# AT&T Agrees to Purchase DirecTV (Was: ATT looking to buy Direct TV)



## puri

AT&T Has Approached DirecTV About Possible Acquisition

By 
SHALINI RAMACHANDRAN and 
THOMAS GRYTA

April 30, 2014 11:05 p.m. ET

AT&T has approached DirecTV about a possible acquisition of the satellite TV firm, say people familiar with the situation, the latest sign of a possible shakeup in the television industry.
A combination of AT&T with satellite TV firm DirecTV would create a pay television giant close in size to where Comcast Corp. will be if it completes its pending acquisition of Time Warner Cable.
DirecTV is the second biggest pay TV...
Full Story in Wall Street Journal


----------



## peds48

ain't happening, but if it did, I would drop them like a hot potato and find me another job along the way!


----------



## JosephB

AT&T has been flirting with Dish for years. I suppose the fact that a Dish/AT&T deal never happened was probably all on Charlie Ergen, and nowadays would be hard to do since Dish owns so much terrestrial wireless spectrum.

This makes a lot of sense. It brings AT&T to scale on video customers and can bring down programming costs. It also brings them a new technology platform that they'd control, and allows them to free up bandwidth on U-Verse to dedicate to internet access.



peds48 said:


> ain't happening, but if it did, I would drop them like a hot potato and find me another job along the way!


Of course you have the inside scoop and know exactly what's going on in the executive suite at DirecTV


----------



## RAD

Always thought those two did make sense. AT&T doesn't have U-Verse nation wide so DIRECTV can be used to fill in the gaps. DIRECTV picks up a broadband partner and the millions of TV subs making it harder for content to fight them.



Sent from my iPhone using DBSTalk


----------



## Mark Holtz

From Reuters:

*AT&T has approached DirecTV about a possible acquisition -WSJ*


> AT&T Inc has approached DirecTV about a possible acquisition of the satellite TV company, the Wall Street Journal reported, citing people familiar with the situation.
> 
> A deal would likely be worth at least $40 billion, DirecTV's current market capitalization, the newspaper said.


FULL ARTICLE HERE


----------



## slice1900

JosephB said:


> This makes a lot of sense. It brings AT&T to scale on video customers and can bring down programming costs. It also brings them a new technology platform that they'd control, and allows them to free up bandwidth on U-Verse to dedicate to internet access.


I just don't see it. How much more negotiating leverage can they get from whatever AT&T adds than they already have with 20 million subscribers? Does anyone really believe Directv gets better pricing than Dish because of the extra 6 million subscribers?

I think the value in merging would be from the better deals they could offer customers with nationwide bundling of TV service and cellular. At least outside areas where U-verse is currently offered, within those areas it doesn't do the merged company much good to have two different ways of providing TV to customers.


----------



## john18

I would consider leaving at my first viable opportunity if that happened.


----------



## Matt L

Please, no. As a log time D sub I'd be quickly out the door. Higher prices and lower service and quality. Tried Uverse a while back, terrible service.


----------



## carlsbad_bolt_fan

Ugh. I'd really have to think about staying with D* if this happens.


----------



## prushing

The only way this would be good is if AT&T bought them, but left the DTV alone. Combine the billing for bundling, but let DTV handle the TV.


----------



## damondlt

Good I'm all for it.
I don't see a major change since more the half the country doesn't have Att.

But at least I would be able to get a wireless bundle, and not be forced into Verizon in doing so.


Sent from my Galaxy S5


----------



## lgb0250

AT&T has started discussions with DirecTV to possibly buy the satellite-TV operator, reports The Wall Street Journal.

Citing unnamed sources, the paper reported Wednesday evening that DirecTV would be "open to a deal."

AT&T and DirecTV couldn't be reached for comment.

If the two sides ever come to an agreement, it would be one of the largest -- if not the largest -- pay-TV industry acquisitions, possibly even surpassing Comcast's deal to buy Time Warner Cable for $45 billion. As of Wednesday, DirecTV's market value totaled about $39.6 billion.

DirecTV, based in El Segundo, Calif., had $8.6 billion in revenue last year and provides satellite-TV service to about 20 million subscribers in the U.S. and 17 million in Latin America.

AT&T's U-Verse TV service, which uses fiber optic lines, gained 201,000 customers in the first quarter to reach 5.7 million.


----------



## JosephB

slice1900 said:


> I just don't see it. How much more negotiating leverage can they get from whatever AT&T adds than they already have with 20 million subscribers? Does anyone really believe Directv gets better pricing than Dish because of the extra 6 million subscribers?
> 
> I think the value in merging would be from the better deals they could offer customers with nationwide bundling of TV service and cellular. At least outside areas where U-verse is currently offered, within those areas it doesn't do the merged company much good to have two different ways of providing TV to customers.


It's not DirecTV that gets the additional leverage, it's AT&T. The upside to DirecTV is that they sell the company for more than it's actually worth.

When they sell the company, DirecTV won't give a damn about the actual synergies or leverages or anything else. They'll be getting paid.


----------



## Scott Kocourek

Here is another article on this: http://thenextweb.com/us/2014/05/01/att-reportedly-looking-buy-satellite-tv-firm-directv/


----------



## DCSholtis

Ugh. I'd be out the door if this ever happened too. 

Sent from my XT1053 using DBSTalk mobile app


----------



## mreposter

JosephB said:


> &#8230;.. It also brings them a new technology platform that they'd control, and allows them to free up bandwidth on U-Verse to dedicate to internet access&#8230;.


Are you suggesting that AT&T would retrofit existing Uverse customers with D* dishes and move all video services to satellite? Sounds doubtful.


----------



## sweep49

I have a strong dislike of AT&T and really hope this does not happen.


----------



## rmmccann

I'm hoping this doesn't happen. I'll be switching to Dish or back to my Cableco if it does. ATT is where customer service goes to die.


----------



## TheRatPatrol

[QUOTE="mre]Are you suggesting that AT&T would retrofit existing Uverse customers with D* dishes and move all video services to satellite? Sounds doubtful.

[/QUOTE]Wouldn't that be easier then laying new fiber lines?


----------



## JoeTheDragon

DirecTV and Uverse have better TV then comcast.

Comcast can't even show all there IN MARKET RSN HD feeds or other stuff like BTN ALTs in HD or Premier League Extra Time as real channels.


----------



## jimmie57

rmmccann said:


> I'm hoping this doesn't happen. I'll be switching to Dish or back to my Cableco if it does. ATT is where customer service goes to die.


I have AT&T home phone and I do hate to have to call their customer service for sure.


----------



## CraigerM

DirecTV already partners with UVerse to offer UVerse Internet with DirecTV. This way you could do a triple bundle package with DirecTV, UVerse Internet and Phone all on one bill.


----------



## Athlon646464

I wonder if there is a connection?

*DIRECTV Names Jennifer Cho Senior Vice President and Treasurer*

From the article _posted yesterday_:

*"Jennifer's more than 25 years of finance experience in areas ranging from credit and risk management to mergers and acquisitions makes her an excellent addition to DIRECTV and the treasury team."*


----------



## JosephB

mreposter said:


> Are you suggesting that AT&T would retrofit existing Uverse customers with D* dishes and move all video services to satellite? Sounds doubtful.


No, but to think that is the only option is short-sighted.

Even if they don't do ANY integration between U-Verse and DirecTV, you have an immense savings by combining the install and distribution networks. Then, you eliminate the entire back office infrastructure from DirecTV like HR, finance, IT, etc.

BUT, there are plenty of short, medium, and long term options.

First, AT&T instantly has an in-house double/triple play nationwide (bundle satellite TV with LTE internet and cell phone). DirecTV gets out from under the lack of internet service. Slightly longer term, imagine every DirecTV box having an LTE modem inside that gives every single customer two-way communication to the box for VOD, PPV, etc. Even if downloads are done over the satellite.

Further out, imagine a satellite dish on every AT&T cell tower and U-Verse DSLAM. Distributing the video via satellite frees up massive amounts of bandwidth on their wireline network. If they can work out a way to directly distribute the satellite signal over their copper network instead of switching it to IP, then that is even better.

Even if you can't "merge" the U-Verse and satellite technologies, you now have options for just about any customer who comes to you: satellite dish if you have LOS and an installable location, U-Verse if you don't have LOS, live in an apartment, etc.

CNBC was talking about it earlier, and they also made a good point. AT&T had a deal to buy Dish on the table and it fell apart at the last minute. This may be a smokescreen to get Charlie to come back to the table and sell Dish. Also, if a deal is going to be done at all, putting this on the table while Comcast is trying to buy Time Warner Cable means that if one deal happens (IE: if the feds were going to let Comcast go through) both deals will have to happen.


----------



## hdtvfan0001

Heaven help us if this would ever happen.


----------



## Bob Coxner

I was 100% opposed to the Dish merger. This one I'm pretty neutral. It would potentially allow for some nice bundles.

My assumption is that it would make sense for AT&T to allow DirecTV to continue to operate just as it is now. Why fix something that isn't broken? That would mean the same customer service reps that we have today.

I'm more worried about Comcast + TWC. I get my internet and phone via TWC and I'm actually happy with it. 20mbps speed for $35 a month and $10 a month for phone with no data caps. I hear nothing but horror stories from Comcast subs. Or, I could be part of the spunoff group that's sold to Charter. I know nothing about them.


----------



## CraigerM

JosephB said:


> No, but to think that is the only option is short-sighted.
> 
> Even if they don't do ANY integration between U-Verse and DirecTV, you have an immense savings by combining the install and distribution networks. Then, you eliminate the entire back office infrastructure from DirecTV like HR, finance, IT, etc.
> 
> BUT, there are plenty of short, medium, and long term options.
> 
> First, AT&T instantly has an in-house double/triple play nationwide (bundle satellite TV with LTE internet and cell phone). DirecTV gets out from under the lack of internet service. Slightly longer term, imagine every DirecTV box having an LTE modem inside that gives every single customer two-way communication to the box for VOD, PPV, etc. Even if downloads are done over the satellite.
> 
> Further out, imagine a satellite dish on every AT&T cell tower and U-Verse DSLAM. Distributing the video via satellite frees up massive amounts of bandwidth on their wireline network. If they can work out a way to directly distribute the satellite signal over their copper network instead of switching it to IP, then that is even better.
> 
> Even if you can't "merge" the U-Verse and satellite technologies, you now have options for just about any customer who comes to you: satellite dish if you have LOS and an installable location, U-Verse if you don't have LOS, live in an apartment, etc.
> 
> CNBC was talking about it earlier, and they also made a good point. AT&T had a deal to buy Dish on the table and it fell apart at the last minute. This may be a smokescreen to get Charlie to come back to the table and sell Dish. Also, if a deal is going to be done at all, putting this on the table while Comcast is trying to buy Time Warner Cable means that if one deal happens (IE: if the feds were going to let Comcast go through) both deals will have to happen.


What about the opposite having UVerse taking down DTV's dishes and replacing DTV's boxes with UVerse's?

I also read that one FCC person thinks the merger if it happens would be approved to compete with Comcast/Time Warner merger if that is approved.


----------



## JosephB

CraigerM said:


> What about the opposite having UVerse taking down DTV's dishes and replacing DTV's boxes with UVerse's?


Well, since U-Verse's geographic availability is severely limited, I doubt that would happen very much. Plus, sticking with DirecTV vs. DSL-distributed video is much more efficient and cost effective. AT&T has been trying to buy Dish for longer than they've been offering U-Verse for a reason.


----------



## mnassour

AT&T can go to hell. I will rip the wires from the dish, yank then out of the ground, sell the copper for cash and trash the rest the day this happens.

THE VERGE knows what's coming.....

http://www.theverge.com/2014/4/30/5666628/your-corporate-internet-nightmare-starts-now


----------



## JosephB

A deal like this has to happen. A video only company will not survive. Dish knows this and that's why they've bought up so much wireless spectrum. Whether it's AT&T or T-Mobile/Sprint or otherwise, eventually every company will have video, internet access of some kind, and wireless under the same roof.


----------



## mnassour

....or will just be part of a larger conglomerate offering video, internet access of some kind, and wireless...and we'll have access to only one conglomerate.


----------



## TDK1044

As if getting The Weather Channel back wasn't bad enough :grin:


----------



## SteveHas

I love you D*, but this kind of betrayal would warrant our permanent separation.
Please don't do this, make another pass at Dish instead

:nono: :nono: :nono: :nono: :nono: :nono: :nono: :nono:


----------



## prushing

CraigerM said:


> What about the opposite having UVerse taking down DTV's dishes and replacing DTV's boxes with UVerse's?
> 
> I also read that one FCC person thinks the merger if it happens would be approved to compete with Comcast/Time Warner merger if that is approved.


That would cause a lot of people to leave. Uverse is not equal to DTV capabilities and the only benefit they have over DTV is no dish and bundling options.


----------



## CraigerM

After reading posts in here I think people would still be able to keep DTV's equipment and use their service. All it will probably do is simplify your bill. You could have DTV, UVerse Internet and Phone all on one bill, Maybe the bill wouldn't say DTV on it it would say ATT. Unless ATT's customer service is bad and DTV's is better? Or the combined customer service would make both better?


----------



## carlsbad_bolt_fan

TheRatPatrol said:


> Wouldn't that be easier then laying new fiber lines?


An AT&T engineer I know says that AT&T is committed to going ALL fiber. They want to have at least 1mb up/down to each home & 10mb up/down to each business. Having said that and knowing that it's "not if but when AT&T" screws something up or lies to a potential customer, I'm not holding my breath.


----------



## mgavs

I can't understand people thinking nothing would happen. I have had it with AT&T. Bills would go up (way up eventually), service down, less choice of equipment, customer service in the toilet, and less competition, etc. it would be a disaster for us on directv. I hope and pray this does not happen. It would be time to go netflix, etc. Just google AT&T to find how many thousands hate AT&T, for every two or three that like them. I have been dealing with them fow 25 years, I have a 50 pair T1 I used for multiple 4 wire leased lines and 7 lines. I finally am down to 1 for backup DSL now that I have 50 Meg Comcast (yes I hate AT&T that much I brought in Comcast). I don't usually give opinions here but take my word this would be a very very bad thing!


----------



## carlsbad_bolt_fan

CraigerM said:


> After reading posts in here I think people would still be able to keep DTV's equipment and use their service. All it will probably do is simplify your bill. You could have DTV, UVerse Internet and Phone all on one bill, Maybe the bill wouldn't say DTV on it it would say ATT. Unless ATT's customer service is bad and DTV's is better? Or the combined customer service would make both better?


Simplifying my bill ain't at the top of my list. I want good content first, decent (not perfect) customer service second. Having dealt with AT&T personally and professionally for nearly 30 years and D* since 2000 I can say that both customer service offerings are lacking. Combining the two wouldn't make that better. ScrUverse is HORRIBLE where I live (Carlsbad, CA) and were one of the first areas in the country to get it.


----------



## CraigerM

Just thought of something would they would do something like this, in areas with both DTV and UVerse they would replace DTV with UVerse? With areas without UVerse they would use DTV? In areas with line of sight issues they would use UVerse.


----------



## JosephB

carlsbad_bolt_fan said:


> An AT&T engineer I know says that AT&T is committed to going ALL fiber. They want to have at least 1mb up/down to each home & 10mb up/down to each business. Having said that and knowing that it's "not if but when AT&T" screws something up or lies to a potential customer, I'm not holding my breath.


All the evidence points to the opposite, at least in terms of fiber. First off 10/1 is possible using the copper they have in the ground now. Secondly, in the extremely limited areas they are still upgrading their wireline infrastructure they are still rolling out VDSL or ADSL2+. They are rolling out fiber in Austin, Tx but that is so small it's not worth mentioning. They just sold off the entire state of Connecticut. All evidence points to their desire to move as much to wireless as possible.


----------



## hdtvfan0001

JosephB said:


> All the evidence points to the opposite, at least in terms of fiber. First off 10/1 is possible using the copper they have in the ground now. Secondly, in the extremely limited areas they are still upgrading their wireline infrastructure they are still rolling out VDSL or ADSL2+. They are rolling out fiber in Austin, Tx but that is so small it's not worth mentioning. They just sold off the entire state of Connecticut. All evidence points to their desire to move as much to wireless as possible.


Fact is I live in a city of more than 6 Million people and AT&T hasn't even rolled out UVerse to most of the residents after 4 years of "committing" to have it available - despite having a regional executive management center here as well.

AT&T is horrible in terms of executing technology rollouts.

Many have lived the nightmare.


----------



## rmmccann

This is in no way a win for me. I don't have access to ATT wireline services because I live in CenturyLink Hell. I don't really care about bundling and I wouldn't anyway because my cable company offers 30meg service for 40/mo and I have 40/year VoIP home phone.

I'll pay a little bit extra for quality service with excellent customer support. Everything else is secondary. From what I've seen from ATT, this will end up being the worst of both worlds, especially for those of us who don't live in dense metros.


----------



## NR4P

It's trial balloon as the old PR political types used to say.

With Congress and FTC and others debating the Comcast/TWC merger, its a message that if that one gets approved, AT&T/Directv could be next.

The 2011 AT&T bid for T-mobile cost AT&T about $4B when it was not approved.
My POV is they are floating the idea while the Comcast/TWC deal is alive to gather unofficial feedback.


----------



## Paul Secic

Matt L said:


> Please, no. As a log time D sub I'd be quickly out the door. Higher prices and lower service and quality. Tried Uverse a while back, terrible service.


I had U-verse in 2006 and we had lots of problems, outage for 14 hours. We went back to Dish..


----------



## CraigerM

Paul Secic said:


> I had U-verse in 2006 and we had lots of problems, outage for 14 hours. We went back to Dish..


They have probably improved a lot since then right?

I guess with UVerse they would have more multiple points of failure then DTV would? I still would be afraid while watching one of my favorite shows during heavy downpours and snow then HD goes out longer than SD does. However with UVerse it could go down even in good weather and for longer periods of time. With DTV even with HD weather outages it would be back up in ten mins.


----------



## damondlt

One technology from directv or Att are not even close to the same, so not sure why everyone is getting their panties in a twist if a merger took place. 

It's not like Att is going shut down Directv's products and services and force yous into u verse, when more then 3/4 of Att land line service isn't even available in the USA.
Benifits is all that comes to mind.

With wireless bundle options and eventually maybe Internet. 

I would be more worried if Verizon was buying directv. 

Sent from my Galaxy S5


----------



## TheRatPatrol

damondlt said:


> I would be more worried if Verizon was buying directv.


Why?

My cowork had AT&T and she couldn't get a signal at work. I've never had any issues with Verizon.


----------



## VLaslow

I don't like AT&T on various grounds the most egregious being when they changed the data plan for the first iPads from month to month unlimited for $25 to 2GB per month within two weeks of the release of the iPad. I never figured out whether Steve Jobs knew it was going to happen or not. U-Verse is a joke, according to a relative who has it.

How will customer service be? Well, if it mirrors AT&T, pretty sad.

Who do we think will pay for this merger? Answer, we will!

Oh well, we're only the customer.


----------



## JosephB

TheRatPatrol said:


> Why?
> 
> My cowork had AT&T and she couldn't get a signal at work. I've never had any issues with Verizon.


Of course, though, that has nothing to do with DirecTV if AT&T takes them over. They aren't going to move TV distribution to their wireless network.


----------



## gt2982a

I have Uverse Internet FTTH and Directv. I don't want Uverse TV (had it at an apartment and hated it). Don't get me started on Uverse Internet. Why do I have to have an asymetric data profile when I have a fiber optic cable to my house? I would kill for symetrical upload / downloads like FiOS. Paying $40.00 for 12 Mbps up / 1 Mbps down.


----------



## sum_random_dork

As a few others have noted, this isn't DirecTV buying/merging with AT&T this is all about AT&T looking to challenge Comcast. Remember AT&T is also in discussions to start up a video service to compete with Hulu/Amazon/Netflix as well. AT&T knows they need a larger video delivery service to compete with Comcast, long term the roll out of UVerse Video is very costly. Acquiring DirecTV would give them access to 20 million customers they could then package together and sell phone and internet service to. They could also package video on demand and other internet related video services to their AT&T mobile customers. As we all know this isn't about the customer at all this is all about making shareholders happy.....


----------



## CraigerM

I forgot is UVerse going all fiber to home just for more bandwidth? Or does it also help with preventing outages and improving HD PQ?


----------



## sigma1914

I've had better CS and billing with AT&T than DirecTV. I've never in 10 years (2+ with internet and TV) have had billing errors. I definitely have with DircTV. Technology wise, nothing will change whatsoever so it's a moot point.


----------



## PK6301

Here is a thought to ponder, If and I say If AT&T buys D* and they slowly degrade and dismantle the system, do we then get to get out of our 2 year contracts for loss of service and breach of contract ? If AT&T is 100% committed to fiber as stated earlier than we no longer have any commitment to honor. Just a Random Thought..


----------



## nmetro

if AT&T was like the cable company, here in Longmont before Comcast bought it, then DISH will be getting me back. What we had here, the former TCI vis a vis AT&T was a disaster, which prompted me to get satellite from DISH, back in 1998.


----------



## wingrider01

CraigerM said:


> After reading posts in here I think people would still be able to keep DTV's equipment and use their service. All it will probably do is simplify your bill. You could have DTV, UVerse Internet and Phone all on one bill, Maybe the bill wouldn't say DTV on it it would say ATT. Unless ATT's customer service is bad and DTV's is better? Or the combined customer service would make both better?


Already have this, POTS line, cellular and Directv on a single bill from ATT


----------



## slice1900

JosephB said:


> All the evidence points to the opposite, at least in terms of fiber. First off 10/1 is possible using the copper they have in the ground now. Secondly, in the extremely limited areas they are still upgrading their wireline infrastructure they are still rolling out VDSL or ADSL2+. They are rolling out fiber in Austin, Tx but that is so small it's not worth mentioning. They just sold off the entire state of Connecticut. All evidence points to their desire to move as much to wireless as possible.


To achieve 1Mb to all residential customers in AT&T's footprint would be huge, something no other telco is even trying to accomplish. This isn't about providing crappy slow service to people in cities, it is about providing broadband to unserved rural customers who have no broadband at all today, whether they're in AT&T, Verizon or CenturyLink country.

In other words, they're not talking about fiber to the home, but getting fiber close enough that they can deliver broadband to everyone. They can probably leverage the fiber they're pulling to all their cell towers.


----------



## HarleyD

hdtvfan0001 said:


> Fact is I live in a city of more than 6 Million people and AT&T hasn't even rolled out UVerse to most of the residents after 4 years of "committing" to have it available - despite having a regional executive management center here as well.
> 
> AT&T is horrible in terms of executing technology rollouts.
> 
> Many have lived the nightmare.


Meanwhile, I live in Winter Haven, Florida...a podunk little town of under 35,000 halfway between Tampa and Orlando and I was one of the very first homes to have FiOS available years ago. In fact my internet and phone are FiOS.

Go figure.


----------



## JosephB

slice1900 said:


> To achieve 1Mb to all residential customers in AT&T's footprint would be huge, something no other telco is even trying to accomplish. This isn't about providing crappy slow service to people in cities, it is about providing broadband to unserved rural customers who have no broadband at all today, whether they're in AT&T, Verizon or CenturyLink country.
> 
> In other words, they're not talking about fiber to the home, but getting fiber close enough that they can deliver broadband to everyone. They can probably leverage the fiber they're pulling to all their cell towers.


But they are specifically not rolling out any more old school DSL. Their "IP transition" is largely going to be to force people onto LTE based wireless services. No actions taken by AT&T to this point nor any statements made by AT&T to this point show any desire to extend 10/1 wireline service to 100% of the homes and businesses in their service area. They actually point to the opposite.


----------



## harsh

Given that such a deal wouldn't much extend AT&T's core business, I'm not sure what's in it for them.

It doesn't add any wireless structure, no phone structure, no broadband structure and it brings the payload of DIRECTV LA along with it (that may make for competitive issues in some of those markets).


----------



## JosephB

harsh said:


> Given that such a deal wouldn't much extend AT&T's core business, I'm not sure what's in it for them.
> 
> It doesn't add any wireless structure, no phone structure, no broadband structure and it brings the payload of DIRECTV LA along with it (that may make for competitive issues in some of those markets).


Why would DirecTV LA make for competitive issues in those markets? AT&T doesn't run any Latin American direct to home video services so I'm confused.

Also, what's in it for AT&T is to expand their video offerings. They get a national customer base, an in-orbit inventory of satellites, and DirecTV's technology platform. It's clear that in the near future companies are going to need the full range of video AND internet to survive.


----------



## PCampbell

I have Uverse for voice and internet and it works well, if they could make a good bundle for all three and cell then they could compete with Comcast better. At this point it is only talk.


----------



## Mayor

Beyond how bad AT&T can be, do most people overlook the glaring problem with this? At&t has a physical presence is most, if not all, states. Now try to not slip on the drool accumulated on the ground from all the states, counties, cities, and neighborhoods that are taxing bodies. ATT-DirecTV as a merged companies leaves the door fully open for DirecTV services to be taxed. I know a lot of people here are annoyed when the annual February increase raises our bills $2-4 dollars a month. When the beast of local taxing is unleashed on satellite tv, the bill will immediately jump $15 or more a month. For this reason alone, this merger is awful. This merger would face no regulatory scrutiny because of the tax windfall that is too difficult to pass up. I will find it very difficult to keep DirecTV if I am forced to shell out $180+ per year just for taxes. That is the tipping point.


----------



## damondlt

TheRatPatrol said:


> Why?
> 
> My cowork had AT&T and she couldn't get a signal at work. I've never had any issues with Verizon.


I will never give Verizon a cent, ever again.

Sent from my Galaxy S5


----------



## peds48

damondlt said:


> I will never give Verizon a cent, ever again.
> 
> Sent from my Galaxy S5


and I the same "beef" but with AT&T


----------



## damondlt

Mayor said:


> At&t has a physical presence is most, if not all, states.


In wireless form, yes .

But in Land line services , no not even close.

Sent from my Galaxy S5


----------



## mkdtv21

If this happens, does this mean if U-verse doesn't serve my area I won't be able to have Directv?


----------



## damondlt

peds48 said:


> and I the same "beef" but with AT&T


No objection. 
But Att wireless as been nothing but fantastic. Their customer service is Number 1 IMO.
I started out with 3 lines 2GB data paying $228 per month. And 8 months later I pay $180 total for 4 lines and and 10 GB data.

ATT knows how to run a business.
I delt with Verizon for 15 years and they can take their service and drop off the face of the earth.
Sent from my Galaxy S5


----------



## Skyboss

PK6301 said:


> Here is a thought to ponder, If and I say If AT&T buys D* and they slowly degrade and dismantle the system, do we then get to get out of our 2 year contracts for loss of service and breach of contract ? If AT&T is 100% committed to fiber as stated earlier than we no longer have any commitment to honor. Just a Random Thought..


They aren't going to buy a satellite company with nationwide coverage only to dismantle it. If anything, they want to get you off the wire. They are already discussing a 4G in-flight product to compete with gogo that would require a new US wide network of ground based transmitters for the service. No doubt this would also provide nationwide 4G type coverage right to your DirecTV box if they wanted to.



mkdtv21 said:


> If this happens, does this mean if U-verse doesn't serve my area I won't be able to have Directv?


It probably means you'll be able to get DirecTV and perhaps a 4G home internet product.


----------



## slice1900

Mayor said:


> Beyond how bad AT&T can be, do most people overlook the glaring problem with this? At&t has a physical presence is most, if not all, states. Now try to not slip on the drool accumulated on the ground from all the states, counties, cities, and neighborhoods that are taxing bodies. ATT-DirecTV as a merged companies leaves the door fully open for DirecTV services to be taxed. I know a lot of people here are annoyed when the annual February increase raises our bills $2-4 dollars a month. When the beast of local taxing is unleashed on satellite tv, the bill will immediately jump $15 or more a month. For this reason alone, this merger is awful. This merger would face no regulatory scrutiny because of the tax windfall that is too difficult to pass up. I will find it very difficult to keep DirecTV if I am forced to shell out $180+ per year just for taxes. That is the tipping point.


The law in most/all states wouldn't allow it. Cable companies are treated differently because they require cooperation from the local government for access to public right of way to lay cable, satellite companies don't.

If they were able to tax satellite TV they would already be doing so. No city is going to give up potential revenue, and whether they're owned by a cable or phone company doesn't change that.


----------



## peds48

damondlt said:


> No objection.
> But Att wireless as been nothing but fantastic. Their customer service is Number 1 IMO.
> I started out with 3 lines 2GB data paying $228 per month. And 8 months later I pay $180 total for 4 lines and and 10 GB data.
> 
> ATT knows how to run a business.
> I delt with Verizon for 15 years and they can take their service and drop off the face of the earth.
> Sent from my Galaxy S5


I started with one line paying $45 a months, many years alter I had 3 iPhones plus an iPad paying $230 month. seeing I could save over $80 a month with T-mo, I called them to renegotiate when I got my new 5s and they would not budge. 12 years of paying them good money did not matte to them


----------



## JosephB

Mayor said:


> Beyond how bad AT&T can be, do most people overlook the glaring problem with this? At&t has a physical presence is most, if not all, states. Now try to not slip on the drool accumulated on the ground from all the states, counties, cities, and neighborhoods that are taxing bodies. ATT-DirecTV as a merged companies leaves the door fully open for DirecTV services to be taxed. I know a lot of people here are annoyed when the annual February increase raises our bills $2-4 dollars a month. When the beast of local taxing is unleashed on satellite tv, the bill will immediately jump $15 or more a month. For this reason alone, this merger is awful. This merger would face no regulatory scrutiny because of the tax windfall that is too difficult to pass up. I will find it very difficult to keep DirecTV if I am forced to shell out $180+ per year just for taxes. That is the tipping point.


What state taxes cable $15 a month? Good grief, I'm a Democrat, but I think even I'd move if I had a tax burden that high


----------



## RunnerFL

john18 said:


> I would consider leaving at my first viable opportunity if that happened.


So would I! AT&T is my last choice for anything.


----------



## CraigerM

Man people are really ripping on ATT. Is UVerse that bad? Even worse than Charter?


----------



## peds48

For me ATT&T is not even a choice


----------



## peds48

CraigerM said:


> Man people are really ripping on ATT. Is UVerse that bad? Even worse than Charter?


most people AT&T have dealt with AT&T as a wireless provider, that is where they have 108 millions subscribers


----------



## sigma1914

CraigerM said:


> Man people are really ripping on ATT. Is UVerse that bad? Even worse than Charter?


There boxes are pretty crappy and PQ isn't good. The internet is great here, always 18/2 speeds. Customer service has been great... got same day truck roll one day after a quick internet chat.


----------



## acostapimps

I experienced AT&T phone service before and it was terrible, plus CS was horrible to say the least, Although I do have wireless cell service with them currently, On a Note 2 which is ok, but everything else don't bother, This would break the camels back if they do merge, I'll go strictly Netflix and OTA.


----------



## Laxguy

carlsbad_bolt_fan said:


> An AT&T engineer I know says that AT&T is committed to going ALL fiber. They want to have at least 1mb up/down to each home & 10mb up/down to each business. Having said that and knowing that it's "not if but when AT&T" screws something up or lies to a potential customer, I'm not holding my breath.


That's really not a difficult goal: DL-like service will get you three Megs down and one up already. Fiber should do a whole lot more.


----------



## fluffybear

john18 said:


> I would consider leaving at my first viable opportunity if that happened.


Personally, I would not mind seeing it..


----------



## CraigerM

I think bundle package choices could be interesting with a ATT/DTV merger. You could have DTV/ATT Smart Phone with Internet bundle. Or DTV/UVerse Internet and Phone bundle ect.


----------



## Laxguy

mkdtv21 said:


> If this happens, does this mean if U-verse doesn't serve my area I won't be able to have Directv?


That is extremely unlikely. You'll be untouched.


----------



## Eva

Some areas AT&T uses Direct when Uverse service is not available.


----------



## Laxguy

I am rather for this combo. And from a man who used to rail at "Ma Bell", a long time ago, and many incarnations ago. Now I've had ATT phone service for ten years or so, and have U-verse at my country house (slo internet only), I have been impressed with their customer service, as well as the basic service of cell phone and internet. 

Building out a huge fiber network that can serve cell phone, internet and TV makes a lot of synergistic sense, and integrating some of it with satellite TV makes sense also.


----------



## jftimmers

Ugh. I've dealt with AT&T before and their customer service is the absolute worst around. I used to get my internet through AT&T, and their reliability and customer service was so bad I switched to Comcast, of all companies. I once tried to sign up for UVerse (a temporary move with no view of the southern sky) and it took me three days of trying just to get through to someone. Then it took them five weeks to do the install.

I even dropped my home phone after a particularly terrible experience with AT&T customer service.

I don't know what I'd do if DirecTV was bought by A&T. I'd want to leave, but my only other option would be Comcast, and they're only marginally better in the customer service area, or Dish. 

All I know is that from my experience the only thing AT&T is good at is cashing my checks.


----------



## damondlt

JosephB said:


> What state taxes cable $15 a month? Good grief, I'm a Democrat, but I think even I'd move if I had a tax burden that high


Not Pa, taxes are about $ 10-13 per hundred on Phone and Cable Tv.

That's sales taxes, Fcc, 911 and sometimes there is a local franchise fee, or township/borough fees.
Internet service is not taxed at all.

Sent from my Galaxy S5


----------



## Bob Coxner

Mayor said:


> Beyond how bad AT&T can be, do most people overlook the glaring problem with this? At&t has a physical presence is most, if not all, states. Now try to not slip on the drool accumulated on the ground from all the states, counties, cities, and neighborhoods that are taxing bodies. ATT-DirecTV as a merged companies leaves the door fully open for DirecTV services to be taxed. I know a lot of people here are annoyed when the annual February increase raises our bills $2-4 dollars a month. When the beast of local taxing is unleashed on satellite tv, the bill will immediately jump $15 or more a month. For this reason alone, this merger is awful. This merger would face no regulatory scrutiny because of the tax windfall that is too difficult to pass up. I will find it very difficult to keep DirecTV if I am forced to shell out $180+ per year just for taxes. That is the tipping point.


I'm in Texas and already pay sales taxes on my DTV bill. As for "states"...what state charges a tax other than sales tax on video service? I have local taxes ,county/city, but those are property taxes (includes school, water and sewer taxes) and have nothing to do with cable or satellite. I don't see that anything would change for me in terms of taxes no matter who owns what.


----------



## JosephB

I don't think "physical presence" sales tax applies to video service anyway. Not to mention that DirecTV has a physical presence in pretty much every state (installers), too.


----------



## RunnerFL

CraigerM said:


> Man people are really ripping on ATT. Is UVerse that bad? Even worse than Charter?


If u-verse were the only choice in my neighborhood, I'd move. Their Internet is too limited. Only 10 devices? Only Wireless G? No thanks...


----------



## Laxguy

RunnerFL said:


> If u-verse were the only choice in my neighborhood, I'd move. Their Internet is too limited. Only 10 devices? Only Wireless G? No thanks...


I do wonder how much variation there may be in localities- I am guessing quite a lot. I used to despise ATT, but have gone 180 based on experience the last ten years.


----------



## peds48

RunnerFL said:


> If u-verse were the only choice in my neighborhood, I'd move. Their Internet is too limited. Only 10 devices? Only Wireless G? No thanks...


how can they limit to 10 devices? if you only need one public IP address and your router handles your LAN. why would they care?


----------



## prushing

RunnerFL said:


> If u-verse were the only choice in my neighborhood, I'd move. Their Internet is too limited. Only 10 devices? Only Wireless G? No thanks...


I can connect how many decives I want to my router, I have wireless N, and I have 45mbps

you may want to update on their capabilities now, I have no problems with the internet


----------



## JosephB

peds48 said:


> how can they limit to 10 devices? if you only need one public IP address and your router handles your LAN. why would they care?


The U-Verse gateway/modem serves as a router. There's no reason you can't use your own, but he was probably talking about the capabilities of the equipment as provided.


----------



## onan38

Where i live i have been a AT&T DSL customer for 8+ years only had service tech out 3 or 4 times for problems in all those years. It wouldn't surprise me a bit to see AT&T buy Directv. I just had uverse internet come into my town ( They don't offer uverse tv here yet.) Just had a tech out last week for a problem with my line that he fixed.While i was talking to him i asked if alot of DSL customers were jumping to uverse and he told me yes most were and it wouldn't be long that all DSL customers would have to upgrade or go somewhere else.So i called AT&T and ask about uverse.Now i pay $52.00 a month for 6 meg Dsl and for the same speed on uverse for the first year $34.95 then regular rate the next year,but they want me to pay $100.00 up front for the new router i told them no way and i would just wait until they got rid of DSL in my area to make that decision.The tech that was here earlier in the day left me his number in-case i had any issues with my DSL.So i gave him a call to ask why uverse was better than DSL.He told me its wasn't really any better than dsl but it was cheaper for AT&T to maintain and fix more problems remotely he told me that new fiber had been run to our towns AT&T shack but it was still copper to most peoples homes and wouldn't help people just outside my town who couldn't even get wired internet with AT&T then told me that AT&T was in talks with Directv to buy them out which blew my mind at the time and made me laugh.He said that news had been going around AT&T employees for a few weeks now and they had lobbyist in Washington testing the waters.He said he had no doubt in his mind that AT&T was going after Directv at almost any cost because it was the next step in their plan to provide tv service to more of their customers that uverse couldn't do as it would cost them to much to run fiber to areas outside of smaller communities which makes me think he may be right.Here is a article from 2013 on my state Kentucky and AT&T. AT&T Tells Kentucky That Cutting DSL Lines = 'Upgrades'

http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/ATT-Tells-Kentucky-That-Cutting-DSL-Lines-Upgrades-123424


----------



## RACJ2

RunnerFL said:


> If u-verse were the only choice in my neighborhood, I'd move. Their Internet is too limited. Only 10 devices? Only Wireless G? No thanks...


I think you are basing this on outdated information. Depending on where you live http://www.att.com/att/gigapowercities/, if you can get the new Uverse with GigaPower, I don't think you would have those limitations. And you get speeds up to 300 Mbps now for $70/mo and upgraded for free to 1 Gbps later this year, sounds good to me. http://www.att.com/shop/u-verse/gigapower.html#fbid=nn79y86WJb5


----------



## APB101

I find the Comcast/Time-Warner Cable deal more troubling. Too much dominance. And this latest with AT&T U-verse/DirecTV is nothing official but, of course, it is one of those, "Once you open the doors…."

In my area, my neighbors can get AT&T U-verse but my specific address cannot. (That's according to when I last checked.)

The system in which video was rolled out by AT&T U-verse is faulty. And I think it is AT&T U-verse being more in need of making a deal with DirecTV.


----------



## adamson

This post will get muddled in with the likely many more posts to come...

Enough everyone about what your gains will be outside the scope of TV!! AT&T will destroy a quality provider in the long run. If this occurs we all have seen the last launch of future expansion. AT&T is only desperate to stay alive and important and if this really happens it will be a very sad day for me...right up there with Clorox changing Pine Sol Original. Im not in any mood for this whatsoever.


----------



## RunnerFL

peds48 said:


> how can they limit to 10 devices? if you only need one public IP address and your router handles your LAN. why would they care?


That was my question to them yesterday as I looked to kick Comcast to the curb. They had no answer, lied to me about Wireless G being "the fastest available", etc. Needless to say I decided to put up with Comcast being down for 1 more day.


----------



## RunnerFL

prushing said:


> I can connect how many decives I want to my router, I have wireless N, and I have 45mbps
> 
> you may want to update on their capabilities now, I have no problems with the internet


I got the information I posted from them yesterday. Maybe THEY need to update their capabilities.


----------



## RunnerFL

JosephB said:


> The U-Verse gateway/modem serves as a router. There's no reason you can't use your own, but he was probably talking about the capabilities of the equipment as provided.


Nothing was provided. Again, went solely by the information they gave me yesterday and it's the same info posted on their website.


----------



## RunnerFL

RACJ2 said:


> I think you are basing this on outdated information. Depending on where you live http://www.att.com/att/gigapowercities/, if you can get the new Uverse with GigaPower, I don't think you would have those limitations. And you get speeds up to 300 Mbps now for $70/mo and upgraded for free to 1 Gbps later this year, sounds good to me. http://www.att.com/shop/u-verse/gigapower.html#fbid=nn79y86WJb5


If you consider a live person on the phone yesterday and the information on their website "outdated information" then sure.

http://www.att.com/shop/internet.html Then go to the FAQ's at the bottom and select "How many wireless devices can be connected at the same time?" and you'll see " You can connect up to 10 devices total with any combination of wired or wireless devices, for example, 4 wired plus 6 wireless devices, 2 wired plus 8 wireless, etc."

There's no "GigaPower" listed on their site.


----------



## dpeters11

RunnerFL said:


> That was my question to them yesterday as I looked to kick Comcast to the curb. They had no answer, lied to me about Wireless G being "the fastest available", etc. Needless to say I decided to put up with Comcast being down for 1 more day.


I can almost see where they are coming from with that. In closer to real world speeds, G would do about 20 mbps, which would cover most of their speed tiers except the fastest. G is theoretically 54 mbps, but we all know that's unrealistic. There's a point where increases in wifi speeds only helps in internal traffic.

But personally I don't trust ISP provided equipment, generally not compatible with dd-wrt.


----------



## JosephB

RunnerFL said:


> If you consider a live person on the phone yesterday and the information on their website "outdated information" then sure.
> 
> http://www.att.com/shop/internet.html Then go to the FAQ's at the bottom and select "How many wireless devices can be connected at the same time?" and you'll see " You can connect up to 10 devices total with any combination of wired or wireless devices, for example, 4 wired plus 6 wireless devices, 2 wired plus 8 wireless, etc."
> 
> There's no "GigaPower" listed on their site.


You can use any router you want, so you are not limited to 10 devices or G wireless. Those stats are if you use AT&T's provided gateway.

Also, Gigapower is in very, very limited availability in Austin, TX. It has been announced for other cities but hasn't actually been rolled out in those other cities yet.


----------



## tonyd79

damondlt said:


> No objection.
> But Att wireless as been nothing but fantastic. Their customer service is Number 1 IMO.
> I started out with 3 lines 2GB data paying $228 per month. And 8 months later I pay $180 total for 4 lines and and 10 GB data.
> 
> ATT knows how to run a business.
> I delt with Verizon for 15 years and they can take their service and drop off the face of the earth.
> Sent from my Galaxy S5


I hear consumer complaints about ATT wireless all the time but I have had no problems with them for years. Unlike verizon, ATT has allowed me to stay on my grandfathered unlimited data plan through several phones and even a switch to LTE.

I have verizon wireless for data as well as ATT. My speeds are always faster on ATT. And customer service has been very good. Verizon (both wireless and fios) not so much.

ATT used to have a bandwidth issue in the DC area years ago and I think people are still burned by that and are stick in their thinking.


----------



## Paul Secic

CraigerM said:


> They have probably improved a lot since then right?
> 
> I guess with UVerse they would have more multiple points of failure then DTV would? I still would be afraid while watching one of my favorite shows during heavy downpours and snow then HD goes out longer than SD does. However with UVerse it could go down even in good weather and for longer periods of time. With DTV even with HD weather outages it would be back up in ten mins.


I don't know & don't care.


----------



## RunnerFL

JosephB said:


> You can use any router you want, so you are not limited to 10 devices or G wireless. Those stats are if you use AT&T's provided gateway.


Not according to them though. This just proves my point that their support is HORRIBLE and should I have to deal with them after a DirecTV merger/acquisition I'll no longer be a DirecTV customer.


----------



## slice1900

RunnerFL said:


> Not according to them though. This just proves my point that their support is HORRIBLE and should I have to deal with them after a DirecTV merger/acquisition I'll no longer be a DirecTV customer.


As if Directv CSRs don't provide wrong answers all the time? There have been two posters in the last couple weeks who were told that if they upgraded to a Genie they'd need to trade in their other DVRs/receivers for clients, as just one (of many) examples. That's a lot worse than your AT&T example of "HORRIBLE" support!

There are very few companies I would say provide good customer service, and Directv is most certainly not among them.


----------



## wingrider01

RunnerFL said:


> If you consider a live person on the phone yesterday and the information on their website "outdated information" then sure.
> 
> http://www.att.com/shop/internet.html Then go to the FAQ's at the bottom and select "How many wireless devices can be connected at the same time?" and you'll see " You can connect up to 10 devices total with any combination of wired or wireless devices, for example, 4 wired plus 6 wireless devices, 2 wired plus 8 wireless, etc."
> 
> There's no "GigaPower" listed on their site.


http://www.att.com/shop/en/Upper_Funnel_Promo_Modals/U-verse_Promo_Modals/gigapower-offer-details.html


----------



## RunnerFL

slice1900 said:


> As if Directv CSRs don't provide wrong answers all the time? There have been two posters in the last couple weeks who were told that if they upgraded to a Genie they'd need to trade in their other DVRs/receivers for clients, as just one (of many) examples. That's a lot worse than your AT&T example of "HORRIBLE" support!
> 
> There are very few companies I would say provide good customer service, and Directv is most certainly not among them.


I never said they don't. It's not worse at all. My example would keep new customers from going to AT&T, as it did me, your example wouldn't keep customers from coming to DirecTV because they are already there.


----------



## RunnerFL

wingrider01 said:


> http://www.att.com/shop/en/Upper_Funnel_Promo_Modals/U-verse_Promo_Modals/gigapower-offer-details.html


Yeah, I guess just no "GigaPower" in my area.


----------



## damondlt

slice1900 said:


> As if Directv CSRs don't provide wrong answers all the time? There have been two posters in the last couple weeks who were told that if they upgraded to a Genie they'd need to trade in their other DVRs/receivers for clients, as just one (of many) examples. That's a lot worse than your AT&T example of "HORRIBLE" support!
> 
> There are very few companies I would say provide good customer service, and Directv is most certainly not among them.


Well said. 

Sent from my Galaxy S5


----------



## harsh

peds48 said:


> how can they limit to 10 devices? if you only need one public IP address and your router handles your LAN.


If they're providing the gateway, they could theoretically limit the size of the DHCP table to 10 devices and disable static addressing entirely. Such is not to say that is what's going on, but this is one way they could do it.


> why would they care?


Terms of service? You get a bunch of devices using the connection for streaming or remote desktop/VNC and things get can get dicey where the network is built on serving up short http downloads. Using VPN can have some serious overhead as well.


----------



## tonyd79

slice1900 said:


> As if Directv CSRs don't provide wrong answers all the time? There have been two posters in the last couple weeks who were told that if they upgraded to a Genie they'd need to trade in their other DVRs/receivers for clients, as just one (of many) examples. That's a lot worse than your AT&T example of "HORRIBLE" support!
> 
> There are very few companies I would say provide good customer service, and Directv is most certainly not among them.


My personal experience with directv customer service has been very good but examples of bad service exist. I'd say directv has good CS but only because CS in this country has become generally horrible.

BTW. When I got my genie, I was told that the standard package is to trade in all and out in minis. No one said I "had to" but the wording from the CSR could sound like "had to" because they were defaulting to a standard configuration. I just said I didn't want minis and the CSR just had to type a few things and off we went.


----------



## carlsbad_bolt_fan

harsh said:


> If they're providing the gateway, they could theoretically limit the size of the DHCP table to 10 devices and disable static addressing entirely. Such is not to say that is what's going on, but this is one way they could do it.
> Terms of service? You get a bunch of devices using the connection for streaming or remote desktop/VNC and things get can get dicey where the network is built on serving up short http downloads. Using VPN can have some serious overhead as well


AT&T stopped providing static IP's for DSL customers 2 years ago. Had that confirmed by AT&T's customer service and an AT&T engineer.

Also, it's rather easy to set up your own wireless router. All you have to do is connect it to one of the free ports on AT&T's router. Been there, done that with clients many times.


----------



## CraigerM

What if this also changes DTV's mind about officially supporting a customers LAN? Then that would be easier on an installer when installing the Genie and RVU products. An installer would also not need to use Deca's or the wireless CCK's. They could just connect to the Ethernet outlets or UVerse's WIFI Gateway.


----------



## peds48

CraigerM said:


> What if this also changes DTV's mind about officially supporting a customers LAN?


never going to happen


----------



## Jonnylotto

I'm getting really sick of AT&T following me around like a frackin' T-1000. I started with Cellular One. Pacific Bell. and so on.


----------



## Laxguy

I'd be more concerned with men in black, black helicopters, and The TSA.


----------



## prushing

Uverse has wireless N gateway/routers
I'm not limited to 10 devices on any of the routers I've had from At&t

The 10 device limit may be from hotspots, but I don't think it has anything to do with Uverse


----------



## machavez00

Prism will be hitting our area soon. At least Prism has EWTN HD


----------



## acostapimps

Either this is publicity pressure because of a possible Comcast/Time Warner Cable merger, Or Directv is looking at the internet and or mobile side of things perhaps VOD streaming, Either way it doesn't look good for consumers in terms of pricing and service.


----------



## James Long

acostapimps said:


> Either this is publicity pressure because of a possible Comcast/Time Warner Cable merger, Or Directv is looking at the internet and or mobile side of things perhaps VOD streaming, Either way it doesn't look good for consumers in terms of pricing and service.


The story is "AT&T has approached DirecTV about a possible acquisition of the satellite TV firm" - not DirecTV looking at AT&T. If DirecTV sold it would be for AT&T's purposes, not DirecTV's.

DirecTV seems to have an open door policy for discussing mergers and buyouts ... which makes sense to protect their investors and give the investors the best deal possible. I have not seen a rumored offer yet that would be good for DirecTV customers - status quo would be the best outcome of any of the mergers and acquisition rumors I've seen.

How many owners has DirecTV had over the years? A different owner would not surprise me. AT&T being that owner would - especially with the government approvals required.


----------



## n3vino

Has U-Verse improved their HD quality? I have always heard that their HD quality is not near what D*'s HD quality is/was.


----------



## peds48

prushing said:


> The 10 device limit may be from hotspots, but I don't think it has anything to do with Uverse


this makes perfect sense.


----------



## sigma1914

n3vino said:


> Has U-Verse improved their HD quality? I have always heard that their HD quality is not near what D*'s HD quality is/was.


No, and it won't matter if they buy DirecTV.


----------



## harsh

carlsbad_bolt_fan said:


> AT&T stopped providing static IP's for DSL customers 2 years ago. Had that confirmed by AT&T's customer service and an AT&T engineer.


Perhaps not obviously, the question was how they could limit your LAN to 10 devices. AT&T's static Internet IP address policy has absolutely nothing to do with this.


> Also, it's rather easy to set up your own wireless router. All you have to do is connect it to one of the free ports on AT&T's router. Been there, done that with clients many times.


Indeed it is but that's well beyond the desire of many and something that they wouldn't bother to figure out.


----------



## harsh

James Long said:


> DirecTV seems to have an open door policy for discussing mergers and buyouts ... which makes sense to protect their investors and give the investors the best deal possible.


Not only does DIRECTV (DirecTV is no longer their official trademark since shortly after DISH changed their's to DISH Network) seem to be willing to talk to anyone, but their stock buyback practices make it a very easy acquisition target. Compare this to DISH where Charlie controls a majority of the votes.


----------



## harsh

peds48 said:


> never going to happen


Never is a very, very long time. The same was said at one time about HomePlug solutions and the Linksys gaming adapter.

At some point, broadband is probably going to get broader than MoCA will support.

Of course by that time, DBS will likely be marginalized to those who have weak (or no) broadband connections.


----------



## inkahauts

CraigerM said:


> What if this also changes DTV's mind about officially supporting a customers LAN? Then that would be easier on an installer when installing the Genie and RVU products. An installer would also not need to use Deca's or the wireless CCK's. They could just connect to the Ethernet outlets or UVerse's WIFI Gateway.


That would be harder not easier.


----------



## peds48

harsh said:


> Never is a very, very long time. The same was said at one time about HomePlug solutions and the Linksys gaming adapter.


and what was the results??? they were removed... So....


----------



## dsexton

I have ATT UVerse for internet in Austin. They say Gigapower is coming, but they can't say when, and where is questionable. I am limited to 18 mbps up and 1.5 down due to distance from their equipment until they provide Gigapower to my neighborhood. I have been stuck with their horrible Gateway since the install about 3 years ago when I replaced my ATT DSL. Their Gateway only provides Wireless G and the range is very limited within the house. Yes, you can use your own router but they don't support it, won't set it up that way when they install, and know nothing about it. It took me weeks online to figure out how to use my own router. Their Gateway has no true bridge mode so there are always some issues with using your own router. Because of being forced to use a router behind their Gateway, setting up any external incoming connections is very difficult (GenieGO). Most of the problems with setting up GenieGO result from having a router behind a Gateway. 

After UVerse install, my wireless would go down almost daily. This went on for months, despite multiple calls to ATT, who denied the issue was theirs. After they rolled out a firmware update, the issue went away. They never did admit it was their problem. I have checked on replacing their Gateway with my own modem, not an option. I have been bugging them to upgrade their Gateway since the install, they could care less.

I have been with DTV since 1995 and have been very happy most of the time. If ATT buys them, I won't let the door hit me in the butt on the way out.


----------



## damondlt

dsexton said:


> ATT buys them, I won't let the door hit me in the butt on the way out.


Where you going?

Sent from my Galaxy S5


----------



## longrider

I am surprised how many people will leave as soon as something like this happens. I would wait and see what happens first. First off, the technology you are using will not change. I could see upgrades slowing down but it would be years before that impacts subscribers. I would expect technical support to stay the same as you need people trained in DirecTV systems to support it. Billing could go down the tubes as that would be an easy area to consolidate but how often do you interact with the billing department? I will not be going anywhere, I will just continue evaluating the options every couple years. I know that so far Dish is competitive with but not noticeably better than DirecTV


----------



## Soccernut

Have both DIRECTV and ATT DSL for the last 6 years, upgraded to latest receivers with no major issues DIRECTV has most channels I want in HD. ATT DSL is fast enough for my needs and I can live with $46 per month, I installed my own modem the Gateway died after a year.
The whole issue for me is does the company has what I want? Can I afford it? Satellite service is getting too expensive and they know it. If a merger makes things more expensive then I can afford I would be forced to look for other options, like going to cheaper packages because what I can afford overrides what I want.


----------



## peds48

longrider said:


> I am surprised how many people will leave as soon as something like this happens. I would wait and see what happens first. First off, the technology you are using will not change.


But the company will. and once you have been done wrong by the same company what else can I expect


----------



## tonyd79

peds48 said:


> But the company will. and once you have been done wrong by the same company what else can I expect


Except that on a corporate level, an ATT purchase doesn't mean directv becomes ATT. Depends on how it is set up. Different parts of a large company can be completely different.

I'd wait to see if the product is what I want. It is shortsighted to dump a company just because it is a certain company. If they deliver what you want for a price you want, you buy it.


----------



## slice1900

longrider said:


> I am surprised how many people will leave as soon as something like this happens.


A lot of people may claim they will, but I doubt any would switch immediately except those who were planning on switching soon anyway. They'll simply make sure they don't do anything to incur a fresh two year commitment so they can quickly leave if their worst fears are realized.

It isn't like there would be any near term impact to customers of either Directv or Uverse, and given their relative sizes, it is more likely the AT&T customers would see changes before the Directv customers did. Uverse would become a new wired TV arm of Directv.

It would take several years before Directv customers saw any major changes from it, for better or worse.


----------



## BLWedge09

n3vino said:


> Has U-Verse improved their HD quality? I have always heard that their HD quality is not near what D*'s HD quality is/was.





sigma1914 said:


> No, and it won't matter if they buy DirecTV.


As someone who has had each for an extended period of time, I have to say that this answer isn't entirely true. Now, is the HD quality as good as DirecTV's? No, it isn't quite to that level yet. Is it a noticeable difference 90% of the time watching on my 60" plasma from about 10 feet away? Absolutely not. The only time I ever notice is on really dark fast moving actions scenes....where there is really a lot going on. It tends to get blocky at times when that happens. For instance, I noticed it a few times in Man of Steel.

I also had U-verse several years back right after it launched. Since that time, AT&T has improved their compression schemes dramatically. In fact, I'd say they've improved their compression schemes significantly just within the last year. it no longer has that all the time soft feel that it did when it first came out. Generally it is a very nice and crisp picture these days. i wouldn't put up with it if it wasn't.

As for the other part, i would agree that buying DirecTV probably wouldn't have any affect on U-verse at all. Two very different technologies and unlikely to be combined in any way anytime soon.


----------



## sigma1914

I disagree and have had both going on about 2 years now, side by side. I can always tell which is which, especially with sports. There's a noticeable lack of crispness on graphics and tickers. There's less details on a lot, too.


----------



## BLWedge09

sigma1914 said:


> I disagree and have had both going on about 2 years now, side by side. I can always tell which is which, especially with sports. There's a noticeable lack of crispness on graphics and tickers. There's less details on a lot, too.


Maybe where you live. Not where I live. At my house, that statement is simply not true.

Why on earth would you have both TV services in your house side by side for 2 years anyway?


----------



## sigma1914

Brandon Wedgeworth said:


> Maybe where you live. Not where I live. Here, that statement is simply not true.
> 
> Why on earth would you have both TV services in your house side by side for 2 years anyway?


According to ATT engineers at AVS forum, the PQ is the same nationwide. Only the amount of HD streams varies, as you know.

I got a great signup deal for internet and TV and kept the lowest package after the bonuses ran out. It's not much more.


----------



## jandar

If this deal went through, I would have to leave and go to Comcast.

Before AT&T bought BellSouth, my neighborhood could get 1.5Mbps DSL and Bellsouth had laid fiber along the curb in my neighborhood. After AT&T bought BellSouth, my DSL speeds went down to 768Kbps and supposedly I was not supposed to even get that. 3 years later, they managed to get 6Mbps DSL to my neighborhood. By that time, Comcast had brought 10Mbps speeds so there was no way I was going back to AT&T.

When UVerse rolled out, none of the neighborhoods in my area could get it. Years later, it's still not available. We are talking 300+ home neighborhoods, not 10-20 houses. Now if I go south for 6 miles, out into the country where houses and trailers are on 1-20 acre lots, I can get Uverse.
To this day, I still cannot get UVerse, but I can get 6Mbps DSL for 54$ a month.

Tell me again how AT&T buying DirecTV would be better? AT&T offers a bundle with Directv already, but there is no way I would leave Comcast internet to go back to those low speeds. The only benefit I can see would be bundling, but I have Sprint, way faster internet with Comcast Business Class, and DirecTV.


----------



## Athlon646464

*Update: Reuters: DirecTV working with advisers to weigh AT&T deal*

(Reuters) - DirecTV is working with advisers including Goldman Sachs Group to evaluate a possible combination with AT&T, following a recent takeover approach from the mobile services provider, according to people familiar with the matter.

DirecTV has enlisted advisers as the satellite TV company and its board consider whether to engage in serious discussions with the telecoms giant, one of the people said on Wednesday. The exact status of the talks could not be learned....

Full Story Here


----------



## gt2982a

We just moved into a new house in an almost completed subdivision. The first half of the neighborhood is Uverse Copper. The back half is Uverse FTTH. The front half can get 24 (and maybe 45) Mbps over copper. The back half with FTTH is stuck with a max dl speed of 18 Mbps. Only ATT can make fiber a _disadvantage _to copper. :bang

We are rumored to be on the list for Gigapower but who knows when that will happen.

