Aug 27, 2010)

I hope that AT&T doesn't butcher DirecTV's HD channel numbering to match U-verse. The thing about U-Verse lineup is that its like cable with separate HD channel numbers. Though its simpler than most cable systems (just add 1000 to the channel number), I've never seen these schemes work. There have been a lot of HD set top boxes installed with component or HDMI cables at public places like doctors offices, eye care centers, restaurants, etc... and for the most part people put the lower channel number on, thus never seeing HD even though they are paying for it. So with the separate numbering scheme most people type in the single or double digit number. I hope AT&T never takes DirecTV's simple HD channel numbering away from us... or it will be a constant battle between me and the wife, with me "fixing" the TV with the correct channel number. We used to battle all the time back when we had Comcast.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Laxguy said:


> The AT&T that's buying DIRECTV is not your father's AT&T. The original name you cite probably hasn't been used by the company for 75 years, except in SEC filings.


According to the AT&T timeline, the name was officially changed in 1994.

In the phone business, EVERYTHING is spoken of in acronyms. They even had to create an official glossary.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

cypherx said:


> I hope that AT&T doesn't butcher DirecTV's HD channel numbering to match U-verse. The thing about U-Verse lineup is that its like cable with separate HD channel numbers. Though its simpler than most cable systems (just add 1000 to the channel number), I've never seen these schemes work. There have been a lot of HD set top boxes installed with component or HDMI cables at public places like doctors offices, eye care centers, restaurants, etc... and for the most part people put the lower channel number on, thus never seeing HD even though they are paying for it. So with the separate numbering scheme most people type in the single or double digit number. I hope AT&T never takes DirecTV's simple HD channel numbering away from us... or it will be a constant battle between me and the wife, with me "fixing" the TV with the correct channel number. We used to battle all the time back when we had Comcast.


I'm not sure why you're worried they'd want to change how Directv numbers channels. If they're going to mess with channel numbering, seems more like they'd mess with Uverse's way since having all 4 digit channel numbers for HD sounds really stupid.


----------



## JoeTheDragon (Jul 21, 2008)

slice1900 said:


> I'm not sure why you're worried they'd want to change how Directv numbers channels. If they're going to mess with channel numbering, seems more like they'd mess with Uverse's way since having all 4 digit channel numbers for HD sounds really stupid.


Uverse has the HD streams limits so they can't just have SD and HD with the same numbers.


----------



## Dude111 (Aug 6, 2010)

wilbur_the_goose said:


> XM's product was a lot better than SIRI


Indeed it was.... I was inches away from subscribing!!!!!! -- IM GLAD I DID NOT!!


----------



## acostapimps (Nov 6, 2011)

As long as they don't get rid of good CSR employees, I always have good experience with Directv CSR's, unlike AT&T CSR's that were a nightmare dealing with them, I know it's different across different providers, But believe it or not I also had good experience with Comcast also, well I did use online chat most of the time, unless Internet is down, But I still use cell network in case that happens, I never had UVerse TV here I can't get that anyway, but in did had DSL and phone once, DSL was okay and phone was not that great compared to Comcast, I think DV have a lot to do with that, I did have basic cable on Comcast before Directv, it was nothing to write about unless you like locals more that cable channels. But Directv have the best price with STB's compared to really high prices with Comcast digital package.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## wilbur_the_goose (Aug 16, 2006)

Are AT&T's CSRs in the USA or offshored?


----------



## Jon J (Apr 22, 2002)

wilbur_the_goose said:


> Are AT&T's CSRs in the USA or offshored?


Smart donkey euphemism answer...yes.


----------



## ziggy29 (Nov 18, 2004)

Now AT&T will have a vested interest in stopping consumers from cutting the cable and ditching the dish, so with net neutrality out the window I'd imagine AT&T Internet services are about to make it a lot tougher to use Netflix and Hulu without a TV subscription, such as throttled service or charging a lot more for Internet without a TV package as well.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

wilbur_the_goose said:


> Are AT&T's CSRs in the USA or offshored?