On the plus side, even though I have only Uverse Interent, I have access to WatchESPN and Fox SportsGo through Uverse so I recently scaled back our package to Select and am very happy avoiding the ESPN tax.


----------



## prushing

gt2982a said:


> We just moved into a new house in an almost completed subdivision. The first half of the neighborhood is Uverse Copper. The back half is Uverse FTTH. The front half can get 24 (and maybe 45) Mbps over copper. The back half with FTTH is stuck with a max dl speed of 18 Mbps. Only ATT can make fiber a _disadvantage _to copper. :bang
> 
> We are rumored to be on the list for Gigapower but who knows when that will happen.
> 
> On the plus side, even though I have only Uverse Interent, I have access to WatchESPN and Fox SportsGo through Uverse so I recently scaled back our package to Select and am very happy avoiding the ESPN tax.


something must not be correct on your account if you only have Uverse internet, then you shouldn't be getting watch espn or fox sportsgo


----------



## gt2982a

prushing said:


> something must not be correct on your account if you only have Uverse internet, then you shouldn't be getting watch espn or fox sportsgo


When the house was being built, we did have Uverse TV at an apartment because we didn't have LOS for Directv; however, after the move we cancelled the Uverse TV and kept the internet. Maybe that is the reason? Or, maybe I've found a loophole. At any rate, I'm not complaining.


----------



## prushing

Yeah I checked because I also only have internet, was hoping something had changed. 

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk


----------



## TAnsley

prushing said:


> something must not be correct on your account if you only have Uverse internet, then you shouldn't be getting watch espn or fox sportsgo


Yeah...I have Uverse for Internet only, and for the first couple of years, I got access to ESPN360, but not WatchESPN. Seems they updated their database last year and I lost access to the web content. Sucks! I really want the ESPN/DTV contract to be done so they can renegotiate the terms and get us access.


----------



## CraigerM

This maybe a dumb question but if UVerse Internet goes down can you still watch UVerse TV? Also one thing I don't like about UVerse is when the RG goes down everything goes down.


----------



## damondlt

CraigerM said:


> This maybe a dumb question but if UVerse Internet goes down can you still watch UVerse TV? Also one thing I don't like about UVerse is when the RG goes down everything goes down.


I know with my Blue ridge cable, Internet can be out and you can still have cable TV, and vise versa.
And its the same Main Coax.


----------



## jimmie57

Several news people are saying this could happen in as little as 2 weeks.


----------



## RAD

One of the 'two weeks' stories, http://www.marketwatch.com/story/att-could-strike-deal-for-directv-in-two-weeks-2014-05-12?link=MW_home_latest_news


----------



## Mark Holtz

From MarketWatch:

*AT&T could strike deal for DirecTV in two weeks*


> AT&T Inc. is moving quickly to seal a takeover deal with DirecTV, with an agreement between the two communications giants as little as two weeks away, people familiar with the matter said.
> 
> The two sides are discussing a deal that AT&T would pay for using a mix of cash and its stock, the people said. AT&T would likely pay a premium to DirecTV's share price Monday, one of the people said.


FULL ARTICLE HERE

Update: I'm checking news.google.com, and all of the reports are essentially saying the same thing.


----------



## damondlt

Nice, I hope it does happen, only problem I see, what benefit would it be if ATT doesn't even serve half the country with Internet service?
Ok you can bundle your cell service, But what about internet at home?


----------



## acostapimps

If it does happen and it changes my Directv service somehow, which I don't think it would, It would depend what the changes would come about to consider it good or not, If not good bye bye Directv and i'll have to eat up the ETF.


----------



## JosephB

Nothing new, but the fact that there is a "new" story out today about the two weeks thing means that they're serious this time. Every other time there's been talk about AT&T buying Dish or DirecTV, it's been one story, unofficial, about them thinking about it. Now they've actually approached DirecTV, both sides have hired advisors, and there's new leaks coming to keep the story fresh. Obviously not 100%, but I see it happening this time.


----------



## James Long

Mark Holtz said:


> Update: I'm checking news.google.com, and all of the reports are essentially saying the same thing.


The curse of Internet news ... a lot of copycat / syndication / circle feeding "news" outlets. Keep calm - find the source.


----------



## Stuart Sweet

It's too early to say that it's true, and too late to say that it's untrue.


----------



## inkahauts

Stuart Sweet the business poet. . Very true!


----------



## 242424

The wailing and grinding of teeth will be epic here......


----------



## damondlt

So much for that Dish Directv merger.


----------



## TheRatPatrol

AT&T Ups Offer For DirecTV to $50 Billion (Report)

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/report-at-t-ups-offer-703413

Mike White may go!


> Executives at DirecTV and AT&T are figuring on a 12-month regulatory process before such a merger earns governmental approval, and DirecTV chief executive officer Mike White could exit the company after the merger, or perhaps even prior to its completion.


----------



## CraigerM

What if ATT gets rid of the DTV name and the DTV boxes they would have the UVerse logo on them? Then it would then be UVerse satellite?


----------



## damondlt

> What if ATT gets rid of the DTV name and the DTV boxes they would have the UVerse logo on them? Then it would then be UVerse satellite?


I doubt they are getting rid of anything.

Yes maybe some of the Newer stuff, may have the att name on them, but that's nothing new for Directv since even at the Start of Directv, Huges, Tivo, Samsung, Phillips,RCA and Sony , had their names on most of Directvs equipment.


----------



## charlie460

If this does happen, I'm hoping it wouldn't affect PQ too much. U-Verse seems noticably more bitstarved than DirecTV.


----------



## damondlt

charlie460 said:


> If this does happen, I'm hoping it wouldn't affect PQ too much.


And in what wild thought did this cross your mind?


----------



## tonyc

Well I rather it be ATT than DISH i have dealt with there customer service before terrible.
But I hope ATT does not change DTV's Customer service Model, I don't like speaking to tech support from India
nothing against the people , They are just so robotic when they speak drives me crazy especially when they repeat every thing back i say to them and then apologize.


----------



## JosephB

A WSJ story today says that the current thought is that the company would be run "as a unit of AT&T" meaning not necessarily integrating it with the rest of AT&T. I would suspect that this would ultimately spell the end of U-Verse's video product.



CraigerM said:


> What if ATT gets rid of the DTV name and the DTV boxes they would have the UVerse logo on them? Then it would then be UVerse satellite?


Yes, if AT&T renames it to U-Verse then it would be called U-Verse. :scratchin



charlie460 said:


> If this does happen, I'm hoping it wouldn't affect PQ too much. U-Verse seems noticably more bitstarved than DirecTV.


What does U-Verse's current product lineup have to do with DirecTV if AT&T acquires it? U-Verse has crummy picture quality because they have severely restricted bandwidth. The bandwidth available to the satellite product wouldn't change just because AT&T owns it.


----------



## slice1900

charlie460 said:


> If this does happen, I'm hoping it wouldn't affect PQ too much. U-Verse seems noticably more bitstarved than DirecTV.


Why would AT&T do that to Directv? A given provider is bit-starved if they lack sufficient bandwidth to carry their channel load. Unless U-Verse added a bunch of HD channels, there is no point to turning down HD quality on Directv. It would be like putting all your stuff in three rooms of your house and leaving three other rooms completely empty. You _could_ do it, but why would you?


----------



## john18

I will be so out of here as soon as my commitment is complete, especially since Google Fiber may well be coming here. 

AT & T will perhaps learn that putting out junky products in the name of shareholder revenue can come back and bite you in the rear end at some point in time.


----------



## JosephB

john18 said:


> I will be so out of here as soon as my commitment is complete, especially since Google Fiber may well be coming here.
> 
> AT & T will perhaps learn that putting out junky products in the name of shareholder revenue can come back and bite you in the rear end at some point in time.


Why wouldn't you wait to see if they actually put out a junky product?


----------



## tonyd79

JosephB said:


> Why wouldn't you wait to see if they actually put out a junky product?


Yes. I can see being leery but it all depends on what they deliver and how. They may run it independently. They may not. Better to wait and see.


----------



## carlsbad_bolt_fan

JosephB said:


> Why wouldn't you wait to see if they actually put out a junky product?


Because of AT&T's track record. Those of us who have dealt with AT&T over the past 30 years know it's only a question of WHEN they lie to a customer or screw things up.

Sent from my iPad using DBSTalk mobile app


----------



## slice1900

Everyone seems to be so worried about what negative things may happen to Directv if AT&T buys them out. Does no one see a chance of positive outcomes? Nobody thinks there's a chance of the things were Directv falls short improving if AT&T owned them? You'd think Directv was the greatest and most well-run company in the world that could only be hurt and never be improved upon with all the doom and gloomers here talking about how bad this acquisition would be.

Directv isn't exactly well diversified, to put it mildly, and if things started turning sour for the satellite TV business in general Directv customers would be a lot better protected being part of a more diversified company like AT&T rather than having all their eggs in the satellite basket which could quickly become a downward spiral if the cord cutting movement goes from a trickle to a flood and cable/satellite starts bleeding customers. AT&T has their wireless and U-verse internet to fall back on if that happens, Directv and Dish have....nothing.

There has been some discussion about Dish eventually doing something useful with all the cellular bandwidth they own, but they'll have to invest billions putting up towers. With AT&T, Directv would immediately have access to that, without needing to put up a single tower. I don't really know what they could do with it, but presumably Charlie Ergen does since he's spent billions on. If/when someone figures that out, Directv goes from a much worse position than Dish to do it to a much better position than Dish overnight.


----------



## Road Rage

I will cancel DTV the moment this goes official, been a sub since 1996. I absolutely hate AT&T, it's one company I wish Al Qaeda would invade. Anyone who has ever been a customer of theirs know how much of a nightmare they are.


----------



## slice1900

carlsbad_bolt_fan said:


> Because of AT&T's track record. Those of us who have dealt with AT&T over the past 30 years know it's only a question of WHEN they lie to a customer or screw things up.


I've been an AT&T wireless customer since 2000, and haven't ever really had anything to complain about with them. I would have switched long ago if I did.

And like I said before, it isn't as though Directv has particularly good customer service or never screw things up. I can count on one hand the number of large companies I feel have top notch customer service, and neither AT&T nor Directv make that list.


----------



## peds48

Road Rage said:


> I will cancel DTV the moment this goes official, been a sub since 1996. I absolutely hate AT&T, it's one company Anyone who has ever been a customer of theirs know how much of a nightmare they are.


Leaving out the "al queada" part, my feelings exactly


----------



## hrobbs

john18 said:


> I will be so out of here as soon as my commitment is complete, especially since Google Fiber may well be coming here.


After 17 years with DTV, my Google Fiber install begins next month - $120/month for 1GB internet (rate guaranteed for 7 years) and a direct home connection at 1080P. Your move DTV, rather ATT. Will miss some sports, but very lucky to have Google Fiber in short sight.


----------



## James Long

slice1900 said:


> Directv isn't exactly well diversified, to put it mildly, and if things started turning sour for the satellite TV business in general Directv customers would be a lot better protected being part of a more diversified company like AT&T rather than having all their eggs in the satellite basket which could quickly become a downward spiral if the cord cutting movement goes from a trickle to a flood and cable/satellite starts bleeding customers. AT&T has their wireless and U-verse internet to fall back on if that happens, Directv and Dish have....nothing.


DirecTV would still not be diversified ... they would be OWNED. And if things go south for satellite the owners will dump DirecTV and move on. DirecTV is an investment ... which is a good thing - a company worth buying - but they have been bought and sold before by companies who owned DirecTV as an investment.



slice1900 said:


> There has been some discussion about Dish eventually doing something useful with all the cellular bandwidth they own, but they'll have to invest billions putting up towers. With AT&T, Directv would immediately have access to that, without needing to put up a single tower. I don't really know what they could do with it, but presumably Charlie Ergen does since he's spent billions on. If/when someone figures that out, Directv goes from a much worse position than Dish to do it to a much better position than Dish overnight.


If DISH does it through their partners it will be a DISH offering. If AT&T does it through their network it will be an AT&T offering. Somehow it is easy to overlook the news even though it is clear in the thread title. AT&T is looking to buy DirecTV - not DirecTV buying AT&T, not merge, but be owned.

It will be a year before the purchase is complete (pending approval by the government) ... and then we will see if AT&T keeps the brand or rebrands as AT&T Satellite TV. The ego says there will be a rename. Personally I hope the DirecTV name will stay (it will make the satellite service easier to sell in a few years).

The deal seems to be good for AT&T - otherwise they would not be pursuing it. It seems to be good for DirecTV stockholders who will make money off of the sale to AT&T. Good for the customers is harder to promise.


----------



## cypherx

Would AT&T port Mediaroom software to all the DirecTV set tops / DVR's? I mean having one platform to support is easier than multiple. What about channels, would that mean a lot of new HD channels on DirecTV because there are more HD channels on U-Verse that already have contractual agreements?


----------



## inkahauts

I see uverse name going away completely in five years if this happens. And they would make DIRECTV and AT&T synonymis with package bundling that cable companies do.

DIRECTV is a name that is great from a marketing point. Uverse is far to small for then to rename anything DIRECTV to uverse. 

I also think anyone worried about jumping ship If att buys DIRECTV is worried over nothing for the foreseeable future. The companies just can't merge overnight and I'd see DIRECTV side taking over att call centers and such rather than the other way around for all kinda of back end reasons. Att would be much happier to become DIRECTV than the other way around. 

But I think this is more about strategies for broadband and replacing copper phone subs than it is anything else and they'd likely run it as a separate company from the customer standpoint and the synergies would be on the back end when doing tv contracts and such.


----------



## mrro82

Here's my concern: sports. AT&T doesn't even have Extra Innings. If they can't get that how would they keep Sunday Ticket?

Sent from the jaws of my Hammerhead!


----------



## slice1900

James Long said:


> If DISH does it through their partners it will be a DISH offering. If AT&T does it through their network it will be an AT&T offering. Somehow it is easy to overlook the news even though it is clear in the thread title. AT&T is looking to buy DirecTV - not DirecTV buying AT&T, not merge, but be owned.


Yeah, Directv will be owned. So what? They've been owned more years than they've been independent, so it is nothing new. Not sure what difference that makes. If AT&T does something "through their network" that is offered to Directv customers, will be the same thing as Directv offering it today because as you point out, Directv will be owned by AT&T. Most customers don't care who owns a company they deal with. If AT&T runs Directv into the ground they'll be mad at Directv, not AT&T, unless AT&T changes Directv's name so the ownership is more obvious. How many people realize ESPN is owned by Disney? The average person watching ESPN probably has little idea, and wouldn't care one way or another if he found out.

Is it better that Dish is effectively owned by a single person, who has complete say about their direction and operation? Its great if he makes good decisions, not so great if he makes bad decisions. Same as how AT&T owning Directv could be good and could be bad depending on what decisions they make about running it.


----------



## peds48

slice1900 said:


> Yeah, Directv will be owned. So what? They've been owned more years than they've been independent, so it is nothing new. Not sure what difference that makes. If AT&T does something "through their network" that is offered to Directv customers, will be the same thing as Directv offering it today because as you point out, Directv will be owned by AT&T. Most customers don't care who owns a company they deal with. If AT&T runs Directv into the ground they'll be mad at Directv, not AT&T, unless AT&T changes Directv's name so the ownership is more obvious. How many people realize ESPN is owned by Disney? The average person watching ESPN probably has little idea, and wouldn't care one way or another if he found out.
> 
> Is it better that Dish is effectively owned by a single person, who has complete say about their direction and operation? Its great if he makes good decisions, not so great if he makes bad decisions. Same as how AT&T owning Directv could be good and could be bad depending on what decisions they make about running it.


I am not sure if I am "most customers" but I do choose the companies that I do business diligently


----------



## Laxguy

If ATT finals on this, here is *what I will do, immediately and with huge passion*:

Wait,

and

See.

Let's all relax, and stop with the sabre rattling.


----------



## peds48

I am happy that you will seat and wait, it does not mean that others that chooses otherwise are in the wrong. to each his own


----------



## nuspieds

inkahauts said:


> inkahauts, on 12 May 2014 - 7:31 PM, said:
> 
> I see uverse name going away completely in five years if this happens. And they would make DIRECTV and AT&T synonymis with package bundling that cable companies do.
> 
> DIRECTV is a name that is great from a marketing point. Uverse is far to small for then to rename anything DIRECTV to uverse.
> 
> I also think anyone worried about jumping ship If att buys DIRECTV is worried over nothing for the foreseeable future. The companies just can't merge overnight and I'd see DIRECTV side taking over att call centers and such rather than the other way around for all kinda of back end reasons. Att would be much happier to become DIRECTV than the other way around.
> 
> But I think this is more about strategies for broadband and replacing copper phone subs than it is anything else and they'd likely run it as a separate company from the customer standpoint and the synergies would be on the back end when doing tv contracts and such.


I agree the U-verse brand is definitely inferior to the DirecTV brand but no company buys another company and keeps that company running so independently as if they never purchased it. There _will _be changes and we _will_ see and feel them--good and bad.

My landline and cell phone services are provided by AT&T and I'm very happy with their services. On the other hand, I'm not comfortable with AT&T operating my satellite TV service at all. I'd be much more enthusiastic if DirecTV merged with Dish instead.

I do not see the satellite TV fit for AT&T whatsoever. I'm sure they see it, but it's an experiment they're seeing--one that I do not see working well at all.


----------



## James Long

slice1900 said:


> Yeah, Directv will be owned. So what?


So read the rest of my post. Owned can be sold when the owner wants to move on. As I pointed out and you agree, DirecTV has been owned before. And when ownership runs its course DirecTV can be sold again.



slice1900 said:


> Is it better that Dish is effectively owned by a single person, who has complete say about their direction and operation? Its great if he makes good decisions, not so great if he makes bad decisions. Same as how AT&T owning Directv could be good and could be bad depending on what decisions they make about running it.


DISH is more than the one man ... but major difference should be noted. DISH owns. They did not get bought and sold by some company or investment group that thinks certain companies are good to be owned together ... they bought companies that they believed would strengthen the primary company. For better or for worse (a good topic for an appropriate thread) DISH owns SlingBox, DISH owns Blockbuster, DISH owns wireless licenses. The list goes on. DISH is the primary ... not some company under a bigger company or a profit first investment company.

I don't know how I can make the difference being owned and being the owner any clearer. If AT&T ends up owning DirecTV it will just be the next in a line of owners. A part of AT&T which can be just as easily sold or spun off. No guarantee of integration, better service or better prices.


----------



## CraigerM

If ATT buys DTV would it be because of one of these three things:

UVerse becomes DTV? - If this way does this mean ATT thinks UVerse TV sucks. ATT just keeps UVerse Internet and Phone bundles it with DTV?

DTV becomes UVerse?

Or they stay as two separate companies letting ATT expand and become bigger and reach more TV markets.


----------



## drx792

What if U-Verse TV becomes "powered by DirecTV" or something like that. Perhaps the Genie platform can extend to U-Verse and they can have a unified user interface across devices. Then leave it up to the customer for which service they get. Bundling would probably get weird(sign up through DTV and get U-Verse internet/Phone, sign up through At&t and get all U-Verse)...but in the savings from bundling goes away after 6-12 months anyway.


----------



## mkdtv21

The reason nothing changed with Directv when they were owned by other companies was because they were media companies. ATT is a service provider and that means there is greater chance ATT will modify and change Directv or possibly rebrand it. Media companies have no experience in being service providers but programming. ATT is all about offering types of services to consumers and would have the means to change Directv if they wanted to. I think the only thing good that will come of this if ATT buy's Directv is we will have better programming offerings since ATT is a bigger company with more money and will have better leverage to get more programming. Aside from sports ATT U-verse has way more channel choices than Directv.


----------



## slice1900

James Long said:


> DISH is more than the one man ... but major difference should be noted. DISH owns. They did not get bought and sold by some company or investment group that thinks certain companies are good to be owned together ... they bought companies that they believed would strengthen the primary company. For better or for worse (a good topic for an appropriate thread) DISH owns SlingBox, DISH owns Blockbuster, DISH owns wireless licenses. The list goes on. DISH is the primary ... not some company under a bigger company or a profit first investment company.
> 
> I don't know how I can make the difference being owned and being the owner any clearer. If AT&T ends up owning DirecTV it will just be the next in a line of owners. A part of AT&T which can be just as easily sold or spun off. No guarantee of integration, better service or better prices.


Dish isn't owned precisely because it is all about that one man. He has sole discretion whether Dish is sold or remains independent forever. Since he holds a large majority of the voting stock, it is effectively the same as a privately held company, for better or worse.

Not all buyouts are a bad thing. Look at what became of Youtube after Google bought it, Disney buying Pixar or Apple buying NeXT (which probably ranks as the single most successful acquisition of all time)

Anyway, I *never* said there were any guarantees that anything would get better with AT&T owning Directv. All I said there was no guarantee it would automatically get worse, as some people seem to believe. Whether it can be sold again is immaterial, that is no different than the situation today where it may or may not be sold at any time (and likewise Dish, subject to the whim of that one man)

If the AT&T sale doesn't happen, Directv could be bought by someone else next year. What is the difference if someone buys it when it is publicly traded or buys it from AT&T?


----------



## inkahauts

DIRECTV and att have more differences than dish and DIRECTV. Att merger will be a real merger of two very well entrenched companies trying to break into each other's wheel house. Dish would have been more like a absorption of the same idea.


----------



## prushing

I hope that At&t would leave the hardware, software, etc to DTV. Have DTV also make boxes from Uverse and integrate everything. People who aren't able to get satellite can get Uverse as they do today. With any integration, someone is going to suffer though. Uverse can't support DTV quality though so I'm not sure how much they can integrate.

1 thing to think about is we don't know why At&t wants to buy DTV. Do they want access to their customers, hardware, software? Does DTV have something in the pipeline that they want?

The move makes sense, but we will have to wait on the details to see what will happen.


----------



## James Long

slice1900 said:


> Anyway, I *never* said there were any guarantees that anything would get better with AT&T owning Directv. All I said there was no guarantee it would automatically get worse, as some people seem to believe.


In saying that it doesn't have to be worse you have presented an opinion that it could be better. This is the part of the thread where people disagree with you. You presented specific ways that DirecTV could be better off. The corollary is that DirecTV will be but a cog in AT&T's wheel. AT&T will probably be better off ... but there are few areas where DirecTV can improve. They are already doing pretty good.

DirecTV is not being purchased as a failing business that can be trimmed and turned around for a profit. Or as an upstart that could really grow if they received additional funding. They are a successful profitable mature business that will help fund AT&T's other endeavors.

I don't see ownership by AT&T as being the end of the world. But I don't see it as overwhelmingly positive.



slice1900 said:


> If the AT&T sale doesn't happen, Directv could be bought by someone else next year. What is the difference if someone buys it when it is publicly traded or buys it from AT&T?


The difference is what happens to DirecTV in the interim. People who do not trust AT&T are concerned that AT&T may suck the life out of DirecTV. Perhaps $4 billion in profit each year ($18 per subscriber per month) won't be enough for AT&T and they will implement cost saving plans that negatively affect customer service or reduce discounts to make more profit. Perhaps they will introduce their own ideas on how receivers should work. As a company that already provides "cable" services they have their own preconceived notions on how to run such services. Are those ideas better than the current management of DirecTV? If the sale goes through we'll find out.

The status quo seems pretty good. Do you blame people who simply do not want to risk losing the service they have now?

Is any one else who has the money looking at DirecTV? This sale (if completed) will take a year to get through the regulatory process so one should not expect AT&T to sell to someone next year (unless they are buying it for a specific part of DirecTV then selling the carcass). The next sale would be years down the road when either DirecTV is no longer of value to AT&T or AT&T needs the money more than the annual income.

The concern people have is just how much damage a company like AT&T could do to DirecTV over the next few years. And while I agree with the "wait and see" approach (don't jump ship unless things actually go bad) I understand the concern.


----------



## James Long

inkahauts said:


> DIRECTV and att have more differences than dish and DIRECTV. Att merger will be a real merger of two very well entrenched companies trying to break into each other's wheel house.


I believe "merger" is optimistic. AT&T wants to buy DirecTV not partner with it. If and how they restructure their MVDS services after the purchase is a good question.


----------



## inkahauts

James Long said:


> I believe "merger" is optimistic. AT&T wants to buy DirecTV not partner with it. If and how they restructure their MVDS services after the purchase is a good question.


No it's a merger. That's my point they are complimentary companies. Not really true competitors that already offer the same services to everyone. They don't. This will expand both companies offerings. That's what a true merger is IMHO. Two companies who can combine to offer more than they each do individually.

Oh and att wants out if copper. I wouldn't be a bit surprised if you see them dump copper and go all wireless and sat very quickly. Within five years or less. That's what would allow them to really profit from this merger.


----------



## mreposter

CNBC report this morning states that AT&T and Directv are in active talks on a deal up to $50B, slightly below the $100 per share number rumored earlier. ($95/share = $48B) Andrew Ross Sorkin (CNBC Analyst) said he thinks this deal will actually be harder to get gov't approval than the Comcat-TW mash-up.


----------



## damondlt

James doesn't want this to happen for 2 reasons , Comcast / Time Warner
Directv/ ATT.

Dish network/ Nobody. 
= The End for Dish.

Sent from my Galaxy S5


----------



## slice1900

James Long said:


> unless they are buying it for a specific part of DirecTV then selling the carcass


Other than breaking up the US and LA parts of the business, it is hard to imagine how Directv could be effectively split up. How else could they conceivably divvy it up? LifeShield and the Replay IP are a drop in the bucket compared to the ~ $50 billion acquisition price.

If AT&T was interested in acquiring a satellite company for a specific piece, Dish would make more sense. As you pointed out, they've been more acquisitive than Directv has been, and they hold a lot of juicy spectrum AT&T would love to get their hands on. Of course, that alone would probably put the kibosh on any possible Dish buyout, even if Ergen was willing as the FCC is trying to avoid further concentration of wireless spectrum among the big 2/big 4.


----------



## slice1900

damondlt said:


> James doesn't want this to happen for 2 reasons , Comcast / Time Warner
> Directv/ ATT.
> 
> Dish network/ Nobody.
> = The End for Dish.


The end for Dish how? AT&T owning Directv jumps AT&T's subscriber count by over 300%, but only bumps Directv's by 30%. So instead of roughly 50% bigger than Dish it is roughly twice the size of Dish. I don't think that's really an issue.

Anyway, if partnering up is the only way to survive, there are plenty of potential partners left. Aside from the obvious one, Verizon, there's also Cox and Charter. They're not that much smaller than Uverse - and hell, if the FCC allows TWC/Comcast and AT&T/Directv, it would be hard for them not to allow Dish/Verizon/Cox/Charter and they'd have a company almost as big as AT&T/Directv and TWC/Comcast.

Man, I hope that doesn't happen. You know most of the smaller ones like Mediacom would join one of the above and we'd eventually be left three huge cable/satellite companies that don't really compete too hard so they can make more money by squeezing their customers!

One interesting thought about AT&T/Directv. If someone lives Uverse country, I wonder how much of a discount they'd get if they wanted both Directv and Uverse? For the channels each has the other doesn't, protection against rain fade by having cable, and against cable/power outages by having satellite. It might be an interesting option for people in Uverse country if they figured customers already paid for the programming once and mostly just charged them for the additional equipment.


----------



## PCampbell

This is what has happened in the airline business. Prices have gone up for all, I fly a lot and can look at expense reports over the last six or more years and see a big change. Delta bought Northwest and it all became Delta. Sent from a Delta flight at 34000 ft.


----------



## slice1900

PCampbell said:


> This is what has happened in the airline business. Prices have gone up for all, I fly a lot and can look at expense reports over the last six or more years and see a big change. Delta bought Northwest and it all became Delta. Sent from a Delta flight at 34000 ft.


To be fair, airlines were almost all losing money, a situation that couldn't continue forever. The argument for allowing money losing airlines to merge was a lot better than the argument for letting nicely profitable cable/satellite providers merge.


----------



## Pepe Sylvia

Does anyone know why ATT wants to buy Directv? That's a lot of money, so they must have something in mind. Hasn't Directv plateaued as far as customer growth? Does ATT see a way to increase their customer base, or worse, are they after their infrastructure? (I.e. repurposing of satellites)


----------



## James Long

slice1900 said:


> Other than breaking up the US and LA parts of the business, it is hard to imagine how Directv could be effectively split up.


I agree. I only brought it up because it was the only reason I could think of why AT&T would sell DirecTV the year after buying it. Intellectual property and access to programming would be the only items of separate value that come to mind for a buy and dump.If AT&T buys DirecTV I'd expect the deal to last at least five years.

BTW: I don't see "I give you $50 billion and you walk away" as being a merger. It is an acquisition. Sometimes mergers are written up as acquisitions ... but I don't see AT&T using that language here.


----------



## JB3

James Long said:


> I agree. I only brought it up because it was the only reason I could think of why AT&T would sell DirecTV the year after buying it. Intellectual property and access to programming would be the only items of separate value that come to mind for a buy and dump.If AT&T buys DirecTV I'd expect the deal to last at least five years.


What's the associated spectrum worth? Could AT&T repurpose that or argue that it can be shared with terrestrial broadband?


----------



## slice1900

James Long said:


> I agree. I only brought it up because it was the only reason I could think of why AT&T would sell DirecTV the year after buying it. Intellectual property and access to programming would be the only items of separate value that come to mind for a buy and dump.If AT&T buys DirecTV I'd expect the deal to last at least five years.
> 
> BTW: I don't see "I give you $50 billion and you walk away" as being a merger. It is an acquisition. Sometimes mergers are written up as acquisitions ... but I don't see AT&T using that language here.


The airlines mostly didn't merge either, but from the perspective of consumers, when you have two competitors and they become one, it is a merger, regardless of whether it is actually a merger or really a buyout from the perspective of the companies involved.

I'm sure Directv has some intellectual property, but certainly not anything worth buying them to get. And if AT&T wants Directv's programming "talent", they must be in sad shape indeed on the Uverse side of the house


----------



## slice1900

JB3 said:


> What's the associated spectrum worth? Could AT&T repurpose that or argue that it can be shared with terrestrial broadband?


Directv's satellite spectrum must be used for DBS, so it is already being used in the most valuable / only way it can be. I don't know the FCC's rules regarding sale of spectrum, but even if it can be sold (which I doubt) it would require shutting down parts of Directv's business which would incur far far more cost than whatever revenue would be generated.


----------



## fleckrj

I am one of the "wait and see" people. 

Except for eight years during the 1970s when I had General Telephone and Mountain Rural (aka "Mentally Retarded") telephone, I have had ATT land line service since 1952, and I have had ATT DSL for the past three years. All I can say is that ATT's land line service is far superior to what General Telephone or Mountain Rural had. I cannot speak about customer service because I have never had to call them. The phone and internet work, and that is all I care about.

I do agree that the ATT supplied gateway is not very good (although it is N), but that was an easy fix. I just disabled the wireless portion of the gateway and use my own router.

I have no experience with ATT wireless. Because of the frequency they are assigned, their signal will not penetrate my house. My only options are Verizon and Sprint, and of the two, I have had better experience with Verizon.

UVerse is not available in my neighborhood, and neither is VIOS. If I do switch, my only options are TWC and Dish, and neither of those seem to be better options than DirecTV, even if DirecTV ends up being owned by ATT.


----------



## VABlitz

I'm not sure how the AT&T acquisition would work, but I would be against any of the cable monopolies purchasing them. I only have Cox Cable in my area, not only is their service expensive but the majority of the cable channels look horrible on my TV. I do not want a more expensive product with lousy service and crappy customer service. If a merger like that happens, I think my TV watching days would be over. Which would be a good thing, save me money and give me a lot of time to do other things.


----------



## CraigerM

What I don't get is why ATT needs DTV when they have a video service already? Could it be they do want to merge the two systems so they can expand? Maybe they could offer a combined triple play service where you have a number of options?

I could see DTV not needing DECA, the Wireless Cinema Connection Kit or that Wireless video bridge. You could have DTV's equipment and RVU connect to a customer's LAN with a UVerse WIFI Gateway installed. What if they combined the DTV and UVerse installers and trained them on both systems? Then that way an installer could come out with UVerse or DTV boxes and UVerse's Wifi Gateway.


----------



## Rich

Stuart Sweet said:


> It's too early to say that it's true, and too late to say that it's untrue.


Hmm, this is beginning to disturb me. I'm big on: _Better the devil you know than the devil you don't_.

Rich


----------



## SteveHas

Most of these mergers/acquisitions are motivated by increased revenue regardless of the industry.
These deals seem to be at least partially funded by elimination of redundant operating costs, i.e. HR, AP, AR, Purchasing, common manufacturing platforms, product quality often decreases as the pressure to reduce operating costs necessitates cutting corners wherever possible.
Anti-Trust means nothing today as our economy continues to eat itself alive.
Personally I cannot think of a large scale merger such as this that has not ultimately meant a decrease in value to the customer, or quality of goods/services. I could be wrong, but I simply can't think of one case where this was a good thing for the consumer. The "we need to do this to survive" bs in many but not all cases doesn't hold water any more either.


----------



## Rich

slice1900 said:


> Why would AT&T do that to Directv? A given provider is bit-starved if they lack sufficient bandwidth to carry their channel load. Unless U-Verse added a bunch of HD channels, there is no point to turning down HD quality on Directv. It would be like putting all your stuff in three rooms of your house and leaving three other rooms completely empty. You _could_ do it, but why would you?


Seems logical, I hope you're right.

Rich


----------



## CraigerM

Just read an article online that ATT might want DTV to free up their Internet bandwidth to be more competitive with cable internet. They would switch to satellite TV in order to do that. What if ATT reconfigured all their DSLAM's and VRADS for just Internet and Phone only and used DTV for TV and do a triple play that way? Would UVerse's program guide be better than DTV's?


----------



## snowcat

CraigerM said:


> Would UVerse's program guide be better than DTV's?


I have had both, and DirecTv's guide is much better than UVerse. Uverse follows the cable method, using low numbered channels for SD and high numbered channels for HD. It is paid to hide all those SD channels, and the few that don't have a HD equivalent just look out of place.

DirecTv has SD and HD with the same number and can autohide the SD channels with HD versions. Much, much easier to use.


----------



## inkahauts

slice1900 said:


> Other than breaking up the US and LA parts of the business, it is hard to imagine how Directv could be effectively split up. How else could they conceivably divvy it up? LifeShield and the Replay IP are a drop in the bucket compared to the ~ $50 billion acquisition price.
> 
> If AT&T was interested in acquiring a satellite company for a specific piece, Dish would make more sense. As you pointed out, they've been more acquisitive than Directv has been, and they hold a lot of juicy spectrum AT&T would love to get their hands on. Of course, that alone would probably put the kibosh on any possible Dish buyout, even if Ergen was willing as the FCC is trying to avoid further concentration of wireless spectrum among the big 2/big 4.


Like I said it's not DIRECTV they want to split up. It's themselves to get rid of copper.


----------



## slice1900

inkahauts said:


> Like I said it's not DIRECTV they want to split up. It's themselves to get rid of copper.


You think they're going to sell their RBOC business? Who is a potential buyer for that? Or are they just going to spin it off as an independent company to sink or swim?

It is _highly_ unlikely the FCC would allow them to keep the areas they've built out to fiber and spin off only the copper. Spinning off their RBOC business would have to be an all or nothing deal. AT&T's TV offering would be Directv only, Uverse would be spun off along with the lines that deliver it.

I suppose AT&T could still see that as a good thing, they'd have a national TV offering to go with their national wireless offering and be more direct competition for a Comcast that would be essentially national.


----------



## skaman74

the fcc will never allow this...hopefully


----------



## Rich

slice1900 said:


> You think they're going to sell their RBOC business? Who is a potential buyer for that? Or are they just going to spin it off as an independent company to sink or swim?
> 
> It is _highly_ unlikely the FCC would allow them to keep the areas they've built out to fiber and spin off only the copper. Spinning off their RBOC business would have to be an all or nothing deal. AT&T's TV offering would be Directv only, Uverse would be spun off along with the lines that deliver it.
> 
> I suppose AT&T could still see that as a good thing, they'd have a national TV offering to go with their national wireless offering and be more direct competition for a Comcast that would be essentially national.


What is their national wireless offering?

Rich


----------



## CraigerM

If they do merge would DBSTalk merge the DTV and UVerse forums?


----------



## crkeehn

slice1900 said:


> Everyone seems to be so worried about what negative things may happen to Directv if AT&T buys them out. Does no one see a chance of positive outcomes? Nobody thinks there's a chance of the things were Directv falls short improving if AT&T owned them? You'd think Directv was the greatest and most well-run company in the world that could only be hurt and never be improved upon with all the doom and gloomers here talking about how bad this acquisition would be.
> 
> Directv isn't exactly well diversified, to put it mildly, and if things started turning sour for the satellite TV business in general Directv customers would be a lot better protected being part of a more diversified company like AT&T rather than having all their eggs in the satellite basket which could quickly become a downward spiral if the cord cutting movement goes from a trickle to a flood and cable/satellite starts bleeding customers. AT&T has their wireless and U-verse internet to fall back on if that happens, Directv and Dish have....nothing.
> 
> There has been some discussion about Dish eventually doing something useful with all the cellular bandwidth they own, but they'll have to invest billions putting up towers. With AT&T, Directv would immediately have access to that, without needing to put up a single tower. I don't really know what they could do with it, but presumably Charlie Ergen does since he's spent billions on. If/when someone figures that out, Directv goes from a much worse position than Dish to do it to a much better position than Dish overnight.


I have dealt with ATT both in Maryland and North Carolina. In both places my experience has been similar. Technically they deliver a solid product (I currently have U-Verse internet and phone service). Their business practices are terrible and I can figure on spending an extended period of time correcting what they had messed up the prior time I interacted with them. In addition they failed to follow through on the initial offer when I signed up. At the time I signed up, I was entitled to a web enabled device for signing up. Instead I got grief and a runaround which had me on the phone for extended periods of time, trying to straighten the issue out. I never got the web enabled device I was entitled to.


----------



## sigma1914

CraigerM said:


> If they do merge would DBSTalk merge the DTV and UVerse forums?


No, that's silly.


----------



## Pepe Sylvia

skaman74 said:


> the fcc will never allow this...hopefully


** Conspiracy Theory **

This is all a ruse to submarine the Comcast / TWC deal.


----------



## Alan Gordon

If this goes through, will the NSA have access to my DVR recordings?


----------



## slice1900

Rich said:


> What is their national wireless offering?
> 
> Rich


They don't have one, but they have a national internet offering, so it is roughly equal nationwide double play versus nationwide double play.

If the FCC allows the Comcast/TWC merger to go through, look for them to try to buy Sprint, T Mobile or US Cellular in a few years to provide a true triple play.


----------



## slice1900

Pepe Sylvia said:


> ** Conspiracy Theory **
> 
> This is all a ruse to submarine the Comcast / TWC deal.


Stuart Sweet suggested that at the outset. It is a possibility.


----------



## Pepe Sylvia

Alan Gordon said:


> If this goes through, will the NSA have access to my DVR recordings?


Do you record a lot of Al Jazeera? h34r:

:flag:
:grin:


----------



## jerrylove56

The NY Times had a good article on the rumored buyout of DTV. http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2014/05/12/att-said-to-be-in-talks-for-directv/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=1&


----------



## dennisj00

Alan Gordon said:


> If this goes through, will the NSA have access to my DVR recordings?


They probably already do, but why would they want a million or so copies of what you record?


----------



## APB101

CraigerM said:


> If ATT buys DTV would it be because of one of these three things:
> 
> *UVerse becomes DTV*? - If this way does this mean ATT thinks UVerse TV sucks. *ATT just keeps UVerse Internet and Phone bundles it with DTV*?
> 
> DTV becomes UVerse?
> 
> Or they stay as two separate companies letting ATT expand and become bigger and reach more TV markets.


This [*bolded* part] is what I'm thinking would happen.

A deal will more than likely be made if Time-Warner and Comcast are approved. (Or however specifically this would all pan out.)

The DirecTV name has far more recognition that U-verse, yes, but also the distribution is easier. The other services by AT&T, like with Internet, will be appealing enough for those with DirecTV for video but with other companies for phone and/or Internet.

The specific programming contracts is another thing. What channels are being carried by one company but not the other. With the DirecTV platform, the name-recognition of seasonal sports and those public interest programming would be more useful than the current U-verse model. (U-verse, unlike cable companies, doesn't even carry subchannels from one designated marketing area to the next.)

I don't feel comfortable predicting what will or will not happen specifically with AT&T and DirecTV. But, coming back to Time-Warner Cable and Comcast, I was anticipating more companies (satellite and cable) would be on the horizon for possible deals. And this may be just the beginning of all that.


----------



## Alan Gordon

Pepe Sylvia said:


> Do you record a lot of Al Jazeera? h34r:
> 
> :flag:
> :grin:


LOL!! I do not. I did add it to my Favorites list after hearing some positive things about the channel, but never viewed it yet, so no...



dennisj00 said:


> They probably already do, but why would they want a million or so copies of what you record?


Dude... they could see whose performances I re-watch on "American Idol" and "The Voice" thereby giving them a reasonable assumption of which artists get my votes.

Frightening thought, simply frightening...


----------



## slice1900

APB101 said:


> I don't feel comfortable predicting what will or will not happen specifically with AT&T and DirecTV.


Why not? You aren't being graded! :rotfl:


----------



## Alan Gordon

slice1900 said:


> Why not? You aren't being graded! :rotfl:


I can't speak for APB101, but personally, I don't like to put a prediction out there unless I feel like there's reason for me to make said prediction.

I have no predictions when it comes to AT&T/DirecTV other than AT&T discontinuing the U-Verse TV service should a buy-out happen, but that's not a particularly bold prediction.


----------



## nmetro

For those who remember the Bell System aka AT&T, it was a virtual monopoly. The was only one source fro telephones; you got what AT&T made and gave you. YEs, there were smaller phone companies, but AT&T, and the Bell System dominated telecom in the US. So, much so, it was broken up by the US government.

While we are in different times, multiple phone companies (land line and cell), multiple sources of means to obtain internet services, multiple video delivery options, etc.; media consolidation is limiting these options. A Comcast/Time Warner Merger, and an ATT&T/DriectTV merger may be too much to federal regulators to accept. 20 Years ago there were many independent cable channels, much of these channels are now owned by less than 10 companies.

So, At&T may have to give up something to acquire DirecTV. Just like Comcast is giving up some cable systems, to Charter, to buy Time Warner Cable I suspect U-verse may be what AT&T must give up. 

12 years ago the justice department did not approve a Dish/DirectTV merger because of competition and limited choice of services issues. At&T having DirecTV and U-verse may be seen in a similar fashion by the justice department. If not, then expect Dish to get acquired by Verizon who is very similar to AT&T.


----------



## CraigerM

nmetro said:


> For those who remember the Bell System aka AT&T, it was a virtual monopoly. The was only one source fro telephones; you got what AT&T made and gave you. YEs, there were smaller phone companies, but AT&T, and the Bell System dominated telecom in the US. So, much so, it was broken up by the US government.
> 
> While we are in different times, multiple phone companies (land line and cell), multiple sources of means to obtain internet services, multiple video delivery options, etc.; media consolidation is limiting these options. A Comcast/Time Warner Merger, and an ATT&T/DriectTV merger may be too much to federal regulators to accept. 20 Years ago there were many independent cable channels, much of these channels are now owned by less than 10 companies.
> 
> So, At&T may have to give up something to acquire DirecTV. Just like Comcast is giving up some cable systems, to Charter, to buy Time Warner Cable I suspect U-verse may be what AT&T must give up.
> 
> 12 years ago the justice department did not approve a Dish/DirectTV merger because of competition and limited choice of services issues. At&T having DirecTV and U-verse may be seen in a similar fashion by the justice department. If not, then expect Dish to get acquired by Verizon who is very similar to AT&T.


I think it will just be the UVerse TV part, they will keep their Internet and Phone. Why buy DTV two have TV services? Is DTV in every UVerse TV market? I don't think the Government would let ATT have two TV services.


----------



## DCSholtis

I hope this doesn't mean the beginning of the end for Sunday ticket 

Sent from my XT1053 using DBSTalk mobile app


----------



## Alan Gordon

CraigerM said:


> Is DTV in every UVerse TV market?


Only in the ones with a view of the Southern sky.


----------



## inkahauts

CraigerM said:


> What I don't get is why ATT needs DTV when they have a video service already? Could it be they do want to merge the two systems so they can expand? Maybe they could offer a combined triple play service where you have a number of options?
> 
> I could see DTV not needing DECA, the Wireless Cinema Connection Kit or that Wireless video bridge. You could have DTV's equipment and RVU connect to a customer's LAN with a UVerse WIFI Gateway installed. What if they combined the DTV and UVerse installers and trained them on both systems? Then that way an installer could come out with UVerse or DTV boxes and UVerse's Wifi Gateway.


You are thinking way to small. This is not about changing the deca in your house. Anything of that nature is years away anyway.


----------



## inkahauts

slice1900 said:


> You think they're going to sell their RBOC business? Who is a potential buyer for that? Or are they just going to spin it off as an independent company to sink or swim?
> 
> It is _highly_ unlikely the FCC would allow them to keep the areas they've built out to fiber and spin off only the copper. Spinning off their RBOC business would have to be an all or nothing deal. AT&T's TV offering would be Directv only, Uverse would be spun off along with the lines that deliver it.
> 
> I suppose AT&T could still see that as a good thing, they'd have a national TV offering to go with their national wireless offering and be more direct competition for a Comcast that would be essentially national.


Why do you think AT&T has only run fiber so far and is still using the copper to peoples home?

AT&T has for years been developing and working to go to a wireless system for everything. They want uverse to be wireless. Think about that for a moment and its implications. Its an interesting way to get around a lot of hurdles.

This deal is all about bandwidth. TV stations don't need two way bandwidth. Only on demand. Wireless spectrum is precious. Have a massive amount of bandwidth that can be used to offer static feeds of stations and then have a wireless system built to Handel all Internet and on demand, over the top, and Handel all your phone system.

This dumps massive layers of government red tape that now exists on all copper phone systems as well. Massive. Im Not sure that can be stated loudly enough.

It also allows AT&T to expand their full phone, (cell phone and home phone which they now have wireless ones) Internet, and TV offerings to anyone anywhere without having to worry about who owns the right away that carries the signals via wires to people's homes. It turns the concept of having to have franchise rights in areas to offer video services on its head for the traditional cable systems. While some areas have allowed more than one, how often do we actually see two carriers anywhere? It doesn't exsist.

And to be clear, AT&T isn't the only one who wants to do this. Verizon does as well. They have tested high speed home wireless Internet in several areas. The peope, that will be behind in this move is cable companies. Unless they go out and pick up sprint or mobile etc. but Verizon and AT&T both want to offer all services to everyone in the country, and I think at some point they will. In fact I wouldn't be surprised to hear a FIOS is considering buying dish talk soon so they can leverage the same kind of offerings and added bandwidth that would give to them. Although I think dish is not as well positioned to do for Verizon what DIRECTV can do for AT&T.

I think the only reason this stuff hasn't been built out just yet is they still need to get the tech right, but its coming.

A far as copper, yeah I see them spinning the company off or selling it. Verizon as I recall has successfully sold off massive parts of its copper systems in the middle of the country to some other companies. There is money in it for someone, but with the way things are changing, AT&T wants to head in a different direction long term.

This deal IMHO isn't about what it can do for the two companies in the short term, but rather the very long term.

The opportunities for scale of adding six million video customers to directv and more leverage with channels and all that stuff, that's just a secondary benefit IMHO. And those benefits may be great for some of us. Maybe I'll get the pac12 someday. . But that wouldn't be for quite a while.

I would expect that one of the first things that would happen that we might actually see is they would merge the departments that sign contracts with channels and slowly get both companies the same channels and offereings. But we will see. But beyond that, and more opportunities to bundle services, I don't see much change for how DIRECTV does business as a whole. Especially not anytime soon or in regards to how our systems work in houses any time soon.


----------



## inkahauts

nmetro said:


> For those who remember the Bell System aka AT&T, it was a virtual monopoly. The was only one source fro telephones; you got what AT&T made and gave you. YEs, there were smaller phone companies, but AT&T, and the Bell System dominated telecom in the US. So, much so, it was broken up by the US government.
> 
> While we are in different times, multiple phone companies (land line and cell), multiple sources of means to obtain internet services, multiple video delivery options, etc.; media consolidation is limiting these options. A Comcast/Time Warner Merger, and an ATT&T/DriectTV merger may be too much to federal regulators to accept. 20 Years ago there were many independent cable channels, much of these channels are now owned by less than 10 companies.
> 
> So, At&T may have to give up something to acquire DirecTV. Just like Comcast is giving up some cable systems, to Charter, to buy Time Warner Cable I suspect U-verse may be what AT&T must give up.
> 
> 12 years ago the justice department did not approve a Dish/DirectTV merger because of competition and limited choice of services issues. At&T having DirecTV and U-verse may be seen in a similar fashion by the justice department. If not, then expect Dish to get acquired by Verizon who is very similar to AT&T.


Really, the Comcast Time Warner Cable merger isn't going to change the number of people's options for cable TV. tWhat the issue is as you stated is that they own the content and the delivery system. That's what needs to be broken up. But that alone won't stop that merger, why would it?

AT&T DIRECTV are really such different companies I don't see how its in any way anti competitive. If anything it will help create a stronger competitor to Comcast and Time Warner Cable and charter and so on because of the synergies that AT&T and DIRECTV can create within themselves.


----------



## damondlt

slice1900 said:


> The end for Dish how? AT&T owning Directv jumps AT&T's subscriber count by over 300%, but only bumps Directv's by 30%. So instead of roughly 50% bigger than Dish it is roughly twice the size of Dish. I don't think that's really an issue.


Dish is the one in need of a merger, that's been stated multiple times.
And your only talking about TV subscribers, Directv service will be advertised to all of ATT wireless customers, and my guess real bundle pack options.
ATT company is a Giant compared to Directv, in value and number of customers.

Dish failed at a massive much needed merger.
Dispite, its so called abundance of spectrum, They couldn't even sell that to sprint, and you think ATT cares about Dish networks Spectrum? I don't ! If they did they wouldn't be talking to Directv Right now, they would be buying the cheaper company.

ATT want and investment, a Growing investment, they aren't looking for a Spectrum dealer.
You Think Verizon is going to buy out Dish? I don't.
Tmobile may happen , but that's nothing to brag about since T Mobile is broke and has already been bought out.

Sorry But Dish has been hanging around the same Subscriber rate for years. Obviously its peaked, and Even the release of the Hopper did nothing.
They have no more Bandwidth available for anything other then a hand full of HD.
So who would buy out a company, who right off the bat needs a major overhaul?
Certainly not Verizon!

How sad is it that Directv had the same number of customer that Dish has now , 10 years ago!
Verizons Huge on the east coast, and Dish doesn't give a crap about the east coast don't see that working out.

Charlie bough a bunch of Spectrum, and nobody wants its! LOL!


----------



## Glenee

If we think we have problems with our billing from time to time now, just wait until AT&T brings their billing department into the mix.


----------



## slice1900

damondlt said:


> Dispite, its so called abundance of spectrum, They couldn't even cell that to sprint, and you think ATT cares about Dish networks Spectrum? I don't ! If they did they wouldn't be talking to Directv Right now, they would be buying the cheaper company.


Its possible AT&T approached Dish first, but Ergen was not interested, but I agree that it is far from clear exactly how much value there is in Dish's wireless holdings.

Does anyone know the details of the spectrum Dish holds? Is it in the more attractive sub 1 GHz range that wireless companies covet, or the less desirable 1800 MHz + range? Is it the same frequencies with nationwide coverage, or a less desirable patchwork? There is a lot of difference in how valuable Dish's spectrum may be to wireless companies, depending on the details. They may have only outbid the regional carriers for the spectrum the big 2 / big 4 didn't want.

I saw an article yesterday that said Dish is hoping the Sprint/T Mobile deal that's being discussed falls apart, so they can made a bid for T Mobile. They can't outbid Sprint, but they can try to catch T Mobile on the rebound if Sprint's bid fails. Making some sort of use of their spectrum would be a lot easier if they, you know, owned a company that already has towers over most of the US, as it would take a decade and cost billions to do it themselves.


----------



## slice1900

inkahauts said:


> Why do you think AT&T has only run fiber so far and is still using the copper to peoples home?
> 
> AT&T has for years been developing and working to go to a wireless system for everything. They want uverse to be wireless. Think about that for a moment and its implications. Its an interesting way to get around a lot of hurdles.
> 
> This deal is all about bandwidth. TV stations don't need two way bandwidth. Only on demand. Wireless spectrum is precious. Have a massive amount of bandwidth that can be used to offer static feeds of stations and then have a wireless system built to Handel all Internet and on demand, over the top, and Handel all your phone system.
> 
> This dumps massive layers of government red tape that now exists on all copper phone systems as well. Massive. Im Not sure that can be stated loudly enough.


Going wireless for everyone's internet is not practical, especially if they want to start putting everyone's Netflix habits on it. The cell system is easily over an order of magnitude away from being able to handle today's internet demand, and that demand continues to increase. Read up on how the technology works, the data rates versus the percentage of total spectrum consumed and the directionality of the antennas (i.e. how many people in a 360* radius can share the same frequency) and it is easy to calculate that the cell towers would need to be a lot more dense to support what is being done today by cable modem and DSL. It is very difficult getting permission for new towers, NIMBY abounds.

Sure, you can serve a limited number of people using LTE and in a year or two LTE Advanced will improve on that, but the reason it works is because comparatively few people are using it at once. If everyone using Netflix was pulling that down on their phones via cellular instead of using their home internet connection that cellular data connection will perform about as well as it does when you're tailgating with 125,000 of your closest friends in a half square mile area  There just isn't the bandwidth for everyone to go wireless in a urban or suburban density without a lot more towers.

I see this as more of a way to get the FCC off their backs about the less populated or more rugged areas where they feel it is too expensive to run high speed broadband to everyone's house. Put up a few extra cell towers in the area and sell them wireless broadband, with Directv as the alternative to what they provide today with Uverse. No way are they going to try to go completely wireless. It isn't possible, at least not for at least a decade (assuming the demand for bandwidth starts to level off, and we don't replace HD streaming with holographic streaming at gigabits per second )


----------



## damondlt

slice1900 said:


> Going wireless for everyone's internet is not practical, especially if they want to start putting everyone's Netflix habits on it. The cell system is easily over an order of magnitude away from being able to handle today's internet demand, and that demand continues to increase. Read up on how the technology works, the data rates versus the percentage of total spectrum consumed and the directionality of the antennas (i.e. how many people in a 360* radius can share the same frequency) and it is easy to calculate that the cell towers would need to be a lot more dense to support what is being done today by cable modem and DSL. It is very difficult getting permission for new towers, NIMBY abounds.
> 
> Sure, you can serve a limited number of people using LTE and in a year or two LTE Advanced will improve on that, but the reason it works is because comparatively few people are using it at once. If everyone using Netflix was pulling that down on their phones via cellular instead of using their home internet connection that cellular data connection will perform about as well as it does when you're tailgating with 125,000 of your closest friends in a half square mile area  It just doesn't work well in urban or suburban density.
> 
> I see this as more of a way to get the FCC off their backs about the less populated or more rugged areas where they feel it is too expensive to run high speed broadband to everyone's house. Put up a few extra cell towers in the area and sell them wireless broadband, with Directv as the alternative to what they provide today with Uverse. No way are they going to try to go completely wireless. It isn't possible.


I agree, 
That type of Internet is expensive. And limited to your data plan. 
It's a joke and Verizon offers it here in my home town already.
If that's going to be the normal, then I see them losing customers to cable for their internet needs.

Sent from my Galaxy S5


----------



## Laxguy

Not possible with today's technology, but.....


----------



## joed32

Glenee said:


> If we think we have problems with our billing from time to time now, just wait until AT&T brings their billing department into the mix.


They just said yesterday that Directv management would stay in place with AT&T as the parent company.


----------



## slice1900

joed32 said:


> They just said yesterday that Directv management would stay in place with AT&T as the parent company.


Having Directv management in place doesn't imply that Directv's back office will remain intact. I would assume that it would not, but generally it is the software that is responsible for billing screw ups, not people, and it would take years to either migrate Directv's billing systems to AT&T's, or replace both with a new system.


----------



## je4755

DCSholtis said:


> I hope this doesn't mean the beginning of the end for Sunday ticket
> 
> Sent from my XT1053 using DBSTalk mobile app


Yes, I wonder how - if at all - discussions with AT&T affect the pace and substance of DirecTV's negotiations with the NFL.


----------



## jimmie57

This is an interesting read about why they want DTV and what might happen if they do the deal.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2014/05/13/att-directv-deal-analysis/9044491/


----------



## inkahauts

Glenee said:


> If we think we have problems with our billing from time to time now, just wait until AT&T brings their billing department into the mix.


I think this is one of the biggest worries for no reason. As I have said all along att wants to get rid of copper and the billing issues they have are imbedded in the old system with copper including its old unionized call centers. They won't close DIRECTV call centers and replace their billing. Heck even uverse call center people are completely separated from att ones. There is no overlap between the two.


----------



## inkahauts

slice1900 said:


> Going wireless for everyone's internet is not practical, especially if they want to start putting everyone's Netflix habits on it. The cell system is easily over an order of magnitude away from being able to handle today's internet demand, and that demand continues to increase. Read up on how the technology works, the data rates versus the percentage of total spectrum consumed and the directionality of the antennas (i.e. how many people in a 360* radius can share the same frequency) and it is easy to calculate that the cell towers would need to be a lot more dense to support what is being done today by cable modem and DSL. It is very difficult getting permission for new towers, NIMBY abounds.
> 
> Sure, you can serve a limited number of people using LTE and in a year or two LTE Advanced will improve on that, but the reason it works is because comparatively few people are using it at once. If everyone using Netflix was pulling that down on their phones via cellular instead of using their home internet connection that cellular data connection will perform about as well as it does when you're tailgating with 125,000 of your closest friends in a half square mile area  There just isn't the bandwidth for everyone to go wireless in a urban or suburban density without a lot more towers.
> 
> I see this as more of a way to get the FCC off their backs about the less populated or more rugged areas where they feel it is too expensive to run high speed broadband to everyone's house. Put up a few extra cell towers in the area and sell them wireless broadband, with Directv as the alternative to what they provide today with Uverse. No way are they going to try to go completely wireless. It isn't possible, at least not for at least a decade (assuming the demand for bandwidth starts to level off, and we don't replace HD streaming with holographic streaming at gigabits per second )


Don't assume that a wireless system that is used for att cellular is what they want to use for Internet etc. it's not. You are thinking f today, they are thinking tomorrow on this. Why do you think they all want some tv bandwidth? It will happen at some point because no one is affording running next gen fiber to everyone's home in this country.


----------



## damondlt

inkahauts said:


> Don't assume that a wireless system that is used for att cellular is what they want to use for Internet etc. it's not.


Don't assume that it's not.

That's what is currently used.

Unless you have some proof, that Att and Verizon are going to sell you unlimited data for less the $100.

I don't think so!

The home based LTE is a New technology.

No sure why you would think price will come down.