Yes is the best answer.

I had trouble with an AT&T business service a couple of years back (before the service was cancelled) and the caller ID from the CSRs was from country code 91 ... India! (I thought it was a 917 New York number when I first saw it, but it was too many digits.) But they do have US call centers as well.


----------



## studechip (Apr 16, 2012)

JoeTheDragon said:


> Uverse has the HD streams limits so they can't just have SD and HD with the same numbers.


Why not? Aren't the channel numbers assignable regardless?


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

James Long said:


> Yes is the best answer.
> 
> I had trouble with an AT&T business service a couple of years back (before the service was cancelled) and the caller ID from the CSRs was from country code 91 ... India! (I thought it was a 917 New York number when I first saw it, but it was too many digits.) But they do have US call centers as well.


Most customer service is in us I believe. I think first line tech support is often over seas. And higher up tech support back to here. At least for California.


----------



## Dude111 (Aug 6, 2010)

> Why not? Aren't the channel numbers assignable regardless?


Yes they are not "channels" they are ASSIGNMENTS 

In other words Disney channel is 'ASSIGNED' to 290 so yes technically there could be 5 stations assigned to the same number..


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

ziggy29 said:


> Now AT&T will have a vested interest in stopping consumers from cutting the cable and ditching the dish, so with net neutrality out the window I'd imagine AT&T Internet services are about to make it a lot tougher to use Netflix and Hulu without a TV subscription, such as throttled service or charging a lot more for Internet without a TV package as well.


Wrong. In order to assuage such fears and help get the deal approved, AT&T has committed to abide by net neutrality for three years regardless of what the FCC decides or what the competition does. Maybe they'll do it what you say then, but if so Verizon and Comcast already will be doing it.


----------



## raott (Nov 23, 2005)

VLaslow said:


> Better? Just more expensive. At least DirecTV is tactful when they give us a price increase. Don't expect that from an AT&T run business.


I'll echo what someone else posted. I pay less now with ATT than I have in the past. $30+ less than last year. I definitely cannot say that about Directv.


----------



## Jon J (Apr 22, 2002)

raott said:


> I'll echo what someone else posted. I pay less now with ATT than I have in the past.


I pay less for AT&T internet because they forced me to give up my generally adequate DSL service for UVerse. To calm my complaints they gave me a super deal for a year. I hope by the time the deal expires Google has included us in their expansion plans and that option will be available.

OTOH my POTS seems to go up every couple of months.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

Jon J said:


> I pay less for AT&T internet because they forced me to give up my generally adequate DSL service for UVerse. To calm my complaints they gave me a super deal for a year. I hope by the time the deal expires Google has included us in their expansion plans and that option will be available.
> 
> OTOH my POTS seems to go up every couple of months.


If have good speed with your Internet dump pots and go ooma. Its about $4 a month for unlimited calling and can feed all your home phone jacks with minimal work on your part, and has a bunch of other options too.


----------



## Jon J (Apr 22, 2002)

inkahauts said:


> If have good speed with your Internet dump pots and go ooma. Its about $4 a month for unlimited calling and can feed all your home phone jacks with minimal work on your part, and has a bunch of other options too.


That option only became available with the forced move to UVerse. Though DSL could theoretically be provided on a dry, no dial tone line, it was difficult to actually get AT&T to do it. So, most DSL continued to ride on a regular POTS line. Now, however, AT&T considers UVerse internet to be a completely separate service and even though it still rides on a copper POTS line the dial tone service can be terminated leaving UVerse internet unaffected. Probably my next move if I can keep the POTS number.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

You shouldn't have any trouble keeping it. The kicker is ooma always estimates it taking weeks and att is usually done in a couple days. 

Just get your ooma setup first with any number (that's free) and make sure you have a phone plugged into both so when the switch happens you are set. 

They are very good about letting you know too about when that will happen IMHO. There is a page on their site for you to check and it is updated as needed with timelines.