Sent from my Galaxy S5


----------



## Rich

slice1900 said:


> They don't have one, but they have a national internet offering, so it is roughly equal nationwide double play versus nationwide double play.
> 
> If the FCC allows the Comcast/TWC merger to go through, look for them to try to buy Sprint, T Mobile or US Cellular in a few years to provide a true triple play.


I've never gotten involved with the package deals. None of the carriers I can use gives me enough for all the Net use we have in our home except Cablevision, so I end up with a big bill every month for that too. But this is all about luxury and I don't care how much it costs.

Rich


----------



## Rich

dennisj00 said:


> They probably already do, but why would they want a million or so copies of what you record?


Glad Alan put a smilie on that post. I recently had a conversation with an electrician who is absolutely convinced that we are being monitored thru our TVs. I've known several people that suffered terribly from paranoia, always thinking there were plots being carried out with them as the central figure and they weren't kidding.

Rich


----------



## Rich

Glenee said:


> If we think we have problems with our billing from time to time now, just wait until AT&T brings their billing department into the mix.


Geeze, I've been with D* for 12 years now and I haven't had one billing mistake. Can't say that for Verizon. My wife has a corporate iPhone that's on an AT&T corporate account and she hasn't had any billing mistakes. But her service is not nearly as good as Verizon's. Funny thing is, when she's in Europe and calls me she sounds like she's in the next room. She called me on her way back from Philly yesterday and her AT&T phone kept breaking up. Happens in our house too.

Rich


----------



## Stuart Sweet

That's because all phones in Europe are GSM, they really know how to do it. Here in the US, cities and towns don't seem to understand that you need more GSM towers that CDMA towers, but that the towers can be smaller. They're less likely to ok towers in residential areas, while in Europe it's just accepted.


----------



## CraigerM

Analysts are now saying ATT wants DTV to replace UVerse TV so they can free up Internet bandwidth and have more VOD. I wonder how that would work? Would they tell existing UVerse TV customers that they will have to give up their equipment for DTV's? Would ATT call it UVerse Satellite TV?

I think that could be good to get UVerse TV off of their lines maybe that way they can offer more speed plans? Maybe even start at $30 a month for 6 MBPS and when bundled it would be $20?


----------



## john18

jimmie57 said:


> This is an interesting read about why they want DTV and what might happen if they do the deal.
> http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2014/05/13/att-directv-deal-analysis/9044491/


"Bundling is at the heart of AT&T's desire to acquire DirecTV's satellite service."

Well then AT & T may really be screwed because there seems to be a lot of us that have been screwed over by AT & T in the past and there is no way we would bundle a cat box cleaning service with AT & T. 

As in "no freaking way".


----------



## HoTat2

CraigerM said:


> Analysts are now saying ATT wants DTV to replace UVerse TV so they can free up Internet bandwidth and have more VOD. I wonder how that would work? Would they tell existing UVerse TV customers that they will have to give up their equipment for DTV's? Would ATT call it UVerse Satellite TV?
> 
> I think that could be good to get UVerse TV off of their lines maybe that way they can offer more speed plans? Maybe even start at $30 a month for 6 MBPS and when bundled it would be $20?


Or maybe they could freeze U-verse TV customers at present levels in allowing no new sign-ups after a certain future point. Then offer only DIRECTV installs for all new pay TV customers afterwards.


----------



## James Long

CraigerM said:


> Analysts are now saying ATT wants DTV to replace UVerse TV so they can free up Internet bandwidth and have more VOD.


Link? Or did these "analysts" get the idea from the discussion earlier in this thread?


----------



## CraigerM

James Long said:


> Link? Or did these "analysts" get the idea from the discussion earlier in this thread?


http://variety.com/2014/biz/news/att-set-to-buy-directv-for-about-50-billion-report-1201178578/

Analysts have speculated that AT&T could migrate its 5.7 million U-verse TV subscribers to DirecTV's satellite-delivered service, freeing up bandwidth in its terrestrial data networks. With 26 million pay-TV subscribers, AT&T would also gain leverage in programming negotiations on par with a merged Comcast-TW Cable.

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303851804579558232282287084

Adding satellite TV capabilities also could allow AT&T to free up valuable bandwidth on its Internet connections to customer homes.


----------



## trainman

CraigerM said:


> Analysts have speculated that AT&T could migrate its 5.7 million U-verse TV subscribers to DirecTV's satellite-delivered service, freeing up bandwidth in its terrestrial data networks.


There's no way they could migrate everyone, since some U-verse TV subscribers don't have a view of the southern sky, don't have a place to put up a dish, or are otherwise currently unable to get DirecTV.


----------



## dennisj00

Unless they could put a dish on the dslam or whatever the refrigerator box up the street is called. I know my Brother in Law can't get directv but maybe somewhere up the street has LOS.


----------



## CraigerM

trainman said:


> There's no way they could migrate everyone, since some U-verse TV subscribers don't have a view of the southern sky, don't have a place to put up a dish, or are otherwise currently unable to get DirecTV.


The LOS is a good point but I don't think the FCC would let ATT have two TV services.


----------



## Laxguy

CraigerM said:


> The LOS is a good point but I don't think the FCC would let ATT have two TV services.


Why not?


----------



## CraigerM

Laxguy said:


> Why not?


They could see it as too many TV providers merging especially with the Comcast and TW merger, too many cable unless they think UVerse TV is too small? They may tell ATT they would have to give up UVerse TV to approve the deal.

However, ATT could argue they need UVerse TV for people who can't use DTV due to the LOS issue. Maybe that is how they could use both UVerse TV and DTV? Just use UVerse TV for LOS people and DTV for everybody else. That way could also free up bandwidth for Internet and VOD.


----------



## BLWedge09

sigma1914 said:


> According to ATT engineers at AVS forum, the PQ is the same nationwide. Only the amount of HD streams varies, as you know.
> 
> I got a great signup deal for internet and TV and kept the lowest package after the bonuses ran out. It's not much more.


Just as info, I used to work for AT&T back around the time U-verse came out. That experience doesn't cloud my judgement though. If anything it would make me want to dislike them. Not a fan of the company in general.

I say that only to say that I know how their general distribution network works, and yes, theoretically it should be the same everywhere since it leaves the original distribution source the same. I don't know what happens to it in some areas though..and I can't explain it, but I have seen really bad looking u-verse in some markets and really good looking service in other markets. I agree that it doesn't make sense, but I have seen it. Tends to be totally different markets in my experience though.

I had DirecTV for years and their HD is better. But, these days, while maybe it still isn't overall as good, it's not far off in my house. And their encoding schemes have definitely improved over the years. Mine is light years better than when I tried it out back when it was brand new.

Honestly, I'm just glad I have choices where I live. I get to choose from DirecTV, Dish, AT&T U-Verse, and Charter cable.


----------



## 456521

This thread is comical with alll the hysteria and doom and gloom!! I guess that's what happens when people become emotionally attached to their video provider.


----------



## APB101

pdxBeav said:


> This thread is comical with alll the hysteria and doom and gloom!! I guess that's what happens when people become emotionally attached to their video provider.


There is no harm in the discussion. After all, you did come here to give your two-cents on the topic.

I appreciate the above links to the articles about a lean toward keeping the DirecTV (over U-Verse) video service should a deal go through. It would make sense because DirecTV is more recognized than U-verse, yes, but also because of more access in acquiring subscribers nationwide.


----------



## acostapimps

Look AT&T just want to slice and buy competition, Just look at their failed AT&T/T-Mobile merger, You think the FCC will approve this acquisition from the biggest sat company in the U.S, Maybe they'll approve Comcast/TWC since their both cable companies, But AT&T/Directv is far from having similar video services, they can talking getting rid of U-Verse TV all they want, They need to explain a lot better than just video services and wireless spectrum.


----------



## damondlt

acostapimps said:


> But AT&T/Directv is far from having similar video services, .


Which is exactly why it will get approved. 
They don't sell the same product.
Att only serves a few states with tv, and not even entire states.

The fact they are different in many ways is as good as gold.

Sent from my Galaxy S5


----------



## Athlon646464

*Update: **AT&T turns to Lazard for advice on DirecTV deal*

And the beat goes on.......

May 14 (Reuters) - AT&T Inc is working with investment bank Lazard Ltd as it negotiates a potential takeover of DirecTV, the country's top satellite TV operator, according to people familiar with the matter.

Lazard, which advised Leap Wireless International on its $1.2 billion sale to AT&T last year, is advising the wireless giant this time around, the people said, asking not to be named because the matter is not public....

Full Story Here


----------



## CraigerM

I didn't know UVerse TV was that small. I thought they were big. Does ATT think UVerse TV isn't that great and that is why they don't have a lot of sign ups? I guess if ATT does get rid of UVerse TV how that would even out with ATT not being able to sign up customers with LOS issues when UVerse TV didn't have that. Also if UVerse TV customers leave because they don't like it when DTV goes out in bad weather?


----------



## Laxguy

Here are the global rankings from Deal Logic:


----------



## harsh

James Long said:


> The deal seems to be good for AT&T - otherwise they would not be pursuing it. It seems to be good for DirecTV stockholders who will make money off of the sale to AT&T. Good for the customers is harder to promise.


The articles are mostly seeing a benefit to AT&T but at the same time, they note that AT&T already offers cable TV service. The purchase only buys the money printing press that is DIRECTV. It doesn't buy new markets to exploit like a Comcast-TWC or Charter buyout would.

It would be interesting indeed to see what happened with a different DIRECTV Board of Directors configuration seeded with AT&T personnel and minus Mr. White.


----------



## harsh

damondlt said:


> Att only serves a few states with tv, and not even entire states.


Acquiring DIRECTV isn't going to change AT&T's service area appreciably.

Bundling DIRECTV at some level has been available for many years.


----------



## Rich

Stuart Sweet said:


> That's because all phones in Europe are GSM, they really know how to do it. Here in the US, cities and towns don't seem to understand that you need more GSM towers that CDMA towers, but that the towers can be smaller. They're less likely to ok towers in residential areas, while in Europe it's just accepted.


Well, your post caused me to find out what GSM phones are and, as usual, it sounds like we got screwed royally. From what I read, GSM would appear to be the best choice for phones. And Europe knew it and mandated, by law, that GSM technology be used.

Rich


----------



## jerrylove56

harsh said:


> The articles are mostly seeing a benefit to AT&T but at the same time, they note that AT&T already offers cable TV service. The purchase only buys the money printing press that is DIRECTV. It doesn't buy new markets to exploit like a Comcast-TWC or Charter buyout would.
> 
> It would be interesting indeed to see what happened with a different DIRECTV Board of Directors configuration seeded with AT&T personnel and minus Mr. White.


A couple of articles from WSJ and NY Times suggested that ATT would be in a position to exploit current and future Directv customers by upselling other services or bundles. It was also suggested that DTV per customer monthly expenditure greatly exceeds what ATT customers are paying.


----------



## fleckrj

Rich said:


> Well, your post caused me to find out what GSM phones are and, as usual, it sounds like we got screwed royally. From what I read, GSM would appear to be the best choice for phones. And Europe knew it and mandated, by law, that GSM technology be used.
> 
> Rich


But the prevailing political attitude in the US is that companies always do what is best, and all mandates from the government are bad for business. If US companies chose CDMA and the EU governments mandated GSM, then according to the philosophy of the politicians in control of the US House of Representatives, it is the EU that has it wrong :eek2:


----------



## slice1900

CraigerM said:


> I didn't know UVerse TV was that small. I thought they were big. Does ATT think UVerse TV isn't that great and that is why they don't have a lot of sign ups? I guess if ATT does get rid of UVerse TV how that would even out with ATT not being able to sign up customers with LOS issues when UVerse TV didn't have that. Also if UVerse TV customers leave because they don't like it when DTV goes out in bad weather?


It is more because Uverse isn't available in a lot of areas, and wasn't was there from the beginning. I don't know how the percentage of sign ups in areas where they operate compares with FIOS TV, but in both cases they operate as phone companies that also sell TV, so there is always at least one cable company operating in the same areas, in addition to satellite. So when Uverse (and FIOS TV) were initially offered, potential customers already had TV from another provider and had to be induced to switch.


----------



## slice1900

Rich said:


> Well, your post caused me to find out what GSM phones are and, as usual, it sounds like we got screwed royally. From what I read, GSM would appear to be the best choice for phones. And Europe knew it and mandated, by law, that GSM technology be used.
> 
> Rich


AT&T and T-mobile used GSM technology, Verizon and Sprint used CDMA. That provided an advantage for Verizon in building out their 3G network since they didn't need to build as many towers as AT&T. Everyone uses the same technology for 4G (LTE) so it isn't really relevant any longer, except for people who live in areas that don't have LTE yet - or if you try to take a Verizon phone overseas and find it doesn't work anywhere that doesn't have LTE (which is a lot of the rest of the world)


----------



## nmetro

So, comes the question. Which is less expensive, infrastructure wise, satellite or FIOS/U-Verse?

All three of them do require down links, as most, if not all cable channels, are on satellite. DirecTV does have a huge investment in satellites, but FIOS and U-Verse have miles of cable they have to maintain. DeiecTV deos not have to deal with a municipal infrastructure; U-Verse and FIOS do. Subscribers do not have to wait fro FIOS/U-Verse to come to their home; DirecTV is basically add a satellite dish. Yes, receivers are involved here, but that cost cancels it self out between providers. Content, is pretty much the same among all three providers.

So, if AT&T were to merge with DirecTV, it may be less expensive to convert U-Verse customers to DirecTV. This move would expand the Direct subscriber base. They do not have the pole leasing and other municipal regulations they have to deal with. Effectively, swap out receiver and add a dish. Thus, while no oe is truly saying it; in the long run, having all U-Verse and DirecTV customers, on the DirecTV platform, would ultimately save money for AT&T.


----------



## CraigerM

nmetro said:


> So, comes the question. Which is less expensive, infrastructure wise, satellite or FIOS/U-Verse?
> 
> All three of them do require down links, as most, if not all cable channels, are on satellite. DirecTV does have a huge investment in satellites, but FIOS and U-Verse have miles of cable they have to maintain. DeiecTV deos not have to deal with a municipal infrastructure; U-Verse and FIOS do. Subscribers do not have to wait fro FIOS/U-Verse to come to their home; DirecTV is basically add a satellite dish. Yes, receivers are involved here, but that cost cancels it self out between providers. Content, is pretty much the same among all three providers.
> 
> So, if AT&T were to merge with DirecTV, it may be less expensive to convert U-Verse customers to DirecTV. This move would expand the Direct subscriber base. They do not have the pole leasing and other municipal regulations they have to deal with. Effectively, swap out receiver and add a dish. Thus, while no oe is truly saying it; in the long run, having all U-Verse and DirecTV customers, on the DirecTV platform, would ultimately save money for AT&T.


I can see that being the best way, swapping out UVerse boxes for DTV's and adding a dish. How would the installation of a triple play work? Would their be both DTV and UVerse installers? Who would come out first? Would DTV install first then would UVerse come later and install UVerse Internet and phone? Then hook up the DTV boxes to the Internet with Ethernet and the UVerse Wifi Gateway. That would be another good thing no more phone line needed for VOD with UVerse Internet.

Also would the new company be known as ATT DTV and the UVerse name would go away?


----------



## slice1900

nmetro said:


> So, comes the question. Which is less expensive, infrastructure wise, satellite or FIOS/U-Verse?


That's a good question, and one probably no one here is qualified to answer. It costs a lot to wire an area, but once it is wired the ongoing maintenance is much less. It costs a lot to launch/replace satellites, but your service is available over the whole country, instead of just those cities/neighborhoods you've wired so the potential number of customers is larger.

Installation costs are pretty similar. The equipment costs the same between satellite/cable (assuming equal capabilities are provided) and initial installs of each result in a truck roll.


----------



## acostapimps

As long as they keep it the same but seperate for both TV services, I wouldn't have a problem with the merger, Only integration would be VOD but that means a added Gateway router which also means: MORE MONTHLY FEES


----------



## CraigerM

acostapimps said:


> As long as they keep it the same but seperate for both TV services, I wouldn't have a problem with the merger, Only integration would be VOD but that means a added Gateway router which also means: MORE MONTHLY FEES


If you sign up for UVerse Triple Play you have to pay Gateway fee anyway, not sure on the price.


----------



## damondlt

harsh said:


> Acquiring DIRECTV isn't going to change AT&T's service area appreciably.


Never said it would.

If you read the post I quoted, you would have saw what I was talking about.


----------



## acostapimps

Would this mean that HD channels on at&t that Directv don't have(only SD) would automatically get added if the merger is successful?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I317 using Tapatalk


----------



## James Long

acostapimps said:


> Would this mean that HD channels on at&t that Directv don't have(only SD) would automatically get added if the merger is successful?


No guarantees. The services may stay completely separate. AT&T has a contract to deliver what they carry to their subscribers - not DirecTV's. The channel lineups are not going to instantly change to match each other.


----------



## CraigerM

James Long said:


> No guarantees. The services may stay completely separate. AT&T has a contract to deliver what they carry to their subscribers - not DirecTV's. The channel lineups are not going to instantly change to match each other.


What if in the contract it says ATT has the right to change the contract at any time if conditions warrant it?


----------



## dpeters11

I can't imagine that the lawyers for the channel owners would allow the contract to be that loose.


----------



## CraigerM

dpeters11 said:


> I can't imagine that the lawyers for the channel owners would allow the contract to be that loose.


Or maybe they would keep the UVerse people on their contracts until they expired then switch them over to DTV and any new signups will be DTV only?


----------



## Rich

fleckrj said:


> But the prevailing political attitude in the US is that companies always do what is best, and all mandates from the government are bad for business. If US companies chose CDMA and the EU governments mandated GSM, then according to the philosophy of the politicians in control of the US House of Representatives, it is the EU that has it wrong :eek2:


And by that reasoning, we got screwed again. What I said. Bad thing is, it keeps happening. What to do?

Rich


----------



## Rich

slice1900 said:


> AT&T and T-mobile used GSM technology, Verizon and Sprint used CDMA. That provided an advantage for Verizon in building out their 3G network since they didn't need to build as many towers as AT&T. Everyone uses the same technology for 4G (LTE) so it isn't really relevant any longer, except for people who live in areas that don't have LTE yet - or if you try to take a Verizon phone overseas and find it doesn't work anywhere that doesn't have LTE (which is a lot of the rest of the world)


I think Stuart's post was pointed towards my wife's phone sounding so much better to me when she was in Europe. I never understood that before.

Rich


----------



## slice1900

Rich said:


> I think Stuart's post was pointed towards my wife's phone sounding so much better to me when she was in Europe. I never understood that before.
> 
> Rich


That was probably wideband audio you heard. The only major US carrier using it now is T-Mobile (they call it HD Voice) but some places in Europe have had it for 4-5 years.

The US being behind there doesn't have anything to do with our GSM/CDMA split. I think AT&T and Verizon are waiting until they deploy VoLTE (voice over LTE) to roll out wideband audio. Maybe next year.


----------



## peds48

slice1900 said:


> I think AT&T and Verizon are waiting until they deploy VoLTE (voice over LTE) to roll out wideband audio. Maybe next year.


News sources say that AT&T is going to start VoLTE on May 21st on certain markets.


----------



## carl6

slice1900 said:


> AT&T and T-mobile used GSM technology, Verizon and Sprint used CDMA. That provided an advantage for Verizon in building out their 3G network since they didn't need to build as many towers as AT&T. Everyone uses the same technology for 4G (LTE) so it isn't really relevant any longer, except for people who live in areas that don't have LTE yet - or if you try to take a Verizon phone overseas and find it doesn't work anywhere that doesn't have LTE (which is a lot of the rest of the world)


AT&T originally used TDMA, not GSM. GSM is a variation of TDMA (time division multiple access). TDMA was consumer ready about a year before CDMA (code division multiple access), however CDMA offers both better audio quality and more subscribers for a given amount of spectrum than does TDMA. Therefore the telco side of the house (back in those days) chose to wait for CDMA to go digital and move away from AMPS cellular service. Europe went with GSM as noted, and the TDMA side of the US cellular companies evolved from TDMA to GSM. There are good and valid arguments for either side, and you could say the US consumer got the best end of the deal by having a choice as to which technology they use. I've personally always stayed with CDMA devices.


----------



## Laxguy

But now we're moving into LTE... is it really way better than all other technologies currently in use?


----------



## slice1900

Laxguy said:


> But now we're moving into LTE... is it really way better than all other technologies currently in use?


Sure it is, it is more spectrum efficient (more bits per MHz) It is like cable switching from QAM64 to QAM256, or converting from MPEG2 to MPEG4. You make better use of the same resources.

The big gain will be when they move to VoLTE, because the way voice is handled currently uses up a lot more spectrum than the amount of data being passed (modelling after circuit switched POTS calls, rather than VOIP packet switched calls) There are a ton of frequencies sitting idle most of the time to support peak calling volume, which will be available for data when not being used for voice.

However, since voice traffic will have priority, peak calling volumes will be far far higher than before - fewer problems making/receiving calls in football stadiums or during emergencies (like after the Boston marathon bombing) All the bandwidth currently reserved for data will be available for calling - data traffic might slow to a crawl, but making calls is probably more important than someone posting Instagram pics.


----------



## Laxguy

Heh. Thanks for the expo..


----------



## inkahauts

harsh said:


> The articles are mostly seeing a benefit to AT&T but at the same time, they note that AT&T already offers cable TV service. The purchase only buys the money printing press that is DIRECTV. It doesn't buy new markets to exploit like a Comcast-TWC or Charter buyout would.
> 
> It would be interesting indeed to see what happened with a different DIRECTV Board of Directors configuration seeded with AT&T personnel and minus Mr. White.


On what planet is that true? There is huge amount of area ATT will never be able to offer uverse tv to, but with the merger with Directv they would be able to offer tv to tens of millions (if not hundred million or more) of more people than they do now.


----------



## slice1900

inkahauts said:


> On what planet is that true? There is huge amount of area ATT will never be able to offer uverse tv to, but with the merger with Directv they would be able to offer tv to tens of millions (if not hundred million or more) of more people than they do now.


Yes, they have a potential base of most of the country, but they have high penetration in some areas (like LA) and low penetration in others. Why is that? I think it is because of national pricing. Cable companies don't do national pricing. If two people who live in different parts of the country both subscribe to Comcast they probably don't pay the same, depending on their markets. One may have a couple competing cable companies plus a telco alternative like FIOS. Another may have just the one cable company in town, lots of trees everywhere making satellite a bad choice and no telco TV offering. Comcast is going to stick it to the guy with no alternative, but is forced to keep their prices competitive where they have to if they want to get customers.

What if Directv priced that way? Maybe that's why there are so many subscribers in LA - if the cable companies charge more (due to cost of living, lack of competition, whatever) but other places where the cable prices are low maybe Directv has few subscribers since they're priced way out of line with cable TV.

Directv has a fixed overhead for operating satellites which doesn't change whether they have 1 million or 100 million subscribers. Each subscriber has a fixed acquisition cost (installation, free Genie, etc.) which is pretty high (they state it is over $800) so in order to pay all those fixed costs the gross margin on the service needs to be pretty damn good. They have to pay for programming per subscriber (I assume?) and of course with more subscribers you need more CSRs etc. but those are probably pretty small compared to the monthly charges so additional customers are pretty profitable if they stick around beyond their two year commitment. So what if they lowered their prices 25% in some city where there's a lot of cable competition and pricing is low. Maybe today they have only 5% of the households in that city because their prices are out of line, but were able to jump that up to 15% with the price drop. Would that be worth it? Hell yeah, that would be hugely profitable!

Directv could have done that themselves, and they haven't, but maybe if AT&T buys them and thinks more like a cable company than a satellite company, changes like that might happen. Whether that's good or not is another matter, but it would be interesting to see. It has always mystified me why Directv and Dish do national pricing, when many industries (think airlines) spend hundreds of millions on figuring out how to maximize revenue through extreme price discrimination. It is only recently they even bothered accounting for the different cost of sports in different areas.

I'm sure some will say this would be a terrible idea, that customers will be pissed if they find out they're paying more than a guy in another city, or maybe even more than the guy across the street. But anytime you fly you can be pretty certain some people on that flight - maybe a lot of them - paid less for their ticket than you did. Maybe if Directv did this there would be some initial shock and outrage, but they'd get over it pretty quickly and it would just be something you were used to.


----------



## unixguru

inkahauts said:


> Don't assume that a wireless system that is used for att cellular is what they want to use for Internet etc. it's not. You are thinking f today, they are thinking tomorrow on this. Why do you think they all want some tv bandwidth? It will happen at some point because no one is affording running next gen fiber to everyone's home in this country.


This deal has nothing to do with internet or phone and satellite. Even if they could put up a system with terabits/sec both up and down they still can't erase the laws of physics. TOF (time of flight). The sats are a long way away and it takes time for any signal to travel up and down - seconds. A phone call over geostationary sat would be like walkie talkie - "over". Internet satellite is available today and it is absolutely terrible; nobody uses it unless there is no other "broadband" available.

Tv spectrum that is desirable is terrestrial (ground), not satellite. They can't use satellite spectrum for ground-based and vice versa.

No fiber to homes? The same was said once about water, sewer, gas, power, telephone, cable. They will run fiber to homes eventually.


----------



## harsh

inkahauts said:


> On what planet is that true? There is huge amount of area ATT will never be able to offer uverse tv to, but with the merger with Directv they would be able to offer tv to tens of millions (if not hundred million or more) of more people than they do now.


How many are going to be able to/want to install a dish to get their TV that haven't already?

What happens to DIRECTV rates, already averaging above the $100 mark, when AT&T wants their cut? Do you honestly think that the insertion of AT&T at _any_ level is going to make DIRECTV more attractive to uVerse or DIRECTV customers?

To customers of their competitors?

Of those who have expressed an opinion, the answer seems to be a resounding "no you didn't".


----------



## Athlon646464

Interesting slant and a positive outlook if the acquisition happens (Forbes).


----------



## wingrider01

unixguru said:


> This deal has nothing to do with internet or phone and satellite. Even if they could put up a system with terabits/sec both up and down they still can't erase the laws of physics. TOF (time of flight). The sats are a long way away and it takes time for any signal to travel up and down - seconds. A phone call over geostationary sat would be like walkie talkie - "over". Internet satellite is available today and it is absolutely terrible; nobody uses it unless there is no other "broadband" available.
> 
> Tv spectrum that is desirable is terrestrial (ground), not satellite. They can't use satellite spectrum for ground-based and vice versa.
> 
> No fiber to homes? The same was said once about water, sewer, gas, power, telephone, cable. They will run fiber to homes eventually.


they already are in some locations - they are spending a ton of money in certain rollout cities for giga-fiber to the dmark.


----------



## slice1900

harsh said:


> How many are going to be able to/want to install a dish to get their TV that haven't already?
> 
> What happens to DIRECTV rates, already averaging above the $100 mark, when AT&T wants their cut? Do you honestly think that the insertion of AT&T at _any_ level is going to make DIRECTV more attractive to uVerse or DIRECTV customers?
> 
> To customers of their competitors?
> 
> Of those who have expressed an opinion, the answer seems to be a resounding "no you didn't".


AT&T would become the owner. They don't take a "cut", they take 100% of the profits that are currently either retained or used for buybacks. So there's no reason Directv rates should go up.

You don't understand business very well if you think that a company that "needs" more profit to pay middlemen could just raise their rates. Go tell the owner of every business that's losing money that the solution is simple: charge more. They'll thank you for your keen business insight! :nono2:

If rates go up, some customers leave. If you make more money with higher rates than you lose from customers that leave, then from a business standpoint it makes financial sense to raise your rates. If rates go _down_, you'll get more customers. If you make more money from the additional customers than you lose from lower rates, then it makes financial sense to lower your rates (which in a business that raises rates yearly might be a smaller/no increase rather than an actual cut) Every business hopes to find that point where their profit is maximized.

Perhaps AT&T beancounters might have a different evaluation of whether Directv is above or below that profit maximizing point than Directv's beancounters do. If so, they might decide to raise or lower rates if/when they're in charge.


----------



## CraigerM

Found this interesting about the deal:

http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2014-05-01/at-t-buying-directv-doesn-t-signal-dystopia

"The perfect telecom provider should have a satellite fleet, a mobile network, a fiber optic infrastructure and a web of WiFi hot spots. It can then concentrate on providing some kind of connectivity everywhere."


----------



## slice1900

CraigerM said:


> Found this interesting about the deal:
> 
> http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2014-05-01/at-t-buying-directv-doesn-t-signal-dystopia
> 
> "The perfect telecom provider should have a satellite fleet, a mobile network, a fiber optic infrastructure and a web of WiFi hot spots. It can then concentrate on providing some kind of connectivity everywhere."


Eh, I discount the author as ignorant since he seems to think buying Directv will allow "use of satellites to bridge gaps in cellular networks". He clearly has no concept of the difference between GSO and LEO. I know phones keep getting bigger, but probably won't get big enough to stick a satellite dish on it, not to mention having to keep that dish pointed at the correct spot in the sky!

You need something like what Teledesic and Iridium tried to do for what he's talking about.

I do find it interesting how many theories there are. Normally it is pretty obvious what is behind a company's acquisition strategy, but this time it is a more of a mystery. I wonder if AT&T will announce the reasons after the purchase is approved (assumed the deal gets done and the FCC approves it) or on the following earnings call, or keep it close to the vest for a while to keep the competition in the dark?


----------



## Rob

http://www.buzzfeed.com/passantino/att-set-to-announce-directv-acquisition-sunday



> AT&T is on track to announce its acquisition of the satellite company DirectTV this Sunday, before markets open Monday and sooner than many observers anticipated, a source familiar with DirecTV's plans told BuzzFeed.
> "The deal is done," the source said, adding that DirecTV CEO Mike White has already informed senior executives that the deal is finished and plans to give public confirmation Sunday.


----------



## JosephB

slice1900 said:


> Eh, I discount the author as ignorant since he seems to think buying Directv will allow "use of satellites to bridge gaps in cellular networks". He clearly has no concept of the difference between GSO and LEO. I know phones keep getting bigger, but probably won't get big enough to stick a satellite dish on it, not to mention having to keep that dish pointed at the correct spot in the sky!
> 
> You need something like what Teledesic and Iridium tried to do for what he's talking about.
> 
> I do find it interesting how many theories there are. Normally it is pretty obvious what is behind a company's acquisition strategy, but this time it is a more of a mystery. I wonder if AT&T will announce the reasons after the purchase is approved (assumed the deal gets done and the FCC approves it) or on the following earnings call, or keep it close to the vest for a while to keep the competition in the dark?


They would say what their rationale is when the deal is announced. They'll probably talk about synergies and taking costs out and blah blah, but it's really all about getting access to DirecTV's money printer. DirecTV generates something like $2 billion in free cash flow every year, and that is money that AT&T can use to pay dividends, buy wireless spectrum, or buy other companies. I'm sure they will take out duplication where it makes sense (customer service, installation network, and there is some chance that they will offer DirecTV in lieu of IPTV over U-Verse so that you can get a higher U-Verse internet tier, but I don't know if they will completely abandon U-Verse TV (they likely have a lot of customers in MDUs and other situations where a dish is not feasible), and this is most likely just a financial engineering ploy, intertwined with a TV consolidation storyline.


----------



## CraigerM

Just thought of something, I wonder how many UVerse TV would leave if they kept DTV and got rid of UVerse TV because they would find out now they have a $25 Advanced Receiver Fee when the HD DVR was included for free with UVerse TV?


----------



## sigma1914

CraigerM said:


> Just thought of something, I wonder how many UVerse TV would leave if they kept DTV and got rid of UVerse TV because they would find out now they have a $25 Advanced Receiver Fee when the HD DVR was included for free with UVerse TV?


It's not included with Uverse. HD is only included into the highest tier called U450. Total home DVR fee is $15 with the Basic tier and free in the others.

http://s16.postimg.org/z4smrtu05/image.png


----------



## CraigerM

sigma1914 said:


> It's not included with Uverse.


On the ad it says get a free DVR for life.


----------



## Athlon646464

IMHO, I don't think we'll (current subs) see anything different for quite some time (year or two or three). The first year will be all about getting the deal approved in Washington. Years two & three will see 95% business as usual.

Then, as AT&T usually does given their history, will sell D* at a discount sometime after that (in four or five years). Who knows, Mr. White could even buy it back then. :hurah:

And who knows what sort of content delivery systems we'll be using in five years. Should be very interesting. Just my 2 cents...


----------



## Paul Secic

sigma1914 said:


> It's not included with Uverse.


Uverse's boxes are junk.


----------



## CraigerM

Paul Secic said:


> Uverse's boxes are junk.


How are they junk? I know they don't have tuners in them since they connect to their RG.


----------



## sigma1914

CraigerM said:


> How are they junk? I know they don't have tuners in them since they connect to their RG.


They're slow with bad software design. Navigation is cumbersome.


----------



## CraigerM

Athlon646464 said:


> IMHO, I don't think we'll (current subs) see anything different for quite some time (year or two or three). The first year will be all about getting the deal approved in Washington. Years two & three will see 95% business as usual.
> 
> Then, as AT&T usually does given their history, will sell D* at a discount sometime after that (in four or five years). Who knows, Mr. White could even buy it back then. :hurah:
> 
> And who knows what sort of content delivery systems we'll be using in five years. Should be very interesting. Just my 2 cents...


I wonder how soon any billing changes will take place? Would ATT merge everything into one bill?


----------



## CraigerM

sigma1914 said:


> They're slow with bad software design. Navigation is cumbersome.


Even with FTTH? That's good to know. Then I would be for ATT getting rid of the UVerse boxes and keeping the DTV ones.


----------



## Stuart Sweet

I agree with my colleague Athlon646464, there is nothing here to suggest that there would be any synergy between AT&T and DIRECTV other than some price breaks if you bundle. This could simply be an investment on AT&T's part. http://forums.solidsignal.com/content.php/3218-AT-T-DIRECTV-is-the-deal-done


----------



## booboo

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/t-announce-directv-takeover-sunday-161522606.html?soc_src=copy
Just read this story. Looks like it is a done deal. I'm not so sure this is a good thing.

Sent from my iPad using DBSTalk


----------



## PCampbell

Not much we can do but wait and see.


----------



## JimAtTheRez

Maybe, just maybe, we can finally put an end to the lack of a contract with ESPN concerning the WatchESPN app and The SEC Network. I have Uverse for phone and internet and like it a lot. But I really like my Directv set up, so hopefully, MY wait will soon be over.


----------



## Bob Coxner

JosephB said:


> They would say what their rationale is when the deal is announced. They'll probably talk about synergies and taking costs out and blah blah, but it's really all about getting access to DirecTV's money printer. DirecTV generates something like $2 billion in free cash flow every year, and that is money that AT&T can use to pay dividends, buy wireless spectrum, or buy other companies. I'm sure they will take out duplication where it makes sense (customer service, installation network, and there is some chance that they will offer DirecTV in lieu of IPTV over U-Verse so that you can get a higher U-Verse internet tier, but I don't know if they will completely abandon U-Verse TV (they likely have a lot of customers in MDUs and other situations where a dish is not feasible), and this is most likely just a financial engineering ploy, intertwined with a TV consolidation storyline.


Why assume they would merge customer service? DTV CSRs know nothing about AT&T products and vice versa. It's already difficult to sort out technical problems with CSRs who are familiar with DTV. Imagine the outrage if an AT&T CSR tried to solve a DTV problem.

The same goes for installation. Satellite installation is nothing at all like installing a cable service such as UVerse.

Yes, CSRs and installers could eventually be cross-trained but I would guess it would cost more, and cause more headaches, than just leaving those areas as they are now.

I can easily be wrong but as a 15-year DTV sub I have no problems with AT&T buying us. Dish buying us was a whole different ballgame. If Dish and DTV were merged then you have no leverage at all for haggling or leaving for a different sat provider. If AT&T really does screw things up then we still have the option of moving to Dish.


----------



## James Long

Athlon646464 said:


> IMHO, I don't think we'll (current subs) see anything different for quite some time (year or two or three). The first year will be all about getting the deal approved in Washington. Years two & three will see 95% business as usual.


I agree. Approval will take a while - there will be no overnight changes. (Although every change from announcement on will be attributed on the Internets to the deal. )



Athlon646464 said:


> Then, as AT&T usually does given their history, will sell D* at a discount sometime after that (in four or five years). Who knows, Mr. White could even buy it back then.


Must be quite a severance package to enable Mr White to purchase something he doesn't own now.  Either that or a dire prediction that AT&T will run down the value of DirecTV enough that Mr White will be able to afford it.



Athlon646464 said:


>


I like the RV dish.


----------



## James Long

JimAtTheRez said:


> Maybe, just maybe, we can finally put an end to the lack of a contract with ESPN concerning the WatchESPN app and The SEC Network.


That is likely to be taken care of by the end of the year when DirecTV renews their deal with ESPN (just like it was taken care of earlier this year when DISH renewed carriage of ESPN). Already on the radar and completely separate from the death star deal.



Bob Coxner said:


> DTV CSRs know nothing about AT&T products and vice versa.


Reading some of the complaint posts it seems that DTV CSRs know nothing about DTV products now. So no change. :lol:


----------



## jimmie57

Wow, this is moving fast. They are talking about announcing this Sunday and completing by Monday morning.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-05-17/at-t-directv-said-to-aim-to-complete-deal-by-monday.html?cmpid=yhoo


----------



## Athlon646464

jimmie57 said:


> Wow, this is moving fast. They are talking about announcing this Monday morning.
> http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-05-17/at-t-directv-said-to-aim-to-complete-deal-by-monday.html?cmpid=yhoo


See post #312 - They're announcing it tomorrow (Sunday), or at least before the markets open.


----------



## CraigerM

What would happen to Dish customers that use UVerse Internet or DSL? Would ATT still sell them a separate products to customers that didn't subscribe to UVerse TV since Dish would now be ATT's competition?


----------



## James Long

Death star to DirecTV: Add Pac-12 and SEC or we shoot.


----------



## jimmie57

Athlon646464 said:


> See post #312 - They're announcing it tomorrow (Sunday), or at least before the markets open.


Too many posts here. I did not look back that far.
You are correct.


----------



## James Long

CraigerM said:


> What would happen to Dish customers that use UVerse Internet or DSL? Would ATT still sell them a separate products to customers that didn't subscribe to UVerse TV since Dish would now be ATT's competition?


Any agreements that are in place would continue. It would be foolish for AT&T to refuse to serve customers. The anti-trust folks in the government would have some words about your proposal as well.


----------



## Athlon646464

James Long said:


> I agree. Approval will take a while - there will be no overnight changes. (Although every change from announcement on will be attributed on the Internets to the deal. )
> 
> Must be quite a severance package to enable Mr White to purchase something he doesn't own now.  Either that or a dire prediction that AT&T will run down the value of DirecTV enough that Mr White will be able to afford it.
> 
> I like the RV dish.


It was more of the dire prediction piece (and a bit of an exaggeration in another lame attempt to be funny). But I've wondered for a while now about the whole cable/sat business. AT&T may actually help D* last longer than it would have on it's own. I think by 2020 (only 6 years for those who are math challenged) we may have a very different choice for content delivery anyway.

It may be as it was when cable was the first choice we had over OTA, then we had sat as a choice over cable and/or OTA. My guess right now is IPTV over some sort of wireless and/or wired broadband. I don't want to start a whole new direction in this thread about pricing for that, but prices do tend to settle down to what folks are wiling to pay. Having said that, I'm optimistic that whatever is coming won't cost more than what we are paying now.


----------



## James Long

jimmie57 said:


> Too many posts here. I did not look back that far.
> You are correct.


We also have a post on the site homepage.


----------



## jimmie57

James Long said:


> We also have a post on the site homepage.


I had some AT&T stock and sold half of it yesterday. Sometimes the acquiring company takes a hit from the new debt added.


----------



## James Long

Athlon646464 said:


> It was more of the dire prediction piece (and a bit of an exaggeration in another lame attempt to be funny). But I've wondered for a while now about the whole cable/sat business. AT&T may actually help D* last longer than it would have on it's own. I think by 2020 (only 6 years for those who are math challenged) we may have a very different choice for content delivery anyway.


I expect DBS to survive ... perhaps not in its current technology (DirecTV DSS and DISH DBS + MPEG4 channels using DVB standards) but still using satellite broadcast to get a signal to many subscribers at the same time. The only way satellite goes away is if something much cheaper comes along that can do the exact same job. So far, the broadcast capacity of satellite has not been replaced.

As wireless companies continue to grow additional capacity is being added that allows for additional content delivery - but that data is coming at a high price. Yes, one can install a fixed antenna at their home and use LTE as their home Internet provider ... but the service and the data will cost money.

If satellite does "go away" I believe people in 2020 will look back at now as the "glory days" of when television was cheap and plentiful. Remember when one could pay (ARPU) $100 and get hundreds of channels at no additional cost? Remember when one did not have to pay a content provider for content and an ISP for delivery doubling the price of what one watches?

DBS is becoming more integrated as the US moves forward into the "watch anywhere" delivery. Going forward I expect to see subscription to satellite, cable or IPTV services expanded to allow delivery across any Internet platform the subscriber pays for. DirecTV and DISH currently offer Internet downloaded content to their receivers as part of their services. (The more popular content can be satellite pushed in advance of being requested.) DISH offers international channels via IPTV ... and plans to introduce their own general content subscription package that does not include satellite delivery. I would not be surprised if other pay TV companies offered "bring your own network" subscriptions.

The trend over the past few years has seen cable pay TV in a deep decline ... people are using their internet services and adding satellite or IPTV for content for which they no longer pay cable. Satellite pay TV has basically leveled off. IPTV pay TV is making up for cable's losses in the overall pay TV market. Companies like AT&T are providing the Internet along with the TV - but it is all "where physically available".

The physical restrictions on satellite are lower. A clear view of the sky in the direction of the satellites. No cable or fiber run from the head end needed. The operating cost is reasonable for this kind of broadcast of thousands of channels to millions of customers. The encoding may change ... but I expect satellite TV will be around beyond 2020.


----------



## prushing

Athlon646464 said:


> It may be as it was when cable was the first choice we had over OTA, then we had sat as a choice over cable and/or OTA. My guess right now is IPTV over some sort of wireless and/or wired broadband. I don't want to start a whole new direction in this thread about pricing for that, but prices do tend to settle down to what folks are wiling to pay. Having said that, I'm optimistic that whatever is coming won't cost more than what we are paying now.


I'm thinking the same thing. At&t gets access to DTV's customers, the big cash every month, national cover. Then they can work on the future.

You don't spend $50 billion to throw it away. Hopefully their plan is great for DTV customers, uverse tv customers can't really be hurt as they already are the inferior product.

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk


----------



## CraigerM

If they did get rid of UVerse TV how does everyone think installation will process go? Would just one or two installers come out and install the DTV Dish, boxes and the RG all at the same time? Or would they still be separate installations like they are now?


----------



## sigma1914

CraigerM said:


> If they did get rid of UVerse TV how does everyone think installation will process go? Would just one or two installers come out and install the DTV Dish, boxes and the RG all at the same time? Or would they still be separate installations like they are now?


They're not getting rid of it.

You ask some really wild scenarios. :rotfl:


----------



## carl6

After reading (over time) the past 18 pages of posts, I'm going to jump in with my humble $0.02 worth (whether or not it's really worth that much).

I don't see anything changing for DirecTV customers for at least a year (most likely never). I don't see changes in content, cost, customer service, or equipment.

What could happen over time (1 to 5 years) is AT&T having the additional leverage of several million more television customers may be able to negotiate better deals for content down the road. That might result in new channels being added, or it might not. It almost certainly won't result in any cost savings to the end customer. Also, some bundling deals will become available. But I won't even try to guess what that might look like if/when it happens.

I really would not expect to see consolidation of customer service call centers, but that is possible. The problem is, the services are too different to have a common set of customer service representatives properly trained on all aspects.

Would they eventually merge billing systems? Perhaps, even probable in the long run, but that's still years out.

So for now, until this thread is long forgotten and dead, I don't really see any impact, good or bad, on the current DirecTV customer base.


----------



## CraigerM

sigma1914 said:


> They're not getting rid of it.
> 
> You ask some really wild scenarios. :rotfl:


Probably not right now because of the contracts but what happens when the contracts expires? Analysts are still saying they want to free up ATT's internet bandwidth to offer more Internet speeds.

I guess that's the futurist in me. Maybe I should stop thinking to far ahead into the future? I guess am too anxious for tomorrow's technology to get here today. :rotfl:


----------



## damondlt

I'm excited for this merger! Enough said. 
I look forward to the future. 

Sent from my Galaxy S5


----------



## Laxguy

carl6 said:


> After reading (over time) the past 18 pages of posts, I'm going to jump in with my humble $0.02 worth (whether or not it's really worth that much).
> 
> I don't see anything changing for DirecTV customers for at least a year (most likely never). I don't see changes in content, cost, customer service, or equipment.
> 
> What could happen over time (1 to 5 years) is AT&T having the additional leverage of several million more television customers may be able to negotiate better deals for content down the road. That might result in new channels being added, or it might not. It almost certainly won't result in any cost savings to the end customer. Also, some bundling deals will become available. But I won't even try to guess what that might look like if/when it happens.
> 
> I really would not expect to see consolidation of customer service call centers, but that is possible. The problem is, the services are too different to have a common set of customer service representatives properly trained on all aspects.
> 
> Would they eventually merge billing systems? Perhaps, even probable in the long run, but that's still years out.
> 
> So for now, until this thread is long forgotten and dead, I don't really see any impact, good or bad, on the current DirecTV customer base.


Very reasonable, but the way this thread is going, it may get forgotten, but won't be dead....


----------



## unixguru

damondlt said:


> I'm excited for this merger! Enough said.
> I look forward to the future.


I can't imagine a future that will be better with this. What large merger has ended up being good for customers? Both these businesses have plateaued for features, have quality of content that has declined, with prices rising at multiples of inflation... The "synergy" that they talk about with mergers is that they will be even more empowered to accelerate those things. Like most companies that get too big for their britches they will lose customers at an increasingly alarming rate and will fade to irrelevance. ta-ta


----------



## slice1900

CraigerM said:


> If they did get rid of UVerse TV how does everyone think installation will process go? Would just one or two installers come out and install the DTV Dish, boxes and the RG all at the same time? Or would they still be separate installations like they are now?


Not going to happen. What's the gain for AT&T to spend several billion dollars to switch the 6 million Uverse customers to Directv? Even if it were possible, considering some wouldn't have a place to put a dish with visibility to the satellites, or might not want a dish on their roof or in their yard at all.

They might not build out any new areas for Uverse TV (though even that's not certain) but that's very different than putting all the Uverse customers on Directv.


----------



## damondlt

unixguru said:


> I can't imagine a future that will be better with this. What large merger has ended up being good for customers?


 I don't know, give me an example of a bad merger?

Sent from my Galaxy S5


----------



## slice1900

CraigerM said:


> Probably not right now because of the contracts but what happens when the contracts expires? Analysts are still saying they want to free up ATT's internet bandwidth to offer more Internet speeds.
> 
> I guess that's the futurist in me. Maybe I should stop thinking to far ahead into the future? I guess am too anxious for tomorrow's technology to get here today. :rotfl:


If they want to free up bandwidth to allow higher internet speeds, it would be far less expensive to swap out everyone's Uverse boxes for new boxes that use better compression. If they went to HEVC/h.265, they'd need half the bandwidth they currently do for the channels they have, allowing a lot of room to increase the bandwidth dedicated to internet.


----------



## acostapimps

damondlt said:


> I'm excited for this merger! Enough said.
> I look forward to the future.
> 
> Sent from my Galaxy S5


I'm not but then again I don't watch TV much anyway, so if this merger gets approved then this might be the last straw that broke the camels back to cut the cord, but I'll wait and see what happens first.

Sent from my iPad using DBSTalk


----------



## acostapimps

This would be a first for me to root for the FCC to disapprove this merger, I'm not to comfortable AT&T being my tv service provider, I'm just not optimistic about this and expecting the worst when it comes to mergers.


Sent from my iPad using DBSTalk


----------



## acostapimps

Though there's plenty of time for the 2015 football season but if we don't get NFL Sunday Ticket by then, I would be done with Directv and every other TV service provider, or at least until I see who would strike a deal. Directv might get the deal done but I'm not too sure at this moment.


Sent from my iPad using DBSTalk


----------



## MysteryMan

damondlt said:


> I don't know, give me an example of a bad merger?
> 
> Sent from my Galaxy S5


Bad mergers: Disney / Pixar......Sears / Kmart......AOL / Time Warner.


----------



## damondlt

MysteryMan said:


> Bad mergers: Disney / Pixar......Sears / Kmart......AOL / Time Warner.


What makes them bad? 
Kmart and sears, both broke to begin with.
Aol, well dead. It's not 1995 anymore.
Disney, greedy and always been money hungry.

These are not examples of bad mergers, these are examples of bad companys merging.

Sent from my Galaxy S5


----------



## studechip

CraigerM said:


> If they did get rid of UVerse TV how does everyone think installation will process go? Would just one or two installers come out and install the DTV Dish, boxes and the RG all at the same time? Or would they still be separate installations like they are now?





sigma1914 said:


> They're not getting rid of it.
> 
> You ask some really wild scenarios. :rotfl:


AT&T is selling Uverse and their landline business in CT.


----------



## mkdtv21

Does anyone think ATT may get rid of their U-Verse Network all together including their internet and replace it with a nationwide 4G internet service hybrid satellite tv. That way they could be a nationwide triple play service provider and have more coverage than anyone else.


----------



## Laxguy

Yes, something like that, only not deep sixing the TV side per se.


----------



## DMRI2006

damondlt said:


> I don't know, give me an example of a bad merger?


XM and Sirius certainly fits the bill. Whole service has gone into the dumper in terms of sound quality and programming.

I don't know what's going to happen with AT&T and Directv, but I'm definitely glad I only have a year left on my commitment. Won't be reupping and will be waiting to see what shakes down if it goes through.


----------



## damondlt

DMRI2006 said:


> XM and Sirius certainly fits the bill. Whole service has gone into the dumper in terms of sound quality and programming.
> 
> I don't know what's going to happen with AT&T and Directv, but I'm definitely glad I only have a year left on my commitment. Won't be reupping and will be waiting to see what shakes down if it goes through.


XM and Sirius were doomed when the smart phone was invented.
With free Pandora, and I Heart radio, and blue tooth phones Satellite radio didn't stand a chance, and again another list of bad companys merging to stay a float. 
Sent from my Galaxy S5


----------



## Satelliteracer

MysteryMan said:


> Bad mergers: Disney / Pixar......Sears / Kmart......AOL / Time Warner.


I would argue mergers happen all the time, we just tend to hear about the "bad ones". Also depends what point of view one comes from. DIRECTV bought Primestar....some will say good, some will say bad. Sirius and XM...would either even be alive if not for the merger? To me, Disney \ Pixar was a good merger, especially being a former employee of one of those firms. There are certainly a bunch on the list that can be labeled as bad, Harley Davidson and AMF (though without AMF's $$, would Harley exist today?), the ones you mention, Daimler and Benz, etc, etc.


----------



## James Long

A merger or acquisition that is the difference between one or both companies dying or being able to keep the combined company alive is a good merger or acquisition.

DirecTV is not on life support ... they don't need help to stay alive. The main benefit would be to AT&T. And to the current stockholders/owners of DirecTV who will get a nice payday out of the purchase. As for the customers ... any benefit remains to be seen.


----------



## JosephB

Bob Coxner said:


> Why assume they would merge customer service? DTV CSRs know nothing about AT&T products and vice versa. It's already difficult to sort out technical problems with CSRs who are familiar with DTV. Imagine the outrage if an AT&T CSR tried to solve a DTV problem.
> 
> The same goes for installation. Satellite installation is nothing at all like installing a cable service such as UVerse.
> 
> Yes, CSRs and installers could eventually be cross-trained but I would guess it would cost more, and cause more headaches, than just leaving those areas as they are now.
> 
> I can easily be wrong but as a 15-year DTV sub I have no problems with AT&T buying us. Dish buying us was a whole different ballgame. If Dish and DTV were merged then you have no leverage at all for haggling or leaving for a different sat provider. If AT&T really does screw things up then we still have the option of moving to Dish.


That's silly. The cost of indefinitely having two sets of backend systems, CSRs, installation networks, and everything else would greatly outweigh the costs of cross-training and integrating the two groups. It will likely take a while, several years at least, but eventually there will just be one set of AT&T distribution, installation, and customer care employees. Not merging those groups would completely waste the entire financial rationale for the merger. Plus, a LOT of AT&T's employees are unionized. It's probably not really a factor in their decision to buy DirecTV, and they seem to have a decent relationship with the CWA, but by moving a lot of responsibilities to the incoming DirecTV employees, they could begin to minimize the role of unionized employees in the organization.



jimmie57 said:


> Wow, this is moving fast. They are talking about announcing this Sunday and completing by Monday morning.
> http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-05-17/at-t-directv-said-to-aim-to-complete-deal-by-monday.html?cmpid=yhoo


There is no possible way it would be completed by Monday. This deal will take months, if not an entire year, to go through regulatory approval. When they say "completed" by Monday, they mean the negotiations for the deal between AT&T and DirecTV, not the actual purchase transaction closing.



CraigerM said:


> What would happen to Dish customers that use UVerse Internet or DSL? Would ATT still sell them a separate products to customers that didn't subscribe to UVerse TV since Dish would now be ATT's competition?


What would change? Plenty of people buy one thing from AT&T and something else from a competitor. My brother has AT&T DSL and landline and a Verizon cell phone. I have Charter internet and DirecTV. There's no way that AT&T would force you to buy one product to get access to another.



MysteryMan said:


> Bad mergers: Disney / Pixar......Sears / Kmart......AOL / Time Warner.


I think the shareholders of Disney and Pixar would beg to disagree.


----------



## James Long

JosephB said:


> It will likely take a while, several years at least, but eventually there will just be one set of AT&T distribution, installation, and customer care employees. Not merging those groups would completely waste the entire financial rationale for the merger.


$5.1 billion in profit each year (total operations) is a good reason to buy DirecTV. But they need to be careful with what they change. Change too much and they might not be able to keep that profit rolling in.



JosephB said:


> Plus, a LOT of AT&T's employees are unionized. It's probably not really a factor in their decision to buy DirecTV, and they seem to have a decent relationship with the CWA, but by moving a lot of responsibilities to the incoming DirecTV employees, they could begin to minimize the role of unionized employees in the organization.


Any change to a unionized position would be fought.


----------



## cypherx

But AT&T can't service internet everywhere. Like in my area there is no AT&T wireline. If you want AT&T, to get it you would have to be a buisness. You would have Verizon come out and install a T1 or fiber, then AT&T would provision internet service, mpls, point to point, whatever... on top of Verizon's last mile. AT&T = no residential or owned cabling in my area.

So AT&T could not bundle in my area, unless it was 4G LTE cantenna mounted to the back of the DirecTV dish with the signal stacked on the DECA channels where the internet connection kit breaks it off into your router or switch.


----------



## JosephB

James Long said:


> $5.1 billion in profit each year (total operations) is a good reason to buy DirecTV. But they need to be careful with what they change. Change too much and they might not be able to keep that profit rolling in.


Yes, the profits and free cash flow are a major reason to buy DirecTV, but squeezing even more out is the reason they pay a premium above what the company is worth. It may operate as a separate unit for a while, but AT&T is a company of bean counters and they will start squeezing every penny out of DirecTV. No one ever makes a change expecting it to go bad. The plan they come up with will be one thing, the execution of that plan will be something completely different.


----------



## slice1900

mkdtv21 said:


> Does anyone think ATT may get rid of their U-Verse Network all together including their internet and replace it with a nationwide 4G internet service hybrid satellite tv. That way they could be a nationwide triple play service provider and have more coverage than anyone else.


That's not really feasible. I mean theoretically it is, but it would have to be capped at a much lower limit than cable/DSL. You wouldn't be able to use it for Netflix or other streaming. I could see it being offered in rural areas where there is no real broadband alternative, but that's it.

Don't look at the data speeds you can get on your phone right now and think that means it would work. It only works because at a given moment there will be few people using very much data in a single cell. If all the internet use in that cell was done via LTE, it would make you long for the days of Edge.


----------



## slice1900

cypherx said:


> So AT&T could not bundle in my area, unless it was 4G LTE cantenna mounted to the back of the DirecTV dish with the signal stacked on the DECA channels where the internet connection kit breaks it off into your router or switch.


That would be simple to do, but with Directv pushing more and more services that assume fast internet connectivity this just isn't a solution for deployment in areas more dense than rural unless they put up a lot more towers.

More closely spaced smaller towers would work well for a 'small antenna on your dish' solution, but the main reason cell towers tend to so big are the objections of brainless twits who believe cell towers are harmful, so when they get permission to put one up they need to make it serve the largest possible area. Even if a company wanted to put up a tower no more powerful than their wireless router I'm sure there'd be some moron who claimed it would aggravate their imaginary illness. I'm surprised they don't sue Directv for bathing the entire country in RF radiation :sure:


----------



## gman0661

I think with this new AT&T deal they will now offer the bundle deal. phone, internet, and directv. If they merge do directv add the channels AT&T have in hd that directv does not


----------



## JosephB

slice1900 said:


> That's not really feasible. I mean theoretically it is, but it would have to be capped at a much lower limit than cable/DSL. You wouldn't be able to use it for Netflix or other streaming. I could see it being offered in rural areas where there is no real broadband alternative, but that's it.
> 
> Don't look at the data speeds you can get on your phone right now and think that means it would work. It only works because at a given moment there will be few people using very much data in a single cell. If all the internet use in that cell was done via LTE, it would make you long for the days of Edge.


Using DirecTV's satellites for delivery of high-bandwidth data where latency is not a factor (such as Netflix-style VOD) is entirely possible. I don't know if AT&T is the company to do innovative things like that, but there are a lot of possibilities when you combine the relatively narrow but short pipes of a national LTE network with the extremely wide but very long delivery pipes of a fleet of satellites.


----------



## jimmie57

gman0661 said:


> I think with this new AT&T deal they will now offer the bundle deal. phone, internet, and directv. If they merge do directv add the channels AT&T have in hd that directv does not


They were already offering bundles with DirecTV. That is what my friend has. She has internet and DirecTV from AT&T. She has VZ wireless because her son has a family plan and she is in it.


----------



## unixguru

damondlt said:


> I don't know, give me an example of a bad merger?


Oracle/Sun. Granted Sun was in trouble as the economy tanked.

Veritas/Symantec. That's probably a good example of two that were doing just fine if not great before. It was advertised as a great "synergy" opportunity but has been a complete disaster with just about zero synergy. And flatlined business performance.

Mergers per se are not the problem. The problem is companies getting too big. Products and services benefit from growth to a certain point after which growing further has a negative impact. "Business" factors overcome product factors and it becomes all about the business and not at all about the product. Then the product declines and only has to be "good enough" to not be crushed by competitors. Its nearly impossible for a competitor to crush you unless they are very disruptive and have a lot of time. So a product of a big company can be very inferior and still rule. As most products and services come from very big companies we get junk at the highest price the market will bear. This, of course, is considered successful - by business people. Not so much for consumers.