----------



## V'ger (Oct 4, 2007)

inkahauts said:


> If have good speed with your Internet dump pots and go ooma. Its about $4 a month for unlimited calling and can feed all your home phone jacks with minimal work on your part, and has a bunch of other options too.


X1, but had trouble porting my number. Appears porting subcontractor is overseas and didn't work well with Cincinnati Bell (blame on both sides). Took me two month to get straightened out.


----------



## V'ger (Oct 4, 2007)

Didn't Tivo sue ATT and then Microsoft sue Tivo? Owning DTV will give ATT access to all DTV DVR Patents and probably could claim the DTV-Tivo contract could apply to their U-Verse boxes as well, killing the suit (if it still exists). I could even see ATT going after other DVRs for patent infringement.

This would not be the main reason for the acquisition, but would be a fringe benefit that might keep on giving and giving.


----------



## Blackhawks (Oct 21, 2011)

People may wish in the end that DISH had purchased DTV. The only reason DISH didn't is AT&T has very deep pockets and came in at the end. SEC Report verifies DISH & DTV were in serious talks. 


Sent from my iPhone using DBSTalk


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

It is very unlikely that the FCC would have allowed the only two satellite TV companies to combine. They allowed this to happen in satellite radio, but they were both struggling and couldn't survive on their own, but that's not the case for Directv and Dish.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

V'ger said:


> Didn't Tivo sue ATT and then Microsoft sue Tivo? Owning DTV will give ATT access to all DTV DVR Patents and probably could claim the DTV-Tivo contract could apply to their U-Verse boxes as well, killing the suit (if it still exists). I could even see ATT going after other DVRs for patent infringement.
> 
> This would not be the main reason for the acquisition, but would be a fringe benefit that might keep on giving and giving.


AT&T has already said they plan to use the DIRECTV platform going forward for all new customers.
And they got more patents from replaytv than they have on their own I think. Not positive though.


----------



## Drucifer (Feb 12, 2009)

Well, what will the next box be able to do?

I'm hoping that the next big DVR incorporates something like Android TV.

Because waiting for DirecTV to restore their SD TVapps in HD is like watching a ninety year old run a marathon.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

Well, who knows, but really? TV apps? Something very few use? That's the absolute last thing most people seem to actually care about. And I don't think it has anything to do with the hardware at this point. And why would they incorporate a android TV? That wouldn't make any sense at all.

While I think being able to tune to IP channels may be important for a next gen box I am not sure it can't be done with the current ones since they can do streaming for on demand already. I expect a lte adapter that could feed a deca network Internet that would allow people to connect their DIRECTV receivers to AT&T Internet with no data caps for direct vod content seems like a logical direction to head, but then that could be something that could be added to any and all installations already out there.


----------



## Drucifer (Feb 12, 2009)

inkahauts said:


> Well, who knows, but really? TV apps? Something *very few use*? That's the absolute last thing most people seem to actually care about. And I don't think it has anything to do with the hardware at this point. And why would they incorporate a android TV? That wouldn't make any sense at all.
> 
> While I think being able to tune to IP channels may be important for a next gen box I am not sure it can't be done with the current ones since they can do streaming for on demand already. I expect a lte adapter that could feed a deca network Internet that would allow people to connect their DIRECTV receivers to AT&T Internet with no data caps for direct vod content seems like a logical direction to head, but then that could be something that could be added to any and all installations already out there.


Where the hell is your marketing data coming from? Hardly anyone uses apps!

I assure you if they can put these on a small smart stick, they can put 'em into the next DVR box.

Image an app in one of the two PIP screens that has show data or stats on a player. Or a real time local radar app during a rain fade event.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

inkahauts said:


> While I think being able to tune to IP channels may be important for a next gen box I am not sure it can't be done with the current ones since they can do streaming for on demand already. I expect a lte adapter that could feed a deca network Internet that would allow people to connect their DIRECTV receivers to AT&T Internet with no data caps for direct vod content seems like a logical direction to head, but then that could be something that could be added to any and all installations already out there.