----------



## damondlt

unixguru said:


> Oracle/Sun. Granted Sun was in trouble as the economy tanked.
> 
> Veritas/Symantec. That's probably a good example of two that were doing just fine if not great before. It was advertised as a great "synergy" opportunity but has been a complete disaster with just about zero synergy. And flatlined business performance.
> 
> Mergers per se are not the problem. The problem is companies getting too big. Products and services benefit from growth to a certain point after which growing further has a negative impact. "Business" factors overcome product factors and it becomes all about the business and not at all about the product. Then the product declines and only has to be "good enough" to not be crushed by competitors. Its nearly impossible for a competitor to crush you unless they are very disruptive and have a lot of time. So a product of a big company can be very inferior and still rule. As most products and services come from very big companies we get junk at the highest price the market will bear. This, of course, is considered successful - by business people. Not so much for consumers.


I don't feel Directv is that great of a company to begin with. But that's a whole other topic.
Lets just say Chase Carey I felt was a much better CEO.
All I've seen since MR White has been multiple price increases.


----------



## sunfire9us

skaman74 said:


> the fcc will never allow this...hopefully


When I read about this possible deal, I also read several of the FCC officials who have approve this deal were already opposed to it. Hopefully this will be what stops the deal from happening

Sent from my iPhone using DBSTalk


----------



## harsh

slice1900 said:


> AT&T would become the owner. They don't take a "cut", they take 100% of the profits that are currently either retained or used for buybacks. So there's no reason Directv rates should go up.


You're assuming only one of the possible outcomes. AT&T may make DIRECTV a wholly owned subsidiary (cash cow) and maintain its status as a tradeworthy entity just as GM and Liberty did. Swallowing DIRECTV whole is to commit to a technology that has a limited competitive life expectancy doesn't make good business sense.


> You don't understand business very well if you think that a company that "needs" more profit to pay middlemen could just raise their rates. Go tell the owner of every business that's losing money that the solution is simple: charge more. They'll thank you for your keen business insight! :nono2:


Do you invest simply to say you're a part of history? AT&T wants and needs a good return on their investment as they've probably got enough CapEx going on the satisfy the tax man for years to come. None of your long-winded theorizing addresses the issue of what the benefit to AT&T is so I'm guessing you're not thinking along the same lines as AT&T is.


----------



## Paul Secic

MysteryMan said:


> Bad mergers: Disney / Pixar......Sears / Kmart......AOL / Time Warner.


I fully agree!


----------



## Rich

James Long said:


> That is likely to be taken care of by the end of the year when DirecTV renews their deal with ESPN (just like it was taken care of earlier this year when DISH renewed carriage of ESPN). Already on the radar and completely separate from the death star deal.
> 
> _*Reading some of the complaint posts it seems that DTV CSRs know nothing about DTV products now. So no change.*_ :lol:


I was gonna say something similar, but it seemed too easy. :rolling:

Rich


----------



## Rich

James Long said:


> I expect DBS to survive ... perhaps not in its current technology (DirecTV DSS and DISH DBS + MPEG4 channels using DVB standards) but still using satellite broadcast to get a signal to many subscribers at the same time. The only way satellite goes away is if something much cheaper comes along that can do the exact same job. So far, the broadcast capacity of satellite has not been replaced.
> 
> As wireless companies continue to grow additional capacity is being added that allows for additional content delivery - but that data is coming at a high price. Yes, one can install a fixed antenna at their home and use LTE as their home Internet provider ... but the service and the data will cost money.
> 
> If satellite does "go away" I believe people in 2020 will look back at now as the "glory days" of when television was cheap and plentiful. Remember when one could pay (ARPU) $100 and get hundreds of channels at no additional cost? Remember when one did not have to pay a content provider for content and an ISP for delivery doubling the price of what one watches?
> 
> DBS is becoming more integrated as the US moves forward into the "watch anywhere" delivery. Going forward I expect to see subscription to satellite, cable or IPTV services expanded to allow delivery across any Internet platform the subscriber pays for. DirecTV and DISH currently offer Internet downloaded content to their receivers as part of their services. (The more popular content can be satellite pushed in advance of being requested.) DISH offers international channels via IPTV ... and plans to introduce their own general content subscription package that does not include satellite delivery. I would not be surprised if other pay TV companies offered "bring your own network" subscriptions.
> 
> The trend over the past few years has seen cable pay TV in a deep decline ... people are using their internet services and adding satellite or IPTV for content for which they no longer pay cable. Satellite pay TV has basically leveled off. IPTV pay TV is making up for cable's losses in the overall pay TV market. Companies like AT&T are providing the Internet along with the TV - but it is all "where physically available".
> 
> The physical restrictions on satellite are lower. A clear view of the sky in the direction of the satellites. No cable or fiber run from the head end needed. The operating cost is reasonable for this kind of broadcast of thousands of channels to millions of customers. The encoding may change ... but I expect satellite TV will be around beyond 2020.


Geeze, I waited so long to get my own sat dish on my roof and here we are talking about a completely new delivery system. Hard to believe.

Rich


----------



## Bill Broderick

damondlt said:


> I don't know, give me an example of a bad merger?
> 
> Sent from my Galaxy S5


Computer Associates and every single company that they have ever acquired.


----------



## harsh

I had mentioned earlier that AT&T might also face some issues in Latin America and I've now discovered what a couple of them are: America Movil SAB and Groupo Televiso SAB.

AT&T holds an 8% share in America Movil that is a competitor to DIRECTV LA in Brazil and Columbia.

DIRECTV holds an 41% share in Sky Mexico who's parent, Groupo Televiso, is a competitor to America Movil.

Complications indeed.


----------



## carlsbad_bolt_fan

Bill Broderick said:


> Computer Associates and every single company that they have ever acquired.


Lived through one of those.

But, for me the real reason I have D* is NFL ST. If that stays with D*, then I'll stick around. I'm due for new equipment anyway so I may as well get it now as by the time my 2 year commitment is up, I'll know if this merger was a complete CF or not.

Also, AT&T acquired Leap, aka Cricket, earlier this yer. Nothing stopped that from happening.


----------



## adamson

Please somebody create a poll on who supports this/who does not, likely to terminate/not likely. PLEASE! Very curious where everybody is at. Im not happy about any of this.


----------



## raott

This is not a merger. This is an acquisition. Having seen and having family affected by a number of acquisitions, anyone who works for Directv ought to be thinking about polishing their resumes or at least making some type of plans in the event they no longer have a job in the next 12-18 months.


----------



## sigma1914

adamson said:


> Please somebody create a poll on who supports this/who does not, likely to terminate/not likely. PLEASE! Very curious where everybody is at. Im not happy about any of this.


You could start one since you're so curious.


----------



## Rickt1962

slice1900 said:


> That would be simple to do, but with Directv pushing more and more services that assume fast internet connectivity this just isn't a solution for deployment in areas more dense than rural unless they put up a lot more towers.
> 
> More closely spaced smaller towers would work well for a 'small antenna on your dish' solution, but the main reason cell towers tend to so big are the objections of brainless twits who believe cell towers are harmful, so when they get permission to put one up they need to make it serve the largest possible area. Even if a company wanted to put up a tower no more powerful than their wireless router I'm sure there'd be some moron who claimed it would aggravate their imaginary illness. I'm surprised they don't sue Directv for bathing the entire country in RF radiation :sure:


Pcell technology is coming and getting ready to be tested


----------



## 456521

Why would anyone terminate their DirecTV service anytime soon? Wouldn't it be better to wait and see if they raise prices beyond DirecTV's normal annual increases? Who knows, maybe the service might actually become better.


----------



## nuspieds

carlsbad_bolt_fan said:


> Lived through one of those.
> 
> But, for me the real reason I have D* is NFL ST. If that stays with D*, then I'll stick around. I'm due for new equipment anyway so I may as well get it now as by the time my 2 year commitment is up, I'll know if this merger was a complete CF or not.
> 
> Also, AT&T acquired Leap, aka Cricket, earlier this yer. Nothing stopped that from happening.


Until ST is offered elsewhere, I won't be looking elsewhere for a new provider, either. It is also the primary reason I have D*.


----------



## James Long

Rich said:


> Geeze, I waited so long to get my own sat dish on my roof and here we are talking about a completely new delivery system. Hard to believe.


I believe satellite TV will continue ... technology will advance but there will still be a use for your dish. Others (including beyond the immediate threat of a purchase by AT&T) believe cord cutters and conversions to IPTV will end satellite delivery. I still believe in broadcast delivery of broadcast channels.



raott said:


> This is not a merger. This is an acquisition. Having seen and having family affected by a number of acquisitions, anyone who works for Directv ought to be thinking about polishing their resumes or at least making some type of plans in the event they no longer have a job in the next 12-18 months.


It is not a bad idea to have plans even when your job is not specifically threatened. But as for now, the only jobs that seem to be on the line are in the boardroom - and such people usually do ok.


----------



## slice1900

carlsbad_bolt_fan said:


> Also, AT&T acquired Leap, aka Cricket, earlier this yer. Nothing stopped that from happening.


Probably because they're so small. It would be like if Comcast bought my cable company, Mediacom, and its million or so subscribers.


----------



## slice1900

Rickt1962 said:


> Pcell technology is coming and getting ready to be tested


A lot of great technologies get reported about as if they're the next big thing, and never get anywhere. No company will make plans based on something like that before it has even been tested. It must be tested, they must have all manufacturing issues figured out for mass production at appropriate cost level, they have to have all the regulatory hurdles passed, they have to bypass any roadblocks put into place by the competition or those who would benefit from the status quo. Only then can they make plans based on it.

Maybe it works out, maybe it fades into oblivion like so many have, or maybe it ends up not being all that is promised and becomes a niche technology like UWB (ultra wide band)

How many years have you heard people saying they're waiting to buy their next TV for when they have affordable OLED TVs? Well, those people will be waiting forever, because everyone has pretty much given up on making large OLED screens. It is a great technology, they just can't figure out how to manufacture screens that are remotely competitive with LCD on price and longevity.


----------



## slice1900

JosephB said:


> Using DirecTV's satellites for delivery of high-bandwidth data where latency is not a factor (such as Netflix-style VOD) is entirely possible. I don't know if AT&T is the company to do innovative things like that, but there are a lot of possibilities when you combine the relatively narrow but short pipes of a national LTE network with the extremely wide but very long delivery pipes of a fleet of satellites.


Only in very remote areas where not only wired but cellular data isn't available. Satellites have a very poor bandwidth to cost ratio compared to cell towers, let alone cable/DSL. One Ka spot beam transponder from Directv has a raw bit rate of just under 60Mbps. That would be shared by the entire area being covered. If you're covering the high desert in Nevada and Utah, that's fine, as it is better than using a modem over a noisy landline that probably struggles to get 9600bps, but it would be crazy to try that over any populated area. You wouldn't need to make the spots as large as Directv does for local channel delivery, but the smaller you make them, the more you need to cover the country.


----------



## TheRatPatrol

James Long said:


> I believe satellite TV will continue ... technology will advance but there will still be a use for your dish.


Yes for all those RVer's and people who have no access to cable.


----------



## slice1900

harsh said:


> I had mentioned earlier that AT&T might also face some issues in Latin America and I've now discovered what a couple of them are: America Movil SAB and Groupo Televiso SAB.
> 
> AT&T holds an 8% share in America Movil that is a competitor to DIRECTV LA in Brazil and Columbia.
> 
> DIRECTV holds an 41% share in Sky Mexico who's parent, Groupo Televiso, is a competitor to America Movil.
> 
> Complications indeed.


The regulatory environment in other countries isn't the same as the US. Some places it is more strict, some places it is very laissez faire. If AT&T is buying them to get the US operation, they'd be willing to spin off Directv LA if there are issues. Likewise, if they're buying it to get the fast growing LA operation, they might be willing to spin off Directv US...


----------



## Sea bass

I have concerns with this merger, I loved Cingular wireless...that merger didn't go so well, for me anyway.


Sent from my iPhone using DBSTalk


----------



## JosephB

Sea bass said:


> I have concerns with this merger, I loved Cingular wireless...that merger didn't go so well, for me anyway.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using DBSTalk


Cingular was the wireless joint venture between SBC and BellSouth. It wasn't really a merger on the wireless side, except that they did buy the old AT&T wireless, but they essentially killed the old AT&T wireless and rebranded Cingular into AT&T.


----------



## Satelliteracer

damondlt said:


> I don't feel Directv is that great of a company to begin with. But that's a whole other topic.
> Lets just say Chase Carey I felt was a much better CEO.
> All I've seen since MR White has been multiple price increases.


Chase Carey imposed a price increase every year he was at DIRECTV. Now he's at NewsCorp and one of the reasons why Directv, Dish and others have to raise prices, because of content costs from the content creators.


----------



## damondlt

He didn't raise them they way White did. Let's see the prices when Carey left.

Sent from my Galaxy S5


----------



## Laxguy

adamson said:


> Please somebody create a poll on who supports this/who does not, likely to terminate/not likely. PLEASE! Very curious where everybody is at. Im not happy about any of this.


You can do so.

However, unless 500 people express their views, you're likely to get a non-representative section.


----------



## studechip

500 out of 20 million isn't very representative either.


----------



## john18

Now that the sale is official I will be out of here as soon as one of the following occurs, 1) AT&T screws me over (again); 2) My contract expires; 3) Google Fiber is installed; or, PRISM is installed and I use that until Google Fiber arrives. 

My days as a subscriber are now numbered and I will pay a termination charge if it comes to that.


----------



## Lord Vader

This is one deal that does NOT make me happy. I *love *DirecTV. I *hate *AT&T!!!


----------



## RAD

It's official, http://investor.directv.com/press-releases/press-release-details/2014/ATT-to-Acquire-DIRECTV/default.aspx


----------



## peds48

Yep done deal 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## VLaslow

I was struggling with the thought of leaving a service I've enjoyed for a long time and that I generally respect. Today's (expected) announcement just makes me think that much harder about what I should do.


----------



## damondlt

See you guys who are all worried have about 4 years before you have to worry.
12 months to close and some 3 year guarantees.

Sent from my Galaxy S5


----------



## Laxguy

studechip said:


> 500 out of 20 million isn't very representative either.


Depends on the draw.

My point was that even with a very high number of participants for DBSTalk-such as 500- one wouldn't get a fair representation due to the nature of those polled- ie. ourselves. And with fewer people, it'd be even less demonstrative.

One can have a good poll of 500 people if the pool is drawn correctly, and the detail isn't overly fine.


----------



## nmetro

From The New York Times:

http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2014/05/18/att-to-buy-directv-for-48-5-billion/?_php=true&_type=blogs&hp&_r=0


----------



## cypherx

Doesn't the FTC / Regulators have to approve of this first?


----------



## gully_foyle

It's announced: http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/technology/atandt-directv-announce-48-billion-merger/2014/05/18/62ffc980-dec1-11e3-810f-764fe508b82d_story.html?hpid=z1


----------



## gully_foyle

They seem to be making light of U-verse, but here in Los Angeles, it is one of the three home video choices (Warner and DirecTV are the others) in most locations (Verizon has a minor presence in SoCal dating back to the days of General Telephone). Four if you count OTA.


----------



## KyL416

What do you expect to change?

U-Verse and DirecTV are two different monsters entirely when it comes to technology and delivery, not to mention AT&T can't even put their hands on the operations of DirecTV until it's approved, and by that time D14 should be in service giving us more bandwidth for new HD channels, unless they decide to jam more channels in there than the bandwidth allows picture quality won't be an issue. As for content (i.e. SEC, LHN, WatchESPN, Pac12, Fox Sports Go, etc), contract wise the major ones yet to be renewed by DirecTV are Disney/ESPN and Fox. Disney/ESPN is due later this year before the merger is approved, not sure about Fox. It's possible that AT&T will merge their contracts with DirecTV's down the road which could see us get Pac 12 on the terms AT&T agreed to and U-Verse some additional channels under the terms DirecTV agreed to.

As for rebranding to AT&T, DirecTV has been under different ownership multiple times since they debuted back in 94, it's not like News Corp rebranded DirecTV to Sky or Foxtel to be inline with their other services when they had it.

Outside of bundling with AT&T's products and rate changes that would have happened anyway, I doubt we will see anything we wouldn't see if AT&T didn't get DirecTV.

The mention of wireless broadband in rural areas looks promising though, especially since the release mentioned using things like VOD, Netflix and Hulu with it, but if they have the same caps they have for their existing LTE data only services, you'll easily blow through that on a regular basis.


----------



## damondlt

I saw a lot of positives in that deal. My guess half the neh sayers didn't even read the deal.

Sent from my Galaxy S5


----------



## sigma1914

via Imgflip Meme Maker


----------



## jerrylove56

Laxguy said:


> Depends on the draw.
> 
> My point was that even with a very high number of participants for DBSTalk-such as 500- one wouldn't get a fair representation due to the nature of those polled- ie. ourselves. And with fewer people, it'd be even less demonstrative.
> 
> One can have a good poll of 500 people if the pool is drawn correctly, and the detail isn't overly fine.


Only good when it comes to removing a channel. (Weather Channel)


----------



## CraigerM

This is kind of interesting:

http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2014/05/18/att-to-buy-directv-for-48-5-billion/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0

"When I first heard the news, I was scratching my head," said Jim Nail, an analyst with Forrester Research. "Satellite is kind of a doomed technology. I don't see it being a long-term proposition."


----------



## RunnerFL

cypherx said:


> Doesn't the FTC / Regulators have to approve of this first?


Yeah, it has to be approved like Comcast/TW does.


----------



## James Long

http://www.directvpresscenter.com/press/?p=2a07f52a-9c0e-4416-8ba1-cbab507b1c72
http://about.att.com/story/att_to_acquire_directv.html

*AT&T to Acquire DIRECTV*

*Creates Content Distribution Leader Across Mobile, Video & Broadband Platforms*
The premier pay TV brand with the best content relationships now poised to deliver video to multiple screens - mobile, TV, laptops and more - to meet consumers' future viewing and programming preferences
Unparalleled video content distribution scale in U.S. - nationwide mobile and video networks; broadband to cover 70 million customer locations with our broadband expansion

[*]*Latin America's Leading Pay TV provider with Significant Growth Potential*
[*]*Immediate & Long-Term Financial Benefits*

Accretive within 12 months after close on free cash flow per share & adjusted EPS basis
Cost synergies expected to exceed $1.6 billion annual run rate by year three after closing
Improves revenue mix - dramatically increases video revenues, accelerates broadband growth and significantly expands revenues from outside United States

[*]*Delivers Significant Benefits for Consumers*

Commitment to expand and enhance broadband to 15 million customer locations, primarily in rural areas
Stronger competitive alternative to cable, with a better customer experience and enhanced innovation
Continued commitment to net neutrality

DALLAS & EL SEGUNDO, Calif.--(BUSINESS WIRE)-- AT&T (NYSE:T) and DIRECTV (NASDAQTV) today announced that they have entered into a definitive agreement under which AT&T will acquire DIRECTV in a stock-and-cash transaction for $95 per share based on AT&T's Friday closing price. The agreement has been approved unanimously by the Boards of Directors of both companies.

The transaction combines complementary strengths to create a unique new competitor with unprecedented capabilities in mobility, video and broadband services.

DIRECTV is the premier pay TV provider in the United States and Latin America, with a high-quality customer base, the best selection of programming, the best technology for delivering and viewing high-quality video on any device and the best customer satisfaction among major U.S. cable and satellite TV providers. AT&T has a best-in-class nationwide mobile network and a high-speed broadband network that will cover 70 million customer locations with the broadband expansion enabled by this transaction.

The combined company will be a content distribution leader across mobile, video and broadband platforms. This distribution scale will position the company to better meet consumers' future viewing and programming preferences, whether traditional pay TV, on-demand video services like Netflix or Hulu streamed over a broadband connection (mobile or fixed) or a combination of viewing preferences on any screen.

The transaction enables the combined company to offer consumers bundles that include video, high-speed broadband and mobile services using all of its sales channels -- AT&T's 2,300 retail stores and thousands of authorized dealers and agents of both companies nationwide.

"This is a unique opportunity that will redefine the video entertainment industry and create a company able to offer new bundles and deliver content to consumers across multiple screens - mobile devices, TVs, laptops, cars and even airplanes. At the same time, it creates immediate and long-term value for our shareholders," said Randall Stephenson , AT&T Chairman and CEO. "DIRECTV is the best option for us because they have the premier brand in pay TV, the best content relationships, and a fast-growing Latin American business. DIRECTV is a great fit with AT&T and together we'll be able to enhance innovation and provide customers new competitive choices for what they want in mobile, video and broadband services. We look forward to welcoming DIRECTV's talented people to the AT&T family."

"This compelling and complementary combination will bring significant benefits to all consumers, shareholders and DIRECTV employees," said Mike White , president and CEO of DIRECTV. "U.S. consumers will have access to a more competitive bundle; shareholders will benefit from the enhanced value of the combined company; and employees will have the advantage of being part of a stronger, more competitive company, well positioned to meet the evolving video and broadband needs of the 21st century marketplace."

DIRECTV has premier content, particularly live sports programming. It has the exclusive pay TV rights to NFL SUNDAY TICKET that provides every out-of-market game, every Sunday afternoon, on TV, laptops and mobile devices. The new AT&T will be better positioned to develop unique content offerings for consumers through, among other initiatives, AT&T's joint venture with The Chernin Group. Today, DIRECTV's content ownership includes ROOT SPORTS Networks and minority stakes in the Game Show Network, MLB Network, NHL Network and the Sundance Channel.

DIRECTV will continue to be headquartered in El Segundo, California, after the deal closes.


----------



## SledgeHammer

I don't suppose there is any chance of AT&T *lowering* prices, is there?

One of the articles I read said that DirecTV only added 12,000 new subs in the first quarter?? If so, what rocket science is DirecTV missing? People simply aren't willing to pay $100 to $110 a month for a basic package + DVR service.

AT&T on the other hand has some brain cells. I had a really crappy cell plan for a LONG time (200min + unlimited texting + 300MB LTE) because it was the cheapest plan ($74 a month) and I am on Wifi at home & at work. AT&T recently came to their senses a month or two ago and released new plans. Now I have unlimited talk & text + 2GB for $60 a month.

If AT&T buying DirecTV will reduce my DirecTV bill by 20%, I have only one thing to say: WELCOME BACK MA BELL!


----------



## 242424

peds48 said:


> ain't happening, but if it did, I would drop them like a hot potato and find me another job along the way!


Well at least stop by and tell us about your new job.


----------



## damondlt

SledgeHammer said:


> I don't suppose there is any chance of AT&T *lowering* prices, is there?
> 
> One of the articles I read said that DirecTV only added 12,000 new subs in the first quarter?? If so, what rocket science is DirecTV missing? People simply aren't willing to pay $100 to $110 a month for a basic package + DVR service.
> 
> AT&T on the other hand has some brain cells. I had a really crappy cell plan for a LONG time (200min + unlimited texting + 300MB LTE) because it was the cheapest plan ($74 a month) and I am on Wifi at home & at work. AT&T recently came to their senses a month or two ago and released new plans. Now I have unlimited talk & text + 2GB for $60 a month.
> 
> If AT&T buying DirecTV will reduce my DirecTV bill by 20%, I have only one thing to say: WELCOME BACK MA BELL!


Directv is never going to lower their prices, they will just give you less for less money.
And with 4 years out, I'm more worried about how Directv is going to shaft us in this next 4 years until Att gains total control. 
All I know, I'm not accepting any equipment offers for a while.

Sent from my Galaxy S5


----------



## Athlon646464




----------



## damondlt

I like it.

Sent from my Galaxy S5


----------



## camo

Nothing is official yet, it still has to be approved by the FCC which could take more than a year and it may or may not get approved.
If there is a big protest, odds are it won't get approval. I'm dead against it for the main reason AT&T cellular sucks in coverage unless you live in large metro areas. I have three homes and the only one that has AT&T coverage is the large metro area Phoenix.


----------



## James Long

Highlights from the press release (posted above):
"We look forward to welcoming DIRECTV's talented people to the AT&T family."
"DIRECTV will continue to be headquartered in El Segundo, California, after the deal closes."

More from the press release:
"To facilitate the regulatory approval process in Latin America, AT&T intends to divest its interest in América Móvil. This includes 73 million publicly listed L shares and all of its AA shares. AT&T's designees to the América Móvil Board of Directors will tender their resignations immediately to avoid even the appearance of any conflict."

"The merger is subject to approval by DIRECTV shareholders and review by the U.S. Federal Communications Commission, U.S. Department of Justice, a few U.S. states and some Latin American countries. The transaction is expected to close within approximately 12 months.

*Conference Call/Webcast*

On Monday, May 19, 2014, at 8:30 a.m. ET, AT&T and DIRECTV will host a webcast presentation to discuss the transaction. Links to the webcast and accompanying documents will be available on both AT&T's and DIRECTV's Investor Relations websites."


----------



## nuzzy

In my town here in southern New Hampshire my choice are either OTA/DirecTV/Comcast. I'll stick with DirecTV.


----------



## CraigerM

Does this sound like they are getting rid of UVerse TV for DTV?

http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2014/05/18/att-buys-directv/9247795/

"AT&T's acquisition of DirecTV eliminates a competitor in AT&T U-Verse's markets."


----------



## SledgeHammer

damondlt said:


> Directv is never going to lower their prices, they will just give you less for less money.
> And with 4 years out, I'm more worried about how Directv is going to shaft us in this next 4 years until Att gains total control.
> All I know, I'm not accepting any equipment offers for a while.
> 
> Sent from my Galaxy S5


I'll agree with you on the equipment offer. I should have stuck with my HR20 that was working just fine after 6 - 7 yrs. They wanted to upgrade me to the Genie, but I only have one TV, so I wanted the HR24 instead to save a few $$$ a month on the MRV fee which I couldn't even use. What a major PITA. Couldn't even get them to agree to send me an HR24. They said I might even get another HR20. They also said they would throw in a free OTA box after I called to activate the HR24 (which I had to buy myself). After about 2 hrs on the phone with them, they decided the system wouldn't let them send me the OTA box, so I had to go buy that myself too and they reimbursed me. Now I'm stuck with 2 boxes: the HR24 & the OTA box.

In addition, I obviously had to do a new 2 yr agreement so my bargaining power on discounts went out the window.


----------



## gully_foyle

CraigerM said:


> Does this sound like they are getting rid of UVerse TV for DTV?
> 
> http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2014/05/18/att-buys-directv/9247795/
> 
> "AT&T's acquisition of DirecTV eliminates a competitor in AT&T U-Verse's markets."


I does sound like they are going to concetrate on "broadband" and without the Uverse TV that might have a lot more bandwidth. Uverse TV (IPTV iirc) has always been a bit of a disappointment. I can see the wired content becoming netflix &tc and enhanced on-demand. There does seem to be another shoe to drop to make this complete. They need a STB that handles all content types to get real synergy.


----------



## lgno

Lord Vader said:


> This is one deal that does NOT make me happy. I *love *DirecTV. I *hate *AT&T!!!


This appears to be an act of desperation... they acquire because they are out of ideas are scared of Comcast. The synergies are negligible, and unless management at AT&T suddenly found inspiration for some "integrated technologies" and _TV Everywhere_, the deal will be a non-event at best. Unfortunately, the acquisition is not about creating a great product, but about providing more cash flow for AT&T's dividend. Welcome to the world of the AT&T upsale/bundle.

More broadly speaking, AT&T has never been interested in pushing the envelope IN THE LEAST. They play is safe and have a history of investing the bare minimum in order to get a return. Quality has never been a concern... squeezing out every last dollar is. _Now_ is likely the best DirecTV will get. If history is any guide, you will see the same technology a decade hence, be shocked at the decline in quality, and find yourself nickel and dimed for everything.

AT&T has let their wireline business languish because they have no vision, restrict at every opportunity, and refuse to make the necessary investments. I hope the only way this deal gets regulatory approval is if AT&T is forced to divest all its wireline businesses. They have done nothing to improve the DSL & phone service in rural areas for literally 15 years. I say rural areas, but that even applies to cities with more than 100k, too. Even their UVerse internet speeds are a joke. AT&T wants to be exclusively a "wireless" company anyway. The reason their cell service evolves at all is they have some slight competition.

Yes, thanks to AT&T I am constantly forced to temper my expectations and "Rethink [what is] Possible".


----------



## VLaslow

The psychology of an acquisition is that the acquired company has little incentive for new programs until after the acquisition. Further, acquired companies have great difficulty keeping their employees motivated to do things until the acquisition is complete as most will be worried about their own jobs. And, anything that IS done doesn't have any consequences as the acquiring company is stuck with the decision and many senior managers will be leaving immediately after the acquisition or soon thereafter.

If the above is correct, and I believe it is, it doesn't bode well for our customer experience over the next year.


----------



## the future is now

ATT is not a good compay, this will be a bad deal overall.


----------



## DCSholtis

Hope this doesn't mean the end of Sunday Ticket and other sports packages.... 

Sent from my XT1053 using DBSTalk mobile app


----------



## CraigerM

I wonder which name they will keep UVerse TV or DTV? Wouldn't it kind of be a confusing name UVerse DTV? Would people wonder if they are subscribed to UVerse or DTV? Or maybe UVerse Satellite TV?


----------



## SayWhat?

James Long said:


> *Delivers Significant Benefits for Consumers*
> Commitment to expand and enhance broadband to 15 million customer locations, primarily in rural areas


That part could be interesting.


----------



## SayWhat?

CraigerM said:


> I wonder which name they will keep UVerse TV or DTV? Wouldn't it kind of be a confusing name UVerse DTV? Would people wonder if they are subscribed to UVerse or DTV? Or maybe UVerse Satellite TV?


DU TV?


----------



## bigglebowski

Sea bass said:


> I have concerns with this merger, I loved Cingular wireless...that merger didn't go so well, for me anyway.


I guess it affects everybody differently. I had Bellsouth when I first got cell service then it changed to Cingular and now it's been AT&T for some time. I honestly can't say I saw any difference in those changes. But I guess it's like Obamacare, some people were adversely affected, some not at all and some actually benefited only time will really tell.

I am more curious to see what changes come on the commercial side, we just got notice of a switch from multiband to perfect 10.


----------



## damondlt

the future is now said:


> ATT is not a good compay, .


 Must not be that bad since they have over 100 million customers, and worth over 100 billion dollars.
Terrible company. LOL

Sent from my Galaxy S5


----------



## SledgeHammer

Doesn't really matter unless they lower the monthly cost to draw in new subs. They've reached the saturation point of people willing to pony up $100 - $110 / mo for "basic cable" + DVR service. 12,000 new subs all 1st quarter says it all. Face it, most people are lazy and getting DTV installed is a PITA. Most people opt for cable if the cost is similar. When DTV was the only digital game in town, they had an edge. Now cable is digital (well, except 0 - 99 lol), so what's the point of DTV? Picture Q is the "same" to anybody but a PQ enthusiast and most people like the fact that a 2ndary TV can pull 100 channels without a STB for when Grandma comes to visit.

My neighbor had DTV dish installed and then moved out and some girls (butch lesbians lol) moved in. They actually went through the hassle of disconnecting the dish and going back to cable. It was already wired up lol!!!

Cable does offer TV + phone + internet from one provider, so that's a perk for that too.

AT&T can't do anything but phone in the majority of the country at this point. Or internet if you want to slum it on DSL.


----------



## TomK

I'm glad I cut the satellite a few months back. Being involved in any with AT&T cannot be a good thing for consumers. They'll probably start a bandwidth cap on shows you watch or something equally evil. I'm joking on that, but they'll find a way to charge more for the same or less content. R.I.P. Directv.


----------



## 456521

Here's some data to show just how atrocious AT&T U-verse is compared to DirecTV. :scratch:

http://www.jdpower.com/press-releases/2013-us-residential-television-service-provider-satisfaction-study


----------



## James Long

CraigerM said:


> I wonder which name they will keep UVerse TV or DTV? Wouldn't it kind of be a confusing name UVerse DTV? Would people wonder if they are subscribed to UVerse or DTV? Or maybe UVerse Satellite TV?


My opinion, worth as much as the pixels that it is printed on, is that the DirecTV name will survive. No one has presented a compelling reason for it not to survive. Changing the name doesn't improve the service nor people's impression of the service. If there is a change "AT&T Satellite TV" has a nice ring to it.

AT&T needed the UVerse name for their current offering - AT&T Cable TV doesn't have a nice sound and they want to differentiate their offering from junky old "cable" television. AT&T IPTV is confusing (what is an IP?) for most customers. UVerse implies universal television. Not a bad name. (If NBC Universal did not exist perhaps the name would not be shortened.)

While "UVerse Satellite" would be possible that sticks the current UVerse with the same problem it had before the cool name. "UVerse Cable" and "UVerse IPTV" just don't sound good. "UVerse Ground" diminishes the product, as if it is a lower class of UVerse. The best naming solution is the status quo.

Just my opinion ... if you disagree feel free to reuse these pixels to read someone else's opinion. 

PS: *I* know what IP is ... but the general population is less clued in.
Yes - how the name sounds does matter. Put a lousy name on a good product and you'll have sales problems. Put a good name on a lousy product and you'll do better. Put a good name on a good product and you'll do the best.


----------



## cabnlecommando

This eventually gonna be bad for DirecTV employees.no company is going to buy something for 50 billion and not make changes. If you believe anything from corporate your smoking some crack! When they bought out bellsouth almost overnight things changed and a lot of people lost there jobs


----------



## wingrider01

damondlt said:


> Must not be that bad since they have over 100 million customers, and worth over 100 billion dollars.
> Terrible company. LOL
> 
> Sent from my Galaxy S5


cellular alone has about 126 million customers, that does not include any of the other divisions customer count nor the business endevors


----------



## PCampbell

When SBC bought ATT they changed to the ATT name as it was better known, Directv name is better known so I don't see them dropping it. I am not saying ATT will Change to Directv just not drop the Directv name.


----------



## Kaiser Bob

cabnlecommando said:


> This eventually gonna be bad for DirecTV employees.no company is going to buy something for 50 billion and not make changes. If you believe anything from corporate your smoking some crack! When they bought out bellsouth almost overnight things changed and a lot of people lost there jobs


BellSouth bought AT&T and there was alot of overlap there, not so much here beyond legal, upper management, some IT and maybe some call centers. Where is the cost benefit to restructuring or relocating broadcast centers, engineering, field services, most of the DTV side really. I think the press release alludes to this.


----------



## xmguy

I don't expect to see many changes to name, services or offerings. Where changes may occur is in the back end of the way business is carried. Less consumer discounts. Stuff like that. 

Sent from my VS980 4G using DBSTalk mobile app


----------



## bullitt

This will not be good for DirectTV customers. Mergers of this sort never bode well for the consumer. XM was a much better service than Sirius and now Sirius XM has become diluted and a corporate clone. Can't imagine anything good as a result of this. The only choices we have any more are "Paper or Plastic?"


----------



## Drucifer

Well first to go will be any partnership billing with Verizon.


----------



## CraigerM

James Long said:


> My opinion, worth as much as the pixels that it is printed on, is that the DirecTV name will survive. No one has presented a compelling reason for it not to survive. Changing the name doesn't improve the service nor people's impression of the service. If there is a change "AT&T Satellite TV" has a nice ring to it.
> 
> AT&T needed the UVerse name for their current offering - AT&T Cable TV doesn't have a nice sound and they want to differentiate their offering from junky old "cable" television. AT&T IPTV is confusing (what is an IP?) for most customers. UVerse implies universal television. Not a bad name. (If NBC Universal did not exist perhaps the name would not be shortened.)
> 
> While "UVerse Satellite" would be possible that sticks the current UVerse with the same problem it had before the cool name. "UVerse Cable" and "UVerse IPTV" just don't sound good. "UVerse Ground" diminishes the product, as if it is a lower class of UVerse. The best naming solution is the status quo.
> 
> Just my opinion ... if you disagree feel free to reuse these pixels to read someone else's opinion.
> 
> PS: *I* know what IP is ... but the general population is less clued in.
> Yes - how the name sounds does matter. Put a lousy name on a good product and you'll have sales problems. Put a good name on a lousy product and you'll do better. Put a good name on a good product and you'll do the best.


Wouldn't they need to keep the UVerse name to distinguish itself from DSL Internet if they did something like the UVerse Satellite TV, Internet and Phone triple bundle package? Or could they still do something like DTV, Internet and Phone triple package and customers would still think they or on UVerse Internet and not DSL?


----------



## SledgeHammer

TomK said:


> I'm glad I cut the satellite a few months back. Being involved in any with AT&T cannot be a good thing for consumers. They'll probably start a bandwidth cap on shows you watch or something equally evil. I'm joking on that, but they'll find a way to charge more for the same or less content. R.I.P. Directv.


I was not happy with AT&T or DirecTV pricing. AT&T made me happy a few months ago. I don't have a problem paying extra $$$ for stuff I want, but I need to feel I'm getting some value for it and that it is FAIRLY priced. I did not consider $74/mo for 200 min + 300MB + texting to be fair value. $60/mo for unlimited talk & text & 2GB is pretty reasonable.

$110/mo (which is what I pay sans discounts) is most certainly NOT fairly priced for Total Choice Plus + DVR service for one TV. I don't consider that fairly priced at all. I'd consider fair value for it to be $79.99/mo tops. I don't consider that fairly priced because a large portion of that bill is to pay for sports which I have ZERO interest in. ESPN is the scum of the earth.

Nice going... you paid Aaron Hernandez $16M to kill 3 people.

In regards to bandwidth caps? Who uses LTE? Lol... half the time it doesn't even work or is slow. There's always an open wi-fi network around.


----------



## James Long

Kaiser Bob said:


> BellSouth bought AT&T and there was alot of overlap there, not so much here beyond legal, upper management, some IT and maybe some call centers. Where is the cost benefit to restructuring or relocating broadcast centers, engineering, field services, most of the DTV side really. I think the press release alludes to this.


The remerger of AT&T brought back together like companies. The efficiencies of combining call centers that do very similar tasks is nearly trivial ... just give the survivors access to the systems. Since most of it was built up as the Bell System in the first place the systems were very similar, if not identical. In areas where effort was duplicated it would be easier to combine facilities.

Integrating DirecTV in to AT&T is not as easy ... the DirecTV product was never part of AT&T. While AT&T has expanded into pay TV through UVerse they need to maintain DirecTV's infrastructure to keep DirecTV working. Perhaps some warehouse facilities will combine in areas where that makes sense. Using AT&T stores to sell DirecTV makes sense. Combining telephone sales and support ... that is a little harder. Sales following a script would be easier to combine (if one sells DirecTV in an AT&T store why not sell it at a AT&T call center?). Customer service would require the "experts" that know DirecTV's systems. Installation would require the "experts" that know DirecTV's equipment.

While cross training is possible the combined company will still need warm bodies to do the work. The short term employees that come and go at both AT&T and DirecTV will continue to come and go ... the rest will do fine.


----------



## wilbur_the_goose

Seems like a big loss for D* customers and employees. Sirius killed off the superior and bigger XM. AT&T will do the same to us all.


Sent from my iPad using DBSTalk


----------



## SledgeHammer

xmguy said:


> I don't expect to see many changes to name, services or offerings. Where changes may occur is in the back end of the way business is carried. Less consumer discounts. Stuff like that.
> 
> Sent from my VS980 4G using DBSTalk mobile app


Well, they already scrapped the HD discount. As these are falling off, they aren't re-upping them.


----------



## SledgeHammer

pdxBeav said:


> Here's some data to show just how atrocious AT&T U-verse is compared to DirecTV. :scratch:
> 
> http://www.jdpower.com/press-releases/2013-us-residential-television-service-provider-satisfaction-study


Don't you know that only unhappy people do these surveys? And online reviews, etc? Take them with a grain of salt.


----------



## Drucifer

Where do I go to sign up for my own telegraph?

Maybe they'll do a complete renaming to something more current.


----------



## spikor

I switched from Dish to Directv in Feb. ( IF At&t and Directv goes thru or already has gone thru can the current people get out of any 2 year contracts ) Just wondering? The Audio problems are annoying for me. I have a Genie and 3 clients sometimes there is a delay of a few seconds after you switch a channel for it to come on or it might go out for a few seconds....or most of the time you switch a channel and you have no audio and have to go up 4 or 5 channels or more then go backdown to get any audio back on. ( I had to do that twice about a hour ago to restore it ) The genie is running thru a surround sound/ home theater in the Living room ( hooked up or unhooked ) the loosing audio is still there. It can be on the Genies or the clients. BUT on no other receivers ( Non Genie ) IF I cannot get out without having to pay a lot of $$$. I will wait until the 2 year contract is up. I will have to put up with the annoying audio dropouts several times a day. ( I was just wondering IF there was a way to get out of the contract since a merger or buyout took place.)


----------



## madmadworld

how there is a ATT still is just ____
on the other hand DTV is/was the best big corp i have ever dealt with.
FCC please stop this thank you


----------



## lipcrkr

I have DTV AND TWC for my internet. I pay $14.99 a month. Unless something drastic happens, i'm fine right where i'm at. I also use the AT&T cell tower for my phone. My bill is $20 every 3 months. 
So, with my DTV, TWC, and my unlocked cell phone using the AT&T network............it comes to about $107.00 per month.


Not bad at all. I use HDTV and my PC joined together with my phone and i'm a happy guy.


----------



## CraigerM

James, if they do have a new name will you also change name of this forum to match the new name and all their services will be discussed here? :hurah:


----------



## peds48

spikor said:


> ( I was just wondering IF there was a way to get out of the contract since a merger or buyout took place.)


but the problem is that nothing has taken place. This was just an announcement that both companies agree to a deal. next is government approval


----------



## Drucifer

I do wonder if this merger will improve the internet side of the DirecTV receivers.


----------



## James Long

CraigerM said:


> James, if they do have a new name will you also change name of this forum to match the new name and all their services will be discussed here? :hurah:


You already asked that and I already answered you. Please read my replies. Thanks!


----------



## DMRI2006

> All I know, I'm not accepting any equipment offers for a while.


Yeah that's the bottom line. Been with Directv since they bought out Primestar back in the '90s -- I have a year left on my contract and will wait and see what shakes out. Certainly won't add onto that commitment with a new receiver or upgrade.


----------



## john18

camo said:


> I have three homes and the only one that has AT&T coverage is the large metro area Phoenix.


Where, depending on which city, Google Fiber entering the market is a distinct possibility. They are in discussions with Phoenix, Scottsdale and Tempe.


----------



## john18

SayWhat? said:


> That part could be interesting.


And who is subsidizing a market entry that no other company is interested in serving?


----------



## nmetro

Honestly, I think it was a good idea I just switched back to Dish. I had several reason, but the AT&T "merger" rumors were enough to convince me it was a good time to make a move. The "merger" seems to benefit the corporate interests of AT&T and DirecTV. As for subscribers of U-Verse, they may me "compelled" to become satellite subscribers. In some case, they may have to find alternatives, as they may not be able to install satellite service. And as for DirecTV subscribers, they may see their fees go up to absorb the U-Verse customers and to meet AT&T profit goals.

With Dish acquiring wireless spectrum, it is only a matter of time that a suitor comes calling, like Sprint or Version.

In the end, like content providers (Comcast, Time-Warner, Viacom, Disney, FOX, CBS), there will be very few delivery providers (Comacst, AT&T, Verizon o Sprint, Charter, COX and smaller cable entities). Such an arrangement will only result in higher prices and worse customer service. And all these entities, will have enough clout, to lobby Congress in order to limit delivery of content from devices like Rocku, Amaazon Fires, et. al. 

The Aereo case outcome could have a bearing on the future of content delivery; as would the FCC possibly supporting a two-tier internet. Both situations are being watched closely by the the content providers and delivers.

The future, for the consumer, could be limited choices, limited network capacity and higher prices, not only in how they get programming, but also how the use the internet.

In the early 1980s, the original AT&T was broken up because it was declared a monopoly. Since that time we have seen the rise of cable, the internet, programming providers and content. And over the past few years, we have been seeing consolidation into fewer and fewer companies. This certainly will not be good fro consumers. Unfortunately, Washington no longer listens to consumers, or the majority of the American people.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

PCampbell said:


> When SBC bought ATT they changed to the ATT name as it was better known, Directv name is better known so I don't see them dropping it. I am not saying ATT will Change to Directv just not drop the Directv name.


To be fair... When the original AT&T was broken up... it was broken up into a smaller AT&T and companies like Southern Bell (eventually renamed to Bellsouth, then Cingular for wireless)... and the company that until recently was SBC... so it only made sense to keep the AT&T name in those mergers because it was a re-merge of companies originally broken apart from AT&T years ago.

I don't know that an AT&T + DirecTV needs to mess with names... but if they did...

They could always go AT&T Satellite or AT&T DBS or even AT&T DirecTV... and UVerse could be renamed as AT&T Fiber. AT&T wants to dump its legacy DSL and "plain old" telephone services anyway, so I don't know that they care about those naming issues.


----------



## James Long




----------



## slice1900

camo said:


> Nothing is official yet, it still has to be approved by the FCC which could take more than a year and it may or may not get approved.
> If there is a big protest, odds are it won't get approval. I'm dead against it for the main reason AT&T cellular sucks in coverage unless you live in large metro areas. I have three homes and the only one that has AT&T coverage is the large metro area Phoenix.


What does AT&T cellular coverage sucking have to do with them buying Directv? If GM decided to buy Directv would you say it is a bad idea because your Chevy broke down three times last year?


----------



## acostapimps

I can't even get Uverse TV here probably too far from the vrad, but I can get Internet and phone, even if I do I still won't get it even if they offer it for free.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Tom Servo

damondlt said:


> Must not be that bad since they have over 100 million customers, and worth over 100 billion dollars.
> Terrible company. LOL
> 
> Sent from my Galaxy S5


They didn't get those customers by innovating and offering compelling products. They got those customers by buying the competition that was doing better and shutting them down. Period. And that's why AT&T buying ANYONE is cause for concern. Their corporate culture is toxic but it's backed by endless suitcases of cash that they use to keep acquiring lesser competitiors. That's their modus operandi: is a competitor making us look bad? Buy them, and shut them down and force their customers over to our network.



Drucifer said:


> Well first to go will be any partnership billing with Verizon.


And CenturyLink. I've been with D* for the second time for less than a year and it just dawned on me that both CenturyLink (my DSL provider) and Verizon (my cell company) offer some sort of discount. I need to call and see how to maximize my savings, but it may be for naught in the long term if this all goes away.



slice1900 said:


> What does AT&T cellular coverage sucking have to do with them buying Directv? If GM decided to buy Directv would you say it is a bad idea because your Chevy broke down three times last year?


Why does AT&T's coverage suck in rural areas? Why does a Chevrolet break down a lot? Neither is really true, to be fair, but when it does happen, it happens for the same reason: corporate beancounting. It's not profitable to serve rural areas with LTE or to plop down a ton of towers for seamless coverage in a cost effective way. And it's not cost effective to GM to make a Malibu as robustly built as a Sherman Tank.

DirecTV has not really been a company, historically, whose corporate beancounting has adversely affected the end user. That will change with this merger, if it goes through. AT&T will gut the customer service, squeeze the independent contractors even more and probably raise prices while not adding new HD programming.

Why? Because they can.

This will be going through around the time my contract ends, I think. I'm sticking with satellite for now, but should things start to go downhill, I'm definitely working on a plan B which involves ditching DirecTV and taking that $100+ a month and adding a second DSL line for dedicated streaming, and adding Roku boxes with Netflix and Hulu to each TV. I've got it in my bedroom now and love it and a dedicated DSL line (or bridging it with my existing line? That would be awesome) plus Netflix plus Hulu would give me a decent slate of HD programming for much less than I'm paying now for excellent service.

Then again, I may wind up ditching Verizon for AT&T now that they finally added LTE to my county, and looking for some sort of D*/AT&T discount whilst I grit my teeth.


----------



## phrelin

I've been waiting for someone in the press to begin to analyze the Latin American element of the news release and found this in English from Reuters: Latin America could be jewel of AT&T-DirecTV deal. It's a pretty good starting analysis. While gaining access to 20 million U.S. satellite TV subscribers is something, AT&T gaining access to 18 million Latin American subscribers has a much greater long term profit potential.

We've reached the point here in the U.S. where new cellular phone subscribers and new broadband subscribers are a part of "churn", a term we're familiar with in the TV signal provider business. Latin America still has many, many people without a cell phone service or broadband or a TV service.

Sure there are regulatory issues in all countries but acquiring DirecTV buys AT&T the necessary contacts and experienced personnel to be more effective in the regulatory forums of Latin America.


----------



## harsh

slice1900 said:


> If GM decided to buy Directv would you say it is a bad idea because your Chevy broke down three times last year?


Funny that you should mention GM (owned Hughes and, by extension, DIRECTV from 1985-2002?).


----------



## harsh

phrelin said:


> While gaining access to 20 million U.S. satellite TV subscribers is something, AT&T gaining access to 18 million Latin American subscribers has a much greater long term profit potential.


I don't see DIRECTV LA as a profit center. The ARPU is somewhere in the $48-50 range versus the $100+ they're wringing out of US subscribers. According to the latest quarterly report, the DIRECTV LA ARPU was down 10% from last year.

Where it might be a win is that there may be less competition from terrestrial carriers.


----------



## James Long

harsh said:


> I don't see DIRECTV LA as a profit center. The ARPU is somewhere in the $48-50 range versus the $100+ they're wringing out of US subscribers. According to the latest quarterly report, the DIRECTV LA ARPU was down 10% from last year.


DirecTV LA made $776 million last year, which is only a fraction (17%) of the profit DirecTV US made. Just a little under the $807 million DISH made. DirecTV LA is adding more than 2 million subscribers per year. If the trend continues there will be more LA subs than US subs in a couple more years.

There is room for improvement but $776 million in profit isn't something that should be summarily dismissed.


----------



## camo

peds48 said:


> but the problem is that nothing has taken place. This was just an announcement that both companies agree to a deal. next is government approval


I hope it fails. I can't see anything good for the consumer coming from this merger if it goes through.


----------



## slice1900

Tom Servo said:


> DirecTV has not really been a company, historically, whose corporate beancounting has adversely affected the end user. That will change with this merger, if it goes through. AT&T will gut the customer service, squeeze the independent contractors even more and probably raise prices while not adding new HD programming.
> 
> Why? Because they can.


Why do you figure they can? If they raise prices without giving customers anything, what stops customers from leaving in droves to Dish or Comcast/TWC? It is stupid to pay $48 billion for a company and then run it into the ground. It would be one thing if they could buy it at a depressed price so squeezing out 5 or 6 years of profits would repay their investment, but that's not the case. Or if they were a big player in the TV business and they wanted to take out a competitor - like if a merged Comcast/TWC was trying to buy Directv, but that's not the case, either.

I don't see Directv's customer service as being any different than any other big company, no different than the 14 years I've been with AT&T wireless. Maybe it gets somewhat worse, but it isn't all that great now. The CSRs are poorly trained and seem to use what someone on dbstalk once called "a random answer generator" when you call. When you can call three times and get three different answers to the same question, I don't see how anyone can make things much worse. Granted, I'm looking at it from the perspective of someone who knows what I'm doing and knows what I want, so I'm not calling in with the easy questions they should be able to answer. Maybe they're good at those.

Will AT&T squeeze the contractors more? I have no idea, but I imagine if I was a contractor for Directv I would probably be a bit nervous about this buyout. Does anyone know if AT&T employs contractors to install Uverse or they're employees? If they're contractors, you'd probably get a pretty good idea how they'll treat Directv contractors by seeing how they treat their Uverse contractors. If Uverse installers are all employees, maybe they'll want Directv to quit using contractors and bring the installers in-house.

Directv is already taking the "bean counter" way by using contractors for installation rather than employing them. That's less expensive but since contractors typically don't last as long the level of service is not as good since on average they're less experienced. I honestly don't understand why people think Directv is this great company that might get messed up, everything about it says "run by beancounters" now. Are AT&T's beancounters so much worse than Directv's?


----------



## speedy4022

I will take a wait and see approach. I would have been gone if the dish merger would have gone through. AT&T CS maybe lousy but so is dish CS. One more thing you think a dish merger would be good for the customer.The Sirius and XM merger should show you how good that would be for the customer.


Sent from my iPhone using DBSTalk


----------



## SayWhat?

> Meanwhile, the announcement on Sunday puts new pressure on the U.S. government to act as a watchdog for the interests of the American public. But an element of drama is being thrown into this high-stakes game of poker. Will the deal go through? And should it? Or is it simply going to be a case of the rich getting richer, at the expense of the public?
> 
> Clearly, federal regulators have their work cut out for them, with another decision about a mega-deal on the horizon. Remember, initially, consumer groups and others questioned whether consumers' best interests would be served by having Comcast gobble up its biggest rival, Time Warner Cable.
> 
> The naysayers fretted that individuals' stratospheric cable bills might rise even higher as services shrank. They suggested that a company with an apparent monopoly might not be as motivated to provide rudimentary services to its bill payers.
> 
> If both deals - AT&T-DirecTV and Comcast-Time Warner - are ultimately approved, then conquering parties AT&T and Comcast would command about two-thirds of the American pay-TV market.
> 
> The public-interest organization Free Press, which opposes the Comcast-Time Warner deal, said Sunday that it's not in favor of the AT&T and DirecTV amalgamation.


http://www.marketwatch.com/story/att-ups-the-ante-as-pay-tv-monopoly-nears-2014-05-19?link=MW_home_latest_news



> But there's something about AT&T's big numbers that grow stale quickly. The problem with big spending is, if you don't put it toward something worthwhile, it's just a waste. Time's Sam Gustin noted on Twitter that the sum AT&T is spending on DirecTV could deploy a hell of a lot of gigabit-fiber service to homes that want it. Instead, it's going to buy one more aging incumbent in the fast-changing TV market.





> Some people have taken a look at the strategy behind the DirecTV purchase and not been kind in their conclusions. When rumors surfaced last week of a possible acquisition, analyst Craig Moffett suggested that the acquisition could be a distraction from an inevitable decline in AT&T's growth. "When DirecTV begins to shrink, then the price paid will no longer matter," Moffett wrote. "It will merely be another liability that AT&T will need to offset by growth somewhere else."
> 
> Aging companies often make big acquisitions when facing a decline in their own businesses.


http://time.com/104428/att-directv-merger/



> Prominent public interest groups criticized AT&T's plan to buy satellite giant DirectTV in a deal worth about $48.5 billion, calling it an example of out-of-control media consolidation that will do little to benefit consumers





> "AT&T's takeover of DirecTV is just the latest attempt at consolidation in a marketplace where consumers are already saddled with lousy service and price hikes," Delara Derakhshani, policy counsel for Consumers Union, the advocacy arm of Consumer Reports, said in an emailed statement. "The rush is on for some of the biggest industry players to get even bigger, with consumers left on the losing end."


http://time.com/104224/att-directv-critics/


----------



## Stuart Sweet

Liveblog starts at 830a ET: http://forums.solidsignal.com/content.php/3220-Liveblogging-the-AT-T-DIRECTV-Conference-Call


----------



## wilbur_the_goose

I don't understand how AT&T would be able to bundle anything related to internet in areas like Philly where they have zero presence.


----------



## edpowers

It is interesting to read the overwhelmingly negative comments about AT&T. I have very little history with AT&T wireless and absolutely no experience with their cable/dsl/internet/tv services so I'm not about to challenge anyone's claims. But I switched from Sprint to AT&T wireless about 5 months ago and can hardly believe how much BETTER AT&T is in every way ... customer service, price/value, quality, coverage, speed, etc., etc. So my positive spin on this deal: At least Softbank/Sprint didn't buy them!


----------



## RunnerFL

edpowers said:


> It is interesting to read the overwhelmingly negative comments about AT&T. I have very little history with AT&T wireless and absolutely no experience with their cable/dsl/internet/tv services so I'm not about to challenge anyone's claims. But I switched from Sprint to AT&T wireless about 5 months ago and can hardly believe how much BETTER AT&T is in every way ... customer service, price/value, quality, coverage, speed, etc., etc. So my positive spin on this deal: At least Softbank/Sprint didn't buy them!


Wireless is the best thing AT&T has going for them right now, and even the wireless CS sucks. Their DSL, TV and home phone services are horrid.


----------



## prushing

slice1900 said:


> Why do you figure they can? If they raise prices without giving customers anything, what stops customers from leaving in droves to Dish or Comcast/TWC? It is stupid to pay $48 billion for a company and then run it into the ground. It would be one thing if they could buy it at a depressed price so squeezing out 5 or 6 years of profits would repay their investment, but that's not the case. Or if they were a big player in the TV business and they wanted to take out a competitor - like if a merged Comcast/TWC was trying to buy Directv, but that's not the case, either.
> 
> I don't see Directv's customer service as being any different than any other big company, no different than the 14 years I've been with AT&T wireless. Maybe it gets somewhat worse, but it isn't all that great now. The CSRs are poorly trained and seem to use what someone on dbstalk once called "a random answer generator" when you call. When you can call three times and get three different answers to the same question, I don't see how anyone can make things much worse. Granted, I'm looking at it from the perspective of someone who knows what I'm doing and knows what I want, so I'm not calling in with the easy questions they should be able to answer. Maybe they're good at those.
> 
> Will AT&T squeeze the contractors more? I have no idea, but I imagine if I was a contractor for Directv I would probably be a bit nervous about this buyout. Does anyone know if AT&T employs contractors to install Uverse or they're employees? If they're contractors, you'd probably get a pretty good idea how they'll treat Directv contractors by seeing how they treat their Uverse contractors. If Uverse installers are all employees, maybe they'll want Directv to quit using contractors and bring the installers in-house.
> 
> Directv is already taking the "bean counter" way by using contractors for installation rather than employing them. That's less expensive but since contractors typically don't last as long the level of service is not as good since on average they're less experienced. I honestly don't understand why people think Directv is this great company that might get messed up, everything about it says "run by beancounters" now. Are AT&T's beancounters so much worse than Directv's?


I believe AT&T uses mostly employees. The outside techs who hook up the lines at the boxes are usually older long time employees. The ones who do the inside install have been AT&T employees in my experience, but not sure if all of them are.


----------



## Laxguy

jerrylove56 said:


> Only good when it comes to removing a channel. (Weather Channel)


Could you give a bit more detail what your comment means?


----------



## woj027

Although big companies seem to keep getting bigger, I think this might be a good deal (so do the two boards involved) for most DirecTV customers (and ATT) 

I see the bundling option (Wireless(cell) and TV) or (Wireless, Internet, TV) will be a benefit; that has been an issue in competition with Comcast 'triple play'

This might even be better for those who are in the Uverse (TV) world, they would have the option to get DirecTV and open up the bandwidth on their internet for increase speeds (they use the same portion of the 'pipe' don't they?)

But long term would it motivate ATT to bring their internet (is it also called Uverse?) (Cable or LTE, 5G, 6G?,other) to other regions? Not having to invest in ATT Uverse (TV) might be help the bottom line and be able to fund more internet expansion?


----------



## Diana C

wilbur_the_goose said:


> I don't understand how AT&T would be able to bundle anything related to internet in areas like Philly where they have zero presence.


In any market where AT&T is a wireline provider they can offfer a quadruple play: wireless (voice, text and data), TV (U-verse or DirecTV), phone and broadband. Where they have no wireline presence they offer a double play of wireless and TV.


----------



## dpeters11

There's not much that will make me jump, but if when they talk about the same set top box, if that means going to a Motorola or SA DVR.


----------



## jimmie57

The stock market is still the same.
Rumor = Buy
Actual News = Sell

Both companies stock is down about 2.4% at the time I am typing this.


----------



## slice1900

speedy4022 said:


> I will take a wait and see approach. I would have been gone if the dish merger would have gone through. AT&T CS maybe lousy but so is dish CS. One more thing you think a dish merger would be good for the customer.The Sirius and XM merger should show you how good that would be for the customer.


The Sirius/XM merger was totally different than a Directv/Dish merger would have been. Primarily because the latter would have been a merger of two successful companies, rather than a merger of two failing companies. If Sirius and XM had not merged, at least one and possibly both would have gone bankrupt, and if one survived it would be hanging by a thread. Not merging would have been at least as bad for the customer as the merger was.


----------



## DCSholtis

Here's what I don't quite get what do they mean when they say "Directv will still be available nationwide for at least the next 3 years" then what? 

Sent from my XT1053 using DBSTalk mobile app


----------



## Jon J

Diana C said:


> In any market where AT&T is a wireline provider they can offfer a quadruple play: wireless (voice, text and data), TV (U-verse or DirecTV), phone and broadband. Where they have no wireline presence they offer a double play of wireless and TV.


This is only partially true. In my area our wireline provider(s) have been Bell Telephone, Southern Bell, South Central Bell, BellSouth and now AT&T. I've had POTS with them since 1965.

I had DSL service until recently being forced to switch to UVerse. I neither gained nor lost anything. Still capped at 3Mb/sec even though they ran fibre down my street almost five years ago. Our area was not selected for further buildout and faster internet service though AT&T made noises on numerous occasions that it was "considering all options". As a city on the Google short list for service AT&T is at it again .

I've been a DirecTV customer for 13 years and am mostly satisfied. I've been deluged recently to exercise my Protection Plan "upgrade" ability to replace all the aging equipment which I own with newer equipment I would lease and the accompanying new two year committment. Looks like I'll be better served to put upgrade consideration on hold until the buyout dust settles keeping my options open. I would not expect the buyout to produce lower prices or improved service. In fact, the opposite may well be the result.


----------



## DMRI2006

What's up with this statement in the conference call?



> DIRECTV still available for all customers nationwide for at least 3 years


----------



## longrider

This is the top story on CNBC.com right now: http://www.cnbc.com/id/101685046


----------



## jimmie57

DMRI2006 said:


> What's up with this statement in the conference call?


As a standalone customer of DTV you should not see any changes by AT&T to packages, pricing , etc. for that 3 year time period. Except of course the increase in pricing each year to cover the cost of content providers raising their rates to DTV.


----------



## SteveHas

My thoughts
- no corporate merger has ever done ANYTHING for the consumer, only eroded the quality of goods & services as the remaining corp. fights to pay off the massive buy out debt
- Our much beloved D* had limited life span due to satellite technology, and lack of broad band
- AT&T is a horrendous company based on the popular opinion (and my experience) judged on quality, value and service
- DirecTV's outstanding service, equipment, and quality will not survive the pressure of AT&T's debt payment, and poor culture
- this just smacks of a desperation move on both companies parts motivated by lack of long term technology plan
- there are HUGE parts of the country (like Boston) where AT&T is cell broad band only, so we only loose a great satellite provider in the end with no real gain

I feel a switch to FiOs in my near future, I hope the Feds will nix this merger


----------



## jimmie57

SteveHas said:


> My thoughts
> - no corporate merger has ever done ANYTHING for the consumer, only eroded the quality of goods & services as the remaining corp.* fights to pay off the massive buy out debt*
> - Our much beloved D* had limited life span due to satellite technology, and lack of broad band
> - AT&T is a horrendous company based on the popular opinion (and my experience) judged on quality, value and service
> - DirecTV's outstanding service, equipment, and quality will not survive the pressure of AT&T's debt payment, and poor culture
> - this just smacks of a desperation move on both companies parts motivated by lack of long term technology plan
> - there are HUGE parts of the country (like Boston) where AT&T is cell broad band only, so we only loose a great satellite provider in the end with no real gain
> 
> I feel a switch to FiOs in my near future, I hope the Feds will nix this merger


They are only paying $28.50 in cash and the rest is in stock. The only debt will be from the cash payment and the existing debt of DTV.


----------



## jimmie57

SteveHas said:


> My thoughts
> - no corporate merger has ever done ANYTHING for the consumer, only eroded the quality of goods & services as the remaining corp. fights to pay off the massive buy out debt
> - Our much beloved D* had limited life span due to satellite technology, and lack of broad band
> - AT&T is a horrendous company based on the popular opinion (and my experience) judged on quality, value and service
> - DirecTV's outstanding service, equipment, and quality will not survive the pressure of AT&T's debt payment, and poor culture
> - this just smacks of a desperation move on both companies parts motivated by lack of long term technology plan
> - there are HUGE parts of the country (like Boston) where AT&T is cell broad band only, so we only loose a great satellite provider in the end with no real gain
> 
> I feel a switch to FiOs in my near future, I hope the Feds will nix this merger


Mergers:
They merge so they can cut staff and payouts and make more money.
They merge so that they can have a bigger clout in purchasing so they can make more money.
They merge to have more to sell to us at the same or higher pricing so they can make more money.
Most times in the end the users get less.

Having said that: I remember when I first moved to Texas and my ex would call her mother back in Georgia and talk for hours. I had a few phone bills in the $500 area. Now I have a plan that I can talk all I want for less than $60 including all the taxes and line charges, etc.


----------



## Paul Secic

camo said:


> I hope it fails. I can't see anything good for the consumer coming from this merger if it goes through.


It will fail, mark my words!


----------



## DMRI2006

AT&T apparently can back out if the Sunday Ticket deal isn't reupped:










http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2014/05/19/directv-purchase-could-hinge-on-nfl-sunday-ticket-renewal/


----------



## Laxguy

SteveHas said:


> My thoughts
> - no corporate merger has ever done ANYTHING for the consumer, only eroded the quality of goods & services as the remaining corp. fights to pay off the massive buy out debt


A massively incorrect statement. For one, incurring debt isn't intrinsic to the process.
Unless you believe that every company over $500MM in sales puts out shoddy goods, your statement is faulty on that score; virtually every company of that size has undergone M&A activities. And a lot of smaller ones, too.


----------



## Paul Secic

dpeters11 said:


> There's not much that will make me jump, but if when they talk about the same set top box, if that means going to a Motorola or SA DVR.


Their boxes are horrid. I had U-verse for two weeks. I went back to Dish.


----------



## harsh

Diana C said:


> In any market where AT&T is a wireline provider they can offfer a quadruple play: wireless (voice, text and data), TV (U-verse or DirecTV), phone and broadband. Where they have no wireline presence they offer a double play of wireless and TV.


The big question is does AT&T meet the broadband access needs that DIRECTV has been working towards? I bet not; especially if their only offering is wireless.


----------



## facerw

I'm sorry but I think ATT buying Directv is a bad idea. As such after 11 years I'm going to be splitting from Directv at the end of this year. I'm sorry but I cannot keep up with the rate hikes and loss of programming. Sure the combined company may try to do what it can to keep me but my decision was made up. This merger is not good for the common person and as such Im dropping it. They were good in the beginning but now, forget it.


----------



## harsh

DMRI2006 said:


> AT&T apparently can back out if the Sunday Ticket deal isn't reupped:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2014/05/19/directv-purchase-could-hinge-on-nfl-sunday-ticket-renewal/


I honestly didn't see that coming. DIRECTV without the NFLST exclusive would be significantly less valuable.


----------



## damondlt

Here comes another huge payout we get to digest. 

Sent from my Galaxy S5


----------



## Rich

damondlt said:


> Here comes another huge payout we get to digest.
> 
> Sent from my Galaxy S5


Ever the pessimist, I'll agree with you. I don't see much good for us coming out of this. I've been thru mergers and acquisitions and they're gonna chop a lot of jobs in the first couple years. You know that will happen.

Rich


----------



## TheRatPatrol

DMRI2006 said:


> AT&T apparently can back out if the Sunday Ticket deal isn't reupped:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2014/05/19/directv-purchase-could-hinge-on-nfl-sunday-ticket-renewal/


Whats the "but" part?


----------



## prushing

Rich said:


> Ever the pessimist, I'll agree with you. I don't see much good for us coming out of this. I've been thru mergers and acquisitions and they're gonna chop a lot of jobs in the first couple years. You know that will happen.
> 
> Rich


but we don't know where the jobs will come from, if DTV is really sticking around, Uverse would be where the jobs were cut


----------



## MarkN

Hey it's is America baby........survival of the fittest!!!


Sent from my iPad using DBSTalk


----------



## jimmie57

Rich said:


> Ever the pessimist, I'll agree with you. I don't see much good for us coming out of this. I've been thru mergers and acquisitions and *they're gonna chop a lot of jobs in the first couple years. * You know that will happen.
> 
> Rich


That is what they call "Synergies" in their discussions. They think us ordinary people do not know the difference.


----------



## slice1900

harsh said:


> The big question is does AT&T meet the broadband access needs that DIRECTV has been working towards? I bet not; especially if their only offering is wireless.


What broadband access has "Directv been working towards"? Until AT&T bought them, they could not offer any sort of internet at all. Now with AT&T they have wired access in part of the country and wireless in almost all of it.

But what difference does that make? Many people use FIOS or Comcast or whatever for internet with Directv today, and they'll still be able to with AT&T owning them.


----------



## slice1900

Paul Secic said:


> Their boxes are horrid. I had U-verse for two weeks. I went back to Dish.


If the U-verse boxes are horrid, why would you think that AT&T is going to make Directv customers start using them? Maybe they'll make the Genie work for cable. Swap the sat tuners for QAM tuners, swap the access card for a cable card, there you go! If they try to merge the technologies, more likely they'd start from scratch on a new box designed to work with both.

Keep in mind, Directv is over 3x the size of Uverse. It is Uverse customers who should be worried about the bad aspects of Directv coming to bite them, rather than the other way around.


----------



## Drucifer

Wonder how this is going to effect HughesNet?


----------



## sdk009

Drucifer said:


> Wonder how this is going to effect HughesNet?


None whatsoever. EchoStar owns HughesNet.


----------



## phrelin

Diana C said:


> In any market where AT&T is a wireline provider they can offfer a quadruple play: wireless (voice, text and data), TV (U-verse or DirecTV), phone and broadband. Where they have no wireline presence they offer a double play of wireless and TV.


It totally depends on where you are located. We have an AT&T copper land line. AT&T wants to dump it. Their cellular reception here is crap, my youngest (age 50+) who lives in Washington D.C. had to get one of those mini-towers and have me hook it to our Comcast internet because he frequently has to work when he visits.

Over a decade ago they made a decision not to provide high speed internet in much of rural Northern California, but for awhile in 2012 and 2013 I was getting phone calls from AT&T trying to get me to hook up to the new fiber high speed internet in our area. I'd ask the rep where that was going to come from as I know of no AT&T fiber construction going on within 25 miles. When i really pushed, I'd get a supervisor who would acknowledge they could maybe give me the equivalent of five times dial-up speeds, but I still don't know how because there is no equipment on phone lines coming in here.



jimmie57 said:


> That is what they call "Synergies" in their discussions. They think us ordinary people do not know the difference.


I have a lot of neighbors using DirecTV because of the guy that owns and operates this:








He, of course, deals with problematic forest installs. My economic forecast is that he'll be "synergied" into retirement within three years of regulatory approvals.

My point being that AT&T bean counters and Wall Street analysts quite correctly do not see any real profit or value growth potential in rural America because service costs per unit are higher than in urban and suburban areas. AT&T is slowly getting regulators to shift the cost of copper service connections away from a universal service cost sharing model to "Let's all herd those stray Americans into the urban centers where we can make more money on them." Of course, this isn't just AT&T, but they are the worst because they have acquired the most responsibility to Americans in the form of copper wire systems.


----------



## sum_random_dork

One Bay Area media follower thought/felt that AT&T wants to bail out of their UVerse program roll-out and instead offer DirecTV service to customers then use the bandwidth available to compete with Comcast/Xfinity on the needed upload/dowload speeds. 

What I find interesting is the deals UVerse already has in place with Pac12 Networks and also a deal NFL Network for streaming of NFL Redzone and NFL Network via mobile apps and XBox One. Not knowing how any of those current deals are written we don't know if AT&T will have to roll them out for DirecTV customers or not. IIRC Uverse also has deals for Longhorn Network with Disney/ESPN.


----------



## jbaron76

Laxguy said:


> A massively incorrect statement. For one, incurring debt isn't intrinsic to the process.
> Unless you believe that every company over $500MM in sales puts out shoddy goods, your statement is faulty on that score; virtually every company of that size has undergone M&A activities. And a lot of smaller ones, too.


His statement is not incorrect. Any time you remove competitors in the marketplace, the remaining companies now have more freedom to raise prices. After all, since the competition is gone, who is going to offer a better deal? For us in the St. Louis area, this means Charter cable or the new AT&T/DirecTV. Charter has a horrible reputation in many areas, so the new combined AT&T will be able to charge high rates since most consumers will not be willing to switch to Charter even with its lower prices. I agree that this has the potential to hurt consumers more-so than help them.


----------



## SayWhat?

phrelin said:


> My point being that AT&T bean counters and Wall Street analysts quite correctly do not see any real profit or value growth potential in rural America ...


Three words, Rural Broadband Initiative, although it's really called a few other things depending on area and funding source. Agencies including Agriculture have been throwing money at some companies to push broadband into low population areas like my county. Our current TelCo is running fiber down the country road a mile from me as we speak. I currently have 3Mb DSL via copper. When complete, I'll have at least 6Mb capability and likely 12Mb or higher if I can afford to pay for it. This area of this county is mostly farmland with housing density of maybe 1 house per three miles of road on average.

I'm hoping Dish and whatever the ATT/DirecTV mess turns into will be able to offer a WISP type service at some point to spur some competition and bring our rates down.


----------



## keith_benedict

SteveHas said:


> My thoughts
> - AT&T is a horrendous company based on the popular opinion (and my experience) judged on quality, value and service
> - DirecTV's outstanding service, equipment, and quality will not survive the pressure of AT&T's debt payment, and poor culture
> 
> I have not had this experience with AT&T. I've had U-Verse Internet/Phone/TV since Feb, 2013. Is the picture quality as good as Directv? No. But I will say that I like their DVR FAR more than the HR20 I used to have. I will also say it's really nice being able to switch channels and not have to wait 5 seconds. Additionally, I'm paying $160 for all 3 services combined. I priced out the comparable package with Directv and I'd be paying $160 for TV service only!


----------



## Drucifer

Will Verizon standby or will they get in the mix with their own purchase as their fiber is decades away from going everywhere.

Or will it be Google doing the tire kicking?


----------



## jimmie57

Drucifer said:


> Will Verizon standby or will they get in the mix with their own purchase as their fiber is decades away from going everywhere.
> 
> Or will it be Google doing the tire kicking?


Verizon has looked at Dish in the past and basically passed on the option and got together with Vodafone.


----------



## Laxguy

jbaron76 said:


> His statement is not incorrect.


It is. I said nothing about this specific acquisition; I refuted his broad statement.

I agree that concentrated power, control over distribution, gives companies more power to raise prices/lower quality, but that doesn't necessarily follow in many or most combinations; there is usually still enough competition to keep consumers protected.


----------



## TravelFan1

Wow, those news about if Sunday Ticket isn't re-upped, merge can be called off by AT&T really surprised me.

I'd like to make my comments from the perspective of someone that has been in several M&A, in a different industry, though.

First of all, thanks to satracer and all other Directv employees that have been helping us, Directv consumers, throughout these years. I hope that AT&T is smart enough to realize that you are very valuable employees that should be retained.

For those Directv employees working on keeping the lights on, it should business as usual. But for the ones working in new initiatives/new projects, if it works like my industry, you can start making plans to occupy your time in the next 12 months during business hours, as no new projects or initiatives should start. For example, other than the contracts that expire in the next 12 months, I won't expect any new HD channels. For those of you, for example, waiting on Pac-12, if you badly want it, you are better off switching providers.

I"m curious to see how 2 situations will be handled while the merger goes through the approval process:
- ABC/ESPN renewal
- Fox Sports 1 and 2 renewal - remember, their contract with these 2 channels was only for 1 year, basically punting the ball to this year.

It won't surprise me if, in case of ABC/ESPN, they just agree on extension of existing contract until merger is finalized. The Fox Sports is a big more tricky, because the current rates are way below what Fox had in mind.

Sucks that while the merger goes through the approval process, we can't just leverage the WatchEspn contract that AT&T already has with the Disney networks. Oh well, my slingbox is all set up for the World Cup already 

And, personally, this merge sucks 'cause there is zero synergy for me, as Verizon is my telco, so there won't be any chance of having them as my internet or landline phone provider. And, as of November 2014, I just started a new 2 year agreement with Verizon wireless.


----------



## phrelin

SayWhat? said:


> Three words, Rural Broadband Initiative, although it's really called a few other things depending on area and funding source. Agencies including Agriculture have been throwing money at some companies to push broadband into low population areas like my county. Our current TelCo is running fiber down the country road a mile from me as we speak. I currently have 3Mb DSL via copper. When complete, I'll have at least 6Mb capability and likely 12Mb or higher if I can afford to pay for it. This area of this county is mostly farmland with housing density of maybe 1 house per three miles of road on average.
> 
> I'm hoping Dish and whatever the ATT/DirecTV mess turns into will be able to offer a WISP type service at some point to spur some competition and bring our rates down.


All I can do is refer back to my March thread Plan for California rural broadband collapses where I noted "Basically the Big Two in California killed it - ATT and Comcast."


----------



## Stuart Sweet

CraigerM said:


> James, if they do have a new name will you also change name of this forum to match the new name and all their services will be discussed here? :hurah:


It's absurdly too soon to talk about that.


----------



## keith_benedict

slice1900 said:


> If the U-verse boxes are horrid, why would you think that AT&T is going to make Directv customers start using them? Maybe they'll make the Genie work for cable. Swap the sat tuners for QAM tuners, swap the access card for a cable card, there you go! If they try to merge the technologies, more likely they'd start from scratch on a new box designed to work with both.
> 
> Keep in mind, Directv is over 3x the size of Uverse. It is Uverse customers who should be worried about the bad aspects of Directv coming to bite them, rather than the other way around.


I've had U-Verse for 15 months now after spending 13 years with Directv. I prefer U-Verse box to the Directv box by a large margin. From channel changes to searching to VOD, to guide speed, to setting up series recordings...far better.


----------



## PCampbell

Channel change on Uverse box is the fastest I have seen.


----------



## slice1900

keith_benedict said:


> I've had U-Verse for 15 months now after spending 13 years with Directv. I prefer U-Verse box to the Directv box by a large margin. From channel changes to searching to VOD, to guide speed, to setting up series recordings...far better.


I wonder if people are even referring to the same hardware when one person complains about a provider's hardware and another raves about it. In your earlier post you mentioned you had a HR20 before. That's like 7 years old, and you wouldn't have had as bad of an experience if you had a Genie. Likewise, you probably got the latest and greatest Uverse hardware, where someone else might have some slow out of date box comparable to your HR20.

Unless someone has experience with the very latest technology from multiple providers, it is pretty difficult to compare them. With cable it is even worse because two people with the same company one town over can have vastly different experiences if one plant has been recently upgraded and the other is still using 80s era technology.


----------



## CraigerM

Does this new deal with them expanding on TV Everywhere mean we will be able to watch their new video service on the PC? Or would the PC still be more like a client box and you would still need one main HD DVR to do that?

From the conference call does it sound like they are merging UVerse and DTV into one video service and which one they will pick UVerse TV or DTV?


----------



## dcandmc

peds48 said:


> ain't happening, but if it did, I would drop them like a hot potato and find me another job along the way!


Hope you didn't burn your hands in the process of dropping that potato. How's the job search going?


----------



## peds48

dcandmc said:


> Hope you didn't burn your hands in the process of dropping that potato. How's the job search going?


is not done deal yet. so.... we wait and see....


----------



## machavez00

I'll have to give Prism a look once CenturyLink upgrades my area from ADSL2+ to VDSL2. There is a CL store by work and they have Prism running there. I have a coworker that has Prism and she loves it.


----------



## mhking

If Google offers Charlie boatloads and buttloads of money -- and Charlie takes it, I'm outta here like a gunshot.


----------



## APB101

*Potential name change for video service (if this happens):*


DirecT-verse

AT&T's DirecTV


----------



## CraigerM

Here's an interesting take does this guy sound like ATT will change the UVerse name to DTV and offer DTV over both Satellite and Fiber? Maybe they will offer DTV over Satellite in rural areas and DTV over fiber in the other markets?

http://www.multichannel.com/news/news-articles/white-att-deal-unlocks-potential/374653

"In the end you have to think at the very least U-Verse video will change its name to DirecTV," Wlodarczak wrote, adding that a satellite/fiber video offering could make sense in some markets. - See more at: http://www.multichannel.com/news/news-articles/white-att-deal-unlocks-potential/374653#sthash.EQoyIlTe.dpuf


----------



## dorfd1

APB101 said:


> *Potential name change for video service (if this happens):*
> 
> 
> DirecT-verse
> 
> AT&T's DirecTV


What about ATT&T U-Verse Satellite?

Sent from my GT-P3110 using Tapatalk


----------



## JoeTheDragon

CraigerM said:


> Here's an interesting take does this guy sound like ATT will change the UVerse name to DTV and offer DTV over both Satellite and Fiber? Maybe they will offer DTV over Satellite in rural areas and DTV over fiber in the other markets?
> 
> http://www.multichannel.com/news/news-articles/white-att-deal-unlocks-potential/374653
> 
> "In the end you have to think at the very least U-Verse video will change its name to DirecTV," Wlodarczak wrote, adding that a satellite/fiber video offering could make sense in some markets. - See more at: http://www.multichannel.com/news/news-articles/white-att-deal-unlocks-potential/374653#sthash.EQoyIlTe.dpuf


in fiber to the node areas they can drop TV / make TV backup only (rain fade) or for people who can't get LOS to the sat's. and up the internet bandwidth.

Now will we loses NHL network (att does not have it) if so they better add NBCSN reverse mirror feed or use the NBC SN alt for overlap.

Will ATT change there channel packs so you don't need to buy showtime and stars to get non premium channels? like MLB network, CBS Sports Network, NBA TV, NASA, and more.

Right now ATT and Direct where they only systems to have CSN CHICAGO Plus 2 HD.

Now SAT can't really fit in all of the west feeds.

Now in fiber the home areas that they can drop the HD steams limits and offer say ALL premium feeds in HD + all RSN feeds (that they have the rights to) maybe even NHL CI with all games in HD (Dual HD feeds for most as well), NBA LP with all games in HD (Dual HD feeds for most as well), MLB EI with all games in HD (Dual HD feeds for most as well) also mix channels for all.


----------



## Drucifer

jimmie57 said:


> Verizon has looked at Dish in the past and basically passed on the option and got together with Vodafone.


But with two latest merger deals in the works, I suspect Verizon insiders who wanted Dish in the first pace will bring it up at the next board meeting.

And Google seems to buy everything.


----------



## Drucifer

APB101 said:


> *Potential name change for video service (if this happens):*
> 
> 
> DirecT-verse
> 
> AT&T's DirecTV


AT&TV as I don't know where to find a working telegraph.


----------



## lp.ob

APB101 said:


> *Potential name change for video service (if this happens):*
> 
> 
> DirecT-verse
> 
> AT&T's DirecTV


nope

Nmes they SHOULD USE IS BELOW

for their traditional U-VERSE = AT&T U-VERSE FIBER TV or AT&T U-VERSE F-TV or AT&T UVERSE FTV

for their DIRECTV = AT&T U-VERSE SATELLITE TV or AT&T U-VERSE SAT TV or AT&T U-VERSE S-TV or AT&T UVERSE STV

OF course they STUPID WASTEFU WAYS CORPORATE SUITS DO THINGS, they will probably hire a consulting firm for millions of dollars and come up with something idiotic. - now if the names aboeve are used I will sue for compenation, and even if this message is erased, copies are kept by GOV servers as evedience.

This message is my offer of the name of the renamed services, no free naming rights are giving and I reserve the copyright claims to the names and or parts thereof.


----------



## wilbur_the_goose

When I got home today:
Wife: "I heard that AT&T bought DirecTV"
Me: "Not yet - the feds need to approve it"
Wife: "Good. I hope they reject it because AT&T is an absolutely horrible company."

I feel like we're losing an old friend. I feel like I did when tiny SIRI conquered XM.

BTW - Is the new D14 satellite dead yet?

PS - How the heck does this increase D*'s broadband exposure? Isn't this the extent of their coverage?


----------



## slice1900

machavez00 said:


> I'll have to give Prism a look once CenturyLink upgrades my area from ADSL2+ to VDSL2. There is a CL store by work and they have Prism running there. I have a coworker that has Prism and she loves it.


I've had VDSL2 for like six or seven years here, but still no Prism. It really would be nice to have a second option for TV to bring prices down a bit (too many trees for satellite where I live)


----------



## slice1900

wilbur_the_goose said:


> When I got home today:
> Wife: "I heard that AT&T bought DirecTV"
> Me: "Not yet - the feds need to approve it"
> Wife: "Good. I hope they reject it because AT&T is an absolutely horrible company."
> 
> I feel like we're losing an old friend. I feel like I did when tiny SIRI conquered XM.
> 
> BTW - Is the new D14 satellite dead yet?
> 
> PS - How the heck does this increase D*'s broadband exposure? Isn't this the extent of their coverage?


It ups Directv's broadband exposure because currently Directv has ZERO broadband! The people in the white states, like me, will be no worse off than before using someone else's broadband, and the people in AT&T states won't have to use theirs but most will due to bundling deals. Rural customers who don't have wired broadband might be able to get some good deals for AT&T wireless broadband. The reduced competition for TV service in areas where Uverse is offered will probably be a negative for them, but there will likely be a lot who will benefit from it.

And why would the D14 satellite be dead? Does AT&T have an incentive to cancel it? Even if it wasn't already built and waiting on a launch date. I guess you must assume that AT&T is run by morons, who are going to cease all investment in Directv? That would be pretty stupid after spending $50 billion on it, because if it falls behind the competition it will lose customers and they'd end up losing many billions of dollars on the investment. If you run a satellite TV company, you have to launch new satellites. There is no way around it. If they didn't want to launch new satellites, they wouldn't have purchased Directv.


----------



## mkdtv21

Now it's time for Verizon to buy Dish.


----------



## l_lamb

bullitt said:


> This will not be good for DirectTV customers. Mergers of this sort never bode well for the consumer. XM was a much better service than Sirius and now Sirius XM has become diluted and a corporate clone. Can't imagine anything good as a result of this. The only choices we have any more are "Paper or Plastic?"


And just like some markets, you have to pay extra if you choose either paper or plastic


----------



## jimmie57

lp.ob said:


> nope
> 
> Nmes they SHOULD USE IS BELOW
> 
> for their traditional U-VERSE = AT&T U-VERSE FIBER TV or AT&T U-VERSE F-TV or AT&T UVERSE FTV
> 
> for their DIRECTV = AT&T U-VERSE SATELLITE TV or AT&T U-VERSE SAT TV or AT&T U-VERSE S-TV or AT&T UVERSE STV
> 
> OF course they STUPID WASTEFU WAYS CORPORATE SUITS DO THINGS, they will probably hire a consulting firm for millions of dollars and come up with something idiotic. - now if the names aboeve are used I will sue for compenation, and even if this message is erased, copies are kept by GOV servers as evedience.
> 
> This message is my offer of the name of the renamed services, no free naming rights are giving and I reserve the copyright claims to the names and or parts thereof.


I doubt if the name will change.
For some examples:
Briggs & Stratton owns Murray ( lawnmowers ), Snapper ( lawnmowers ) and Simplicity ( lawnmowers ). They have owned each of these for about 4 years or more and each still operates under it's own name.

I believe they will keep DirecTV as the name. The name of a company is what a lot of people associate with and changing the name would be detrimental to the brand that is established.


----------



## Herdfan

James Long said:


> Using AT&T stores to sell DirecTV makes sense.


It would be nice to be able to go to an AT&T store and pick up a new DVR.


----------



## peds48

Herdfan said:


> It would be nice to be able to go to an AT&T store and pick up a new DVR.


or even a replacement for a defecting one!


----------



## joed32

TheRatPatrol said:


> Whats the "but" part?


They don't have to cancel the deal but they have the option to.


----------



## tonyd79

SledgeHammer said:


> In regards to bandwidth caps? Who uses LTE? Lol... half the time it doesn't even work or is slow. There's always an open wi-fi network around.


I use LTE all the time. It is often faster and more reliable than public wifi networks. I've had few issues with LTE.


----------



## tonyd79

Herdfan said:


> It would be nice to be able to go to an AT&T store and pick up a new DVR.


Hadn't thought if that. Yes. One nice thing about cable.


----------



## camo

mkdtv21 said:


> Now it's time for Verizon to buy Dish.


Buy Dish and add 2 more satellites for more HD content and go after NFL contract would be nice. At least Verizon has nationwide coverage with many areas of the country having zero AT&T coverage. T Mobile has better coverage in my areas than AT&T.


----------



## Rich

prushing said:


> but we don't know where the jobs will come from, if DTV is really sticking around, Uverse would be where the jobs were cut


That's not how it works. When companies merge, they wait a bit to evaluate the people that now work for them and rank them and then, the dreaded downsizing (euphemism for firing) begins.

Rich


----------



## Rich

jimmie57 said:


> That is what they call "Synergies" in their discussions. They think us ordinary people do not know the difference.


Right. Once they start that BS, the downsizing is next.

Rich


----------



## Rich

jimmie57 said:


> Verizon has looked at Dish in the past and basically passed on the option and got together with Vodafone.


The neighbor across the street from me was downsized by AT&T and recently lost his job with Vodafone. I'll bet his "downsizing syndrome" is kicking in big time.

Rich


----------



## prushing

Rich said:


> That's not how it works. When companies merge, they wait a bit to evaluate the people that now work for them and rank them and then, the dreaded downsizing (metaphor for firing) begins.
> 
> Rich


If DTV is sticking around, you don't fire the people responsible for the success and bring in people from At&t who have no idea what they are doing. Yes they may get rid of redundant people, but DTV software and hardware people should still exist.

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk


----------



## Rich

slice1900 said:


> I wonder if people are even referring to the same hardware when one person complains about a provider's hardware and another raves about it. In your earlier post you mentioned you had a HR20 before. That's like 7 years old, and you wouldn't have had as bad of an experience if you had a Genie. Likewise, you probably got the latest and greatest Uverse hardware, where someone else might have some slow out of date box comparable to your HR20.
> 
> Unless someone has experience with the very latest technology from multiple providers, it is pretty difficult to compare them. With cable it is even worse because two people with the same company one town over can have vastly different experiences if one plant has been recently upgraded and the other is still using 80s era technology.


While I don't have a Genie, I can say that I still use a 20-700 that is almost as fast as a 24. I would have used a Series 2 HR as a better example.

Rich


----------



## Rich

peds48 said:


> is not done deal yet. so.... we wait and see....


An awful lot of people are gonna be waiting for an awful long time to see if they still have jobs. Seems kinda cruel in a way. I've been thru the same process and it's not fun. Yeah, the top performers are gonna have a pretty good idea that their position is safe, but not everybody will be in that position. Doesn't make for a happy work environment.

Rich


----------



## Rich

Herdfan said:


> It would be nice to be able to go to an AT&T store and pick up a new DVR.


Just like going to the Cablevision store a mile away from my house and picking up a DVR that doesn't work. And going back for another one that doesn't work. They have them in bins, no boxes, and they just grab one and hand it to you. Same thing happens with their trucks.

Rich


----------



## Rich

prushing said:


> If DTV is sticking around, you don't fire the people responsible for the success and bring in people from At&t who have no idea what they are doing. Yes they may get rid of redundant people, but DTV software and hardware people should still exist.
> 
> Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk


I did say they evaluate the people and rank them. A dodo at D* is still gonna be a dodo after the merger.

Rich


----------



## Paul Secic

jimmie57 said:


> I doubt if the name will change.
> For some examples:
> Briggs & Stratton owns Murray ( lawnmowers ), Snapper ( lawnmowers ) and Simplicity ( lawnmowers ). They have owned each of these for about 4 years or more and each still operates under it's own name.
> 
> I believe they will keep DirecTV as the name. The name of a company is what a lot of people associate with and changing the name would be detrimental to the brand that is established.


It's way too worry about a name.


----------



## Tom Servo

SledgeHammer said:


> In regards to bandwidth caps? Who uses LTE? Lol... half the time it doesn't even work or is slow. There's always an open wi-fi network around.


What network are you on? I don't know anyone who has issues with LTE service on Verizon.

In fact it's tempting for me to tether at home because it's so much faster:

Verizon LTE - 50 Mbps down / 14 Mbps up

Home DSL - 8 Mbps down / 384 kbps up

Free wifi at Whataburger & the local seafood chow house - 3 down / 384 up (same DSL... The cable company doesn't offer internet.)

Not exactly a difficult choice. If AT&T's LTE is even half as fast it would still be preferable over slow DSL, especially for downloading HD content from DirecTV vod!

Sent from my Droid DNA via the DBSTalk app.


----------



## inkahauts

DMRI2006 said:


> What's up with this statement in the conference call?


You are leaving out the important part.....


----------



## inkahauts

Tom Servo said:


> What network are you on? I don't know anyone who has issues with LTE service on Verizon.
> 
> In fact it's tempting for me to tether at home because it's so much faster:
> 
> Verizon LTE - 50 Mbps down / 14 Mbps up
> 
> Home DSL - 8 Mbps down / 384 kbps up
> 
> Free wifi at Whataburger & the local seafood chow house - 3 down / 384 up (same DSL... The cable company doesn't offer internet.)
> 
> Not exactly a difficult choice. If AT&T's LTE is even half as fast it would still be preferable over slow DSL, especially for downloading HD content from DirecTV vod!
> 
> Sent from my Droid DNA via the DBSTalk app.


Just read an article in the Los Angeles times today that Verizon is starting a new campaign to announce their expanded service. their average lte speed has been 7.6 overall. Behind both AT&T and t mobile.

Just saying not all areas are the same at all. Verizon has been slower than AT&T overall based on the article, but Verizon I believe covers more area. Catch 22 situation. And I'm sure in some areas Verizon is much faster and has been getting there as they have upgraded the network nationwide it seems recently.


----------



## Herdfan

inkahauts said:


> but Verizon I believe covers more area.


Verizon has some pretty shifty marketing people. They "claimed" that Charleston, WV was an LTE market. One tower in downtown was lit up with LTE. One. You should not be able to claim a market with one tower.

BTT: Imagine that instead of WiFi DirecTV DVR's had LTE chips and could download On Demand content via the LTE network. Now imagine that you didn't have to pay for the bandwidth similar to how a Kindle works. Just a thought.


----------



## Tom Servo

inkahauts said:


> Just read an article in the Los Angeles times today that Verizon is starting a new campaign to announce their expanded service. their average lte speed has been 7.6 overall. Behind both AT&T and t mobile.
> 
> Just saying not all areas are the same at all. Verizon has been slower than AT&T overall based on the article, but Verizon I believe covers more area. Catch 22 situation. And I'm sure in some areas Verizon is much faster and has been getting there as they have upgraded the network nationwide it seems recently.


The problem with this sort of metric is that they're comparing two vastly different cellular technologies. Verizon's LTE itself is a good performer for the most part, but if you lose that signal or are in a 3G only area, you're stuck with EVDO or eHRPD on CDMA which maxes out at about 3 Mbps on a very good day. That significant dropoff will drag the overall number down. AT&T and T-Mobile's LTE deployments are only an incremental advancement over their existing HSPA+ network, which is marketed as 4G but isn't LTE. Or true 4G for that matter. The GSM networks' existing non HSPA+ is still HSPA (marketed as 3G) and noticeably faster overall than the CDMA 3G stuff. So their overall numbers will be higher.

Where I live T-Mobile has zero HSPA or HSPA+ or LTE. It's EDGE only, just a little faster than ISDN (~220 kbps max). And AT&T hasn't upgraded their backhaul so the "new" LTE deployments are still clocking 2 Mbps max. So at least here Verizon wins by a landslide (Sprint _just_ deployed LTE here and I haven't had a chance to use it yet.)

Aren't we glad that satellite TV technology isn't this confusing? :yesman:


----------



## djrobx

lp.ob said:


> Nmes they SHOULD USE IS BELOW
> 
> for their traditional U-VERSE = AT&T U-VERSE FIBER TV or AT&T U-VERSE F-TV or AT&T UVERSE FTV
> 
> for their DIRECTV = AT&T U-VERSE SATELLITE TV or AT&T U-VERSE SAT TV or  AT&T U-VERSE S-TV or AT&T UVERSE STV


AT&T likes the names to be confusing, because it allows them to fudge numbers for their investors.

AT&T "U-verse high speed internet" could be ADSL2+ at an absolute max of 18mbps. This is lipstick on the traditional DSL pig, we affectionally call this "FTTCO - Fiber to the CO". Or FTTN (what most U-verse TV currently runs on) up to 45mbps. Or it could be true fiber to the home. Investors just know AT&T is capable of "up to 300mbps", and that they have millions of "U-verse" subscribers. And they are "EXPANDING" - converting old ADSL circuits to ADSL2+ which squeaks out a little more speed and calling it "U-verse".

The one sticking point is that FTTCO customers haven't been able to get TV service because the lines really aren't fast enough to do this. But if they own DIRECTV? Now there's no need to make a distinction between FTTCO, FTTN, and FTTH customers. They can all be quadruple play "U-verse" subscribers. Forget any further upgrades, AT&T will have no incentive to improve their wireline networks.


----------



## peds48

Rich said:


> An awful lot of people are gonna be waiting for an awful long time to see if they still have jobs. Seems kinda cruel in a way. I've been thru the same process and it's not fun. Yeah, the top performers are gonna have a pretty good idea that their position is safe, but not everybody will be in that position. Doesn't make for a happy work environment.
> 
> Rich


My experience with mergers, (have been through two) is that the laborers stay safe while upper management goes and gets replaced with the acquiring company managers


----------



## slice1900

Herdfan said:


> BTT: Imagine that instead of WiFi DirecTV DVR's had LTE chips and could download On Demand content via the LTE network. Now imagine that you didn't have to pay for the bandwidth similar to how a Kindle works. Just a thought.


What's the benefit to customers? People don't pay for bandwidth on their internet connection, and it is going to work far better for streaming than LTE. Some may have caps, but there's no way AT&T is going to give people hundreds of gigabytes of LTE data for free just because they have Directv. The cellular network wasn't built for delivering bulk data to a lot of people at once.


----------



## wilbur_the_goose

prushing said:


> If DTV is sticking around, you don't fire the people responsible for the success and bring in people from At&t who have no idea what they are doing. Yes they may get rid of redundant people, but DTV software and hardware people should still exist.
> 
> Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk


Prusing - that's EXACTLY what Sirius did when they acquired XM.


----------



## CraigerM

Doesn't ATT get its channels from their own Satellite fleet? If they merged the two fleets could that free up Internet bandwidth and still send the TV service over fiber?

Also I wonder how new customer signups will work if the merger is approved? How would a new customer decide which service to sign up for UVerse or DTV? Say they sign up for UVerse then find they will have to be switched over to DVT and have a dish put on their roof? Or vice versa?


----------



## James Long

CraigerM said:


> Doesn't ATT get its channels from their own Satellite fleet? If they merged the two fleets could that free up Internet bandwidth and still send the TV service over fiber?
> 
> Also I wonder how new customer signups will work if the merger is approved? How would a new customer decide which service to sign up for UVerse or DTV? Say they sign up for UVerse then find they will have to be switched over to DVT and have a dish put on their roof? Or vice versa?


Ask again in one year. Asking again in this thread will not give you a better answer than the last times you asked in this thread.


----------



## Glenee

There are a lot of people on this forum that believe that it will be business as usual after the merger. I for one hope that they are right. I can only speak from my experiences. I know that every time I renew my contract with AT&T mobile for the 2 -years, when I get a new iPhone. It takes three billing cycles to get my bill right. I also think that we will have a harder time getting our deals that we get now from DTV when are contracts are up.
I sure Hope I'm wrong, but AT&T has always been like shisters to me and i have to watch them like a hawk.


----------



## CraigerM

James Long said:


> Ask again in one year. Asking again in this thread will not give you a better answer than the last times you asked in this thread.


Sorry about that, I forget to use search.


----------



## Draconis

I'll be an unhappy camper if it goes through.

I had AT&T twice, both times they hit me for a $90 charge that the CSR's could not explain and would not reverse.

The first time I quit and went to Cingular, you know what happened after that.


----------



## slice1900

CraigerM said:


> Doesn't ATT get its channels from their own Satellite fleet? If they merged the two fleets could that free up Internet bandwidth and still send the TV service over fiber?
> 
> Also I wonder how new customer signups will work if the merger is approved? How would a new customer decide which service to sign up for UVerse or DTV? Say they sign up for UVerse then find they will have to be switched over to DVT and have a dish put on their roof? Or vice versa?


Internet bandwidth and satellite fleets have *absolutely nothing at all* to do with each other. AT&T is not going to deliver internet via satellite.

Even if it were possible to merge fleets (which it isn't, whatever satellites AT&T has are not DBS satellites and won't work with the small dishes Directv and Dish Network use) it isn't going to help internet bandwidth. I'm not even sure where you got this idea that AT&T has a shortage of internet bandwidth that you keep harping on over and over and over again.


----------



## wingrider01

Draconis said:


> I'll be an unhappy camper if it goes through.
> 
> I had AT&T twice, both times they hit me for a $90 charge that the CSR's could not explain and would not reverse.
> 
> The first time I quit and went to Cingular, you know what happened after that.


you realize that cingualr and att are one in the same? On November 16, 2004, AT&T Wireless stores were rechristened under the Cingular banner.


----------



## Stuart Sweet

I think that's what he is alluding to.


----------



## CraigerM

slice1900 said:


> Internet bandwidth and satellite fleets have *absolutely nothing at all* to do with each other. AT&T is not going to deliver internet via satellite.
> 
> Even if it were possible to merge fleets (which it isn't, whatever satellites AT&T has are not DBS satellites and won't work with the small dishes Directv and Dish Network use) it isn't going to help internet bandwidth. I'm not even sure where you got this idea that AT&T has a shortage of internet bandwidth that you keep harping on over and over and over again.


Its from the news articles about the merger. The Analysts say ATT bought DTV to free up Internet bandwidth so they can offer higher speeds to compete with cable. I also didn't say Internet over satellite I said Internet over Fiber. Geez I don't know a lot about how video and Internet are delivered by TV providers, just a little bit. I was only asking a question and forgot I already asked it. Might have to leave this place again.


----------



## James Long

Draconis said:


> The first time I quit and went to Cingular, you know what happened after that.


Cingular purchased AT&T Wireless for $41 billion ($15 per share). (Cingular was SBC and BellSouth at the time.)
CNN: February 17, 2004

AT&T then purchased BellSouth and rebranded Cingular to AT&T Wireless.
CBS: January 12, 2007

All within the curve of Bell companies.

(Bell Atlantic merged with NYNEX then merged with GTE to form Verizon - the wireless side of those companies had to divest markets leading to a large trade with AllTel. Verizon Wireless picked up the divested Ameritech Cellular from the SBC/BellSouth merger - primarily Chicago and St Louis. A lot of trading and shuffling to make the mergers happen.)


----------



## Draconis

Pretty much.

I left AT&T because they added that charge, the ended up right back with them.

Then a few years later, the hit me with the same phantom charge again.

I have liked DIRECTV for along time, almost as long as I have disliked AT&T.


----------



## James Long

CraigerM said:


> Its from the news articles about the merger. The Analysts say ATT bought DTV to free up Internet bandwidth so they can offer higher speeds to compete with cable.


It sounds like those analysts are confused - and likewise confusing you and others.



CraigerM said:


> I don't know a lot about how video and Internet are delivered by TV providers, just a little bit.


Delivered by providers or delivered to providers? Delivered by is fairly obvious ... the "final mile" defines the service. Satellite is delivered via satellite, cable is delivered via cable, fiber services are delivered via fiber. There may be other links in the backbone ... for example fiber run from a community's cable "head end" (where they receive signals) to locations around their coverage area where it is converted to cable. Or fiber to the curb that is converted to copper for connection to the home or business.

Delivered to providers varies. Most providers get their signals via satellite. NOT via direct broadcast satellite that is intended for direct broadcast to end customers, but via C band and Ku backhalls between the channel providers and cable/satellite systems. Satellite such as DISH and DirecTV use a lot of large dishes to receive the feeds from channel providers - they repackage those feeds and send them over their direct broadcast satellite systems to customers. Cable systems such as Comcast have created "headend in the sky" systems where they repackage satellite feeds received from multiple sources and create their own private satellite service to feed their local cable systems. This reduces the number of dishes needed at each community's cable company. These are NOT the same satellites or feeds that DirecTV or DISH use to reach their customers.

Pay TV providers can also get their signals via fiber or over the air. For example, DISH has a huge fiber network touching every market in the US that they use to get local TV channels to the appropriate uplink center for rebroadcast via satellite. Most cable companies receive local channels over the air or via private links from the TV stations.

The assertion that AT&T's purchase of DirecTV will free up Internet bandwidth needs a better explanation. The analysts making those claims should be explaining the whys and how of their assertions. We can only guess what they mean (especially without knowing which analysts are informing you).


----------



## onan38

A interesting article:

What will consumers gain from AT&T's DirecTV buy?
http://www.techhive.com/article/2157000/atandts-directv-buy-do-consumers-benefit.html


----------



## James Long

Light reading (100 pages, 417.50 kb) - The SEC filing including the agreement between AT&T and DirecTV.
View attachment 24868


Everything you wanted to know ... plus some stuff you probably didn't want to know.
Includes what happens if the companies do not merge.

Learn about "Steam Merger Sub LLC" (the new AT&T subsidiary that DirecTV will become).
Read about the $1,445,000,000 "Termination Fee" if the DirecTV board changes its mind.

Caution: May be sleep inducing.


----------



## avonabudget

*How the AT&T-DIRECTV merger affects consumers* <9:32>


> AT&T, the second largest wireless provider in the nation, announced its purchase of satellite television giant DIRECTV for nearly $50 billion. The companies said the takeover will allow for more bundling of mobile, TV and Internet plans, and they will serve a combined 26 million video users. Matt Wood of Free Press and Jim Nail of Forrester Research join Gwen Ifill to discuss the move.


----------



## harsh

prushing said:


> but we don't know where the jobs will come from, if DTV is really sticking around, Uverse would be where the jobs were cut


If you read closely, there's a three year halo for customers and it likely applies to some of the employees. For his part, Mike White effectively announced his retirement/resignation in 2016 a couple of week ago.

Anywhere there is overlap, there must be some consolidation or outright replacement. Because the customer service people are contractors, that will likely be a replacement. It isn't easy to guess what's going to happen with installers.


----------



## harsh

slice1900 said:


> What broadband access has "Directv been working towards"?


You didn't read the whole sentence. I said "broadband access needs". I was speaking of demand PPV and the VOD that is critical to being a modern competitor in the pay TV marketplace.

Several have guessed that offing uVerse will free up bandwidth but I submit that it won't get that much better if you substitute DIRECTV with their programming palette and combine it with a customer base that isn't accustomed to waiting for the next showing.


----------



## harsh

Tom Servo said:


> Not exactly a difficult choice. If AT&T's LTE is even half as fast it would still be preferable over slow DSL, especially for downloading HD content from DirecTV vod!


Don't forget that wireless bandwidth is designed around decidedly less total data than landline broadband. Where wireless offers <=10GB plans, landline (copper, fiber) offers 250GB to unlimited plans.

What the typical user downloads to their phone is a much different composition than what they download to their computer or home entertainment center. I have a coworker who's data plan is decimated by Windows updates on one computer.


----------



## Rich

peds48 said:


> My experience with mergers, (have been through two) is that the laborers stay safe while upper management goes and gets replaced with the acquiring company managers


Usually, that's the case. I was referring to salaried employees. Gonna be a lot of sturm und angst there. We had a union, so we could only layoff by seniority and that wasn't acceptable in a lot of cases.

Rich


----------



## Rich

wilbur_the_goose said:


> Prusing - that's EXACTLY what Sirius did when they acquired XM.


Other companies have done that too. You really have to be in the meetings when the plots are laid to appreciate how stupid managers can be.

Rich


----------



## Rich

James Long said:


> Ask again in one year. Asking again in this thread will not give you a better answer than the last times you asked in this thread.


I would think it's gonna take a lot longer than a year to find out that answer.

Rich


----------



## Rich

Draconis said:


> Pretty much.
> 
> I left AT&T because they added that charge, the ended up right back with them.
> 
> Then a few years later, the hit me with the same phantom charge again.
> 
> I have liked DIRECTV for along time, almost as long as I have disliked AT&T.


I got one of those phantom things from Verizon, only mine was a credit. Took months to get that straightened out. It truly amazes me that D* has NEVER made one mistake on my bills.

Rich


----------



## Rich

What truly amazes me is the terrible mistake I made in one of my posts on this thread and nobody caught it! It dawned on me last night that I had made the mistake and I corrected it this morning. I fully expected a deserved flaming and...nothing.

Rich


----------



## Laxguy

Rich said:


> What truly amazes me is the terrible mistake I made in one of my posts on this thread and nobody caught it! It dawned on me last night that I had made the mistake and I corrected it this morning. I fully expected a deserved flaming and...nothing.


Could it be that some saw it and decided to "ignore" it.....?


----------



## Rich

Laxguy said:


> Could it be that some saw it and decided to "ignore" it.....?


Nah, if _*Nick*_ saw it, he would have _*Nick'd*_ me for it. I'd expect you to say something too. In this case, criticism would have been deserved and welcomed. It was a stupid mistake.

Rich


----------



## Drucifer

prushing said:


> If DTV is sticking around, you don't fire the people responsible for the success and bring in people from At&t who have no idea what they are doing. Yes they may get rid of redundant people, but DTV *software* and hardware people should still exist.
> 
> Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk


Strange, software would be the first I would consider to get rework in order to work better with the equipment of both companies.


----------



## prushing

Drucifer said:


> Strange, software would be the first I would consider to get rework in order to work better with the equipment of both companies.


Well Uverse and DTV software running the boxes are different, so unless they decide to get rid of the DTV boxes, those people are safe. Now a few years in the future if they make a change, say year 3 after the close, then those people would be out. They could try to port one of them to the other, but I don't see why because in 3 years they will need to have new boxes out.


----------



## PCampbell

If I were to get rid of one type of box I would think it would be easier to dump the 5.7 m uverse boxes than over 20m directv boxes. We all know most have more than one box, ether way the cost will be very large.


----------



## bobbyv

I've got a bad feeling about this ...

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I317 using Tapatalk


----------



## slice1900

prushing said:


> Well Uverse and DTV software running the boxes are different, so unless they decide to get rid of the DTV boxes, those people are safe. Now a few years in the future if they make a change, say year 3 after the close, then those people would be out. They could try to port one of them to the other, but I don't see why because in 3 years they will need to have new boxes out.


If/when the merger goes through, I think it would make sense to get the top Directv and Uverse engineers together to design a new box, using a software tuner. Digitally sample from 54 MHz to 2150 MHz to cover both cable and satellite ranges, including DECA for Directv and MoCA for Uverse, and demodulate in software. It could then tune Uverse QAM channels or Directv DVB-S2 SWM channels. Even ATSC, if they decided to add an OTA port and a couple mixers to shift the frequencies around a bit so everything fits.

The number of channels it could tune at once is basically limited only by computational power. The technology to do this exists in chips on the market now (google "full band capture" for Broadcom's and "full spectrum capture" for Maxlinear's) I think one of them has a chip that can tune 24 channels at once, though the computation required for a 6 MHz QAM256 channel is less than that for a 36 MHz wide DVB-S2 transponder but if it can't do all 9 SWM channels at once the next version would.

That's your "home server", everything else is a client. Maybe using RVU, maybe using something new. If they could get together with Comcast on some standard you'd probably see all new TVs supporting it instead just a fraction like with RVU since between them they'd have over half the TV subscribers in the US. The other cable companies and Dish would probably follow.


----------



## JoeTheDragon

Uverse Does not use QAM.

also fiber to the node areas have low HD streams 4 HD Streams is hard to get.


----------



## slice1900

JoeTheDragon said:


> Uverse Does not use QAM.
> 
> also fiber to the node areas have low HD streams 4 HD Streams is hard to get.


Yeah brain fart on my part, I had "cable" on the brain and was thinking about QAM instead of IPTV. Since Uverse doesn't need a tuner or necessarily to store programs in the home, there's not much incentive to merge the hardware, but a lot of the software/UI dealing with scheduling recordings, managing playlists, sharing video around the house is the same whether it is satellite, cable or IPTV.


----------



## Athlon646464

*DirecTV Investor Sues to Block AT&T $48 Billion Takeover*

"Given the fact that the company was poised for significant future growth and success, the value of DTV stock is being significantly undervalued in the proposed acquisition," investor David Rivera said in a complaint filed today in Delaware Chancery Court.

In his complaint, he claims that DirecTV directors improperly agreed to an onerous breakup fee of $1.45 billion in order to block other potential suitors from making a higher bid....

Full Story Here


----------



## harsh

Athlon646464 said:


> "Given the fact that the company was poised for significant future growth and success, the value of DTV stock is being significantly undervalued in the proposed acquisition," investor David Rivera said in a complaint filed today in Delaware Chancery Court.


While this claim may be true of DIRECTV as a whole, I'm not convinced that DIRECTV US is in line for "significant future growth" in the US market. The net adds haven't been all that outstanding relative to the competition and DIRECTV's pricing isn't particularly cutthroat in a market that is becoming comfortable with services that DIRECTV can't reasonably offer. The dawdling of their negotiators on the sports nets and channel additions is probably taking its toll as well.

I think DIRECTV needs a partner of some sort to fill in the missing pieces and without such a partner, the future isn't a whole lot brighter than today.

As for AT&T being that partner, that's a whole other issue.


----------



## Athlon646464

Partner? :contract:


----------



## prushing

Who else is going to buy them? Its not like this was a 1 day deal. It was in the news for weeks and if another company wanted to buy DTV, their CEO could have easily picked up a phone. Like harsh said, DTV isn't positioned to grow unless people just hate Comcast or they get a broadband offering. Price is too high for people that have bundles, I know people who have left DTV for Uverse for that very reason. They do recognize they are losing PQ, hardware capabilities, and dealing with At&t, but the price comparison saves them $100s a year.


----------



## nmetro

Ah, the battle of the oligarchs. Greedy people fighting other greedy people; with the consumer caught in the middle.

Push the price up, which means, that the merged AT&T and DirecTV will have to push up prices to compensate for the "greed factor".

Only in America.


----------



## slice1900

harsh said:


> While this claim may be true of DIRECTV as a whole, I'm not convinced that DIRECTV US is in line for "significant future growth" in the US market. The net adds haven't been all that outstanding relative to the competition and DIRECTV's pricing isn't particularly cutthroat in a market that is becoming comfortable with services that DIRECTV can't reasonably offer. The dawdling of their negotiators on the sports nets and channel additions is probably taking its toll as well.
> 
> I think DIRECTV needs a partner of some sort to fill in the missing pieces and without such a partner, the future isn't a whole lot brighter than today.
> 
> As for AT&T being that partner, that's a whole other issue.


On the one hand you criticize them for pricing that's not being particularly cutthroat, and on the other for not immediately adding all channels/sports networks. Can't have it both ways, if a provider is aggressive in adding everything, customers are going to have to pay more. If a provider determines that they're nearing the limit of what customers will pay, they have to bargain harder and be willing to say no. No one has everything, and what Directv is missing is pretty minor (assuming the ESPN deal gets done and they get SEC Network, which I believe will happen)

I'll bet a lot more of those leaving Directv are doing it for a better deal rather than missing channels, and a lot of those adding Directv are doing it for the same reason - the "switchers" who sign up with someone new every couple years since it is cheaper than being loyal to any one provider. That's endemic to the TV industry in the US, and not a problem specific to Directv.

What "missing pieces" are you referring to? Being able to do true bundling deals (as opposed to the joke they have with say Centurylink for $5 off for buying both) is important, but even with AT&T they're only getting that for wireless phone, along with internet in only part of the country. They can't offer as much as cable providers that can do true double (or triple in the case of Uverse/FIOS) play deals, but are no worse off than Dish who holds a bunch of spectrum that is useless as long as they remain a standalone company.


----------



## SteveHas

gotta wonder if this "merger" will ultimately be the become of a very, very long end for both companies


----------



## harsh

slice1900 said:


> On the one hand you criticize them for pricing that's not being particularly cutthroat, and on the other for not immediately adding all channels/sports networks. Can't have it both ways, if a provider is aggressive in adding everything, customers are going to have to pay more. If a provider determines that they're nearing the limit of what customers will pay, they have to bargain harder and be willing to say no.


Much has been echoed by apologists about how the college networks are just too expensive yet many of DIRECTV's competitors that don't boldly claim to be "the undisputed leader in sports"* seem to have reached deals. Are you suggesting that the sports nets are gouging DIRECTV and not TWC, DISH or Comcast?


> What "missing pieces" are you referring to?


I'm referring to many of the same missing pieces that you're referring to. The difference comes when you talk about what kind of service you can get through these bundles now. DSL is not good enough. Land lines aren't what most are using for their personal phone conversations. Satellite broadband is, well, satellite broadband. DIRECTV needs to be able to offer services that are competitive with its chief competitors and at the same time, they have to do it in a form that people want to use (whether it is the best or not). VOD is the future and as it is, DIRECTV is one of the least prepared to deliver it across their customer base.

* in my area, Comcast, Charter and DISH all run radio ads questioning DIRECTV's resolve to be the sports leader (actually, Comcast claims supremacy) and it seems to be sinking in.


----------



## slice1900

harsh said:


> Much has been echoed by apologists about how the college networks are just too expensive yet many of DIRECTV's competitors that don't boldly claim to be "the undisputed leader in sports"* seem to have reached deals. Are you suggesting that the sports nets are gouging DIRECTV and not TWC, DISH or Comcast?
> I'm referring to many of the same missing pieces that you're referring to. The difference comes when you talk about what kind of service you can get through these bundles now. DSL is not good enough. Land lines aren't what most are using for their personal phone conversations. Satellite broadband is, well, satellite broadband. DIRECTV needs to be able to offer services that are competitive with its chief competitors and at the same time, they have to do it in a form that people want to use (whether it is the best or not). VOD is the future and as it is, DIRECTV is one of the least prepared to deliver it across their customer base.
> 
> * in my area, Comcast, Charter and DISH all run radio ads questioning DIRECTV's resolve to be the sports leader (actually, Comcast claims supremacy) and it seems to be sinking in.


If one of the arguments for Comcast/TWC and AT&T/Directv to merge is that they can negotiate better deals from content providers, maybe Directv thinks they can/should get better deals than TWC, Comcast and Dish get, or better terms, or something since they have more subscribers (at least until Comcast and TWC officially merge)

"DSL is not good enough". I get 20M/5M DSL, which works for me, and I could get up to 40M/20M where I live and higher speeds are available elsewhere in CenturyLink country. The local cable company offers 105Mb, but I know someone who has it and never gets that speed during peak times. I get my rated speed (actually faster, closer to 25Mb) from my DSL any time I measure it.