I highly doubt AT&T is going to allow unlimited cellular data usage for VOD. They might give them unlimited idle usage (i.e. when they aren't hurting the performance of paying customers) so people could request a movie and it might take longer to download so you can't watch instantly/stream.

And this would only be for those who get AT&T cellular internet along with Directv, which sounds like it will only be offered in rural areas. People who live where there are wired broadband options will probably not be offered this from the sound of that FCC doc.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

Drucifer said:


> Where the hell is your marketing data coming from? Hardly anyone uses apps!
> 
> I assure you if they can put these on a small smart stick, they can put 'em into the next DVR box.
> 
> Image an app in one of the two PIP screens that has show data or stats on a player. Or a real time local radar app during a rain fade event.


Directv doesn't bother with third party apps anymore because of smartphones. That's killed the demand for it. For every person like you who would rather see this on their TV screen, there are dozens who would prefer to use it on their phone because they don't have to interrupt their TV viewing. A smartphone is like a full time personal PiP screen.


----------



## CraigerM (Apr 15, 2014)

Could a DTV Guide app be faster and better than RVU?


----------



## cypherx (Aug 27, 2010)

Next box should have at least enough horsepower like a modern day smartphone. You may take it for granted today, but today's phones have the polish of a complete UI design that includes context aware animations.

Current traditional DBS/Cable (with a few exceptions) is a pop on / pop off, bit mapped graphic overlay. Either it's on screen or not. An iPhone for instance shows an animation like a zoom, slide or a fade when moving from one screen to next. It's hardware assisted graphics rendering that allows direct VRAM writes for a fluid interface, including 3D acceleration for gaming. Droid has the same thing, and the Android 'L' release solidifies their commitment to context sensitive animations.

These things enhance the user experience if done quickly and efficiently as it provides a translation between real world objects and physics vs on screen. You get a sense of where you were and where you are going in a UI when some of these physics are applied.

Some of this is attributed to a cloud based UI like Xfinity X1, but in reality it does not have to be a cloud backend to do it. The phone in the palm of my hand has a smooth silky UI without "the cloud". Amazing the motherboard in my phone is a fraction of the size of the board in a cable or satellite receiver, yet it has so much more power, while being mindful of its power consumption on a battery at the same time. A move to an ARM based CPU with onboard graphics acceleration to accompany the existing SoC would make a HUGE impact in the performance and extensibility of these set tops. Why stop at YouTube SD and Pandora? This kind of flexible architecture could support "casting" content from your mobile, or other apps like Spotify, Slacker, VEVO, YouTube in HD, etc... The provider can remain as "input 1", the prime position on the TV. Not having to worry about users spending more time or money on other devices like a Chromecast, Roku or Apple TV.

Though a cloud for DirecTV would be nice to store series recording, to do lists, favorites, etc. So copying or modifying them from an app or website would be possible.

I think AT&T could allow VOD through LTE if they wanted to push the product over cable. Caps are just artificial numbers someone types into a billing system in order to create different revenue tiers.


Sent from my iPhone using DBSTalk


----------



## CraigerM (Apr 15, 2014)

Mike White said in the House hearing that they want to build the router into the set-top box.


----------



## JoeTheDragon (Jul 21, 2008)

CraigerM said:


> Mike White said in the House hearing that they want to build the router into the set-top box.


don't add that to each box as it's overkill to have 3-4 routers in a house and useless in commercial settings.

also don't lock it down people need to be able to change router settings.


----------



## JoeTheDragon (Jul 21, 2008)

inkahauts said:


> AT&T has already said they plan to use the DIRECTV platform going forward for all new customers.
> And they got more patents from replaytv than they have on their own I think. Not positive though.


They should use an dual setup with U-verse as raid fade backup / use it for local NON RSN stuff / OTA sub channels.


----------



## CraigerM (Apr 15, 2014)

One House member asked what they would do with UVerse in his area. Stephenson said that DTV would help it expand and strengthen UVerse TV. They would be able to expand fiber to the home.