True that DSL is slower in some areas, but in some areas cable internet sucks. It just depends on how recently the infrastructure in one's area was upgraded, as outdated infrastructure leads to poor performance on either.


----------



## Tom Servo

slice1900 said:


> (assuming the ESPN deal gets done and they get SEC Network, which I believe will happen)


The people at DISH seem to be gambling on DirecTV not getting SEC Network for a while. I've been inundated lately with DISH commercials touting that they are the only satellite provider with SEC Network. As rabid for sports as we southerners are, though, I can't imagine anyone switching to get ahold of a network that has yet to prove itself. Double so when SEC Network football games are carried on dozens of local TV stations, including the independent station in my particular market. I don't feel like I'm missing anything.



slice1900 said:


> "DSL is not good enough". I get 20M/5M DSL, which works for me, and I could get up to 40M/20M where I live and higher speeds are available elsewhere in CenturyLink country. The local cable company offers 105Mb, but I know someone who has it and never gets that speed during peak times. I get my rated speed (actually faster, closer to 25Mb) from my DSL any time I measure it.
> 
> True that DSL is slower in some areas, but in some areas cable internet sucks. It just depends on how recently the infrastructure in one's area was upgraded, as outdated infrastructure leads to poor performance on either.


As a whole, across the nation, DSL is completely inadequate for our growing data needs. The pockets that get >10 Mbps are very much a minority of the entirety of the system, regardless of which copper provider's name is on the bill. I would submit that the ONLY reason you happen to have 40 Mbps DSL available from CenturyLink is because cable there has the potential to be so much faster. Where I live, there's a good 10-15,000 people in this city whose sole wired internet provider is CenturyLink and it tops out at 10 Mbps. The utility cableco does not offer internet and of course satellite and LTE are non-starters for 99.9% of households.

I've been going back and forth with CenturyLink's customer advocacy people trying to find out if this area is in line for any kind of upgrades, but I'm not holding my breath. They are - here, at least - a true blue monopoly on wired broadband so there's zero incentive to improve.

I fear that this acquisition will cause AT&TV to stagnate growth on the satellite end and probably on the internet end as well. One they're on equal footing with the cablecos (in select markets) there will be no incentive to be better in some way. Just to be equal. And that's not good for consumers.


----------



## slice1900

Tom Servo said:


> The people at DISH seem to be gambling on DirecTV not getting SEC Network for a while. I've been inundated lately with DISH commercials touting that they are the only satellite provider with SEC Network. As rabid for sports as we southerners are, though, I can't imagine anyone switching to get ahold of a network that has yet to prove itself. Double so when SEC Network football games are carried on dozens of local TV stations, including the independent station in my particular market. I don't feel like I'm missing anything.


Where do you get the idea that SEC Network football games will be carried on local stations? That kind of destroys the value of a provider picking it up, if their subscribers can watch it via their locals. BTN and Pac 12 don't operate that way, and I highly doubt SEC Network will. You will have to have a cable/satellite provider to watch it, unless they offer some streaming-only subscriptions. You will not be able to pick up the games with an antenna.

One can hardly blame Dish for taking a few months of uncertainty for Directv customers and playing it for all its worth, I'm sure if the situation was reversed Directv would do the same to Dish. However, if I was Directv, I'd be kinda pissed off at Disney/ESPN for the way they conduct their negotiations. Reportedly providers have to take turns negotiating in the order in which their contracts come due, so since Dish's contract was up first they got to negotiate first, and therefore get a few months of being able to claim that they have SEC Network and Directv doesn't.


----------



## James Long

Channels can be added at any time. DirecTV does not have to wait for the big ABC/ESPN mass renewal to pick up a new ABC/ESPN channel. The big ABC/ESPN renewal just brings the issue to the forefront and introduces the leverage of "the renewal discussion may go better if the new channels are added".

(Adding channels before the big renewal date with any channel provider may require early renegotiation of their full carriage contract. Depending on how sweet the old deal is DirecTV may be better off waiting for the next big renewal date instead of losing a good deal. Such is the business of pay TV. But there is nothing stopping DirecTV from adding SEC in August except the agreement of willing parties.)


----------



## slice1900

That's true, but since Directv's Disney/ESPN deal expires at the end of September, there's not much point in negotiating separately for SEC Network except to prevent Dish and others from advertising against them and trying to worry Directv customers that they won't carry it. It doesn't even launch until mid-August, so all anyone can do now is advertise it is coming.


----------



## James Long

If the deal is not in question then a forward looking statement could be made before the actual deal was signed. There were public assurances ahead of the actual signing of DISH's deal with ABC/ESPN (which was signed after the old deal expired). It is fairly obvious that the companies will be working together for the foreseeable future. Agreeing to a "carry at launch" deal and working out the details later is not impossible.

Unless DirecTV doesn't want to make the commitment ... then they are only hurting themselves as ESPN, AT&T, DISH and Google have free reign to advertise against them.


----------



## cypherx

Well U-Verse has quite a few HD's DirecTV doesn't. If this AT&T merger is approved by regulators maybe we will see some of these U-Verse channels on DirecTV in due time..

American Heroes Channel HD
AWE HD
HSN HD
Justice Central HD
BBC World News HD
fuse HD
Music Choice Play HD
NHK World TV HD
One America News HD
Ovation HD
Pivot HD
ReelzChannel HD
Sundance TV HD

TV One HD
Esquire Network HD

Fusion HD

Nicktoons HD

Outdoor Channel HD
WE HD

These are listed under their Premium Add-on Channels
FUNimation Channel HD
Havoc TV HD
Playboy TV HD
TV Japan HD
World Fishing Network HD

There are also a lot of sports in HD on U-Verse like Pac-12 and other things, but I really don't know what DirecTV carries in sports because I don't subscribe or care about that.

I went to U-Verse site and put in an Austin, TX zip code 78610 (That is one of the markets they want to deploy 1gbps to, so I figured it would be the best market to look at)
http://www.att.com/u-verse/shop/channel-lineup.jsp

Now the one thing about U-Verse lineup is its like cable with separate HD channel numbers. Though its simple (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. So with the separate numbering scheme most people never even watch HD because they 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 with the wife "fixing" the correct channel like it was when we had Comcast.


----------



## Athlon646464

*Meet DirecTV's New Boss: AT&T Chief Randall Stephenson*

The architect of AT&T's takeover of DirecTV is an Oklahoma native who first joined Ma Bell two years before the federal government broke up the telephone giant's monopoly in 1984.

AT&T chairman-CEO Randall Stephenson is routinely described in press profiles as "easy-going" and low-key. His Sooner State lilt gives him a folksy accent compared to media execs rooted on the coasts. But Stephenson made it clear in a conference call with investors Monday to sell the $67 billion DirecTV takeover that he is no rube when it comes to evaluating the future of a fast-changing media landscape....

Full Story Here









_Variety_


----------



## harsh

Tom Servo said:


> The people at DISH seem to be gambling on DirecTV not getting SEC Network for a while. I've been inundated lately with DISH commercials touting that they are the only satellite provider with SEC Network. As rabid for sports as we southerners are, though, I can't imagine anyone switching to get ahold of a network that has yet to prove itself. Double so when SEC Network football games are carried on dozens of local TV stations, including the independent station in my particular market. I don't feel like I'm missing anything.


I have an alternate look: I have a sneaking suspicion that SEC is a bundle item with the ESPN channels.


----------



## Paul Secic

nmetro said:


> Ah, the battle of the oligarchs. Greedy people fighting other greedy people; with the consumer caught in the middle.
> 
> Push the price up, which means, that the merged AT&T and DirecTV will have to push up prices to compensate for the "greed factor".
> 
> Only in America.


We live under an oligarch.


----------



## James Long

harsh said:


> I have an alternate look: I have a sneaking suspicion that SEC is a bundle item with the ESPN channels.


Reading that as "a required part of carrying ESPN channels" and I'd agree.

ESPN's SEC site http://getsecnetwork.com/ is part of the promotion.


----------



## slice1900

cypherx said:


> Well U-Verse has quite a few HD's DirecTV doesn't. If this AT&T merger is approved by regulators maybe we will see some of these U-Verse channels on DirecTV in due time..


I think many of them would end up on Directv in due time even if the merger is shot down. Directv needs the D14 satellite launched to provide additional capacity. They could make some space available to add a few of them now if they wanted, but to add all/most of the channels on that list is not possible today.


----------



## slice1900

harsh said:


> I have an alternate look: I have a sneaking suspicion that SEC is a bundle item with the ESPN channels.


I agree. I have always assumed that ESPN's leverage would be used to get SEC Network on all providers. Otherwise the SEC would have gone it alone like the Pac 12. The Pac 12's difficulty in getting onto all providers, even in region (let alone on providers that aren't in their footprint) shows why you need a strong partner like ESPN or FOX.


----------



## Drucifer

Athlon646464 said:


> *DirecTV Investor Sues to Block AT&T $48 Billion Takeover*
> 
> "Given the fact that the company was poised for significant future growth and success, the value of DTV stock is being significantly undervalued in the proposed acquisition," investor David Rivera said in a complaint filed today in Delaware Chancery Court.
> 
> In his complaint, he claims that DirecTV directors improperly agreed to an onerous breakup fee of $1.45 billion in order to block other potential suitors from making a higher bid....
> 
> Full Story Here


Never in a million years.

If you don't like the way the company is being run, sell your stocks.


----------



## wilbur_the_goose

Well, technically a shareholder IS an owner and has a right to have input into the way the company is run. If shareholders don't like the deal, they should oust D*'s board of directors.

All we customers can do is, well, nothing. The alternatives aren't that good.


----------



## yosoyellobo

wilbur_the_goose said:


> Well, technically a shareholder IS an owner and has a right to have input into the way the company is run. If shareholders don't like the deal, they should oust D*'s board of directors.
> 
> All we customers can do is, well, nothing. The alternatives aren't that good.


We could always cut the cord.


----------



## CraigerM

Anyone think their should be a poll on which TV service ATT will keep, Uverse, DTV or both? Or has that already been discussed here?

Also if the merger gets approved, will their just be one contract with the company when a new customer signs up? Then that way their wont be any early termination fees say if they didn't like UVerse but wanted to switch to DTV?


----------



## sigma1914

CraigerM said:


> Anyone think their should be a poll on which TV service ATT will keep, Uverse, DTV or both? Or has that already been discussed here?
> 
> Also if the merger gets approved, will their just be one contract with the company when a new customer signs up? Then that way their wont be any early termination fees say if they didn't like UVerse but wanted to switch to DTV?


It's 3 years minimum before even anything remotely close to this stuff happens.


----------



## Gordon Shumway

Drucifer said:


> Never in a million years.
> 
> If you don't like the way the company is being run, sell your stocks.


I'd say he has good case. To say the poison pill aspects of this agreement are onerous to shareholder value would be a dramatic understatement.


----------



## Rich

yosoyellobo said:


> We could always cut the cord.


The alternatives really are not that good.

Rich


----------



## James Long

wilbur_the_goose said:


> Well, technically a shareholder IS an owner and has a right to have input into the way the company is run.


Yes. There will be a shareholder vote on the issue. The board is recommending accepting the deal. If a shareholder does not want the sale they are free to vote their shares against the deal. (If they do not have voting shares then that is their own problem.)

The lawsuit is silly. The voting shareholders have a voice written into the process. There is no need to get the courts involved.


----------



## Drucifer

All these posts about SiriusXM have me wondering if they do will get grab by a communication giant in this consolidation phase.


----------



## inkahauts

CraigerM said:


> Anyone think their should be a poll on which TV service ATT will keep, Uverse, DTV or both? Or has that already been discussed here?
> 
> Also if the merger gets approved, will their just be one contract with the company when a new customer signs up? Then that way their wont be any early termination fees say if they didn't like UVerse but wanted to switch to DTV?


DIrectv isn't ever going anywhere. Maybe a slight name change.

Uverse is debateable but nowhere for a long long time.


----------



## James Long

Drucifer said:


> All these posts about SiriusXM have me wondering if they do will get grab by a communication giant in this consolidation phase.


It has been brought up in this thread as an example of a merger. A merger that created a single source for satellite radio, ending competition (other than terrestrial radio and streamed music/programming sources). It has also been used of an example of where one or both companies are destroyed by the merger (loss of content and quality as the services were merged - despite the possibility that neither service would be alive without the merger).

As for their future, if there was more unification between the services - more radios that could do both Sirius and XM - I would place a larger value on them for purchase. But there are too many Sirius only and XM only radios in the marketplace. And that will be a handicap for many years to come (just like the QPSK only receivers DirecTV and DISH have in customers homes). If SiriusXM could end the duplicate channels ... broadcast them ONCE via one of the prior service they could free up bandwidth to improve quality, add channels or add other content such as mobile video.

If someone likes SiriusXM just the way they are they could get purchased. But most companies bought seem to come with a better reason - such as providing income for the purchasing company or allowing the purchasing company to do more with the company purchased than the current owners are doing. I don't see that kind of potential in SiriusXM.


----------



## Dude111

I wonder JIM if they will bring Music Choice back??


----------



## MrDad0330

Im just not sure how I feel about this. I have been with D since 1995 when I purchased there kit from Sears, installed the dish on my house, pointed it, and the rest is history? To me D has always been cutting edge. I have whole house, Genie and LOVE it. I do CE downloades at times. I have wired my house for D since day one. To the point that installers when they bring new equipment, marvel at what I have done! I also feel D is technologically far out the best! My fear is AT&T dumbs this all down and the advances we have enjoyed in our equipment stops and in fact, declines. I am just not sure. 
There are times when i gripe to myself about my D bill and ponder going to, say Netflix, or Amazon on my Roku and OTA local reception but it never goes too far. My Genie, my whole house service, to me they are irreplaceable. So I worry about this.


----------



## James Long

DirecTV has had several owners since 1995. I suppose AT&T might invoke more fear of change as they operate another pay TV service. But it is a change that will not be approved for at least a year ... and AT&T has promised that a stand alone DirecTV satellite service will be available for at least three years afterwards.

AT&T has also noted in public comments that they currently have business relationships with other telephone providers (such as Verizon) and do not expect to end DirecTV's partnerships. Perhaps years down the road DirecTV will be different because of this deal with AT&T ... but no company remains the same forever.


----------



## Herdfan

James Long said:


> DirecTV has had several owners since 1995.


And some have been worse than others.

What I don't understand is why DirecTV needs to be "owned" by anyone. Are they not viable as a standalone entity?


----------



## slice1900

Clearly they are viable as a standalone entity, they're doing fine right now. That doesn't stop someone else from believing Directv is worth more if they combine them with their current business, or that they're worth more than is reflected in the current stock price.

The landscape of the TV market is changing fast. A standalone TV only company like Directv or Dish that is viable today won't be viable forever. Back in 1989, how many people thought phone booths would be almost extinct 25 years later?


----------



## James Long

Herdfan said:


> What I don't understand is why DirecTV needs to be "owned" by anyone. Are they not viable as a standalone entity?


Every company has an owner. Some are owned by investment groups that sell their ownership when they feel that they will make more on their investment by selling rather than holding. Apparently the current owners think that money and shares of the future AT&T are worth more than owning just DirecTV.



slice1900 said:


> Back in 1989, how many people thought phone booths would be almost extinct 25 years later?


Less people who would have invested in phone booths in 1979. They were beginning to disappear in 1989.


----------



## Herdfan

James Long said:


> Every company has an owner. Some are owned by investment groups that sell their ownership when they feel that they will make more on their investment by selling rather than holding. Apparently the current owners think that money and shares of the future AT&T are worth more than owning just DirecTV.


I have an MBA, so yes, I understand every company has owners. But my question relates more to why DirecTV has to keep bouncing around via a majority stake. It is a publically traded company, so there are other owners. Maybe if we could get every customer to buy $2500 in DirecTV stock, we could turn it into a subscriber owned company and hire a board that will work for our best interests.


----------



## Rich

slice1900 said:


> Clearly they are viable as a standalone entity, they're doing fine right now. That doesn't stop someone else from believing Directv is worth more if they combine them with their current business, or that they're worth more than is reflected in the current stock price.
> 
> The landscape of the TV market is changing fast. A standalone TV only company like Directv or Dish that is viable today won't be viable forever. Back in 1989, how many people thought phone booths would be almost extinct 25 years later?


Yup, we're at a crossroads point. Which way to turn? I wish I knew. I really wish things would settle down and devices being better was the main point, but newness seems to be the thing now and it's really kinda interesting and confusing at the same time.

Rich


----------



## fleckrj

Every publicly traded company runs the risk of being bought out. All it takes is for someone to set the price high enough that the majority of the shareholders agree to sell their shares and approval from the FTC.

Are there any former PrimeStar subscribers on the board? I am curious about four things:

Why did they choose PrimeStar instead of DirecTV or DISH in the first place?
How was the transition from PrimeStar to DirecTV handled?
How did DiercTV's purchase of PrimeStar affect them - did they find the service from DirecTV to be better or worse than what they had received from PrimeStar?
Are their any learnings from the DirecTV takeover of PrimeStar that could be applied to the AT&T takeover of DirecTV to make the merged company better?


----------



## cypherx

I think some people chose PrimeStar because there was no equipment to buy. It was all leased.

Here is their website from 97.
http://web.archive.org/web/19970512011951/http://www.primestar.com/

Back then DirecTV's website looked like this:
http://web.archive.org/web/19970704184520/http://www.directv.com/

Thats when the SD wasn't horribly over-compressed.

And here's AT&T's wacky website around the same time
http://web.archive.org/web/19970606132411/http://www.att.com/


----------



## slice1900

Herdfan said:


> I have an MBA, so yes, I understand every company has owners. But my question relates more to why DirecTV has to keep bouncing around via a majority stake. It is a publically traded company, so there are other owners. Maybe if we could get every customer to buy $2500 in DirecTV stock, we could turn it into a subscriber owned company and hire a board that will work for our best interests.


How many customers are interested in owning a company, any company, that provides them a service or sells them products they use? There are a lot of people who really like the Apple products they own, but only a small fraction of them directly own Apple stock. How successful would Apple be if everyone buying an iPhone was required to buy a couple shares of Apple stock along with it (yeah, I know, those who bought the first few generations wish that had been a requirement )

That sort of thinking proves you have an MBA! I can make fun of it because I have one too :rotfl:


----------



## Drucifer

fleckrj said:


> Every publicly traded company runs the risk of being bought out. All it takes is for someone to set the price high enough that the majority of the shareholders agree to sell their shares and approval from the FTC.
> 
> Are there any former PrimeStar subscribers on the board? I am curious about four things:
> 
> Why did they choose PrimeStar instead of DirecTV or DISH in the first place?
> How was the transition from PrimeStar to DirecTV handled?
> How did DiercTV's purchase of PrimeStar affect them - did they find the service from DirecTV to be better or worse than what they had received from PrimeStar?
> Are their any learnings from the DirecTV takeover of PrimeStar that could be applied to the AT&T takeover of DirecTV to make the merged company better?


1. Don't remember why.
2. Smooth, except they left all the old equipment. Still have the dish.
3. No effect.
4. It's not the same -- one was a consolidation, this one is an expansion.


----------



## KyL416

Plus there's the whole thing about how that was one satellite provider discontinuing another and migrating the subscribers to their own service. Provided you had line of sight or you didn't refuse the DirecTV installation and switch to Dish or cable instead, they still were able to reach the same customers.

AT&T is not the AT&T of the past, they do not offer landline service nationwide. Because of the breakup of the old AT&T, outside of extremely rare cases, if your area is served by Verizon, Century Link, Frontier, Fairpoint, Cincinnati Bell and others, AT&T's landline service is not available. The satellite service will not be going away as a result of this merger unless they want to give up providing service to many major cities.


----------



## machavez00

It looks like Prism has a several HD channels that Directv doesn't have as well. CL is running Prism on VDSL2 with 20/20 service available with Prism, 40/20 without Prism.

http://www.centurylink.com/prismtv/prism-tv-channel-lineup.html

Prism also has local sub-channels. 
Sent from my iPad using DBSTalk


----------



## Herdfan

slice1900 said:


> How many customers are interested in owning a company, any company, that provides them a service or sells them products they use?


Actually many insurance companies are mutuals, meaning they are owned by their policy holders. And most people have no idea.


----------



## harsh

slice1900 said:


> How successful would Apple be if everyone buying an iPhone was required to buy a couple shares of Apple stock along with it (yeah, I know, those who bought the first few generations wish that had been a requirement )


They should be giving away at least fractional shares with a nearly $300 iPod Touch.


----------



## harsh

Herdfan said:


> Are they not viable as a standalone entity?


Viable? Probably for the near future.

Most profitable? This is where they need help and the primary reason they brought Mr. White on board.

Down the road, I think the pay TV model is due for both a radical correction in terms of how it works and at least as radical in how it is delivered.

On the model side, people will soon figure out that most of the flagship channels are crap. Not just a little bit crap but almost across the board crap. This will cause people to finally start looking at shows instead of depending on channels to deliver good shows. From there we get to a point where the show becomes the thing and the channels will either find their way back or die. I can't remember the last time I watched something from the Discovery Networks. I've become a fan of shows and the channels be damned. This is when and where the IPTV providers need to strike.

There are those that insist that a show-based system can't survive without selling crap along with it but I challenge them to document their position. There was a lot of money to be made in the renting of videos and I think that market is still there. DBS' problem is that not all of their customers have good enough on demand video capability to compete in a world based on shows while cable is willing and able to capitalize.

On the delivery side, DBS as a technology will become marginalized as it was in the early days and used primarily by those who have no other reasonable option than picking through the garbage to find the gems.

DIRECTV needs a partner to support them in the transition to a new delivery model to remain viable and it wouldn't hurt to have a partner that supported them in an effort to work towards bringing about a revised programming model as well.


----------



## slice1900

harsh said:


> DIRECTV needs a partner to support them in the transition to a new delivery model to remain viable and it wouldn't hurt to have a partner that supported them in an effort to work towards bringing about a revised programming model as well.


If that's the case, who is Dish going to partner with to help them survive this transition you believe is coming? They were discussing merger with Directv, which wouldn't help either company in that respect.


----------



## Herdfan

harsh said:


> Down the road, I think the pay TV model is due for both a radical correction in terms of how it works and at least as radical in how it is delivered.
> 
> On the model side, people will soon figure out that most of the flagship channels are crap. Not just a little bit crap but almost across the board crap. This will cause people to finally start looking at shows instead of depending on channels to deliver good shows. From there we get to a point where the show becomes the thing and the channels will either find their way back or die. I can't remember the last time I watched something from the Discovery Networks. I've become a fan of shows and the channels be damned. This is when and where the IPTV providers need to strike.


If the current DBS model is not viable long-term as you suggest, when why would AT&T want them? I would think they could find better uses for $48B.

I do agree with your thoughts about "shows" vs "channels". There was a time when a show, especially a drama with story arcs, not recording was a PITA. Not any more. Just hop over to AppleTV and buy the episode from iTunes. I am just not ready to go there full time just yet. I surf too much and my wife is not one to watch a season of shows back to back to back. But I can see how some 20 somethings would use this model.


----------



## unixguru

Herdfan said:


> If the current DBS model is not viable long-term as you suggest, when why would AT&T want them? I would think they could find better uses for $48B.


Because the execs/boards that execute these mergers don't give a damn if it is successful. They get rewarded for making big moves. They are long gone before the fallout hits.


----------



## Laxguy

Just what is your business/investment experience to make such broad and largely unsupportable statements? Please.


----------



## dennisj00

Laxguy said:


> Just what is your business/investment experience to make such broad and largely unsupportable statements? Please.


Ken Lewis, BofA.


----------



## James Long

DirecTV is bringing in 5.1 billion per year ... they are worth the investment. When they stop bringing in multiple billions they can be sold to the next company ... but profits have been going up year after year, so there are plenty of good years left for AT&T to profit from owning DirecTV.


----------



## unixguru

Laxguy said:


> Just what is your business/investment experience to make such broad and largely unsupportable statements? Please.


AOL/Time Warner
HP/Autonomy

There are plenty of others. I worked for a Fortune 500 that merged and I saw it first hand. The "smaller" CEO pockets a fortune and walks within a year. The "bigger" CEO took a couple of years to cash out.

In business everything is beautiful - even the disastrous failures - because "management" can never acknowledge that they blew it.


----------



## slice1900

Coming up with some examples of bad buyouts doesn't mean that's the case for all of them. There have been some very successful ones, like Apple buying NeXT (arguably the most successful buyout of all time) or Google buying Where2 (where they acquired the Google Maps technology) and YouTube.


----------



## Diana C

cypherx said:


> I think some people chose PrimeStar because there was no equipment to buy. It was all leased.
> 
> Here is their website from 97.
> http://web.archive.org/web/19970512011951/http://www.primestar.com/
> 
> Back then DirecTV's website looked like this:
> http://web.archive.org/web/19970704184520/http://www.directv.com/
> 
> Thats when the SD wasn't horribly over-compressed.
> 
> And here's AT&T's wacky website around the same time
> http://web.archive.org/web/19970606132411/http://www.att.com/


And for fun, here is dbsdish.com from October, 1997: http://web.archive.org/web/19971021070544/http://www.dbsdish.com/

Take a look at the subscriber numbers table...Primestar was considerably larger than Dish back then.


----------



## Diana C

harsh said:


> ...On the model side, people will soon figure out that most of the flagship channels are crap. Not just a little bit crap but almost across the board crap. This will cause people to finally start looking at shows instead of depending on channels to deliver good shows...


Don't underestimate the willingness of the American viewing public to watch crap. Witness the popularity of "reality" shows (which may, hopefully, be finally waning). When reality shows finally die, there will be some new, equally crappy, programming format that will become the rage.


----------



## harsh

slice1900 said:


> There have been some very successful ones, like Apple buying NeXT (arguably the most successful buyout of all time) or Google buying Where2 (where they acquired the Google Maps technology) and YouTube.


What did Apple get when the bought NeXT? Like hundreds of similar Microsoft acquisitions, they mostly shelved what they bought and went on with what they were doing previously; absent the bother of superior technology.


----------



## harsh

Diana C said:


> Don't underestimate the willingness of the American viewing public to watch crap.


Point taken, but as people's bills top $100/month to bring this tripe into their homes, they're going to be much more critical as the IPTV offerings become greater in number and quality.


----------



## peds48

harsh said:


> What did Apple get when the bought NeXT?


They got what it really mattered and saved the company from collapsing, they got Steve Jobs


----------



## 456521

peds48 said:


> They got what it really mattered and saved the company from collapsing, they got Steve Jobs


And they also got that little thing called OS X.


----------



## Rich

Laxguy said:


> Just what is your business/investment experience to make such broad and largely unsupportable statements? Please.


That's the first time I've seen anyone question _*unixguru*_. I always make it a point to read his posts thoroughly and he always has good points.

Rich


----------



## Rich

Diana C said:


> Don't underestimate the willingness of the American viewing public to watch crap. Witness the popularity of "reality" shows (which may, hopefully, be finally waning). When reality shows finally die, there will be some new, equally crappy, programming format that will become the rage.


Couldn't agree more. I rarely comment on TV shows because I know it will unleash a furor if I say anything derogatory about the shows. But, the only reality show I ever watched was the first season of _Survivor, _which I really enjoyed. After that was over, I didn't think they'd do any that could possibly be better and bailed on the whole reality thing. There are shows in the top 10 that I think are kinda idiotic and I know how wildly popular they are, just don't understand why.

Rich


----------



## Rich

harsh said:


> Point taken, but as people's bills top $100/month to bring this tripe into their homes, they're going to be much more critical as the IPTV offerings become greater in number and quality.


Lotta truth in this post, I think.

Rich


----------



## James Long

Diana C said:


> And for fun, here is dbsdish.com from October, 1997: http://web.archive.org/web/19971021070544/http://www.dbsdish.com/
> 
> Take a look at the subscriber numbers table...Primestar was considerably larger than Dish back then.


An extra six years of being in business helps. DirecTV/USSB was doing good.


----------



## James Long

harsh said:


> Point taken, but as people's bills top $100/month to bring this tripe into their homes, they're going to be much more critical as the IPTV offerings become greater in number and quality.


IPTV needs content. Not Netflix/Hulu/Amazon movies and canned shows, but live sports and other live programming.

As long as the content owners such as ESPN hold out and sell only in packages the industry will stay with the package subscription tier model. Anything less is wishful thinking.


----------



## Laxguy

unixguru said:


> Because the execs/boards that execute these mergers don't give a damn if it is successful. They get rewarded for making big moves. They are long gone before the fallout hits.


Patently not true if you go across the board. There are some-perhaps many-where that is true. But even in most cases that end up being bad moves, management and their BoD's do care what's what- no doubt a few exceptions, and some very bad judgement of the marketplace.

I understand your cynicism based on your personal experience, but the quoted statement is unsupportable.


----------



## inkahauts

Sorry but the majority if time it's simply about money and trying to make more short term. Look at Office Depot office max merger. Now there's two I won't go to.


----------



## slice1900

pdxBeav said:


> And they also got that little thing called OS X.


And iOS is essentially a cut down version of OS X. So yeah, they got a lot from NeXT, even though Apple didn't continue their product line as such.


----------



## Herdfan

harsh said:


> What did Apple get when the bought NeXT? Like hundreds of similar Microsoft acquisitions, they mostly shelved what they bought and went on with what they were doing previously; absent the bother of superior technology.


Steve Jobs! His Unix based operating system which became OSX. Expand from there.


----------



## WB4CS

Am I the only one that wants to walk up to Mike White, slap his across the face, and yell "What are you thinking, man?!"


----------



## damondlt

WB4CS said:


> Am I the only one that wants to walk up to Mike White, slap his across the face, and yell "What are you thinking, man?!"


No.
I wanted to after the the MRV fee went up to $25 from 20.
And when the Protection plan went up $2 along with my $3 RSN fee.

Sent from my Galaxy S5


----------



## Laxguy

Ladies, ladies, please! No violence is called for.


----------



## booboo

I don't know what this will do to the deal. I read today where AT&T and DTV has been hit with an class action lawsuit from a board member. Basically claiming he is getting an unfair deal in his compensation. I don't know the technical part of the law suit. 


Sent from my iPad using DBSTalk


----------



## slice1900

The lawsuit wasn't from a board member, it was from a shareholder who sued both companies and Directv's board claiming the price paid is too small.

The suit will be dismissed because the judge will say the way to handle this isn't the legal system, but the shareholder vote Directv will conduct to accept the deal. If a majority of the shareholders think it is a good price, it is too bad for this guy and the remainder of the minority. He knew (or should have known) that's how it works before buying shares in Directv or any other publicly traded company.


----------



## harsh

James Long said:


> IPTV needs content. Not Netflix/Hulu/Amazon movies and canned shows, but live sports and other live programming.


Even Crackle is producing a show now. Along with the "on demand" aspect, it makes OTT as close as we're likely to get to ala carte anytime soon and I think that's going to be a very attractive proposition for the many who don't live for transient entertainment (live sports, news and weather).


----------



## harsh

slice1900 said:


> If a majority of the shareholders think it is a good price, it is too bad for this guy and the remainder of the minority. He knew (or should have known) that's how it works before buying shares in Directv or any other publicly traded company.


The "guy's" name is Teresa Silvestri.

It won't be known what the shareholders think until the vote is taken so to assume that it will be a landslide may be folly.


----------



## James Long

harsh said:


> Even Crackle is producing a show now. Along with the "on demand" aspect, it makes OTT as close as we're likely to get to ala carte anytime soon and I think that's going to be a very attractive proposition for the many who don't live for transient entertainment (live sports, news and weather).


News and weather can be found elsewhere ... while the big news channels stay tied to linear cable/satellite subscription their websites give away the stories for free. The most one misses is the hours of droning on repeating the "news" over and over. The new entrants are coming from the "subscribe to our channel on the web" direction.

I see a different "on demand" benefit to linear TV. The common man wants to sit down in front of the TV, turn it on and be entertained or distracted or whatever. They want to provide a service for their family that does the same. There are a lot of people watching live sports and sports will remain a major draw to packaged TV. A lot of people are drawn to live entertainment programming such as award shows and "reality" shows - and event programming where one feels at a disadvantage if they have not seen last night's big episode of whatever is popular right now. TV that is easy to use and there when one wants it is the demand.

America is a country of couch potatoes. While there are benefits to IPTV the sit down, turn it on and see what is on aspect of a classic pay TV subscription remains in demand. And while some new providers are approaching the challenge from offering "on demand" menus of content channels (perhaps with a selection of "live") the existing pay TV providers are also branching out to cover that demand. The world is changing ... but the big pay TV providers are NOT being left behind.

AT&T knows that ... which is why they are buying a big pay TV provider to add to their portfolio of companies.



harsh said:


> It won't be known what the shareholders think until the vote is taken so to assume that it will be a landslide may be folly.


If they vote with their wallets it should be a victory for the board. They are shareholders, not (excuse the term) fanboys. If they are smart they will vote a decision that makes them the most money. An immediate cash windfall and shares of AT&T worth more than their current DirecTV shares seems to be a good way of making money.

If they lose faith in AT&T after the consummation of the deal they can always sell their stock then.


----------



## Rich

harsh said:


> The "guy's" name is Teresa Silvestri.
> 
> It won't be known what the shareholders think until the vote is taken so to assume that it will be a landslide may be folly.


My granddaughter saw your avatar for the first time and thinks that puppy is sooooo cute. She wanted to know if it was for sale.

Rich


----------



## Draconis

DirecTV & AT&T Hit With Class-Action Lawsuit Over Proposed Merger

https://tv.yahoo.com/news/directv-hit-class-action-lawsuit-over-proposed-t-031524909.html?soc_src=mediacontentstory


----------



## slice1900

harsh said:


> The "guy's" name is Teresa Silvestri.
> 
> It won't be known what the shareholders think until the vote is taken so to assume that it will be a landslide may be folly.


I never said it would be a landslide, close vote or anything else. All I said was that the judge is going to rule that the shareholder vote is how this gets decided, by a jury.

If the shareholders reject the deal and Directv has to pay the $1.45 billion breakup fee, then they can sue for breach of fiduciary duty.


----------



## James Long

slice1900 said:


> If the shareholders reject the deal and Directv has to pay the $1.45 billion breakup fee, then they can sue for breach of fiduciary duty.


The board would need to change their recommendation for the breakup fee to apply. If the shareholders reject the deal there is no penalty as long as the board recommendation stays in place.


----------



## gsslug

I throw in my two cents worth. I'm not a fan of AT&T. There is a reason the government broke up AT&T many years ago when it controlled the POTS. I had AT&T cable service before I was able to get Comcast. The speed sucked because they oversold the local system and the local network couldn't handle it. They constantly denied there was a problem. Their honest employees would tell you they were rushing to add more nodes because they new the local system was slow. Although speeds improved some I got fortunate and Comcast came in. Then when I moved to a small town about 30 miles from where I was living I needed long distance because everyone we knew still lived in the old town. It cost me $39/mo. In five years it went to almost $80/mo. That's when I switched to VOIP phone system offered by my broadband provider. And it seemed I was always having billing problems of one kind or another.

Having said that my daughter has U-Verse for phone and internet and seems to be happy with it. So I guess we will just have to wait and see.


----------



## KyL416

The AT&T that the gov't broke up in the 80s and the AT&T of today are different companies. The AT&T that provided long distance service nationwide and cable television in the 90s was also the old AT&T. The cable service was sold to Comcast in 2003 while the long distance service remained but had a much smaller subscriber base after the baby bells started providing their own long distance service as competition.

The remnants of AT&T Corp was purchased by SBC in 2005 and SBC changed their name to AT&T. Maybe if SBC kept their own name instead of taking on the AT&T name they wouldn't have the Ma Bell stigma attached to them.


----------



## James Long

SBC is still a Bell company ... and they basically recreated as much of AT&T "ma bell" that they could. In my area the baby was Ameritech, then SBC bought them and we had SBC/Ameritech for a while before the AT&T name came back. All monolithic big businesses - regardless of the name.


----------



## Herdfan

James Long said:


> SBC is still a Bell company ... and they basically recreated as much of AT&T "ma bell" that they could. In my area the baby was Ameritech, then SBC bought them and we had SBC/Ameritech for a while before the AT&T name came back. All monolithic big businesses - regardless of the name.


Is Uverse available to you?


----------



## KyL416

James Long said:


> SBC is still a Bell company ... and they basically recreated as much of AT&T "ma bell" that they could. In my area the baby was Ameritech, then SBC bought them and we had SBC/Ameritech for a while before the AT&T name came back. All monolithic big businesses - regardless of the name.


Except in that person's case all the things they had problems with are no longer with the new AT&T. The cable service was sold to Comcast before SBC got AT&T, the long distance service no longer exists in that form and the old problematic AT&T wireless was spunoff, purchased by Cingular and shutdown and through a later acquisition Cingular became part of the new AT&T.

Not to mention the big difference, the new AT&T doesn't have a nationwide monopoly on phone service like the old AT&T. Even in the regions where they do offer service, they have new competition that didn't exist in the 80s with cable based services, IP based services like Vonage and cellular providers like Verizon Wireless, T-Mobile and Sprint.


----------



## wilbur_the_goose

^^^
Verizon is Bell Atlantic - another baby bell company, merged with New York Telephone + New England Telephone (baby bells = NYNEX) + GTE (not a baby bell)


----------



## KyL416

Unless AT&T takes over Verizon or vice/versa at some point in the future and somehow gets that approved, their wireless services are in direct competition with AT&T's wireless service. Their origins as baby bells isn't a factor in how their wireless divisions compete.

Another thing that's gone from the old AT&T era is having to use phones manufactured by them. You can get land line phones from multiple manufacturers and on the cellular end of it as long as the phone is designed for the bands and system used by your carrier (GSM, CDMA, UMTS, HSDPA, LTE, etc) you can bring your own phone.


----------



## slice1900

The main reason for the AT&T breakup was to allow competition in long distance. The breakup accomplished that.

It was never intended to create competition for local phone service, since the baby Bells all maintained monopolies in their regions. As it turned out, owning the last mile copper plant was what mattered, not having a monopoly in what is now a dying land line telephone service. Though they did make a lot of money off that for a while back in the 90s when everyone added a second line for dialup.


----------



## James Long

A lot has changed but the monolithic attitudes have survived from Ma Bell through her babies to their current incarnations.

BTW: I was hired by AT&T (the current incarnation) a few years ago and ended up turning down the job for something better. The testing material was from "Bellcore". A complete throwback to the good old days of the Bell system.

I live outside the AT&T footprint in former GTE territory - so no Uverse for me. But I can get Comcast cable.


Competition for local phone is mostly resellers. I had some AT&T data circuits at work that were physically provisioned by the local ILEC. Most of the CLECs around here simply resell ILEC service ... at best they have their own switch co-located at the ILEC switching office. Medium sized businesses may get a T1 (installed by ILEC connected to CLEC equipment). For small business and residential they simply resell unbundled services from the ILEC. When everything goes haywire it is the ILEC guys out patching wires to get everything working again.

The only physical competition for phone is Comcast or people who buy their own VOIP over whatever ISP they have.


----------



## Drucifer

wilbur_the_goose said:


> ^^^
> Verizon is Bell Atlantic - another baby bell company, merged with New York Telephone + New England Telephone (baby bells = NYNEX) + GTE (not a baby bell)


The NYNEX-Bell Atlantic was supposed to have the NYNEX label being the larger, but Washington, DC, which was part of Bell Atlantic, has some rule on books on how a company just can't change its name, even in a merger. So It was Bell Atlantic until it merged with GTE to become Verizon. Don't ask, I don't how Washington allow the Verizon name change, but not the NYNEX one.

For the record, I'm a retired NYNEX tech that haven't gotten a raise in my pension in the past 20 years.


----------



## James Long

Drucifer said:


> The NYNEX-Bell Atlantic was supposed to have the NYNEX label being the larger, but Washington, DC, which was part of Bell Atlantic, has some rule on books on how a company just can't change its name, even in a merger.


The story I can't remember all the details of from 1999 when Verizon was formed was that there was something with the way the cellular license was given to Bell Atlantic. It was given to them with a condition that they could not transfer it to any other entity. So Bell Atlantic could buy "New York New England Xchange" (NYNEX) but no one could buy Bell Atlantic without that lucrative license being surrendered back to the government. The same applied for Bell Atlantic purchasing General Telephone. GTE could not buy BA's Washington DC license.

I don't understand the name change story as Bell Atlantic is not the original name of the Bell company that served Washington DC. But stories from decades ago can get faded.


----------



## Diana C

NYNEX merged with Bell Atlantic on August 14, 1997, and although Bell Atlantic was considered the surviving company and used the Bell Atlantic name, the headquarters were NYNEX's offices in New York. In June, 2000 the FCC granted their approval and Bell Atlantic merged with GTE to form Verizon. However, two months earlier, Bell Atlantic entered into a partnership with Vodafone to create Verizon Wireless. The companies established Verizon Wireless as its own business operated by Bell Atlantic, which owned 55% of the venture and Vodafone owned 45%. Therefore, the cellular franchises held by Bell Atlantic continued to be owned by them, just under a different name. In September of last year, Verizon purchased the 45% of Verizon Wireless that was owned by Vodafone, finally bringing Verizon Wireless fully under the Verizon corporate banner. However, since the current Verizon really is the old Bell Atlantic with a new name, the franchises still have not changed hands.


----------



## Diana C

James Long said:


> ...I don't understand the name change story as Bell Atlantic is not the original name of the Bell company that served Washington DC. But stories from decades ago can get faded.


Bell Atlantic came into being in 1984 as part of the AT&T divesture and consisted of New Jersey Bell, Bell of Pennsylvania, Diamond State Telephone, and C&P Telephone (which, IIRC, was the DC phone company).

My father-in-law was a Western Electric engineer and took early retirement during divesture (and his AT&T stock, which became shares in all the baby Bells as well, made him a millionaire).


----------



## SayWhat?

AT&T said it will bring FTTH to 2M homes if DirecTV gets approved

FierceTelecom
46 minutes ago

AT&T (NYSE: T) has made another concession to get regulatory approval of its $48.5 million proposal to acquire DirecTV (NASDAQ: DTV) by promising that it would extend fiber to the home (FTTH) services to more locations.


----------



## Tom Servo

A better offer (bribe) would be bringing FTTH to every single AT&T customer, even the ones who have no U-verse in their area yet.


----------



## harsh

Tom Servo said:


> A better offer (bribe) would be bringing FTTH to every single AT&T customer, even the ones who have no U-verse in their area yet.


The goal should be broader coverage, not so much better service to existing customers.


----------



## Laxguy

SayWhat? said:


> AT&T said it will bring FTTH to 2M homes if DirecTV gets approved
> 
> FierceTelecom
> 46 minutes ago
> 
> AT&T (NYSE: T) has made another concession to get regulatory approval of its $48.5 million proposal to acquire DirecTV (NASDAQ: DTV) by promising that it would extend fiber to the home (FTTH) services to more locations.


I am wondering just how the acquisition would make it any easier to extend or complete fiber. Arguably, they'd have more money to do installations if they didn't buy DIRECTV®....



> In a regulatory filing, AT&T said that completing the DirecTV deal would enable it to upgrade 2 million homes to the fiber-based Gigapower broadband service, while expanding broadband coverage overall to 13 million locations.


----------



## Rich

Laxguy said:


> I am wondering just how the acquisition would make it any easier to extend or complete fiber. Arguably, they'd have more money to do installations if they didn't buy DIRECTV®....


I don't understand what corporations are doing most of the time. We got bought out by a larger chemical company, Dow, that assumed something like 5 or 6 BILLION dollars of debt that we owed for various reasons, mostly poor management. But, Dow made it work, somehow. I thought all that debt would drag them down too, but they prosper and I keep making more money on their stock. Blind luck on my part, but they sure seem to know what they are doing.

Rich


----------



## Laxguy

Debt works in a company's favor when they can increase their Return on Assets (Investments) above the cost of the debt. If it's the opposite, then debt is a killer. 

The reporter can not have it right. ATT won't be more able to build out FIOS due to the acquisition.


----------



## Diana C

DirecTV currently generates a fairly good profit margin...AT&T would now get the benefit of that cash flow, which would improve its profit margin. Acquisition costs show up on the balance sheet elsewhere but have the effect of lowering the tax liability in many cases. While none of this will seriously bankroll a major fiber expansion, it provides a fig leaf to cover up the fact that this is just pandering to the regulators.


----------



## Laxguy

Cash flow and profits can vary widely in either direction! 

Pandering.... A major company pandering??? Tell me it ain't so!


----------



## nmetro

So, what this looks like is AT&T is going to do for fiber, what the original AT&T did for land lines. They are going to create a new Bell System. Smaller fiber operators will be probably be gobbled up by AT&T. Ad for DirecTV, the subscriber base will subsidize this and probably see very little being reinvested into DirecTV in regards to infrastructure, new technology, etc. So, DirecTV may end up being a shell of its former self.

I am very glad my city is setting up its residents to our city owned fiber network. My city will do for fiber, what they did for electricity, offer low rates without answering to stockholders; and do a great job at it.


----------



## Laxguy

I hope you're right on the latter and wrong on the former!


----------



## slice1900

Not investing in Directv would be pretty short sighted, as the cash flow they're getting today would be cut back pretty quickly if they let it rot.

Since this deal is mostly stock, adding a subsidiary that a $4 billion yearly cash flow helps with their ability to borrow money to do these types of upgrades. AT&T knows Verizon's FTTH strategy is superior for offering TV services, so that's their long range goal, but owning Directv will allow them to deliver TV to a lot of those customers while the fiber is being built out and help keep them from switching to cable.


----------



## SteveHas

So shouldn't this really read
"By taking profits out of D* we might build fiber"

previously these profits went to D* and investment in the quality of our service
This story just seems to reinforce the downside of this deal to me


----------



## slice1900

SteveHas said:


> So shouldn't this really read
> "By taking profits out of D* we might build fiber"
> 
> previously these profits went to D* and investment in the quality of our service
> This story just seems to reinforce the downside of this deal to me


Most of the profits went to stock buybacks (i.e. to the stockholders) not to investment in the "quality of service". Your concern would only be valid if Directv had been previously operated at a non-profit.


----------



## Drucifer

SayWhat? said:


> [SNIP]
> 
> by promising that it would extend fiber to the home (FTTH) services to more locations.


Bet that doesn't include areas served by Verizon - AKA, my area.


----------



## gt2982a

No one said ATT was stupid. Max FTTH home speeds right now are 24/3, yet their Power Tier can achieve 45/6 over copper. Think of the bandwidth savings if ATT converts everyone over to fiber.

Only ATT can make fiber worse than copper.


----------



## studechip

harsh said:


> The goal should be broader coverage, not so much better service to existing customers.


Shouldn't broader coverage always be a goal?


----------



## slice1900

Drucifer said:


> Bet that doesn't include areas served by Verizon - AKA, my area.


Obviously it would only include areas where AT&T is the telco. It won't do you any good in Verizon country, or me any good in Centurylink country.


----------



## slice1900

studechip said:


> Shouldn't broader coverage always be a goal?


When the buyout of AT&T was announced, they committed to rolling out broadband to 15 million currently unserved customers in their region, using a combination of FTTH and FTTN technology. So they already had a "broader coverage" commitment, now they're committing to "better coverage" for (some of) those are who already served.

Whether this commitment is good depends on whether you're unserved and will be served, or are served and will be better served. For a lot of people, this will be great, for a lot of others they'll hope and pray and be disappointed - I'm sure as with other broadband rollouts and wireless rollouts, it will be impossible to learn in advance when or in some cases even if you'll be upgraded.

I remember the waiting game where I live for both 3G and LTE from AT&T wireless. The former was sorely needed since Edge sucks, the latter didn't really make any difference as far as I'm concerned because they gave us HSPA+ for 3G and as a result AT&T's 3G was (and still is) faster than the LTE Verizon rolled out around here. I was hoping it would help during football games, but having 125,000 people in an area about a half mile square still overwhelms the cellular network...


----------



## BrucePadgett

Forgive me if this has already been noted earlier in this thread, but I noticed that U-verse is currently offering four channels DirecTV has yet to add: Funimation, BBC World News, NHK World, and CNN International (the first three in HD).

For this reason alone, I welcome the merger. Yeah, AT&T's prices are steep, but DirecTV is no bargain anymore. (Tried to get deals lately? Not so easy lately.)

I personally am really tired of waiting for additional programming. If it takes a merger to have more choices, well then, let's bring it on.


----------



## harsh

Laxguy said:


> I am wondering just how the acquisition would make it any easier to extend or complete fiber. Arguably, they'd have more money to do installations if they didn't buy DIRECTV®....


AT&T said early on that they expected the combination to be able to save 1.5B/year after the transition was complete.

Whether you believe the board is going to plow that money into upgrading service for existing customers or give the shareholders a big dividend is up to you.


----------



## harsh

BrucePadgett said:


> For this reason alone, I welcome the merger. Yeah, AT&T's prices are steep, but DirecTV is no bargain anymore. (Tried to get deals lately? Not so easy lately.)


Assuming that the finished product will be the sum of both services is probably folly. There are quite a few more than 4 channels that uVerse carries that DIRECTV doesn't.


----------



## harsh

studechip said:


> Shouldn't broader coverage always be a goal?


That's what the gubmint and potential customers want. If it doesn't improve the dividends or stock value, I'm not sure the shareholders and their board will be as excited about it. That this latest "bone" seems to represent upgrading, I'm thinking it is kind of a hollow offering.

I hope I'm misreading what it represents.


----------



## slice1900

harsh said:


> AT&T said early on that they expected the combination to be able to save 1.5B/year after the transition was complete.
> 
> Whether you believe the board is going to plow that money into upgrading service for existing customers or give the shareholders a big dividend is up to you.


Directv will represent about 30% of AT&T's market cap. If you want to believe that they'll shirk on upgrades that will grow (or maintain, given the climate for cable/satellite these days) that business and thus reduce the value of 30% of their holdings, that's up to you.

If AT&T decides in a few years that letting Directv languish is the right thing to do, who's to say that's not the same decision Directv's board would make at the same time if there was no merger? Directv has already been directing most of their cash flow toward the shareholders, so what's the difference if the same happens with AT&T's shareholders? The reason why people buy shares of a company, after all, is to profit from it. Directv's customers might like it if all $4 billion a year in profit was plowed back into the company every year, but the shareholders would abandon it. Likewise if every penny of profit if given to the shareholders and none is invested in the company's future the shareholders might like it (in the short term) but the customers would abandon it.

It is a balancing act with any business to determine how much reinvestment is desired and how much profit should be taken. That's true whether you're a Fortune 500 company or a small town diner. There's no reason to assume the calculations are all that different whether AT&T's board or Directv's board is making that decision about the Directv business. They'll do future projections based on multiple scenarios and choose the one they think maximizes shareholder value.


----------



## fleckrj

For any corporation, the Board of Directors' *ONLY *responsibility is to the shareholders. This is true whether it is DirecTV, AT&T, or the merged company. The company will invest profits in the business if it feels the investment will improve future profits (and, unfortunately for the customer, they tend to focus on relatively short term profits). If not, the profits will be invested where the directors' feel they will get a better return or the profits will be distributed as dividends to the shareholders. The shareholder always comes before the customer, but there is a balancing act in that if the customers so unhappy that they are driven away, the shareholder will suffer.


----------



## Drucifer

fleckrj said:


> For any corporation, the Board of Directors' *ONLY *responsibility is to the shareholders. This is true whether it is DirecTV, AT&T, or the merged company. The company will invest profits in the business if it feels the investment will improve future profits (and, unfortunately for the customer, they tend to focus on relatively short term profits). If not, the profits will be invested where the directors' feel they will get a better return or the profits will be distributed as dividends to the shareholders. The shareholder always comes before the customer, but there is a balancing act in that if *the customers so unhappy that they are driven away*, the shareholder will suffer.


Unless their choices are not better or non existing which is often the case for rural America..


----------



## Athlon646464

*Update: **AT&T could potentially offer DirecTV's Sunday Ticket NFL programming to wireless subs*

(FierceWireless) - AT&T's management thinks it might be able to offer DirecTV's National Football League Sunday Ticket service to its wireless customers, according to analysts who attended a meeting with the company. The possibility is being floated as AT&T prepares to try to get the company's proposed $49 billion deal for DirecTV approved by regulators.

AT&T executives even said it might exempt the streaming of NFL games from counting toward subscribers' wireless data limits, similar to what the carrier is planning for its "Sponsored Data" plans for third-party companies....

Full Story Here


----------



## iceturkee

if that happens, i am definitely gone from dtv.


----------



## Laxguy

iceturkee said:


> if that happens, i am definitely gone from dtv.


If what happens, and why?


----------



## carlsbad_bolt_fan

Great! Just what AT&T needs for their already overburdened network. :rolling:


----------



## tonyd79

iceturkee said:


> if that happens, i am definitely gone from dtv.


Why? You would rather watch choppy, bad video on a mobile device rather than full HD on a big TV screen?


----------



## tonyd79

carlsbad_bolt_fan said:


> Great! Just what AT&T needs for their already overburdened network. :rolling:


I have no issues with video streaming on AT&T.


----------



## nmetro

Honestly, NFL Sunday Ticket is not the premium product it once was. Sunday night, Monday night and Thursday night football takes three games out of the mix. There is potential for another night of NFL football, in the works. On Sunday, most markets get at least two games and up to four games, on Sunday afternoon. So, it is quite possible, to see 14 teams play, in a given week, out of the 32 teams, on NBC, CBS, FOX, ESPN and NFL Network. Throw in something like NFL RedZone and one has to be a truly die hard fan to want to spend the near $300 a season. This could be a hard sell when people start doing the math.


----------



## sigma1914

nmetro said:


> Honestly, NFL Sunday Ticket is not the premium product it once was. Sunday night, Monday night and Thursday night football takes three games out of the mix. There is potential for another night of NFL football, in the works. On Sunday, most markets get at least two games and up to four games, on Sunday afternoon. So, it is quite possible, to see 14 teams play, in a given week, out of the 32 teams, on NBC, CBS, FOX, ESPN and NFL Network. Throw in something like NFL RedZone and one has to be a truly die hard fan to want to spend the near $300 a season. This could be a hard sell when people start doing the math.


1) Its 12 teams not 14 not on ST each week because only CBS *or* FOX has a doubleheader each week (except week 17)....so its CBS/FOX's 6 teams + TNF + SNF + MNF = 12 teams.
Also not every city gets the doubleheader each week.

2) Per the schedule listed on this site this is the # of ST games per week:

11 games = 1 week
10 games = 4 weeks
9 games = 6 weeks
8 games = 3 weeks
7 games = 3 weeks


----------



## damondlt

Sig, do you only get Dallas games locally? 

Sent from my Galaxy S5


----------



## sigma1914

damondlt said:


> Sig, do you only get Dallas games locally?
> 
> Sent from my Galaxy S5


Yeah and watch them to talk **** too my friends. lol

I get ST for the Giants and fantasy football.


----------



## damondlt

I have 2 friends whom get Sunday Ticket to watch Dallas . 
I'm fairly lucky I like my home teams. 

Sent from my Galaxy S5


----------



## anex80

nmetro said:


> Honestly, NFL Sunday Ticket is not the premium product it once was. Sunday night, Monday night and Thursday night football takes three games out of the mix. There is potential for another night of NFL football, in the works. On Sunday, most markets get at least two games and up to four games, on Sunday afternoon. So, it is quite possible, to see 14 teams play, in a given week, out of the 32 teams, on NBC, CBS, FOX, ESPN and NFL Network. Throw in something like NFL RedZone and one has to be a truly die hard fan to want to spend the near $300 a season. This could be a hard sell when people start doing the math.


Here we go again with the "is it worth it" argument. I think it's simple: if it's worth it to you, then buy it! If not, then don't. ST isn't for everyone. I've been a huge NFL fan for years and was only recently able to afford the package due to changes in income, debt, and price. I don't fault D* for getting as much as they can out of the product, however. It's their product and they get to set the price, just like it's our money and we get to decide how to spend it.

I personally think HBO is way over priced and decide not to spend my money on that package. There are others who would gladly pay twice the current rate and can't understand my perspective. I guess the point is to be thankful for choices!


----------



## tonyd79

anex80 said:


> Here we go again with the "is it worth it" argument. I think it's simple: if it's worth it to you, then buy it! If not, then don't. ST isn't for everyone. I've been a huge NFL fan for years and was only recently able to afford the package due to changes in income, debt, and price. I don't fault D* for getting as much as they can out of the product, however. It's their product and they get to set the price, just like it's our money and we get to decide how to spend it.
> 
> I personally think HBO is way over priced and decide not to spend my money on that package. There are others who would gladly pay twice the current rate and can't understand my perspective. I guess the point is to be thankful for choices!


Well said. The idea of cost per game was always lost on me. I don't buy ST for cost per game. Nor do most people. Most buy it for THEIR team that is out of market or because they are NFL junkies and want to access all the games. In either logic, it is the base price, not price per game. And typically, the price (unless it is truly out of range) plays no real factor.


----------



## Rich

anex80 said:


> Here we go again with the "is it worth it" argument. I think it's simple: if it's worth it to you, then buy it! If not, then don't. ST isn't for everyone. I've been a huge NFL fan for years and was only recently able to afford the package due to changes in income, debt, and price. I don't fault D* for getting as much as they can out of the product, however. It's their product and they get to set the price, just like it's our money and we get to decide how to spend it.
> 
> I personally think HBO is way over priced and decide not to spend my money on that package. There are others who would gladly pay twice the current rate and can't understand my perspective. I guess the point is to be thankful for choices!


I sit in front of my TVs and constantly marvel at how far it's come in my lifetime. We're fortunate.

Rich


----------



## Rich

tonyd79 said:


> Well said. The idea of cost per game was always lost on me. I don't buy ST for cost per game. Nor do most people. Most buy it for THEIR team that is out of market or because they are NFL junkies and want to access all the games. In either logic, it is the base price, not price per game. And typically, the price (unless it is truly out of range) plays no real factor.


My wife started to buy tickets to *The Lion King* onstage in NYC. Over $800 for four tickets and that wasn't in the best seats. Fortunately, I stopped her, that price makes no sense to me. And people complain about the cost of ST? Geeze.

Rich


----------



## carlsbad_bolt_fan

tonyd79 said:


> I have no issues with video streaming on AT&T.


Glad it works where you live. Around here (San Diego County) it stinks. I remember having to plan my driving routes carefully just in case a client called. Got to know where the many dead areas were rather well. Never had to worry about that again when I switched to Verizon.


----------



## Diana C

anex80 said:


> Here we go again with the "is it worth it" argument. ..


Indeed...the very definition of the term "first world problem."


----------



## Drucifer

carlsbad_bolt_fan said:


> Great! Just what AT&T needs for their already overburdened network. :rolling:


Wireless specs seem to be doubling ever few years now. There's another revolution in progress and this one is centered around wireless.


----------



## inkahauts

carlsbad_bolt_fan said:


> Glad it works where you live. Around here (San Diego County) it stinks. I remember having to plan my driving routes carefully just in case a client called. Got to know where the many dead areas were rather well. Never had to worry about that again when I switched to Verizon.


San Diego may be one of the most difficult major cities in the entire country for reception of anything. And att did not build out there as well as other markets for a long time. Don't know about now though.


----------



## tonyd79

carlsbad_bolt_fan said:


> Glad it works where you live. Around here (San Diego County) it stinks. I remember having to plan my driving routes carefully just in case a client called. Got to know where the many dead areas were rather well. Never had to worry about that again when I switched to Verizon.