Also what if Mr. White was saying build ATT's DSL Gateway into the box?

You can watch it here:

http://www.c-span.org/video/?320113-1/att-directv-merger


----------



## cypherx (Aug 27, 2010)

Interesting that is on CSPAN3 HD but DirecTV doesn't carry CSPAN3 not even in SD. The Internet rules!


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

slice1900 said:


> I highly doubt AT&T is going to allow unlimited cellular data usage for VOD. They might give them unlimited idle usage (i.e. when they aren't hurting the performance of paying customers) so people could request a movie and it might take longer to download so you can't watch instantly/stream.
> 
> And this would only be for those who get AT&T cellular internet along with Directv, which sounds like it will only be offered in rural areas. People who live where there are wired broadband options will probably not be offered this from the sound of that FCC doc.


I see no reason they wouldn't offer it for free and unlimited for people who are paying for DIRECTV service. No caps needed for DIRECTV nly based access since they are then enhancing and completely more equally with the local cable company and can get around cables caps that way.

Of course I also think that their wireless offerings will be quite different in what they can do in four years by the time they can get this kind of thing implemented. I would not be surprised if they even used a specific band for DIRECTV usage only.

Eventually, AT&T will want to be all fiber or wireless and not have any copper to deal with. It's not a matter of if but simply when they can get there.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

CraigerM said:


> One House member asked what they would do with UVerse in his area. Stephenson said that DTV would help it expand and strengthen UVerse TV. They would be able to expand fiber to the home.
> 
> Also what if Mr. White was saying build ATT's DSL Gateway into the box?
> 
> ...


Directv is going more and more towards a modular system,not the other way around. They won't be adding more things like gateways into their boxes, but they'd possibly make them work more closely with them and include deca connections or something like that maybe.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

inkahauts said:


> I see no reason they wouldn't offer it for free and unlimited for people who are paying for DIRECTV service.


$$$ ? AT&T giving away something that it can charge for? That is not the direction that AT&T is headed in.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

inkahauts said:


> I see no reason they wouldn't offer it for free and unlimited for people who are paying for DIRECTV service. No caps needed for DIRECTV nly based access since they are then enhancing and completely more equally with the local cable company and can get around cables caps that way.
> 
> Of course I also think that their wireless offerings will be quite different in what they can do in four years by the time they can get this kind of thing implemented. I would not be surprised if they even used a specific band for DIRECTV usage only.
> 
> Eventually, AT&T will want to be all fiber or wireless and not have any copper to deal with. It's not a matter of if but simply when they can get there.


Because 1) it is something people are willing to pay for and 2) because they don't want to negatively affect the cellular data service for their paying customers.

I'm not sure what Directv charges for VOD now, but currently customers are paying that and using the internet connection they pay for. So what's the benefit to AT&T to charge the same and give the internet away for free?

They wouldn't even need Directv to do this, they could offer it today and stream the videos to computers, mobile devices, Apple TVs or whatever.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

Ok you both missed my point. In areas where a customer can't get good enough Internet via DSL or what have you, or are hand stung by caps, but they can get them a good wireless signal, it would be beneficial to directv to get the customers access to on demand, as then they have a better chance of getting customers to go for things like on demand that isn't linear, as well as maybe upgrading to HBO so they can get HBO go. Its about making sure all their customers can get on demand, and not having to lose revenue because of a customers location or their caps.

As for customers paying, well, maybe maybe not. I can see a few possible scenarios. I can see them giving customers the Internet for DIRECTV only for free, even if they have another provider for regular Internet, or I can see them offering to not count any directv purchases towards their data caps, which would be the case for all uverse as well as wireless Internet subscribers.