Here is the kicker. Despite the rep Verizon has, I have nothing but trouble with my iPad with Verizon, particularly when I try to stream. I got the Verizon iPad because I believed it would be better based upon Consumer Reports and other customer complaints. Nope. It is horrible in an area it is supposed to be great. I get nothing but complaints from friends in the area who are using Verizon for Android and other i devices as well.


----------



## Diana C

Where Verizon is bad, it is usually REALLY bad. I'm in the Baltimore suburbs this week for work and Verizon reception is poor. AT&T on the other hand, which delivers zero to one bar atmy home in NJ, is cranking 4 or 5 bars here. It's all about where the nearest tower is and how many users it needs to support.


----------



## AMike

In news that is not surprising, AT&T states in regulatory filings that combined company will be able offer lower bundled pricing of tv and internet access.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2014/06/11/att-directv-merger-could-make-it-harder-to-cut-the-cord/


----------



## JosephB

Also, interestingly enough, if your read through the AT&T/DirecTV filing, they plan to use DirecTV's platform and equipment for U-Verse. They will still offer TV over IP/VDSL but they will be transitioning to use DirecTV-style receivers including the Genie instead of the Motorola and Cisco set tops running Microsoft/Ericsson Mediaroom.


----------



## slice1900

JosephB said:


> Also, interestingly enough, if your read through the AT&T/DirecTV filing, they plan to use DirecTV's platform and equipment for U-Verse. They will still offer TV over IP/VDSL but they will be transitioning to use DirecTV-style receivers including the Genie instead of the Motorola and Cisco set tops running Microsoft/Ericsson Mediaroom.


Since they deliver video via IP that should be pretty easy to do. The Genie would receive encrypted MPEG4 video, directly, rather than tuning and demodulating a SWM channel to obtain the encrypted MPEG4 video. Basically skipping a step or two, and making for a slightly cheaper Genie since it would leave out the satellite tuner. Disable a few things in the setup (i.e. no satellite setup/info) and there you go.

I guess that eliminates one worry of Directv customers here, and accounts for some of the savings (i.e. the development/production cost of Directv equipment would be spread over more units)


----------



## JosephB

slice1900 said:


> Since they deliver video via IP that should be pretty easy to do. The Genie would receive encrypted MPEG4 video, directly, rather than tuning and demodulating a SWM channel to obtain the encrypted MPEG4 video. Basically skipping a step or two, and making for a slightly cheaper Genie since it would leave out the satellite tuner. Disable a few things in the setup (i.e. no satellite setup/info) and there you go.
> 
> I guess that eliminates one worry of Directv customers here, and accounts for some of the savings (i.e. the development/production cost of Directv equipment would be spread over more units)


I would also expect all receivers to get built-in LTE radios, so that DirecTV customers who aren't on AT&T wired internet services can still have guaranteed connectivity back to the mothership. Lots of interesting things they can do by having a national wireless company, a satellite service, and wired internet services under one roof.


----------



## slice1900

Not a chance, it would cost a lot more to put it in every receiver, when you only need one LTE radio per house (or zero, for all those who have wired internet)

If they were going to do this, it would make more sense to put the LTE antenna/radio on the LNB, and use the DECA band for receivers to communicate with it. You'd be better off with an outdoor antenna anyway versus having one built into a receiver that might be buried in a AV cabinet in the basement, and upgrading such customers would simply require replacing the LNB.


----------



## VABlitz

I sure hope they plan to install FTTH internet here. I am stuck with Cox Cable, Dialup, Old Verizon DSL, or Slow and expensive Dish. To finally have a viable alternative to Cox Cable would be nice.


----------



## JosephB

slice1900 said:


> Not a chance, it would cost a lot more to put it in every receiver, when you only need one LTE radio per house (or zero, for all those who have wired internet)
> 
> If they were going to do this, it would make more sense to put the LTE antenna/radio on the LNB, and use the DECA band for receivers to communicate with it. You'd be better off with an outdoor antenna anyway versus having one built into a receiver that might be buried in a AV cabinet in the basement, and upgrading such customers would simply require replacing the LNB.


Well, whatever, the mechanics aren't important. I could also see an LTE version of the Cinema Connection Kit and you get an LTE connection for your DirecTV receivers built into your package.


----------



## VABlitz

nmetro said:


> Throw in something like NFL RedZone and one has to be a truly die hard fan to want to spend the near $300 a season. This could be a hard sell when people start doing the math.


For those out of their favorite teams zone it's the only alternative. It's still cheaper than going to a couple games, or even having to buy a few beers per game at the local bar down the street that carries it.


----------



## Athlon646464

*Update: **Senate to consider AT&T-DirecTV merger*

(The Hill) - The Senate Judiciary Committee will hold a hearing on the proposed $49 billion merger of AT&T and DirecTV later this month, the panel announced on Thursday.

The Antitrust subcommittee's session will be held on the same day that the House Judiciary Committee holds its hearing, on June 24. The House panel will go first with a hearing in the morning, followed hours later by lawmakers in the Senate....

Full Story Here


----------



## Diana C

slice1900 said:


> Not a chance, it would cost a lot more to put it in every receiver, when you only need one LTE radio per house (or zero, for all those who have wired internet)
> 
> If they were going to do this, it would make more sense to put the LTE antenna/radio on the LNB, and use the DECA band for receivers to communicate with it. You'd be better off with an outdoor antenna anyway versus having one built into a receiver that might be buried in a AV cabinet in the basement, and upgrading such customers would simply require replacing the LNB.


Wireless standards evolve too quickly to embed LTE equipment in any DirecTV receivers or LNBs. LTE is no longer the fastest standard, it has been surpassed by LTE-Advanced which is currently being field tested around the world. Verizon is rolling out an enhancement called XLTE that bonds two frequencies together (from different wireless bands) to double the bandwidth. I'm sure AT&T will embrace one of these two soon. If you want to integrate wireless, it would make more sense to use a wireless modem module that can be upgraded independently of the rest of the installation.

Hasn't DirecTV already demonstrated IP delivery. I seem to remember a HR20i being field tested a few years ago. If I'm not mis-remembering then the technology already exists.


----------



## hdtvfan0001

Athlon646464 said:


> *Update: **Senate to consider AT&T-DirecTV merger*
> 
> (The Hill) - The Senate Judiciary Committee will hold a hearing on the proposed $49 billion merger of AT&T and DirecTV later this month, the panel announced on Thursday.
> 
> The Antitrust subcommittee's session will be held on the same day that the House Judiciary Committee holds its hearing, on June 24. The House panel will go first with a hearing in the morning, followed hours later by lawmakers in the Senate....
> 
> Full Story Here


It's interesting that the image looks like a Death Star with a dish on it...hmmm.....


----------



## Rich

VABlitz said:


> For those out of their favorite teams zone it's the only alternative. It's still cheaper than going to a couple games, or even having to buy a few beers per game at the local bar down the street that carries it.


$300 for a season to watch your favorite team/s seems like a pretty cheap deal. That's pretty close to what you'd spend at one game. I live in an area close to NYC and root for the Yankees, Jets and Giants (I realize that's not normal, but how much losing can a Jets fan take without finding another team to root for?) so I don't have that problem, but if I moved somewhere where I couldn't get their games I'd buy into the NFL and MLB packages in a heartbeat (and yes, I can do the math).

Rich


----------



## SayWhat?

AT&T: We will right many of world's wrongs if allowed to slurp DirecTV

Register

- ‎3 hours ago‎

AT&T says that it will expand its broadband network, promote net neutrality, and clean its room every single day if the US Federal Communications Commission approves its bid to acquire satellite-television firm DirecTV.


----------



## slice1900

Diana C said:


> Wireless standards evolve too quickly to embed LTE equipment in any DirecTV receivers or LNBs. LTE is no longer the fastest standard, it has been surpassed by LTE-Advanced which is currently being field tested around the world. Verizon is rolling out an enhancement called XLTE that bonds two frequencies together (from different wireless bands) to double the bandwidth. I'm sure AT&T will embrace one of these two soon. If you want to integrate wireless, it would make more sense to use a wireless modem module that can be upgraded independently of the rest of the installation.
> 
> Hasn't DirecTV already demonstrated IP delivery. I seem to remember a HR20i being field tested a few years ago. If I'm not mis-remembering then the technology already exists.


What I was responding to was the idea that AT&T would add wireless capability to Directv for rural/remote customers who live where there aren't wired broadband options. I'm not really convinced they'd package the networking together either, but I could see pros and cons for putting it on the LNB versus making it a separate unit.

I wouldn't worry too much about faster technologies coming along though, since older ones don't go away until many years later. This would be targeted at rural customers, who don't have LTE today and won't be getting it for a few more years. AT&T has said they won't decommission Edge until 2017, which I take to mean it'll be that long before all the rural areas are upgraded (to LTE, not 3G, because LTE has a longer range) Once they're upgraded, it will be eons before they get another upgrade, so I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for LTE Advanced anytime soon if I lived in an area that is still on Edge today.

As for the H20i/HR20i, it was used for a new generation of Directv's MDU technology, but they never pursued it (not sure if it was cost or other concerns) Basically the dish was connected to a very expensive headend that demodulated the channels in parallel - and therefore needed to be upgraded as Directv added new satellites. I don't believe it was really all that different than a C31 connected to a Genie as far as how the IP delivery part works, though. It is just the difference between being limited to 5 tuners and having 1000+


----------



## SayWhat?

AT&T customer data compromised in scheme to unlock smartphones

CNET

- ‎5 hours ago‎

Customer Social Security numbers and call records are exposed in a bid to get smartphone "unlock" codes from AT&T.


----------



## VABlitz

Rich said:


> $300 for a season to watch your favorite team/s seems like a pretty cheap deal. That's pretty close to what you'd spend at one game. I live in an area close to NYC and root for the Yankees, Jets and Giants (I realize that's not normal, but how much losing can a Jets fan take without finding another team to root for?) so I don't have that problem, but if I moved somewhere where I couldn't get their games I'd buy into the NFL and MLB packages in a heartbeat (and yes, I can do the math).
> 
> Rich


I'm in Orioles country unfortunately, so I subscribe to MLB EI. MLB EI is a great deal IMO as it comes out to less than $1.25/game. It would be nice when the Yankees and Orioles play if I wasn't stuck watching the Orioles feed, but a minor inconvenience. Football and the other sports are a little less so of a deal, but if I wasn't around my local teams area I'd have it as well. 
And you think you have it bad with the Jets. Just be thankful you are not a Redskins fan. Yeah, we had one decent season the year before last, but the past 14 years has not been good to us.


----------



## Drucifer

This could be one reason AT&T purchased DirecTV.

AT&T, Comcast Have Spotty Record Of Providing Internet To Rural And Poor



> As telecom giants seek approval for their latest mergers, millions of people without fast, reliable Internet service have become bargaining chips.
> 
> . . . .


READ MORE


----------



## Ohara

AT&T will just take the Verizon route with rural broadband. Like home fusion it will be wireless, extremly expensive, and have ridiculous caps. Bank on it. You will never see fiber ever.


----------



## Rich

VABlitz said:


> I'm in Orioles country unfortunately, so I subscribe to MLB EI. MLB EI is a great deal IMO as it comes out to less than $1.25/game. It would be nice when the Yankees and Orioles play if I wasn't stuck watching the Orioles feed, but a minor inconvenience. Football and the other sports are a little less so of a deal, but if I wasn't around my local teams area I'd have it as well.
> _*And you think you have it bad with the Jets. Just be thankful you are not a Redskins fan. Yeah, we had one decent season the year before last, but the past 14 years has not been good to us. *_


Yeah, I know I've had it bad with the Jets. Been about 45 years since our last Super Bowl win and I don't see one coming. Thankfully the Giants aren't as pitiful as the Jets. In '69, I thought, "Oh boy, a dynasty is building". Oh boy, was I ever wrong.

Rich


----------



## boukengreen

Try being a cowboys fan with all the talent and going 8-8 year after year


Sent from my iPhone using DBSTalk


----------



## Laxguy

boukengreen said:


> Try being a cowboys fan with all the talent and going 8-8 year after year


No, thanks! 

We (Niners and 'Boys) had some great games and rivalry in the distant past.


----------



## boukengreen

Laxguy said:


> No, thanks!
> 
> We (Niners and 'Boys) had some great games and rivalry in the distant past.


 yes we did. Hopefully soon we can get back to that

Sent from my iPhone using DBSTalk


----------



## damondlt

Ohara said:


> AT&T will just take the Verizon route with rural broadband. Like home fusion it will be wireless, extremly expensive, and have ridiculous caps. Bank on it. You will never see fiber ever.


Yep, expensive LTE service is going to be att Answer.

Sent from my Galaxy S5


----------



## Diana C

As I posted elsewhere, DirecTV will, over the next 18 months or so, increase their available bandwidth by a significant margin. What I'm worried about is that AT&T might decide to use some of that bandwidth to deliver broadband via satellite, even if only as a stop gap. They might move some content from the Spaceway satellites to D14 and/or D15 and repurpose the released Spaceway transponders for broadband spot beams. It would be quicker, easier and cheaper than building new cellular towers.

While some have said that would devalue DirecTV, I would remind everyone that once the acquisition is complete, the key principle will not be the value of DirecTV, but rather the overall value of AT&T.


----------



## PCampbell

boukengreen said:


> Try being a cowboys fan with all the talent and going 8-8 year after year
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using DBSTalk


You can join us Lions fans.


----------



## unixguru

Diana C said:


> As I posted elsewhere, DirecTV will, over the next 18 months or so, increase their available bandwidth by a significant margin. What I'm worried about is that AT&T might decide to use some of that bandwidth to deliver broadband via satellite, even if only as a stop gap. They might move some content from the Spaceway satellites to D14 and/or D15 and repurpose the released Spaceway transponders for broadband spot beams. It would be quicker, easier and cheaper than building new cellular towers.
> 
> While some have said that would devalue DirecTV, I would remind everyone that once the acquisition is complete, the key principle will not be the value of DirecTV, but rather the overall value of AT&T.


Doubt it. Sat is terrible for internet - way too much latency. Also very expensive, poor bandwidth, low caps. Only place it is used is rural areas that get no other service. If they wanted that they would just buy HughesNet.

I have no idea but I suspect the sats are licensed for a specific purpose.


----------



## Laxguy

unixguru said:


> Doubt it. Sat is terrible for internet - way too much latency. Also very expensive, poor bandwidth, low caps. Only place it is used is rural areas that get no other service. If they wanted that they would just buy HughesNet.
> 
> I have no idea but I suspect the sats are licensed for a specific purpose.


Yes, and not too swift for cellular!

I do wonder if ATT can make use of sat. service in any meaningful way (other than what's involved with DIRECTV!)


----------



## Diana C

unixguru said:


> Doubt it. Sat is terrible for internet - way too much latency. Also very expensive, poor bandwidth, low caps. Only place it is used is rural areas that get no other service. If they wanted that they would just buy HughesNet.
> 
> I have no idea but I suspect the sats are licensed for a specific purpose.


Of course, we are talking about rural areas where there are currently no other options. I don't see it as a long term solution, but simply getting the permission from the local community to build a cellular tower can take years. Using satellite would let them offer a phone/broadband/TV bundle everywhere they have cellular coverage and a broadband/TV bundle where they do not.

They might buy HughesNet if Echostar wanted to sell it.

Yes, the spaceway satellites are currently licensed for DTH video, but they were originally (when the licenses were granted) licensed for broadband. It would not be a big deal to get the operating licenses ammended.


----------



## slice1900

It isn't difficult to get approval to build cell towers in rural areas, it is only a problem in the suburbs where the NIMBYs come out. Farmers and ranchers have no problem with a telco paying them $1000/month for a useless corner of land.


----------



## SayWhat?

There are already three or four satellite ISPs competing for the few customers that can afford and tolerate such a limited offering. I see no reason for or benefit in another.

I believe the future of internet is in wireless in some form we don't see now. Not cellular as we know it. Some form of hybrid WISP that can be used by building based LANs as well as handheld devices. Maybe the P-Cell that's been talked about.


----------



## Draconis

Hmmm...

The Pros and Cons of the Proposed AT&T-DirecTV Merger
http://www.eweek.com/mobile/slideshows/the-pros-and-cons-of-the-proposed-att-directv-merger.html


----------



## slice1900

SayWhat? said:


> There are already three or four satellite ISPs competing for the few customers that can afford and tolerate such a limited offering. I see no reason for or benefit in another.
> 
> I believe the future of internet is in wireless in some form we don't see now. Not cellular as we know it. Some form of hybrid WISP that can be used by building based LANs as well as handheld devices. Maybe the P-Cell that's been talked about.


There's no reason LTE can't handle it, and be cost effective. They could develop special plans for fixed wireless that would allow a useful amount of data without compromising the higher prices they charge for mobile data. Just sell people a receiver that's locked to a specific location (via GPS, tower triangulation, or whatever) Offer the plan only in specific zip codes where the population density is low, so people using a lot of data won't be a problem.

The reason why many outlying areas not were upgraded from Edge to 3G was because 3G has a shorter range, and they'd need to add towers. LTE has a longer range, so Edge towers will be upgraded. They still need to run fiber out to ones that have only a T1, so it isn't as easy as adding LTE antennas, but it is a lot easier than trying to add 3G to rural areas would have been. That's why Verizon had such an advantage over AT&T in the 3G days, because the CDMA technology they used had a longer range and they didn't need to add towers everywhere.


----------



## Drucifer

damondlt said:


> Yep, expensive LTE service is going to be att Answer.
> 
> Sent from my Galaxy S5


It doesn't even to have to rural for expensive LTE to be their answer to hi-speed Internet access.

I lived in western Putnam. LTE got here two years ago with all sorts of fanfare. All work on extending FiOS to my community ceased.

For those not familiar with western Putnam on a map. It is across the river from West Point. About 60 north of the Empire State Building -- AKA the heart of NYC. No farms here.


----------



## Drucifer

Draconis said:


> Hmmm...
> 
> The Pros and Cons of the Proposed AT&T-DirecTV Merger
> http://www.eweek.com/mobile/slideshows/the-pros-and-cons-of-the-proposed-att-directv-merger.html


I must not know how to work a slide, as I saw no Cons.


----------



## slice1900

Gary Toma found this link on the FCC's site with a ton of information about AT&T's plans for Directv. I gave it a quick scan, and found some interesting nuggets:

AT&T will use LTE (what they call "fixed wireless local loop") for the 15 million new rural customers. There will be some in all of the lower 48 states, well spread out in the eastern half (except Maine) but more hit and miss west of the Mississippi. Minnesota and the Dakotas is oddly concentrated, while Nebraska is barely touched except on the edges. Speeds will be 15-20 Mbps, and mostly 10 Mbps even at the edges of the cells. They'll use special "professionally installed" equipment in the customer residences, and special plans for the fixed wireless that offer enough data for most customers (their words, no specific numbers mentioned) If you open the document, look for Figure 1 for the map.

They'll use Directv's existing set top hardware and future roadmap, and take advantage of Directv's set top hardware and software experience, content packaging/navigation, etc. to create a new user interface that uses common menus and channel numbering between the two services.

They'll take advantage of AT&T's superior video delivery to reduce Directv's content delivery costs (especially on demand, currently done for them by a third party) and consolidate broadcast centers.

AT&T estimates they'd reduce their own per subscriber content costs by 20% due to the additional negotiating leverage from adding Directv's customers. I admit I'm very surprised it is anywhere near that high.

There's a lengthy but interesting Econ 301 lesson in why two companies providing a separate service can't offer bundles priced as low as a combined company that offers both services.

Interesting stuff, and I'm sure if others dig into it they'll find some other good stuff.

One final thought, since AT&T has so much dark fiber, Directv should be able to use fiber to deliver locals nationside, and no longer need the uplinks through Ka on 101. Not sure what they'd then do with that if it was freed up, but it would be available for expansion if necessary. There was no mention of anything like this, but it seems reasonable that would be cheaper for AT&T to use fiber to deliver locals than it would be to replace the Ka capacity at 101. So they'd abandon that when D8/D9S are retired unless they needed it for customer content. If they used the same Ka plan as 99/103, that would add 48 additional transponders - tons of bandwidth if 4K really caught on and they needed more bandwidth than they already have coming with D14 and D15.


----------



## harsh

slice1900 said:


> Farmers and ranchers have no problem with a telco paying them $1000/month for a useless corner of land.


On the other hand, the ROI for a tower situated in the middle of a dozen farmhouses isn't as good as one buried in a subdivision with eight homes per acre.


----------



## slice1900

harsh said:


> On the other hand, the ROI for a tower situated in the middle of a dozen farmhouses isn't as good as one buried in a subdivision with eight homes per acre.


That's true, and that's actually why AT&T says in their write that owning Directv will benefit them. Bundling would allow them to sell those people TV services (delivered via Directv, not cellular, obviously) and the increased profit per customer helps the ROI (not of 8 farmhouses per tower, but most rural areas aren't quite that sparse)

Actually, that might be why the interior of Nebraska didn't show much AT&T "local loop wireless". There are a lot of huge ranches out there measured in tens of square miles, a lot more sparse than agricultural areas where the majority of farms are under a couple of square miles.


----------



## wilbur_the_goose

Two points:
1. The "last mile" could be the death of the new company.
2. AT&T reveals social security data leak, offers free credit monitoring. Not good news for we future customers! http://www.welivesecurity.com/2014/06/17/att-reveals-social-security-data-leak-offers-free-credit-monitoring/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+eset%2Fblog+%28ESET+Blog%3A+We+Live+Security%29


----------



## Drucifer

The trouble is, they want to use wireless, even when customer are within range of wire equip central offices.


----------



## SayWhat?

Drucifer said:


> The trouble is, they want to use wireless, even when customer are within range of wire equip central offices.


That's not a problem. Trees come down and break wires causing outages. Lightning hits hits wires and travels into houses causing damage.

I would prefer wireless to wired if I could get decent speeds and reliability with no caps.


----------



## Diana C

Drucifer said:


> It doesn't even to have to rural for expensive LTE to be their answer to hi-speed Internet access.
> 
> I lived in western Putnam. LTE got here two years ago with all sorts of fanfare. All work on extending FiOS to my community ceased.
> 
> For those not familiar with western Putnam on a map. It is across the river from West Point. About 60 north of the Empire State Building -- AKA the heart of NYC. No farms here.


Garrison? I used to live in Brewster (eastern Putnam) and my father was born in Garrison (when it still had farms).


----------



## slice1900

Drucifer said:


> The trouble is, they want to use wireless, even when customer are within range of wire equip central offices.


AT&T's plans show four different ways to deliver broadband:

FTTH: same as FIOS/Google Fiber; they're just starting to roll it out in Austin, TX, with speeds up to a gigabit
FTTN: current Uverse, i.e. VDSL2, they show max speed as 45 Mbps (no bonded service option I guess)
ADSL: they had some fancy name for it like iDSL, at 18 Mbps max, sounds like some version of ADSL2+
LTE: 15-20 Mbps, with "90% of customers even at the cell edge" getting 10 Mbps

The customer may be in range of a CO, but if they're getting old school copper DSL run all the way from that CO, only those very near the CO and very far from the tower would do worse with wireless.. It sure ain't gigabit, but it beats paying $129.99/mo for slower satellite internet that has a much lower data cap.


----------



## fleckrj

slice1900 said:


> One final thought, since AT&T has so much dark fiber, Directv should be able to use fiber to deliver locals nationside, and no longer need the uplinks through Ka on 101. Not sure what they'd then do with that if it was freed up, but it would be available for expansion if necessary. There was no mention of anything like this, but it seems reasonable that would be cheaper for AT&T to use fiber to deliver locals than it would be to replace the Ka capacity at 101. So they'd abandon that when D8/D9S are retired unless they needed it for customer content. If they used the same Ka plan as 99/103, that would add 48 additional transponders - tons of bandwidth if 4K really caught on and they needed more bandwidth than they already have coming with D14 and D15.


There are far too many areas that do not have fiber. I live in a suburban area (3 houses per acre) in a county with a population of 901,000 in a metropolitan area with a population of 1,130,490 and the 24th largest DMA in the country. We have AT&T for local telephone system, but we still do not have fiber, U-Verse, or FiOS in my neighborhood. We have only one cable company (TWC), and AT&T does not have any low-frequency bandwidth for LTE. The only wireless choices that have low-frequency service that can actually penetrate into my house are Verizon and Sprint. Those with AT&T or T-Mobile have to go out on my deck to get a signal. I do not see how DirecTV will be able to deliver locals via fiber any time soon, and even where they have decent LTE, if the frequency cannot penetrate into a building, there will be problems.


----------



## JoeTheDragon

slice1900 said:


> AT&T's plans show four different ways to deliver broadband:
> 
> FTTH: same as FIOS/Google Fiber; they're just starting to roll it out in Austin, TX, with speeds up to a gigabit
> FTTN: current Uverse, i.e. VDSL2, they show max speed as 45 Mbps (no bonded service option I guess)
> ADSL: they had some fancy name for it like iDSL, at 18 Mbps max, sounds like some version of ADSL2+
> LTE: 15-20 Mbps, with "90% of customers even at the cell edge" getting 10 Mbps
> 
> The customer may be in range of a CO, but if they're getting old school copper DSL run all the way from that CO, only those very near the CO and very far from the tower would do worse with wireless.. It sure ain't gigabit, but it beats paying $129.99/mo for slower satellite internet that has a much lower data cap.


they can do bonded serivce but even without upto 45 Mbps with less shearing then cable with TV on SAT can really hurt cable.


----------



## Diana C

fleckrj said:


> There are far too many areas that do not have fiber. I live in a suburban area (3 houses per acre) in a county with a population of 901,000 in a metropolitan area with a population of 1,130,490 and the 24th largest DMA in the country. We have AT&T for local telephone system, but we still do not have fiber, U-Verse, or FiOS in my neighborhood. We have only one cable company (TWC), and AT&T does not have any low-frequency bandwidth for LTE. The only wireless choices that have low-frequency service that can actually penetrate into my house are Verizon and Sprint. Those with AT&T or T-Mobile have to go out on my deck to get a signal. I do not see how DirecTV will be able to deliver locals via fiber any time soon, and even where they have decent LTE, if the frequency cannot penetrate into a building, there will be problems.


They are talking about fixed loop wireless...the antenna will be outside (probably attached to your DirecTV dish, and carried inside on the same cable).


----------



## boukengreen

It would be awesome if I can have constant LTE service cause at the moment I am limited to 1.5 DSL because charter refuses to come up my 950 ft driveway even through my neighbors can get charter 


Sent from my iPhone using DBSTalk


----------



## slice1900

fleckrj said:


> There are far too many areas that do not have fiber. I live in a suburban area (3 houses per acre) in a county with a population of 901,000 in a metropolitan area with a population of 1,130,490 and the 24th largest DMA in the country. We have AT&T for local telephone system, but we still do not have fiber, U-Verse, or FiOS in my neighborhood. We have only one cable company (TWC), and AT&T does not have any low-frequency bandwidth for LTE. The only wireless choices that have low-frequency service that can actually penetrate into my house are Verizon and Sprint. Those with AT&T or T-Mobile have to go out on my deck to get a signal. I do not see how DirecTV will be able to deliver locals via fiber any time soon, and even where they have decent LTE, if the frequency cannot penetrate into a building, there will be problems.


Sorry, I should have been clear. I was talking about using AT&T fiber for Directv's internal use to deliver locals from their LRFs (local receive facilities) to their broadcast centers. Currently they use uplinks/downlinks to 101 on the Ka band for (at least some of) these internal transfers.


----------



## slice1900

JoeTheDragon said:


> they can do bonded serivce but even without upto 45 Mbps with less shearing then cable with TV on SAT can really hurt cable.


If they can deliver 45 Mbps on one pair, adding a second pair would get them to 90. Since Uverse is taking up at least half of what people are getting anyway, adding that second pair would effectively triple or quadruple their internet bandwidth (or allow more Uverse "tuners" than 4)

Centurylink offers bonded service in some areas for their VDSL2, and I assume for Prism, their Uverse like TV offering. That really makes a lot of sense because while we had a shortage of last mile copper in the late 90s when everyone wanted a second line for their modem, now with many people dropping land lines there is a surplus. Might as well make use of it by offering people who want more bandwidth or are getting TV service.


----------



## SayWhat?

Diana C said:


> They are talking about fixed loop wireless...the antenna will be outside (probably attached to your DirecTV dish, and carried inside on the same cable).


Keys will be price, signal reliability and lack of caps.



boukengreen said:


> because charter refuses to come up my 950 ft driveway even through my neighbors can get charter


Buy yourself a 1,000' box of Coax for $150 or so and run it yourself. Have them do the install at the street or as far up as they're willing to come. You may or may not need a booster/amp somewhere along the way.


----------



## boukengreen

SayWhat? said:


> Keys will be price, signal reliability and lack of caps.
> 
> Buy yourself a 1,000' box of Coax for $150 or so and run it yourself. Have them do the install at the street or as far up as they're willing to come. You may or may not need a booster/amp somewhere along the way.


 tried that they still wouldn't do it

There are somethings arrows can't kill. For everything else there's Master Sword


----------



## Diana C

SayWhat? said:


> Keys will be price, signal reliability and lack of caps...


Signal reliability should be fine...it is being inside buildings, handheld and/or moving around that makes mobile LTE a crapshoot. They could even use a directional antenna and point it at the nearest tower.

Price and data caps are business decisions and are therefore impossible to predict.


----------



## slice1900

Diana C said:


> Signal reliability should be fine...it is being inside buildings, handheld and/or moving around that makes mobile LTE a crapshoot. They could even use a directional antenna and point it at the nearest tower.
> 
> Price and data caps are business decisions and are therefore impossible to predict.


Not only that, they can use a larger antenna and get much better signal than the tiny one in a cell phone. AT&T specifically mentioned in their document they'd have equipment "professionally installed" at the customer site. Probably the Directv installers would be doing this, at least outside the AT&T footprint where they don't already have their own people.


----------



## Diana C

You're right! And I was just thinking that they could place the wireless modem/router up there as well, using the same power that is sent to the dish. They could then send the data back down on the coax as a MOCA (i.e. "DECA") signal and bridge it to the household LAN through a Genie. Only tricky part would be wireless...easiest solution is just put an AP inside, but all they would need to do is add a few configuration options to use the WVB for that purpose.

This all assumes a SWiM LNB. For a legacy LNB with an external SWiM it gets a little tricker, since you'd have to get the MOCA data signal through or around the switch somehow.


----------



## slice1900

Since they'll be selling this service without Directv for those customers who aren't interested in TV or already have another provider, they will need to have a solution for their LTE deployment that doesn't involve Directv hardware.

I think building something into the LNB would be pretty slick though, and make it take only a few minutes longer to install than it takes to install Directv alone now. The installers would just have to verify good LTE signal (sort of a LTE "IV") and get it off coax to the customer's other devices. There's no reason the HR44 couldn't act as an AP, just needs the software. Those customers who want to use their own can connect a wireless router to a DECA.


----------



## Drucifer

Diana C said:


> Garrison? I used to live in Brewster (eastern Putnam) and my father was born in Garrison (when it still had farms).


I believe our ex-governor Pataki was from Garrison.


----------



## SayWhat?

slice1900 said:


> Since they'll be selling this service without Directv for those customers who aren't interested in TV or already have another provider, they will need to have a solution for their LTE deployment that doesn't involve Directv hardware.


That would be me, plus there would have to be a self-install option or at least whatever they do would have to be outside only. No techs allowed in my house.


----------



## Diana C

slice1900 said:


> Since they'll be selling this service without Directv for those customers who aren't interested in TV or already have another provider, they will need to have a solution for their LTE deployment that doesn't involve Directv hardware.
> 
> I think building something into the LNB would be pretty slick though, and make it take only a few minutes longer to install than it takes to install Directv alone now. The installers would just have to verify good LTE signal (sort of a LTE "IV") and get it off coax to the customer's other devices. There's no reason the HR44 couldn't act as an AP, just needs the software. Those customers who want to use their own can connect a wireless router to a DECA.


True...for non-DirecTV installs the same basic setup would work, just run the LTE signal alone on the coax to a DECA-style adapter to get onto the customer's LAN.

The problem with using the HR44 as an access point is location...DVRs are rarely in an optimal position for good wireless coverage throughout the home. That's why I think the WVB is a better option. In a non-DirecTV install they could either bypass the router built into the LTE receiver and use the customer's or make that the standard system...not have a router built into the LTE modem at all use something like the Actiontec routers Verizon uses that have MOCA built-in (obviously at the DirecTV frequency band instead of standard MOCA frequencies).


----------



## Diana C

SayWhat? said:


> That would be me, plus there would have to be a self-install option or at least whatever they do would have to be outside only. No techs allowed in my house.


It would be no more or less involved than a straight DirecTV install. Install an outdoor antenna, run some cable to point inside and provide a router. The customer could take it from there.


----------



## harsh

SayWhat? said:


> I would prefer wireless to wired if I could get decent speeds and reliability with no caps.


No cap wireless service is quite a fantasy.


----------



## harsh

Diana C said:


> It would be no more or less involved than a straight DirecTV install. Install an outdoor antenna, run some cable to point inside and provide a router. The customer could take it from there.


I suspect it might be one of those high power transceiver setups that require a gubmint issued license to install.


----------



## harsh

slice1900 said:


> That's true, and that's actually why AT&T says in their write that owning Directv will benefit them. Bundling would allow them to sell those people TV services (delivered via Directv, not cellular, obviously) and the increased profit per customer helps the ROI (not of 8 farmhouses per tower, but most rural areas aren't quite that sparse)


I live in an area that is <=.5 homes/acre (Residential/Agricultural zone) that is 3 blocks outside the city limits and AT&T service vanishes in a good wind. Verizon is three bars and Sprint is one bar. My guests with AT&T use my VOIP phone.

Comcast owns all but two houses for Pay TV and all but two for broadband with their fiber service that went in 11 years ago.


----------



## peds48

harsh said:


> No cap wireless service is quite a fantasy.


Not really. see the "Un-carrier" provider who is disrupting this market


----------



## Diana C

harsh said:


> I suspect it might be one of those high power transceiver setups that require a gubmint issued license to install.


HIGHLY unlikely. LTE requires very little power (typically in the 200 to 300 mW range). Even if they went for class 1 power level, the maximum output is 2 watts, which doesn't require a license.


----------



## SayWhat?

Diana C said:


> It would be no more or less involved than a straight DirecTV install. Install an outdoor antenna, run some cable to point inside and provide a router. The customer could take it from there.





harsh said:


> I suspect it might be one of those high power transceiver setups that require a gubmint issued license to install.


They would either have to do everything outside so that I could extend it inside or allow a complete self-install like the early Dish systems or current cell-phone repeaters.

Despite what their website said, I worked out an arrangement with a Starband dealer to install my own 2-way satellite ISP system. I did the work, got it aligned, powered up and acquired a good signal. Once done, I called the dealer who in turn called the NOC and got it provisioned and activated.


----------



## slice1900

Diana C said:


> The problem with using the HR44 as an access point is location...DVRs are rarely in an optimal position for good wireless coverage throughout the home. That's why I think the WVB is a better option. In a non-DirecTV install they could either bypass the router built into the LTE receiver and use the customer's or make that the standard system...not have a router built into the LTE modem at all use something like the Actiontec routers Verizon uses that have MOCA built-in (obviously at the DirecTV frequency band instead of standard MOCA frequencies).


I think "rarely" is a bit strong. You need two things for good wifi coverage, enough transmit power and good receive antennas. Transmit power isn't a problem in rural markets, just crank it up - there are no neighbors. I don't know how good the HR44's built in antenna is, if they'd provided an external connector for it like receivers used to for the RF remote that would have been helpful I guess.

At any rate, a good quality wireless router will provide coverage for all but the largest homes from any corner of that home. I have my router in the basement, about 5' from a corner about 2' off the floor, and it provides excellent coverage throughout my house and even outside (except on the side it is on, since it doesn't transmit through 6' of earth very well!)

Since the HR44 can be an access point with the appropriate software, might as well take advantage of it where possible, and use a separate router elsewhere.


----------



## harsh

peds48 said:


> Not really. see the "Un-carrier" provider who is disrupting this market


Most of the existing carriers started with un-like services and they clamped down to what we have today.

If it sounds too good to be true, it won't (can't) last.


----------



## harsh

Diana C said:


> HIGHLY unlikely. LTE requires very little power (typically in the 200 to 300 mW range). Even if they went for class 1 power level, the maximum output is 2 watts, which doesn't require a license.


What requires a license depends on the frequency. I was thinking more along the lines of wiring an outdoor module that, in many jurisdictions including my own, would require a unique low energy wiring license.


----------



## jimmie57

AT&T came to my front door Wednesday to inform me that I now have fiber optics rant to the pole in my yard. I talked with them for a few minutes to see if they knew anything more than we do about the possible take over of DirecTV and they did not.

They then put the hard sell on me for their bundled service. I pay about $53 a month for home phone, $73 for Comcast internet service and almost $160 for DirecTV. They offered me unlimited nationwide home phone service, 18 mbit internet service and 300 channel 720p service of their u-verse TV system for $147 per month. 1080i service is an additional fee and I do not remember what that was per month. Since then I have seen their techs parked in front of 3 houses on my side of the street ( no fiber optics on the other side of the street ).
If my son was not such a hard head I would try it. They have a 30 day guarantee that if you do not like it they will come take it out and cost you nothing. My son still will not try it. He is physically handicapped and he pays for the cable internet ( I tried to drop that a few years ago for a cheaper service ) and I try to give him what he wants if I can do that.
I am hoping there will be better bundling with the DirecTV service if this goes thru. All they offered me was a little bit cheaper phone service and $5 off of DirecTV prices.


----------



## Athlon646464

*Update: **DirecTV and AT&T Make Case to Congress*

(The New York Times) - WASHINGTON - AT&T and DirecTV told members of Congress on Tuesday that their proposed $48.5 billion merger would be so good for competition that it would do something that has rarely, if ever, happened: pressure cable companies to lower prices.

"Econometric analysis confirms that by making us more competitive, the merger will put downward pricing pressure on cable products - cable bundles, cable video and cable broadband," Randall Stephenson, chief executive of AT&T, told antitrust subcommittees in both the House and Senate....

Full Story Here









Michael White of DirecTV, left, and Randall Stephenson of AT&T, center, testified about merger plans on Capitol Hill on Tuesday. Credit Win McNamee/Getty Images


----------



## Diana C

harsh said:


> What requires a license depends on the frequency. I was thinking more along the lines of wiring an outdoor module that, in many jurisdictions including my own, would require a unique low energy wiring license.


Yes, and LTE frequencies don't require licenses. Sure, wiring anything outdoors may be subject to local code requirements. Installing a satellite dish is subject to electrical code requirements but in most jurisdictions does not require a permit. Installing an LTE antenna is no different. The same would apply to the cellular technology that Dish is about to field trial in the San Francisco Bay Area. The licensing and permit requirements would certainly be no worse that what is required for 2 way satellite broadband.


----------



## Diana C

Athlon646464 said:


> "Econometric analysis confirms that by making us more competitive, the merger will put downward pricing pressure on cable products - cable bundles, cable video and cable broadband," Randall Stephenson, chief executive of AT&T, told antitrust subcommittees in both the House and Senate....[/size]


:rotfl: Who says CEOs don't have a sense of humor?


----------



## unixguru

Athlon646464 said:


> "Econometric analysis confirms that by making us more competitive, the merger will put downward pricing pressure on cable products - cable bundles, cable video and cable broadband," Randall Stephenson, chief executive of AT&T, told antitrust subcommittees in both the House and Senate....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> :rotfl: Who says CEOs don't have a sense of humor?
Click to expand...

Congress will believe it. Say one thing and do another - right up their alley.

The pallets of money are in the hall...


----------



## slice1900

What he's saying there is not at all wrong, I don't know why you guys find it so humorous.

Today Directv can't bundle, because they only deliver TV service. AT&T can't bundle very effectively, because they only have TV service in a small area. Combining the two will improve their ability to bundle, and therefore be more competitive with cable providers who have been very effective in winning customers via bundling.

I'm sure there were a lot of half truths (at best) during the hearing, but this wasn't one of them.


----------



## Diana C

Allowing DirecTV plus AT&T to compete more effectively together than they can separately is not the same as exerting a downward pressure on prices generally. For one thing, they can only do a full triple play bundle to those households where AT&T can provide broadband. Even if they extend wireless broadband it won't cover the entire country, and it remains to be seen if wireless broadband can be delivered at a speed and a cost that is competitive with the alternatives. In a few specific cases the statement might be true, but on a national basis it won't move prices one penny.


----------



## harsh

slice1900 said:


> Today Directv can't bundle, because they only deliver TV service.


Hogwash! DIRECTV bundles with several phone companies and at least one broadband company. They don't offer $100 off/month for a year bundles but they do offer discounts.


----------



## slice1900

harsh said:


> Hogwash! DIRECTV bundles with several phone companies and at least one broadband company. They don't offer $100 off/month for a year bundles but they do offer discounts.


Getting $5/off is a joke, compared to the bundles with 10x or more the savings. The Directv/AT&T filing with the FCC has about 10 pages devoted to explaining the economic basis why separate companies can't bundle as effectively as a combined company.


----------



## James Long

Athlon646464 said:


> "Econometric analysis confirms that by making us more competitive, the merger will put downward pricing pressure on cable products - cable bundles, cable video and cable broadband," Randall Stephenson, chief executive of AT&T, told antitrust subcommittees in both the House and Senate....


DirecTV ARPU: $100.16 (1Q 2014)
Time Warner ARPU: $148.70 (2013)
Comcast ARPU: $151.30 (2013)
AT&T UVERSE Triple Play Customer ARPU: $170.00

With the cable companies and AT&T offering bundles including non-television services I'd expect the prices to reflect the Internet and phone portion of their sales. But AT&T is already higher than Comcast and Time Warner ... and for TV only DirecTV isn't inexpensive. The companies with the highest prices merging is supposed to bring prices down?


----------



## damondlt

James Long said:


> DirecTV ARPU: $100.16 (1Q 2014)
> Time Warner ARPU: $148.70 (2013)
> Comcast ARPU: $151.30 (2013)
> AT&T UVERSE Triple Play Customer ARPU: $170.00
> 
> With the cable companies and AT&T offering bundles including non-television services I'd expect the prices to reflect the Internet and phone portion of their sales. But AT&T is already higher than Comcast and Time Warner ... and for TV only DirecTV isn't inexpensive. The companies with the highest prices merging is supposed to bring prices down?


Directv with only internet already cost me $250.
So any triple play that's under $200 IMO seems like a hell of a deal.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using Tapatalk


----------



## Diana C

damondlt said:


> Directv with only internet already cost me $250.
> So any triple play that's under $200 IMO seems like a hell of a deal.
> Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using Tapatalk


Remember these are only averages...you and I are NOT average.


----------



## Rich

slice1900 said:


> What he's saying there is not at all wrong, I don't know why you guys find it so humorous.
> 
> Today Directv can't bundle, because they only deliver TV service. AT&T can't bundle very effectively, because they only have TV service in a small area. Combining the two will improve their ability to bundle, and therefore be more competitive with cable providers who have been very effective in winning customers via bundling.
> 
> I'm sure there were a lot of half truths (at best) during the hearing, but this wasn't one of them.


What about all the good folks who don't want bundling? I certainly don't.

Rich


----------



## Rich

Diana C said:


> Allowing DirecTV plus AT&T to compete more effectively together than they can separately is not the same as exerting a downward pressure on prices generally. For one thing, they can only do a full triple play bundle to those households where AT&T can provide broadband. Even if they extend wireless broadband it won't cover the entire country, and it remains to be seen if wireless broadband can be delivered at a speed and a cost that is competitive with the alternatives. In a few specific cases the statement might be true, but on a national basis it won't move prices one penny.


From our experience, AT&T can't supply a decent cell phone signal (I know some of you get good signal strength, but we don't and I can compare it to Verizon's superb cell phone network at any time, since my wife has a company supplied iPhone with AT&T service). The ONLY times I've had a conversation with her that came across as clearly as Verizon to Verizon were all the times she called me from Europe. Far as I'm concerned, AT&T doesn't meet its subscriber's needs now, it's gonna get better with the proposed merger?

Rich


----------



## Diana C

My experience is identical...I have an AT&T iPhone from work, but our personal cell service is with Verizon. In my experience AT&T doesn't have enough capacity in their network, resulting in severely overcrowded cells. At Newark airport, for example, you can get 5 bars but be unable to place call because the cell is maxed out.

But that is a New York Metro area problem. In many other parts of the country AT&T service is quite good. When I am at my client in Maryland I get 4 to 5 bars with AT&T and virtually no signal at all from Verizon. In Massachusetts I get good service from both.

I think the real issue with the idea of wireless broadband is not so much reliability of service as it will be cost and capacity. What kind of throughput will the customer get, and at what cost? Extending even wireless broadband into really rural areas is awfully expensive. They will either have to charge a lot more to rural customers than they charge urban ones, or else spread the cost out across all customers. Either way, I don't see how that lowers any prices.


----------



## fleckrj

Verizon and Sprint have an advantage over AT&T and T-Mobile for wireless in most areas of the country based on the frequencies they are assigned. It is all about physics and has very little to do with the way the companies are run.


----------



## inkahauts

James Long said:


> DirecTV ARPU: $100.16 (1Q 2014)
> Time Warner ARPU: $148.70 (2013)
> Comcast ARPU: $151.30 (2013)
> AT&T UVERSE Triple Play Customer ARPU: $170.00
> 
> With the cable companies and AT&T offering bundles including non-television services I'd expect the prices to reflect the Internet and phone portion of their sales. But AT&T is already higher than Comcast and Time Warner ... and for TV only DirecTV isn't inexpensive. The companies with the highest prices merging is supposed to bring prices down?


Possibly the fact that uverse tv costs are far higher than directv's? Not just in contracts but also in upkeep of infrastructure that's a set price that has to be shared among however many customers they have.


----------



## Rich

Diana C said:


> My experience is identical...I have an AT&T iPhone from work, but our personal cell service is with Verizon. In my experience AT&T doesn't have enough capacity in their network, resulting in severely overcrowded cells. At Newark airport, for example, you can get 5 bars but be unable to place call because the cell is maxed out.
> 
> But that is a New York Metro area problem. In many other parts of the country AT&T service is quite good. When I am at my client in Maryland I get 4 to 5 bars with AT&T and virtually no signal at all from Verizon. In Massachusetts I get good service from both.
> 
> I think the real issue with the idea of wireless broadband is not so much reliability of service as it will be cost and capacity. What kind of throughput will the customer get, and at what cost? Extending even wireless broadband into really rural areas is awfully expensive. They will either have to charge a lot more to rural customers than they charge urban ones, or else spread the cost out across all customers. Either way, I don't see how that lowers any prices.


Stuart explained the reason my wife's cell phone works so well in Europe. If we had the same infrastructure in the States we wouldn't (why is there an "L" in wouldn't?) have these problems. I think what Stuart's explanation boiled down to was Europe allows for more cell towers than we do and they are different in some way.

Why we don't have enough cell towers defeats me. I can walk one short block and be on River Road, which parallels the Raritan River and is considered an historic area. But the historic area has really high utility poles lining one side of the road. When you really look at River Road, the utility poles (which I rarely even notice anymore) are right there to be seen and they aren't pretty. Would a couple cell towers actually make any difference? Probably. We have a group of people that live in the historic district that go nuts every time someone tries to build something or use a home as a place of worship, stuff like that.

So, Europe does it right and we do it wrong. What's wrong with us? Can we really be this stupid?

Rich


----------



## fleckrj

Rich said:


> So, Europe does it right and we do it wrong. What's wrong with us? Can we really be this stupid?


We want good cell phone coverage, but we do not want to see a cell tower. Homeowners pressure local governments to ban towers in their neighborhoods, so we all suffer. It is the "not in my back yard" thing. In Europe, towers are put where they are needed - not where they can only offend the people without any political clout.


----------



## dennisj00

Or worse, the towers that are 'disguised' as TREES . . . 75' higher than the canopy and a really bad looking tree!


----------



## Herdfan

dennisj00 said:


> Or worse, the towers that are 'disguised' as TREES . . . 75' higher than the canopy and a really bad looking tree!


Saw my first one of those in Vegas. It didn't really help.


----------



## Laxguy

dennisj00 said:


> Or worse, the towers that are 'disguised' as TREES . . . 75' higher than the canopy and a really bad looking tree!


Now if it were surrounded by growing greenery, that'd be another story. A matte brown or camo on regular towers may be better than the "tree" look, regardless how painted... Or maybe they should just go for the 'Transformer' look (as in the kids movie, not electric ones.)


----------



## inkahauts

dennisj00 said:


> Or worse, the towers that are 'disguised' as TREES . . . 75' higher than the canopy and a really bad looking tree!


The ones in our area are pretty good, especially a few of the palm tree ones we have.

The best ones are probably the ones they are starting to put at churches. They look like a small tower with a steeple roof, and the antennas are under the roof so you see nothing but what looks like a regular building. Those are very smart IMHO.


----------



## Drucifer

dennisj00 said:


> Or worse, the towers that are 'disguised' as TREES . . . 75' higher than the canopy and a really bad looking tree!


Yep, there is one here in Cold Spring, NY. It is not much higher then the trees around it.


----------



## Tom Servo

Rich said:


> Why we don't have enough cell towers defeats me. I can walk one short block and be on River Road, which parallels the Raritan River and is considered an historic area. But the historic area has really high utility poles lining one side of the road. When you really look at River Road, the utility poles (which I rarely even notice anymore) are right there to be seen and they aren't pretty. Would a couple cell towers actually make any difference? Probably. We have a group of people that live in the historic district that go nuts every time someone tries to build something or use a home as a place of worship, stuff like that.


What I don't understand is why more utility companies don't seek to rent their pylons to wireless providers. There's a few places up around Memphis where cell arrays are hung on high tension power pylons. A little pipe extends up above the power lines and the array sits up there. It's no more ugly than having high tension lines running through your area so it's a pretty smart approach to hiding the cell site.

Of course, I'm a radio/RF nerd so the idea of a stack of antennas on a monopole behind a business or in a neighborhood doesn't bother me in the slightest. And I consider myself very lucky that my current Verizon wireless service is great at home because there's a fairly tall self-supporting lattice tower across the highway from my subdivision. I get a good -65 dBm on the 1x/RTT (voice) band and around -79 dBm on the LTE (700 MHz) band. The signals were actually stronger last year, before they built more houses between me and the tower, and before Verizon tweaked the array and added the XLTE (1700 MHz AWS) patch antennas.

I'd be willing to suck it up and bundle cellular with AT&T if it meant a DirecTV discount, I suppose, but there's no nearby tower so my signal would be sub-optimal. And I'm not convinced that their very recent LTE rollout is anything special. Last I heard they had backhaul issues with CenturyLink and were topped out at 2 Mbps download speeds on their HSPA+ 3G network. Unless that issue is remedied, LTE won't mean bupkis to speeds. It'll be hard for them to beat the 52 Mbps download speed I get here at home or the average 12-14 Mbps I see elsewhere.


----------



## longrider

Around here they get rather creative to hide the towers, this is a rural area and there are several that look like the windmill section of a wind driven water well. There is a church with three crosses on a hill behind the church, and one person has a really fat flagpole. As i get into town any building taller than 3 or 4 stories has antennas on the roof.

I would have no issue even with a plain cell tower, I really don't get the whole thing that anything to do with technology is an eyesore. If you think nature your house is an eyesore but that is OK??? However the satellite dish, OTA antenna, A/C condenser, etc all must be hidden (yes, I know about OTARD but the law is not the issue here it is the thinking of people) The fact I can see what I need to use modern tech is a non-issue to me


----------



## Rich

fleckrj said:


> We want good cell phone coverage, but we do not want to see a cell tower. Homeowners pressure local governments to ban towers in their neighborhoods, so we all suffer. It is the "not in my back yard" thing. In Europe, towers are put where they are needed - not where they can only offend the people without any political clout.


What's worse, a well constructed cell tower or a brand new utility pole that's out of plumb (we have a lot of that here, apparently the lowest bidders on road jobs don't use levels)? I'll take a nice looking cell tower over a leaning utility pole anytime.

Rich


----------



## Rich

dennisj00 said:


> Or worse, the towers that are 'disguised' as TREES . . . 75' higher than the canopy and a really bad looking tree!


We have them. Damn near ran off the road the first time I saw one.

Rich


----------



## Rich

Tom Servo said:


> What I don't understand is why more utility companies don't seek to rent their pylons to wireless providers. There's a few places up around Memphis where cell arrays are hung on high tension power pylons. A little pipe extends up above the power lines and the array sits up there. It's no more ugly than having high tension lines running through your area so it's a pretty smart approach to hiding the cell site.


Well, there you go! A good sensible answer. Kudos!

Rich


----------



## Athlon646464

*No joke - Sen. Al Franken asks regulators to 'carefully scrutinize" AT&T-DirecTV deal*

(FierceTelecom.com) - U.S. Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) has turned his anti-merger fervor towards AT&T's proposed acquisition of DirecTV.

In a letter to FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler and Assistant Attorney General William Baer, Franken urged regulators to "carefully scrutinize" the deal with the viewpoint that "the combined entity will have enhanced power in virtually every corner of the telecommunications market."

Full Story Here









Franken


----------



## SteveHas

Good, these corporate mergers done't help the consumer, or our economy as a whole. They simply eliminate competition and choice, and are driven by the markets demand for double digit growth every year.


----------



## Drucifer

longrider said:


> Around here they get rather creative to hide the towers, this is a rural area and there are several that look like the windmill section of a wind driven water well. There is a church with three crosses on a hill behind the church, and one person has a really fat flagpole. As i get into town any building taller than 3 or 4 stories has antennas on the roof.
> 
> I would have no issue even with a plain cell tower, I really don't get the whole thing that *anything to do with technology is an eyesore*. If you think nature your house is an eyesore but that is OK??? However the satellite dish, OTA antenna, A/C condenser, etc all must be hidden (yes, I know about OTARD but the law is not the issue here it is the thinking of people) The fact I can see what I need to use modern tech is a non-issue to me


Telephone/power poles are now quaint. A small town without 'em, look like they're missing something.


----------



## Rich

Drucifer said:


> Telephone/power poles are now quaint. A small town without 'em, look like they're missing something.


Yup, also better to have the lines up on poles than buried. Buried power lines are a disaster waiting to happen. Remember all the really old pictures of NYC and the myriad of cables on the poles?

Rich


----------



## txfeinbergs

Rich said:


> Yup, also better to have the lines up on poles than buried. Buried power lines are a disaster waiting to happen. Remember all the really old pictures of NYC and the myriad of cables on the poles?
> 
> Rich


Are you being sarcastic? Can't tell. Lines on poles go down pretty quickly in an ice storm and heavy wind storms.


----------



## slice1900

Rich said:


> Yup, also better to have the lines up on poles than buried. Buried power lines are a disaster waiting to happen. Remember all the really old pictures of NYC and the myriad of cables on the poles?
> 
> Rich


You mean like these?


















Lots of good pics of some crazy wiring in other countries at this site:

http://www.darkroastedblend.com/2011/09/crazy-wiring-drb-series.html


----------



## inkahauts

Rich said:


> Yup, also better to have the lines up on poles than buried. Buried power lines are a disaster waiting to happen. Remember all the really old pictures of NYC and the myriad of cables on the poles?
> 
> Rich


They may depend on where you are, because here in southern california' they always bury them in any new develope,nt, as they should. There is zero reason to put power above ground here, and I can't imagine why you'd want them that way in any new properly planed community.


----------



## slice1900

inkahauts said:


> They may depend on where you are, because here in southern california' they always bury them in any new develope,nt, as they should. There is zero reason to put power above ground here, and I can't imagine why you'd want them that way in any new properly planed community.


I think he was being sarcastic, in reply to the suggestion that towns that have no telephone poles look like something is missing.

Pretty sure everywhere in the country runs utilities underground in any new development. Where I live, any neighborhood newer than about 50 years old has underground utilities.


----------



## longrider

slice1900 said:



> Pretty sure everywhere in the country runs utilities underground in any new development. Where I live, any neighborhood newer than about 50 years old has underground utilities.


For cities I will agree with that statement but in rural areas it is still run aerial at least here in Colorado. Even in small towns it was only maybe 15 years ago they started burying the power. My house is just under 20 years and it is aerial. IREA (my electric provider) has stated that they prefer to run aerial and only bury where required. In an area not subject to ice storms the advantages far outweigh the disadvantages, the only real disadvantage being aesthetics.


----------



## jimmie57

You will find cities close to sea level have the poles that carry the power, telephone and cable internet lines.
We have them here in Texas City,TX.


----------



## slice1900

longrider said:


> For cities I will agree with that statement but in rural areas it is still run aerial at least here in Colorado. Even in small towns it was only maybe 15 years ago they started burying the power. My house is just under 20 years and it is aerial. IREA (my electric provider) has stated that they prefer to run aerial and only bury where required. In an area not subject to ice storms the advantages far outweigh the disadvantages, the only real disadvantage being aesthetics.


Colorado has mountains and granite bedrock close to the surface, so running underground is going to be a lot more expensive than areas with clay or sandy soil and less rugged landscape.

My comment really only applies to those who get municipal water and sewer. The developers already have to trench for that, so the city will make them trench for electric, telephone, cable and gas as well. Where you have well/septic, its a crapshoot what you get.

If you have municipal water/sewer but utilities on poles, I guess I'm surprised, since trenching a sewer line is one hell of a lot more expensive than a utility trench, since it is wider and much deeper. And you'd think people live in the mountains for views of the mountains, not telephone poles


----------



## Rich

txfeinbergs said:


> Are you being sarcastic? Can't tell. Lines on poles go down pretty quickly in an ice storm and heavy wind storms.


I'm very rarely sarcastic. I've been thru nightmares with underground wiring. If you ever had to "bump" a 4160 VAC line to see which manhole flew up, you'd understand what I meant. We spent a ton of money getting all our feeders out of the ground and our tunnels. Put in all new utility poles and never had a problem after that. Plant started up in 1936 and everything was underground. Must have seemed like a good idea at the time, but 60 years later, we had to redo the whole system. Every pole was plumb, too. I walked around with a level when they were being installed. Drove the contractor batty. We lost months of production while all this was going on, that made the project even more expensive. Very stressful period of my life.

I really didn't write that post with any sarcasm in mind. Now I'm gonna have to go back and reread it to see what I did wrong.

Rich


----------



## Rich

inkahauts said:


> They may depend on where you are, because here in southern california' they always bury them in any new develope,nt, as they should. There is zero reason to put power above ground here, and I can't imagine why you'd want them that way in any new properly planed community.


SoCal's a lot different from NJ. We have developments where everything is buried, some that need to be, some that don't. Sticking power lines underground really isn't a good idea when you're looking at a long range plan. As I said in a previous post, we got 60 years out of underground feeders, then spent a fortune putting them where we could see the problem immediately.

Rich


----------



## Rich

slice1900 said:


> I think he was being sarcastic, in reply to the suggestion that towns that have no telephone poles look like something is missing.
> 
> Pretty sure everywhere in the country runs utilities underground in any new development. Where I live, any neighborhood newer than about 50 years old has underground utilities.