And also again, I am not looking at atts wireless offerings and speeds today. I'm looking at what it think they will be in four years and I see a very different world in that regard.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

I'm sure four years ago you would have said you'd see a very different world in wireless, and instead we have caps where we didn't have any before. Wireless is not easy to expand to fit the need, especially in rural areas which is where AT&T will be selling this. AT&T is not going to give urban/suburban customers free all-you-can eat VOD streaming, which would either degrade the speeds attainable by paying cellular customers or require expensive upgrades that wouldn't have otherwise been necessary. That would be stupid.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

inkahauts said:


> AT&T has already said they plan to use the DIRECTV platform going forward for all new customers.
> And they got more patents from replaytv than they have on their own I think. Not positive though.


AT&T has said a great many things that sound very attractive and promising. They remind me of a pre-merger Comcast that promised the moon and stars. In the end, Comcast reneged on more than a few of their key "promises" to both their customers and the regulatory agencies. I don't think I'd be going too far out on a limb to suggest that more than a few of these promises are not going to come to pass if the merger goes through.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

slice1900 said:


> A smartphone is like a full time personal PiP screen.


The popular term is "second screen".

What killed the demand for DVR apps was the inconsistency with which they were available and working.


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

harsh said:


> AT&T has said a great many things that sound very attractive and promising. They remind me of a pre-merger Comcast that promised the moon and stars. In the end, Comcast reneged on more than a few of their key "promises" to both their customers and the regulatory agencies. I don't think I'd be going too far out on a limb to suggest that more than a few of these promises are not going to come to pass if the merger goes through.


A masterpiece of subtle understatement! Nicely done.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

harsh said:


> AT&T has said a great many things that sound very attractive and promising. They remind me of a pre-merger Comcast that promised the moon and stars. In the end, Comcast reneged on more than a few of their key "promises" to both their customers and the regulatory agencies. I don't think I'd be going too far out on a limb to suggest that more than a few of these promises are not going to come to pass if the merger goes through.


With Comcast you are quite right. Yikes...

As for what I mentioned, logic, money and technology back up their roadmap that says they will Move forward with DIRECTV receiver systems. Wether they also take over all uverse TVs as well seems like a good possibility but old likely not and they have never said they would.

It doesn't make sense for them to continue with a platform that is far more limiting and likely costly vs going with one that is also far far more dominantly in use already as it would cost way to much to get rid of it or covert it.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

slice1900 said:


> I'm sure four years ago you would have said you'd see a very different world in wireless, and instead we have caps where we didn't have any before. Wireless is not easy to expand to fit the need, especially in rural areas which is where AT&T will be selling this. AT&T is not going to give urban/suburban customers free all-you-can eat VOD streaming, which would either degrade the speeds attainable by paying cellular customers or require expensive upgrades that wouldn't have otherwise been necessary. That would be stupid.


What do you mean instead we have caps? Caps have always been there for wireless since wireless actually started to matter. . The caps will change and have been. It's getting less and less expensive for more and more data on wireless.

I and I think I know see why you disagree. Those upgrades you say are to expensive and are not necessary, I completely disagree. You underestimate how badly AT&T wants out of pots they will toss pots to the side as soon as they can. Wireless is where they want to invest their money not in keeping old stuff that is so overly regulated and expensive it's a major drag on their bottom line. An As one person I know who works for art says.... They have so much money it's ridiculous... And that's true so what makes you think they wont spend a ton to get rid of something that hardly makes them money and is staging down their profits so they can be more profitable? That's a key to them buying directv too. It's all related.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

inkahauts said:


> With Comcast you are quite right. Yikes...
> 
> As for what I mentioned, logic, money and technology back up their roadmap that says they will Move forward with DIRECTV receiver systems. Wether they also take over all uverse TVs as well seems like a good possibility but old likely not and they have never said they would.
> 
> It doesn't make sense for them to continue with a platform that is far more limiting and likely costly vs going with one that is also far far more dominantly in use already as it would cost way to much to get rid of it or covert it.


Actually that FCC doc indicated AT&T would move Uverse to the Directv receiver platform. Whether that means the same exact receivers, or share components but be unique (since they don't need tuners, for instance) wasn't clear. But if it is the same software base, whether the hardware is identical or similar is no more relevant than the differences between various Directv DVRs are.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

inkahauts said:


> What do you mean instead we have caps? Caps have always been there for wireless since wireless actually started to matter. . The caps will change and have been. It's getting less and less expensive for more and more data on wireless.


Did you miss all the years where AT&T had no caps for wireless data, and Verizon and others matched them for a time? Then AT&T decided it should be capped to 2GB but grandfathered in existing users. Not sure if there are still some uncapped people - I think if they never changed anything in their contract and bought their phones for full price there might still be some out there.


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

slice1900 said:


> Did you miss all the years where AT&T had no caps for wireless data, and Verizon and others matched them for a time? Then AT&T decided it should be capped to 2GB but grandfathered in existing users. Not sure if there are still some uncapped people - I think if they never changed anything in their contract and bought their phones for full price there might still be some out there.


Yep I remember the unlimited data plans, but them phones then sucked, no one used their phones for things 4 years ago like they do now. 
Netflix wasn't as big, nor was any of the other streaming devices and services at your cell phones fingertips. 
With 2G and even 3G people would rather use their wifi and laptops, than use the slow unreliable unlimited cell data.

Cell providers were also way over capacity with providing these massive amounts of data being used when cell use skyrocketed, they had no choice but to limit data.
A whole lot of work has gone into Providing Data and still is expanding.

They are expanding every day and for that Data will become more available, and cheaper. 
People use more cell data now then when it was unlimited, and for that cell companies weren't ready for the massive spike. They had to do something and thats make people conserve.


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

As far as home use, they should allow multiple plans where you can choose your caps and speeds but , they can't charge cell data prices, That's just nuts


----------



## cypherx (Aug 27, 2010)

I think for rural users without access to AT&T wireline, they will allow VOD over LTE not counted against any cap. Though if also using that service for Internet, they can easily count other traffic towards a cap. 

A cap is monthly limit arbitrarily imposed by a figure typed into a billing system. If there's capacity issues, they would be throttling the Mbps rates vs looking at a month by month time deviation. 

My cable ISP has a 350GB/month cap and 25/2 Mbps speed. 


Sent from my iPhone using DBSTalk


----------



## CraigerM (Apr 15, 2014)

With ATT wanting to just use DTV's equipment for both DTV and UVerse TV how would that work? Would that mean just having the DTV logo on all the boxes? Then DTV would be delivered by both the dish and IPTV?

Or would it be an example like the HR-44 having the UVerse TV logo on it and one HR-44 having the DTV logo on it?


----------



## cypherx (Aug 27, 2010)

I think DirecTV has better brand recognition. I suspect that name would be the survivor. Its nationwide, unlike U-Verse. There will never be U-Verse where I live because its Verizon territory.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

slice1900 said:


> Actually that FCC doc indicated AT&T would move Uverse to the Directv receiver platform. Whether that means the same exact receivers, or share components but be unique (since they don't need tuners, for instance) wasn't clear. But if it is the same software base, whether the hardware is identical or similar is no more relevant than the differences between various Directv DVRs are.


Yeah, but I suspect hat means all new customers, not sure thy would change out all existing unless they had to. Time will tell!


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

slice1900 said:


> Did you miss all the years where AT&T had no caps for wireless data, and Verizon and others matched them for a time? Then AT&T decided it should be capped to 2GB but grandfathered in existing users. Not sure if there are still some uncapped people - I think if they never changed anything in their contract and bought their phones for full price there might still be some out there.


Yeah, as someone else mentioned, that was when cell phones couldn't really use much data, and if you changed plans, it went away. Granted Sprint still offers unlimited.


----------



## mkdtv21 (May 27, 2007)

Since Uverse TV uses Microsoft Media Room as the software for their boxes and Microsoft stopped supporting and developing Media room since it sold it to Ericsson, it makes sense that ATT would move Uverse TV over to Directv software platform. I just hope that ATT will get the Directv software to run less buggy and faster than it currently is.


----------