I wasn't being sarcastic. Most utilities have to be underground for obvious reasons. Gas, water things like that must be below the frost line. Power lines don't have to be buried and I don't think they should be. Just an opinion based on my experience. If we have a pole knocked over by a car or something similar happens, it's pretty obvious why power is lost. Doesn't take long for our power company to fix it. Usually a few hours to put in a new pole and get the wiring back in place. Rarely more than a day. It's really hard to tell where faults are underground. We considered ourselves lucky to able to bump the feeder lines to get an idea where the problems were if one failed. It was that or dig forever looking for it.

Rich


----------



## Rich

jimmie57 said:


> You will find cities close to sea level have the poles that carry the power, telephone and cable internet lines.
> We have them here in Texas City,TX.


Yup, been there, seen them. We had a huge plant there.

Rich


----------



## Rich

slice1900 said:


> You mean like these?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lots of good pics of some crazy wiring in other countries at this site:
> 
> http://www.darkroastedblend.com/2011/09/crazy-wiring-drb-series.html


Much as I'd like to see those pictures, I can't open them. I'll try the link. If it's in India, I've seen what they've done there. Brutal.

Rich


----------



## Rich

Let me go off topic and address this "sarcastic" thing. I try really hard not to use sarcasm. I think it's a weakness to use it. I'm surprised and disturbed by those posts. Nuff said?

Rich


----------



## inkahauts

Rich, here it seems like we have vaults every block or two and it's all in conduit they pull it through. Seems like it should be pretty easy to monitor each section and pull lines out and put new in when there is issues. Maybe it's different in a plant built in the 30's? Or do you think even that isn't easy? Cause it seems easy to pinpoint from my perspective. 

Also when it's put in today there no need to worry about future infrastructure increases because of the way they "Lego" the system's down here in general for new areas. The only way they'd have to start over is if they changed an area to twenty story high rises and that's not going to happen. And even if it did they would start over for everything else too anyway.


----------



## txfeinbergs

Rich said:


> Let me go off topic and address this "sarcastic" thing. I try really hard not to use sarcasm. I think it's a weakness to use it. I'm surprised and disturbed by those posts. Nuff said?
> 
> Rich


I wouldn't have even bothered replying further on it. Not a big deal. I just was rather shocked that someone would actually support above ground wiring after all the ice storms, but you explained your reasoning, so no big deal. I was just genuinely asking.


----------



## James Long

slice1900 said:


> Pretty sure everywhere in the country runs utilities underground in any new development. Where I live, any neighborhood newer than about 50 years old has underground utilities.


And that can be traced back to the thought of technology being ugly. Out of sight, out of mind. A new development with expensive homes does not want a line of poles in the back yards. Yuppies won't buy that.

It reminds me of Back to the Future II where when Marty is delivered to the bad neighborhood version of 1985 the city is dirty, dingy and there are high voltage lines running past Marty's house ... as if those would not be needed in a nicer 1985. We have been trained to think that those things are ugly and undesirable. Yet we all use them ... even people in buried wire neighborhoods need the massive high voltage lines to get power to their cities.

Buried utilities have their problems. Anything above a "last mile" delivery will likely be on poles in suburban or rural communities. It comes down to what works best where.



slice1900 said:


> My comment really only applies to those who get municipal water and sewer. The developers already have to trench for that, so the city will make them trench for electric, telephone, cable and gas as well. Where you have well/septic, its a crapshoot what you get.


What works best where. There may be zoning rules where the community has set standards requiring buried utilities in new development ... but zoning comes back to the will of the people (or so it should). Regardless of the zoning, the developers have to trade cost vs sales. The required trenches for water, sewer and natural gas (if available) are not going to help a developer with phone, cable, electric and other utilities. It becomes "yet another trench" or one more thing to pay for.


----------



## Rich

inkahauts said:


> Rich, here it seems like we have vaults every block or two and it's all in conduit they pull it through. Seems like it should be pretty easy to monitor each section and pull lines out and put new in when there is issues. Maybe it's different in a plant built in the 30's? Or do you think even that isn't easy? Cause it seems easy to pinpoint from my perspective.
> 
> Also when it's put in today there no need to worry about future infrastructure increases because of the way they "Lego" the system's down here in general for new areas. The only way they'd have to start over is if they changed an area to twenty story high rises and that's not going to happen. And even if it did they would start over for everything else too anyway.


Well, we were working with high voltages, so perhaps I'm being a bit conservative about the lines being buried. I didn't think they'd use metal conduit tho, I would expect PVC to be used. Conduit buried is not a good idea. I know it's not supposed to rust, but I've found rusted and cracked buried conduit. I've even seen it rust on outside walls. And the metal conduit covers really rust. I dunno, it's just an opinion based on years of experience with buried power lines that most people don't have a chance to experience. For instance, how many people that read my prior posts in this thread have actually seen a large feeder "bumped"? Or even know what that means? The end result of the bumping is a manhole cover so heavy it takes two guys to lift it flying into the air. We had to cordon off the streets and areas where were doing the bumping, of course. Then there's the guy in the substation that has the really cheery job of turning the power on and off quickly, never knowing if the switch is gonna blow up in his face. We approached those jobs with great trepidation. Once we had the general location the backhoes came out and kept digging until we found the problems. It's really not something most electricians have experience with.

Rich


----------



## Rich

txfeinbergs said:


> I wouldn't have even bothered replying further on it. Not a big deal. I just was rather shocked that someone would actually support above ground wiring after all the ice storms, but you explained your reasoning, so no big deal. I was just genuinely asking.


Didn't come from you first, came from an unexpected source. Not a big deal, I just wanted to stop it before it got worse.

Rich


----------



## Rich

James Long said:


> And that can be traced back to the thought of technology being ugly. Out of sight, out of mind. A new development with expensive homes does not want a line of poles in the back yards. Yuppies won't buy that.
> 
> It reminds me of Back to the Future II where when Marty is delivered to the bad neighborhood version of 1985 the city is dirty, dingy and there are high voltage lines running past Marty's house ... as if those would not be needed in a nicer 1985. We have been trained to think that those things are ugly and undesirable. Yet we all use them ... even people in buried wire neighborhoods need the massive high voltage lines to get power to their cities.
> 
> Buried utilities have their problems. Anything above a "last mile" delivery will likely be on poles in suburban or rural communities. It comes down to what works best where.
> 
> What works best where. There may be zoning rules where the community has set standards requiring buried utilities in new development ... but zoning comes back to the will of the people (or so it should). Regardless of the zoning, the developers have to trade cost vs sales. The required trenches for water, sewer and natural gas (if available) are not going to help a developer with phone, cable, electric and other utilities. It becomes "yet another trench" or one more thing to pay for.


Yeah, I doubt that electrical lines could be put in the same trench. That means you have to trot out ground radar (we actually used that and it was pretty unreliable) to make sure a hole we dug wasn't near any buried gas or water lines. We still ended up hitting both lines at times. It's hard to work with big equipment such as backhoes when you're not really positive what's buried where. If a pole comes down, you know right away where to look. I'll take easy to find over aesthetics every time. Just an opinion.

Rich


----------



## damondlt

There are many issues that can cause issues with running underground power.
Nothing is 100% waterproof underground. 
Also issues now require more equipment to dig up rather than just a bucket truck.
And lots more middle men standing around looking in a big hole rather than working at our expense. 
It way easier to and cheaper to run above ground. 
Sure we know it's better against power outages in the short term, but long term damages from erosion is far worse in the long run underground.


----------



## Laxguy

It's an aesthetic consideration for many. 

Practically, if the situation allows, under grounding can be done in concrete tunnels, so there's no digging for repairs. But that takes a certain density and a certain willingness to fork over $$$.


----------



## unixguru

Rich said:


> Well, we were working with high voltages, so perhaps I'm being a bit conservative about the lines being buried. I didn't think they'd use metal conduit tho, I would expect PVC to be used. Conduit buried is not a good idea. I know it's not supposed to rust, but I've found rusted and cracked buried conduit. I've even seen it rust on outside walls. And the metal conduit covers really rust.


Like most infrastructure in this country. Lots of buried stuff that is past its life expectancy. Plus above-ground.

Here in Minnesota we've seen these things a lot lately. A deadly bridge collapse. Another bridge that was ready to drop. Major water lines in Minneapolis and St Paul bursting in winter.


----------



## Rich

damondlt said:


> There are many issues that can cause issues with running underground power.
> Nothing is 100% waterproof underground.
> Also issues now require more equipment to dig up rather than just a bucket truck.
> And lots more middle men standing around looking in a big hole rather than working at our expense.
> It way easier to and cheaper to run above ground.
> Sure we know it's better against power outages in the short term, but long term damages from erosion is far worse in the long run underground.


Total agreement with you.

Rich


----------



## Rich

unixguru said:


> Like most infrastructure in this country. Lots of buried stuff that is past its life expectancy. Plus above-ground.
> 
> Here in Minnesota we've seen these things a lot lately. A deadly bridge collapse. Another bridge that was ready to drop. Major water lines in Minneapolis and St Paul bursting in winter.


Oh, you oughta see what NYC goes thru with its buried utilities. They never took a long range look at what could happen. We're also in an area with seismic activity.

Rich


----------



## Rich

Laxguy said:


> It's an aesthetic consideration for many.
> 
> Practically, if the situation allows, under grounding can be done in concrete tunnels, so there's no digging for repairs. But that takes a certain density and a certain willingness to fork over $$$.


Of course, I understand the aesthetic considerations. But there's practicality to be considered too. Simply put, it's far quicker to replace a downed pole (I know how to do that, it's actually about a fifteen minute job once they get the auger and pole onsite) than it is to dig up a whole street.

Rich


----------



## Laxguy

Rich said:


> Of course, I understand the aesthetic considerations. But there's practicality to be considered too. Simply put, it's far quicker to replace a downed pole (I know how to do that, it's actually about a fifteen minute job once they get the auger and pole onsite) than it is to dig up a whole street.


Vaults, man, vaults! Or tunnels if you will. No digging save the initial installation.


----------



## Drucifer

Rich said:


> Oh, you oughta see what *NYC goes thru with its buried utilities*. They never took a long range look at what could happen. We're also in an area with seismic activity.
> 
> Rich


It's water & steam pipes that regularly burst.

As to electricity, an occasional transformer will blown. But they blow no matter where you place 'em. And as to the dogs getting shocked, that always seems to be a bad install of a feed into a building.


----------



## peds48

Rich said:


> *Oh, you oughta see what NYC goes thru with its buried utilities.* They never took a long range look at what could happen. We're also in an area with seismic activity.
> 
> Rich





Drucifer said:


> *It's water & steam pipes that regularly burst.*
> 
> As to electricity, an occasional transformer will blown. But they blow no matter where you place 'em. And as to the dogs getting shocked, that always seems to be a bad install of a feed into a building.


While is true that most pipes that burst are water and steam, they happen to be in close proximity to the electric wires. But this is not an argument not to do underground wiring, if that is the case, we should stop building houses next to ocean or for that matter build houses in California one of the most quakes prone states in the USA


----------



## cypherx

What are the steam pipes for in NYC? Also what is bumping? Tried doing google search and didn't find anything really related to electrical.

My neighborhood is underground and I'm glad. Wish it was all underground to save from power outages during storms. I swear we have a weak connection to our development because our electric will still go out, but the entire development. 

Wish they could do what routers, routing protocol and BGP does for the Internet. Can't get here, route around this way.


----------



## slice1900

cypherx said:


> Wish they could do what routers, routing protocol and BGP does for the Internet. Can't get here, route around this way.


They can, but redundant power costs more. Some but not all substations will have more than one link to the grid, but it isn't going to be done for the line running down your street connection to your house.

If you're a major commercial customer you can get redundant power, a lot of larger companies will have two or sometimes even three separate utility feeds from different substations (and even different providers if they're near enough to another) But I'm sure that's not cheap.


----------



## Rich

cypherx said:


> What are the steam pipes for in NYC? Also what is bumping? Tried doing google search and didn't find anything really related to electrical.
> 
> My neighborhood is underground and I'm glad. Wish it was all underground to save from power outages during storms. I swear we have a weak connection to our development because our electric will still go out, but the entire development.
> 
> Wish they could do what routers, routing protocol and BGP does for the Internet. Can't get here, route around this way.


The steam pipes are used for heating buildings, I think. Bumping is quickly turning a big switch on and off when you know you have a grounded hot wire. Since OSHA's advent and their enormous effect on the working place, I'd think bumping has become a thing of the past (most of the time). It's not a safe method and just doing it takes a lot of nerve. What you end up with is a hole in the ground or a manhole cover flying into the air. That gives you an idea of where to dig to find the fault.

Rich


----------



## cypherx

Wow public heat?! I would think each building would have their own HVAC system. Bumping sounds pretty serious!

The departure of this thread has really been interesting!


----------



## peds48

cypherx said:


> W
> 
> The departure of this thread has really been interesting!


Perhaps is time for one of this

:backtotop


----------



## longrider

This would also fit:


----------



## Drucifer

cypherx said:


> What are the steam pipes for in NYC?


Heat. Con Ed heats a lot of the business buildings. Really a lot.


----------



## Drucifer

Rich said:


> The steam pipes are used for heating buildings, I think. *Bumping is quickly turning a big switch on and off when you know you have a grounded hot wire.* Since OSHA's advent and their enormous effect on the working place, I'd think bumping has become a thing of the past (most of the time). It's not a safe method and just doing it takes a lot of nerve. What you end up with is a hole in the ground or a manhole cover flying into the air. That gives you an idea of where to dig to find the fault.
> 
> Rich


The phone companies do that with a 630 set. It burns an intermittent trouble in a solid short circuit. Never in the 30 years I work there, did I hear of high voltage making it all the way to a customer phone. While the procedure is the same, it wasn't called 'bumping' at the phone company. Having a senior moment and have temporary forgotten what they called this procedure. .


----------



## inkahauts

Rich said:


> Well, we were working with high voltages, so perhaps I'm being a bit conservative about the lines being buried. I didn't think they'd use metal conduit tho, I would expect PVC to be used. Conduit buried is not a good idea. I know it's not supposed to rust, but I've found rusted and cracked buried conduit. I've even seen it rust on outside walls. And the metal conduit covers really rust. I dunno, it's just an opinion based on years of experience with buried power lines that most people don't have a chance to experience. For instance, how many people that read my prior posts in this thread have actually seen a large feeder "bumped"? Or even know what that means? The end result of the bumping is a manhole cover so heavy it takes two guys to lift it flying into the air. We had to cordon off the streets and areas where were doing the bumping, of course. Then there's the guy in the substation that has the really cheery job of turning the power on and off quickly, never knowing if the switch is gonna blow up in his face. We approached those jobs with great trepidation. Once we had the general location the backhoes came out and kept digging until we found the problems. It's really not something most electricians have experience with.
> 
> Rich


Oh no, they are using plastic pvc around here for conduit.


----------



## jimmie57

This is related to the TS post.
Microsoft has announced that they will terminate 18,000 jobs in the next year. This is due to "Synergies" / overlap in jobs from their buyout of Nokia.
I can see this happening with DirecTV and AT&T getting together.


----------



## Laxguy

I'm not sure Microsoft has ever released an announcement that was fully accurate or honest. The layoffs are unlikely due solely to the acquisition; their whole business is in decline. 

And, yes, there should be some redundancy and hence jobs lost after the buyout by ATT.


----------



## Rich

cypherx said:


> Wow public heat?! I would think each building would have their own HVAC system. Bumping sounds pretty serious!
> 
> The departure of this thread has really been interesting!


NYC wasn't designed in any way, shape or form that I know of. Apparently, at some time, running steam from the steam gennies to the buildings must have been the easiest thing to do. Yeah, bumping is really serious, I always wondered if the guy assigned to that task knew just how dangerous it was. The switches were 4160 VAC and you can only try to imagine the power generated by that bump on a grounded line. I really doubt that OSHA allows that to happen anymore.

Going off topic usually results in interesting subjects and much is to be learned. So much it makes my head ache.

Rich


----------



## Rich

Drucifer said:


> The phone companies do that with a 630 set. It burns an intermittent trouble in a solid short circuit. Never in the 30 years I work there, did I hear of high voltage making it all the way to a customer phone. While the procedure is the same, it wasn't called 'bumping' at the phone company. Having a senior moment and have temporary forgotten what they called this procedure. .


I've actually done the same thing on 120 volt lines. Vaporized more than one screwdriver doing it. Never had the nerve to try it on a higher voltage.

Rich


----------



## Rich

inkahauts said:


> Oh no, they are using plastic pvc around here for conduit.


I would hope so.

Rich


----------



## Rich

jimmie57 said:


> This is related to the TS post.
> Microsoft has announced that they will terminate 18,000 jobs in the next year. This is due to "Synergies" / overlap in jobs from their buyout of Nokia.
> I can see this happening with DirecTV and AT&T getting together.


Of course it's gonna happen. Happens every time. We called it "getting rid of dead wood". I'll bet there's a lot of folks walking around D* with clenched sphincter muscles. The bigger company always leans towards the people they know best.

Rich


----------



## Athlon646464

*Update: **AT&T and DirecTV Merger Passes Brazil Antitrust Regulators*

(Latinpost.com) - AT&T and DirecTV's proposed merger has gained significant steam, the company said during its second quarter earnings call.

The deal has passed cleanly through antitrust regulators in Brazil and reviewing committees in three U.S. states, AT&T CFO John Stephens said to investors and analysts Wednesday....

Full Story Here


----------



## Athlon646464

*Update: **The FCC wants to hear what you think about AT&T buying DirecTV*

(WashingtonPost.com) - The Federal Communications Commission has begun taking public comments as part of its consideration of the AT&T-DirecTV merger, a $49 billion affair that would combine the nation's biggest satellite TV provider with its second-biggest wireless carrier....

Public notice PDF

Full Story Here


----------



## Mikej0530

I do not like AT&T at all. I left Directv because of this possible merger. The only thing this can do is lead to higher prices. AT&T will find away to mess what makes directv great.


----------



## inkahauts

Wow really? Prices and their increases for TV really aren't going to change even with this merger and if anything be a bit slower to rise due to bundling.


----------



## boukengreen

Mikej0530 said:


> I do not like AT&T at all. I left Directv because of this possible merger. The only thing this can do is lead to higher prices. AT&T will find away to mess what makes directv great.


wow you left even through the merger is still a year out and FCC still has to approve it


----------



## peds48

boukengreen said:


> wow you left even through the merger is still a year out and FCC still has to approve it


WOW, talking about "jumping the gun" at least I still have a year or two to find me another job if this goes through


----------



## dpeters11

boukengreen said:


> wow you left even through the merger is still a year out and FCC still has to approve it


That just shows how much he hates AT&T 

I don't know if I'm missing something, but what does the merger have to do with RFD-TV? I have to say I'm impressed with the Rural lobby. Almost every comment I click on is about keeping RFD-TV on DirecTV. But most don't mention the merger as causing the channel to be at risk. I'm not sure it's the same as Comcast dropping it, I'm not sure how common cable is to the farming community compared to satellite.


----------



## harsh

boukengreen said:


> wow you left even through the merger is still a year out and FCC still has to approve it


As soon as the merger is approved by the two gubmint agencies, the scavenging will begin in earnest. You know that AT&T has all sorts of plans on what they're going to do with all that money DIRECTV has been printing (21% profit) in the US market.

The year to get it done was offered up as an estimate; it could happen sooner or it could happen later.


----------



## inkahauts

harsh said:


> As soon as the merger is approved by the two gubmint agencies, the scavenging will begin in earnest. You know that AT&T has all sorts of plans on what they're going to do with all that money DIRECTV has been printing (21% profit) in the US market.
> 
> The year to get it done was offered up as an estimate; it could happen sooner or it could happen later.


You do know Att has more money than they even seem to know what to do with even without this merger. This merger isn't about gaining a little more profit from a new subsidiary.


----------



## crkeehn

dpeters11 said:


> That just shows how much he hates AT&T
> 
> I don't know if I'm missing something, but what does the merger have to do with RFD-TV? I have to say I'm impressed with the Rural lobby. Almost every comment I click on is about keeping RFD-TV on DirecTV. But most don't mention the merger as causing the channel to be at risk. I'm not sure it's the same as Comcast dropping it, I'm not sure how common cable is to the farming community compared to satellite.


If you go to the RFD-TV website, they are actively soliciting their viewers to comment on the merger. They have direct links to the Comcast and the ATT mergers.


----------



## boukengreen

dpeters11 said:


> That just shows how much he hates AT&T
> 
> I don't know if I'm missing something, but what does the merger have to do with RFD-TV? I have to say I'm impressed with the Rural lobby. Almost every comment I click on is about keeping RFD-TV on DirecTV. But most don't mention the merger as causing the channel to be at risk. I'm not sure it's the same as Comcast dropping it, I'm not sure how common cable is to the farming community compared to satellite.


i swapped to AT&T 3 years ago because Verizon would not pickup at my house and I have had nothing but good things to say about them


----------



## dpeters11

crkeehn said:


> If you go to the RFD-TV website, they are actively soliciting their viewers to comment on the merger. They have direct links to the Comcast and the ATT mergers.


It would probably help if the comments mentioned that they were concerned the merger would affect the channel. Many don't mention it at all, just not to allow the channel itself from being pulled.


----------



## dpeters11

boukengreen said:


> i swapped to AT&T 3 years ago because Verizon would not pickup at my house and I have had nothing but good things to say about them


As I've never had AT&T service, I'm not for or against it, as long as they don't make a change I don't like


----------



## Rich

boukengreen said:


> i swapped to AT&T 3 years ago because Verizon would not pickup at my house and I have had nothing but good things to say about them


Well, we now know you don't live in NJ or NY.

Rich


----------



## Rich

dpeters11 said:


> As I've never had AT&T service, I'm not for or against it, as long as they don't make a change I don't like


It's not as good as Verizon here. When my wife goes to Europe, the calls come in like she's standing next to me. I've already had that explained to me, Europe is just ahead of us in some things.

Rich


----------



## Athlon646464

*Update: **AT&T's DirecTV bid nearing approval*

(nypost.com) - AT&T has reached a tentative deal with antitrust officials to help pave the way for its proposed $49 billion acquisition of DirecTV, The Post has learned.

The telecom giant has agreed to unspecified conditions in order to win approval from the Justice Department for the bid, sources said....

Full Story Here


----------



## slice1900

Surprised it has moved so quickly, I wonder what AT&T is committing to to push this through so fast?


----------



## 456521

slice1900 said:


> Surprised it has moved so quickly, I wonder what AT&T is committing to to push this through so fast?


The cynic in me says it'll be something trivial (unless you directly benefit from it) like a "commitment to spend X dollars to upgrade rural broadband infrastructure."


----------



## slice1900

pdxBeav said:


> The cynic in me says it'll be something trivial (unless you directly benefit from it) like a "commitment to spend X dollars to upgrade rural broadband infrastructure."


They already made such a commitment, but I guess they could get them to expand it, or put it on some sort of a specific timetable with penalties for failing to do so.

It sounds like that's something they really want to do in this case however, as it is needed for them to turn Directv into a double/triple play in the rural areas that currently don't have access to any such bundling deals.


----------



## coolman302003

Just keep in mind where this source is coming from .... _New York Post _"According to a survey conducted by Pace University in 2004, the _Post _was rated the least-credible major news outlet in New York, and the only news outlet to receive more responses calling it "not credible" than credible (44% not credible to 39% credible)." http://appserv.pace.edu/emplibrary/pace_poll_061604.pdf


----------



## Athlon646464

coolman302003 said:


> Just keep in mind where this source is coming from .... _New York Post _"According to a survey conducted by Pace University in 2004, the _Post _was rated the least-credible major news outlet in New York, and the only news outlet to receive more responses calling it "not credible" than credible (44% not credible to 39% credible)." http://appserv.pace.edu/emplibrary/pace_poll_061604.pdf


This news is being reported by several major outlets today.......


----------



## coolman302003

Athlon646464 said:


> This news is being reported by several major outlets today.......


Yes I know but the original source is the NY Post right? The major news outlets are saying according to the Post in their articles.

http://www.foxbusiness.com/industries/2014/08/26/report-att-directv-bid-nears-approval/ -- "AT&T Inc has reached a tentative deal with antitrust regulators to pave the way for it to buy DirecTV, the *New York Post* reported, citing unspecified sources."

http://www.nasdaq.com/article/atts-directv-bid-nearing-approval-report-20140826-00068 -- " AT&T Inc. ( T ) entered into a tentative agreement with antitrust regulators to help pave the way for its proposed $49 billion acquisition of satellite-TV company DirecTV ( DTV ), the *New York Post* reported."

http://www.bidnessetc.com/24643-att-one-step-closer-to-buying-directv-reaches-agreement-with-doj/ -- "According to the *New York Post*, the exact conditions AT&T has agreed to remain unknown. While the deal is expected to be given the green signal this October, the two companies still need an approval from the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to proceed with the merger." 

http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/Report-ATT-DOJ-Strike-Deal-on-DirecTV-Merger-130188 -- "The *New York Post* claims that AT&T has struck a deal with the Department of Justice that would allow AT&T's $48.5 billion plan to acquire DirecTV to move forward. The report fails to specify what precise conditions the DOJ will place on the deal, though it does suggest that regulators are leaning toward approval with DOJ approval coming as soon as October." 

http://www.fiercecable.com/story/rumor-mill-att-reaches-agreement-doj-directv-purchase/2014-08-25 -- "AT&T has reached an agreement with the Department of Justice, clearing a major regulatory hurdle in its quest to purchase DirecTV, according to an exclusive report in the *New York Post*. ... Citing unnamed sources "close to the process," the paper says AT&T (NYSE: T) has agreed to a number of unspecified conditions in order to gain regulatory approval for the $49 billion takeover bid."


----------



## Athlon646464

coolman302003 said:


> Yes I know but the original source is the NY Post right?


Yup


----------



## Rich

coolman302003 said:


> Just keep in mind where this source is coming from .... _New York Post _"According to a survey conducted by Pace University in 2004, the _Post _was rated the least-credible major news outlet in New York, and the only news outlet to receive more responses calling it "not credible" than credible (44% not credible to 39% credible)." http://appserv.pace.edu/emplibrary/pace_poll_061604.pdf


I don't understand how the Post stays in business. It is a dreadful newspaper, I think.

Rich


----------



## Diana C

My journalism professor in college (back during the Harding administration) always drummed into our heads that the NY Post and the Daily News are not "newspapers" they are tabloids. The NY Times and Wall Street Journal are newspapers.


----------



## Laxguy

Diana C said:


> My journalism professor in college (back during the Harding administration) always drummed into our heads that the NY Post and the Daily News are not "newspapers" they are tabloids. The NY Times and Wall Street Journal are newspapers.


Quite right! As are London Times, LA Times, Christian Science Monitor (though I haven't seen it for years), possibly SF Chronicle, and other cities of which I am not aware. My professor was back in TR's day.....


----------



## sangs

Rich said:


> I don't understand how the Post stays in business. It is a dreadful newspaper, I think.
> 
> Rich


Because it has the best sports section of any daily newspaper in the area. Better than the News and MUCH better than the Times, Star Ledger, Bergen Record, Newsday - you name it. Sports sells in this area, don't discount that. And, quite frankly, it has a pretty strong business section too. The rest of it could be ripped from the pages of the National Enquirer, but I don't bother with those parts of it anyway.


----------



## James Long

Rich said:


> I don't understand how the Post stays in business. It is a dreadful newspaper, I think.


For the same reason reality shows and home shopping/infomercials survive. They are cheap and people actually watch it.



Diana C said:


> My journalism professor in college (back during the Harding administration) always drummed into our heads that the NY Post and the Daily News are not "newspapers" they are tabloids. The NY Times and Wall Street Journal are newspapers.


My generation saw USA Today banned from being a paper one could reference. At the time they were printing forecasted temperatures as yesterday's high if they didn't get an update before the paper went to print.


----------



## Laxguy

James Long said:


> For the same reason reality shows and home shopping/infomercials survive. They are cheap and people actually watch it.
> 
> _* Or at least advertisers think people do....*_
> 
> My generation saw USA Today banned from being a paper one could reference. At the time they were printing forecasted temperatures as yesterday's high if they didn't get an update before the paper went to print.


Perhaps they printed yesterday's high as tomorrow's forecast...


----------



## Athlon646464

*Update: **AT&T's New DirecTV Move - An Olive Branch to the Farmers*

(wsj.com) - The telecom giant has reached a deal with Rural Media Group to carry its rural-oriented television channel RFD-TV on AT&T's U-verse pay-tv service. AT&T was the only major service provider not carrying the channel and its pending $49 billion takeover of DirecTV had become a lightning rod for viewers sending comments to the FCC over their concerns about losing access to shows like "Equestrian Nation".

Full Story Here


----------



## Laxguy

Heh. Not farmers, really, but affluent ex-urbanites and scattered ranchers. Few farmers use horses for anything; owning horses costs $$ and takes a lot of care, so it's a luxury hobby for those who gots 'em. 

But good to know RFD will be on ATT.... (is it on DIRECTV now?)


----------



## dpeters11

Laxguy said:


> Heh. Not farmers, really, but affluent ex-urbanites and scattered ranchers. Few farmers use horses for anything; owning horses costs $$ and takes a lot of care, so it's a luxury hobby for those who gots 'em.
> 
> But good to know RFD will be on ATT.... (is it on DIRECTV now?)


SD only I believe but it's there.


----------



## b52pooh

Ch 345.


----------



## Laxguy

Thanks, gents. I will be tuning in today.


----------



## shew

RFD TV became available this past Monday 9/8/14 on channel 568 on att uverse


----------



## harsh

Reuters reports that the DOJ's investigation of the Comcast-TWC thingy has been expanded to cover the AT&T-DIRECTV merger. The investigation also includes two dozen state attorneys General.

Surely nobody wants a repeat of the Comcast-NBC merger.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/09/11/us-directv-att-antitrust-exclusive-idUSKBN0H61ZZ20140911


----------



## CincySaint

White says the deal will close "soon" 

LINK


----------



## slice1900

CincySaint said:


> White says the deal will close "soon"
> 
> LINK


Late Q1/early Q2 2015 isn't exactly "soon".


----------



## dpeters11

slice1900 said:


> Late Q1/early Q2 2015 isn't exactly "soon".


He's speaking in DBSTalk timescales.


----------



## harsh

CincySaint said:


> White says the deal will close "soon"


"Soon" was the brainchild of c|net.

To say so would be a little presumptuous given that the NFL ST contract isn't expected to be done until the end of the year.


----------



## Rich

dpeters11 said:


> He's speaking in DBSTalk timescales.


Which means it won't happen until late 2015 if it happens at all. I wonder how much White stands to walk away with. Bet he hopes it's really "soon".

Rich


----------



## James Long

slice1900 said:


> Late Q1/early Q2 2015 isn't exactly "soon".


That time frame would be right on target with the initial announcements and released documents. No surprise.


----------



## Athlon646464

*Update: **AT&T's Stankey: Company will end up spending more on content after DirecTV purchase*

(fiercecable.com) - Belying his company's earlier claims that its proposed purchase of DirecTV could yield synergies of around $1.6 billion in regard to programming acquisitions, AT&T Chief Strategy Officer John Stankey said content costs could actually increase for the combined company if AT&T's ambitious programming goals are realized.

Speaking Tuesday at the Bank of America Merrill Lynch Media, Communications and Entertainment event in New York, Stankey said the "absolute dollar amount we spend on content will probably go up, but we'll be investing in a lot more business models."...

Full Story Here


----------



## harsh

Athlon646464 said:


> (fiercecable.com) - Belying his company's earlier claims that its proposed purchase of DirecTV could yield synergies of around $1.6 billion in regard to programming acquisitions, AT&T Chief Strategy Officer John Stankey said content costs could actually increase for the combined company if AT&T's ambitious programming goals are realized.


"Belying" probably isn't the correct term. "Contrary to initial claims" would probably have been better.

The lie was the selling point for shareholders of both companies that programming costs would go down by well more than a billion dollars a year.

On the bright side, it would appear that this increase would result, in part, from both services carrying significantly more channels (and OTT content).


----------



## slice1900

The two claims aren't necessarily contradictory. If they have more subscribers, they feel they can get a better deal from providers on a per subscriber basis. That would lower the content costs on a per subscriber basis, for existing content.

Despite that, if they want content that neither provides today, they might end up spending more (in total) for content than the two companies pay now. If this new content is included in basis packages, then it increases the cost to subscribers. If it is add-on content then it would only increase cost for subscribers who wish to pay for it.

As is always the case, it would probably be a combination of the two.


----------



## harsh

slice1900 said:


> The two claims aren't necessarily contradictory.


The claims are completely contradictory. They initially projected a 1.6 billion savings and now it is going to cost millions more. Synergies don't count when the end result is higher costs. There's no middle ground if you're looking at this as a shareholder where combined programming costs are projected to be more than 2 billion more than initially claimed in the justification for the merger.

If you're looking at it from the standpoint of a DIRECTV subscriber, you know it will come in the form of a higher ARPU as opposed to a lower one. AT&T isn't buying into this to not get less than 20% ROI out of the DIRECTV division.


----------



## slice1900

They project a savings based on the current channel package. They anticipate spending more for content, meaning there will be more content offered. Are you too dense to understand that distinction, or just trolling?


----------



## harsh

slice1900 said:


> They project a savings based on the current channel package. They anticipate spending more for content, meaning there will be more content offered.


They placed no conditions on the claims. It sounds like they're not going to be paying less for what they're currently getting as was hoped.

Fabricating an independent theory that the merged company will be adding lots of additional content or even harmonizing their offerings across delivery formats is speculation at best.


----------



## Laxguy

slice1900 said:


> They project a savings based on the current channel package. They anticipate spending more for content, meaning there will be more content offered. Are you too dense to understand that distinction, or just trolling?


Mr. Harsh is not dense, and he doesn't troll a lot. He just has no direct DIRECTV® experience.


----------



## bluegras

do you guys think everything will be in HD after the merger and the new satellites go up?just asking


----------



## slice1900

Directv will _be able_ to broadcast everything in HD once the new satellites are operational, but they never will. Some content is not even available in HD, some may cost more for Directv to deliver in HD, some perhaps Directv won't think it is worth the bother to deliver in HD because the audience is tiny. There are probably occasional/potential contractual issues where the provider or Directv use HD delivery or lack of as leverage against each other, rather than pulling content entirely.


----------



## MysteryMan

slice1900 said:


> Directv will _be able_ to broadcast everything in HD once the new satellites are operational, but they never will. Some content is not even available in HD, some may cost more for Directv to deliver in HD, some perhaps Directv won't think it is worth the bother to deliver in HD because the audience is tiny. There are probably occasional/potential contractual issues where the provider or Directv use HD delivery or lack of as leverage against each other, rather than pulling content entirely.


Back in October, 2012 Philip J. Goswitz, DirecTV's vice president for space and communications stated all standard-def channels will be converted to HD by 2016 using local-into-local Ka-Band capacity. He added converting standard-def channels to high-def would free up 1 gigahertz of satellite spectrum for Ultra HD (4K) signals.


----------



## slice1900

The older statements like that are, the less likely they're still accurate. He's saying they'll stop MPEG2 entirely in barely two years, when they only quit new MPEG2 installs two months ago! I suppose that's possible, but considering how long it took them to get rid of MPG it seems a bit overly optimistic, to say the least. There are other things wrong with his statement too, but I think that's the big one.


----------



## harsh

MysteryMan said:


> Back in October, 2012 Philip J. Goswitz, DirecTV's vice president for space and communications stated all standard-def channels will be converted to HD by 2016 using local-into-local Ka-Band capacity.


Back then, the conversion to all MPEG4 was supposed to be largely complete by 2015. Given that they started the conversion of new customers in earnest just a short while ago, it seems that the timetable has shifted.


----------



## onan38

AT&T-DirecTV Merger Would 'Stifle Competition

http://www.billingworld.com/news/2014/09/free-press-at-t-directv-merger-would-stifle-compe.aspx


----------



## cmasia

DIRECTV Stockholders Approve Merger with AT&T Inc.

http://investor.directv.com/press-releases/press-release-details/2014/DIRECTV-Stockholders-Approve-Merger-with-ATT-Inc/default.aspx


----------



## harsh

The fact that the vote was 99% in favor shows just how imperative this merger is to DIRECTV shareholders.


----------



## nmetro

We'll see if regulators approve this. If they do, then expect Comcast to merge with Warner Cable. Then we can speculate on the next merger target, which will further reduce competition and raise prices.


----------



## slice1900

harsh said:


> The fact that the vote was 99% in favor shows just how imperative this merger is to DIRECTV shareholders.


It says nothing of the sort. It says that the Directv shareholders think they're getting a good deal from what AT&T is offering.


----------



## acostapimps

Of course they will more money in their pockets.


----------



## Laxguy

acostapimps said:


> Of course they will more money in their pockets.


And that's a bad thing???


----------



## acostapimps

Not for them but for us is what's biting the hand that feeds them.
It isn't like we get screwed enough anyway , But I guess that's how business works.


----------



## slice1900

You're assuming that AT&T owning Directv will be a bad thing for Directv customers. There's no way to know whether it will be a positive or a negative yet. I'd expect for those living in rural areas with no wired broadband options it will be a plus (due to bundling) but for most it probably won't be very noticeable, certainly not for a couple years or so.


----------



## harsh

slice1900 said:


> There's no way to know whether it will be a positive or a negative yet.


Based on the statement that DIRECTV would be assimilated into the AT&T collective in three years (though maintaining their offices in El Segundo for at least a little while), it seems clear that big changes are coming.


> I'd expect for those living in rural areas with no wired broadband options it will be a plus (due to bundling) but for most it probably won't be very noticeable, certainly not for a couple years or so.


This part of the AT&T promise to the FCC bothers me. AT&T talking about extending service to 15 million customers with some manner of "high-speed broadband" as part of this deal and this is over and above their regularly scheduled expansion. I'm not sure this is physically possible unless we have a distinctly different understanding of "rural".

If I had a dime for every time a provider says they are going to do something in the interest of Universal Service or laying miles of fiber and didn't, I'd be a rich man.


----------



## Laxguy

harsh said:


> Based on the statement that DIRECTV would be assimilated into the AT&T collective in three years (though maintaining their offices in El Segundo for at least a little while), it seems clear that big changes are coming.


What statement? We've been assured that no changes in management and general operations at DIRECTV® will occur for three years, not that they will be "assimilated" in that time frame..... It's not *1984*!

I'd say the big changes that will come will be in AT+T's bailiwick. Getting broadband to 15 million of us rural types will take some doing, but they are up to the task.


----------



## acostapimps

Actions speak louder than words, and employees not just the big heads are worry about their job security.


----------



## Mike Bertelson

acostapimps said:


> Of course they will more money in their pockets.


Isn't that the goal of being in business.

Mike


----------



## harsh

Laxguy said:


> What statement? We've been assured that no changes in management and general operations at DIRECTV® will occur for three years, not that they will be "assimilated" in that time frame..... It's not *1984*!


We've been assured that Mike White has agreed to ride it out until the end of the transition. Originally he was to retire next year. Once the transition is complete, DIRECTV will be without Mike White at the helm and he will be replaced by someone selected by the AT&T Board of Directors.

To assume that the transition will happen instantaneously after 36 months is surely folly.


----------



## Laxguy

harsh said:


> We've been assured that Mike White has agreed to ride it out until the end of the transition. Originally he was to retire next year. Once the transition is complete, DIRECTV will be without Mike White at the helm and he will be replaced by someone selected by the AT&T Board of Directors.
> 
> To assume that the transition will happen instantaneously after 36 months is surely folly.


The selection of successors at well run publicly held corporations is seldom done by the BoD. Yes, they'll approve it, perhaps individual board members will suggest candidates, but the board does not make the selection. I take it your experience on BoDs is similar to your experience with DIRECTV-that is to say, none?


----------



## Laxguy

harsh said:


> To assume that the transition will happen instantaneously after 36 months is surely folly.


No one I have read here has suggested that.

The greater folly is the assertion you made: "Based on the statement that DIRECTV would be assimilated into the AT&T collective in three years..." Whatever is the source of this misinformation?


----------



## fudpucker

Laxguy said:


> The selection of successors at well run publicly held corporations is seldom done by the BoD. Yes, they'll approve it, perhaps individual board members will suggest candidates, but the board does not make the selection. I take it your experience on BoDs is similar to your experience with DIRECTV-that is to say, none?


Not to take sides, but having worked at large global companies, the BoD certainly had a major voice in the new CEOs, as well as firing the old ones. Who do you believe is selecting the CEOs? Someone under them? I don't mean that to sound as snarky as it reads, BTW.


----------



## Laxguy

No, you are correct. Firings are almost always done by the BoD, and I realize I was using "selected" in a narrow sense. In my experience, a committee is formed- a couple of board members, several of the executive committee, union rep if one, a rank and filer, maybe an outside consultant, who, if not on the committee, is hired by and reports to the committee.


----------



## slice1900

harsh said:


> This part of the AT&T promise to the FCC bothers me. AT&T talking about extending service to 15 million customers with some manner of "high-speed broadband" as part of this deal and this is over and above their regularly scheduled expansion. I'm not sure this is physically possible unless we have a distinctly different understanding of "rural".
> 
> If I had a dime for every time a provider says they are going to do something in the interest of Universal Service or laying miles of fiber and didn't, I'd be a rich man.


That's the beauty part of this promise from AT&T's perspective. This was already going to happen whether or not they purchased Directv! They decided to buy Directv because it would increase the value of the investment they were already going to have to make.

Currently much of AT&T's rural cellular network is Edge (2G) and have T1 lines (copper) to the towers. In order to move beyond 2G they need to run fiber to those towers. They didn't make this investment in the 3G days because the 3G standard AT&T used (GSM, like most of the world uses, instead of CDMA, like Verizon and Sprint use) uses smaller cells, so they'd need to add a lot of towers to provide 3G coverage. They didn't want to do that, so they left them on 2G and planned to wait a few years and upgrade them directly from Edge to LTE, since LTE has Edge sized cells instead of the smaller GSM cells.

They have no choice but to upgrade these towers, they can't leave them on Edge. First of all because they'd lose market share if they were behind Verizon and Sprint, but also because they want to decommission Edge entirely to use those frequencies for LTE in crowded urban markets, but wouldn't be able to if they still had Edge in rural markets.

When they upgrade a tower, the price difference between a little and a LOT of excess capacity is tiny compared to the overall cost of running fiber and placing LTE antennas, which they were doing anyway. So if they decide to spend a little extra and have a lot of excess capacity, what can they do with it? Well, they can sell fixed wireless broadband, since most of these rural customers are unserved by wired broadband.

The problem is, other cellular carriers will be upgrading their rural towers as well, so why should someone choose AT&T over Verizon or Sprint? If only AT&T had something they could bundle. That's why they're buying Directv, and that's why the offer to deliver broadband to 15 million rural customers is no big deal. They turned something they were planning to do anyway into a commitment to the FCC to get the purchase approved.

This is why Sprint and Dish were talking before, and why they'll probably do so again.


----------



## Laxguy

Ah, very well put. What I was hoping was behind part of this, as I'd be one of the 15 million to benefit!


----------



## Jtaylor1

If this deal is approved, then the Hallmark channel and HMN will be removed from DTV just as they were removed from U-verse.


----------



## cypherx

Jtaylor1 said:


> If this deal is approved, then the Hallmark channel and HMN will be removed from DTV just as they were removed from U-verse.


And maybe we'll get Epix?

In the time it takes to go through, who knows, maybe AT&T will have patched its relationship with Hallmark. Maybe the existing contract on DirecTV is multi-year and needs to be fulfilled. Too many variables.


----------



## dorfd1

Jtaylor1 said:


> If this deal is approved, then the Hallmark channel and HMN will be removed from DTV just as they were removed from U-verse.


We don't know if directv will get merged into u-verse.


----------



## WB4CS

With all of these media provider mergers happening (or possibly happening) I can see a future where the entire US has *two* choices for internet/cable. "Big Provider A" and "Big Provider B." Even more disturbing, is in a world without net neutrality, it could be possible that if you are a customer with "Big Provider A" you won't be able to access any websites/media/services that are owned by "Big Provider B."


----------



## Diana C

slice1900 said:


> ...The problem is, other cellular carriers will be upgrading their rural towers as well, so why should someone choose AT&T over Verizon or Sprint? If only AT&T had something they could bundle. That's why they're buying Directv, and that's why the offer to deliver broadband to 15 million rural customers is no big deal. They turned something they were planning to do anyway into a commitment to the FCC to get the purchase approved.
> 
> This is why Sprint and Dish were talking before, and why they'll probably do so again.


This...and Verizon WILL be offering a wireless broadband based TV service by then. So you'll have Verizon, AT&T/DirecTV (and maybe Sprint/Dish) offering fixed wireless broadband with a bundled TV service. The AT&T/DirecTV could have two flavors - a low cost, IP based, OTT type service (UVerse light, if you will) and a satellite based option with lots of traditional channels.


----------



## Diana C

harsh said:


> Based on the statement that DIRECTV would be assimilated into the AT&T collective in three years (though maintaining their offices in El Segundo for at least a little while), it seems clear that big changes are coming.


While the term "big changes" is relative, and in this case based upon nothing but pure speculation, who says "big changes" are a bad thing? Since we have NO idea if there will be any "big changes" there is no way you or anyone else can know whether whatever changes that do come will be good or bad,


----------



## sangs

WB4CS said:


> With all of these media provider mergers happening (or possibly happening) I can see a future where the entire US has *two* choices for internet/cable. "Big Provider A" and "Big Provider B." Even more disturbing, is in a world without net neutrality, it could be possible that if you are a customer with "Big Provider A" you won't be able to access any websites/media/services that are owned by "Big Provider B."


 Sorry, I read this and all I can hear in my head is the voiceover guy saying, _"In a world without net neutrality..." _


----------



## slice1900

Diana C said:


> This...and Verizon WILL be offering a wireless broadband based TV service by then. So you'll have Verizon, AT&T/DirecTV (and maybe Sprint/Dish) offering fixed wireless broadband with a bundled TV service. The AT&T/DirecTV could have two flavors - a low cost, IP based, OTT type service (UVerse light, if you will) and a satellite based option with lots of traditional channels.


If people are finding Uverse inadequate today, they'll find a TV over cellular offering even more inadequate. I don't think they'll be very competitive if that's the best they can do. They'd be better off buying up some satellite capacity and starting a third satellite TV company under the existing FIOS contracts.

They wouldn't need anywhere near the bandwidth Directv and Dish have today, since they could start out using HEVC from day one with no legacy MPEG2/MPEG4 hardware or SD channels to worry about. They've got enough cash to throw around they could buy up some existing capacity to start up quickly rather than having to get their own licenses and build/launch satellites from scratch.


----------



## Diana C

Well, you and I are not the target for Verizon's IPTV offering...it is targeting at the young people that don't want traditional cable packages. It will be very different and if AT&T were smart, they'd start positioning UVerse the same way.

By the way, lots of people find UVerse quite adequate.


----------



## acostapimps

Mike Bertelson said:


> Isn't that the goal of being in business.
> 
> Mike


Clearly you didn't read my response to that little statement I made that was quoted before by somebody else.


----------



## Laxguy

Diana C said:


> While the term "big changes" is relative, and in this case based upon nothing but pure speculation, who says "big changes" are a bad thing?


Chicken Little??

!rolling


----------



## Drucifer

harsh said:


> Based on the statement that DIRECTV would be assimilated into the AT&T collective in three years (though maintaining their offices in El Segundo for at least a little while), it seems clear that big changes are coming.
> This part of the AT&T promise to the FCC bothers me. AT&T talking about extending service to 15 million customers with some manner of "high-speed broadband" as part of this deal and this is over and above their regularly scheduled expansion. I'm not sure this is physically possible unless we have a distinctly different understanding of "rural".
> 
> If I had a dime for every time a provider says they are going to do something in the interest of Universal Service or laying miles of fiber and didn't, I'd be a rich man.


The answer is wireless


----------



## harsh

Laxguy said:


> Whatever is the source of this misinformation?


There is no direct source but if you read the press releases and transcripts, there are many mentions of "for at least three years" after the deal is consummated (independence of DIRECTV and availability of uniform nationwide pricing). The headquarters comments have been that DIRECTV will not relocate before the end of the transition.

Where do you get your idea that it will be business as usual ad infinitum?

The aforementioned synergies have to come from somewhere and if they're not coming from programming, they must surely be coming from reducing overhead.


----------



## harsh

slice1900 said:


> That's the beauty part of this promise from AT&T's perspective. This was already going to happen whether or not they purchased Directv!


For their part, AT&T offered this as part of the merger pitch. AT&T "use the merger synergies to expand its plans".


AT&T said:


> This new commitment, to be completed within four years after close, is on top of the fiber and Project VIP broadband expansion plans AT&T has already announced.


----------



## harsh

Drucifer said:


> The answer is wireless


AT&T claimed it would come from both expanding the fiber plant and adding local loop wireless.

As Sen. Al Franken pointed out, AT&T promised to do something similar under the Bellsouth acquisition sales pitch and they never followed through in any meaningful fashion.



Franken said:


> However, AT&T did not adequately advertise its standalone plan after making a similar promise as a condition of its acquisition of BellSouth in 2006.


Franken's position is that AT&T will likely force bundling of AT&T broadband with DIRECTV service. You may be aware of how hard it still is to get naked DSL.

AT&T isn't going to change its spots, even if they promise to.


----------



## harsh

dorfd1 said:


> We don't know if directv will get merged into u-verse.


Someone in a position to know said it would be the other way around. AT&T has been actively discounting the Uverse product as proof that they aren't creating a much larger video provider (even though Uverse has over 5 million customers).


----------



## slice1900

harsh said:


> Someone in a position to know said it would be the other way around. AT&T has been actively discounting the Uverse product as proof that they aren't creating a much larger video provider (even though Uverse has over 5 million customers).


Directv is the bigger more recognizable brand. Most people outside of the AT&T footprint will have never even heard of Uverse. If they want to try to sell to rural areas outside that footprint they'd have a much easier time selling them "AT&T wireless broadband and Directv" than "AT&T wireless broadband and Uverse TV".

In areas where they still sell Uverse they might keep that brand alive, or use the Directv brand if they somehow differentiate between the satellite and wired versions of it - even if they had the exact same channels and used the same receivers the product wouldn't be the same due to the differences in delivery.

I do think they'll adopt Directv receivers for Uverse installs at some point, BTW. What they said in the FCC filing seemed to suggest that, and it makes sense from an inventory management and installation perspective. Uverse delivers MPEG4 over IP, same as Directv VOD, so the receivers can handle it with appropriate firmware mods. Add a CCK as the "gateway" and use RG6 to distribute via DECA to each TV - pretty much the same install procedure for current Directv techs except no need to aim a dish.


----------



## harsh

slice1900 said:


> I do think they'll adopt Directv receivers for Uverse installs at some point, BTW. What they said in the FCC filing seemed to suggest that, and it makes sense from an inventory management and installation perspective. Uverse delivers MPEG4 over IP, same as Directv VOD, so the receivers can handle it with appropriate firmware mods.


But hasn't the issue with U-verse been that they can't seem to deliver more than a few channels at a time? If their existing bandwidth can't fulfill the needs of a single Genie, that's clearly not going to work.

I would think they would want to move to something more like MFH-3 (IP) rather than MFH-2 (SWiM).

I'm dubious that DECA is up to the task of keeping all of the clients happy while simultaneously downloading the programming from the WAN. I'm thinking that RVU client traffic would double the bandwidth as it would have to be downloaded through a Genie and regurgitated to the client.


----------



## hdtvfan0001

harsh said:


> But hasn't the issue with U-verse been that they can't seem to deliver more than a few channels at a time? If their existing bandwidth can't fulfill the needs of a single Genie, that's clearly not going to work.


That simply is not accurate. I know of two DirecTV customers with Genies and UVerse Internet service that have no issues whatsoever in the real world.

Sometimes rumors on the Internet as a sole source of information prove to be false.

When Dish subscribers or other _*non*_-DirecTV customers promote this kind of bogus falsehoods...it brings into question their motivation.


----------



## Lord Vader

I was with UVerse for two years and had a Genie with 6 additional HR2X DVRs. I experienced no problems whatsoever.


----------



## Laxguy

Is it not a very local thing- esp. distance to the hub and type of transmission? I.e., some can receive, say, five channels at a time, others one or two....(?) And are we not talking TV reception, not internet??


----------



## hdtvfan0001

Laxguy said:


> And are we not talking TV reception, not internet??


Originally indeed everyone was...then myths and derailed references to Internet were introduced in a couple of posts...

Back to Topic.


----------



## slice1900

harsh was talking about using a Genie as the STB for Uverse TV, in reply to my post.

If Uverse can only deliver 4 streams at once, the Uverse firmware for Genie being used for IPTV would make it a 4 "tuner" device instead of 5. Even with the "bandwidth doubling" you're talking about DECA would be fine, it can handle passing many more than 4x2 streams. Using DRE for hotels it carries 13 streams at all times, and as it supports up to 15 I assume it can handle at least that many.


----------



## SledgeHammer

Well, I'm not going to read through 50 pages, so I'm not sure if this has been mentioned yet, but I'm assuming our bills will go up by at LEAST $5/mo as the bundling discounts will go out the window??? Also, seeing as AT&T is not competitive $$$ wise in **ANY** of the services it offers this is gonna get ugly:

Wireless: Individual plan is $65/mo (no contract) or $80/mo (contract) -- everybody else is like around $60/mo for the contract pricing and like $50/mo for the non contract!! *AT&T is around $20/mo more expensive. Similar overpricing on family plans.*

Land line: Around $34/mo in my area. Cox is around $5+/mo cheaper... didn't switch cuz the bundling discount made it break even.

Internet: Extremely slow speeds compared to cable / fios. Hard to compare to cable, but seems to be around $5 - $10/mo more expensive and a little bit slower. I.e. next month Cox is bumping up my tier from 32mbps down to 50Mbps for free @ $61.99/mo. AT&T has a 45Mbps for $65/mo and its not even clear if that's an intro price, but I'll assume its not as that would be crazy for an intro price. But assuming its not, that's $3/mo more for 5Mbps less.


----------



## harsh

hdtvfan0001 said:


> That simply is not accurate. I know of two DirecTV customers with Genies and UVerse Internet service that have no issues whatsoever in the real world.


The conversation was relative to what they might do to "upgrade" and harmonize UVerse subscribers, not those who already have DIRECTV service and the associated dish.

I'd guess that for many UVerse TV subscribers, DIRECTV via DBS is not an option.


----------



## harsh

slice1900 said:


> Using DRE for hotels it carries 13 streams at all times, and as it supports up to 15 I assume it can handle at least that many.


DRE delivers its IF payload via SWM that uses more than 1,000MHz of bandwidth versus MoCA/DECA that run over a 100MHz carrier in a half-duplex two-way system. There is no reasonable comparison between the two systems.


----------



## hdtvfan0001

harsh said:


> The conversation was relative to what they might do to "upgrade" and harmonize UVerse subscribers, not those who already have DIRECTV service and the associated dish.
> 
> I'd guess that for many UVerse TV subscribers, DIRECTV via DBS is not an option.


Totally off topic....and laughable.


----------



## James Long

harsh said:


> But hasn't the issue with U-verse been that they can't seem to deliver more than a few channels at a time? If their existing bandwidth can't fulfill the needs of a single Genie, that's clearly not going to work.





hdtvfan0001 said:


> That simply is not accurate. I know of two DirecTV customers with Genies and UVerse Internet service that have no issues whatsoever in the real world.


I believe you are misunderstanding. The current UVerse service is not delivered via DirecTV satellites. The claim is tha current UVerse subscribers are bandwidth limited as to how many streams (particularly HD streams) are delivered to each home simultaneously. The thought is that if the Genie was redesigned to work with UVerse service INSTEAD of DirecTV satellite service there would not be enough bandwidth to serve a Genie.

Satellite delivery to a Genie is not the question. DirecTV on demand programming via the Internet (which happens to be AT&T's Internet service, if one subscribes) is affected by the ISP's bandwidth - but DirecTV subscribers are not relying on the ISP as the primary or sole source of their programming content. They rely on their satellite feeds as the primary source.

Merging the two company's services is years away if it is ever done. Using the best technology with each service is a good idea. If DirecTV's receiver design is better than UVerse's then it would make sense to adapt the Genie to work with UVerse service. DirecTV has been doing 100% digital television a lot longer than most companies.


----------



## Laxguy

For those U-verse TV customers who cannot use a dish, and whose location dictates a limited number of feeds, it should be easy enough to deactivate a few tuners on the Genie via software. Then again who knows what DVRs will be in service five years or so from now.


----------



## Mike Bertelson

hdtvfan0001 said:


> That simply is not accurate. I know of two DirecTV customers with Genies and UVerse Internet service that have no issues whatsoever in the real world.
> 
> Sometimes rumors on the Internet as a sole source of information prove to be false.
> 
> When Dish subscribers or other _*non*_-DirecTV customers promote this kind of bogus falsehoods...it brings into question their motivation.


I agree. I'm one of those with Uverse internet and I have not issues with bandwidth and my Genie. 

Mike


----------



## harsh

hdtvfan0001 said:


> Totally off topic....and laughable.


It is entirely on topic as the synergies are supposed to be the driver for the advantages of the merged company. If they can't effectively unify their platform, where are the synergies (other than releasing some relatively large portion of duplicated overhead)?


----------



## hdtvfan0001

harsh said:


> It is entirely on topic as the synergies are supposed to be the driver for the advantages of the merged company. If they can't effectively unify their platform, where are the synergies (other than releasing some relatively large portion of duplicated overhead)?


Synergies...yes...wild goose chases & unproven statements or rumors...no.


----------



## Athlon646464

*Update: **FCC pauses clock on AT&T-DirecTV, Comcast-TWC merger reviews*

(reuters.com) - The FCC's review of the $48.5 billion merger of wireless carrier AT&T and satellite TV provider DirecTV on Wednesday was in day 76 of the 180-day deadline. The review of the $45 billion Comcast-Time Warner Cable deal earlier had been stopped at day 85.

The FCC is weighing how to resolve a hitch in collecting and reviewing agreements that pay-TV companies have signed with media companies, such as CBS Corp and Twenty-First Century Fox Inc, to offer their content to subscribers....

Full Story Here


----------



## jimmie57

New target date for this to happen.
DirecTV losses customers in the US and Latin America.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-11-06/directv-tops-profit-estimates-as-u-s-customer-bills-rise.html?cmpid=yhoo


----------



## harsh

jimmie57 said:


> New target date for this to happen.


Target month to be a little more precise.


> DirecTV losses customers in the US and Latin America.


Since Q3 is usually DIRECTV's best in the US, this comes as a huge surprise to me. This is also the first net customer loss for DIRECTV LA IIRC.

Goes to show that NFLST may not be the juggernaut that it once was with DIRECTV losing a higher percentage of net customers than the other guys during DIRECTV's historically big quarter.

Here's the details for the last 9 years:



Code:


Year     Net Adds    ARPU
2006     165,000    $72.74
2007     240,000    $78.79
2008     156,000    $83.59
2009     136,000    $85.32
2010     174,000    $88.98
2011     327,000    $92.21
2012      67,000    $96.41
2013     139,000   $102.37
2014     -28,000   $107.27


----------



## Aridon

If I had to guess they would push video over the satellites freeing up bandwidth for uverse internet in the short run. They also benefit from getting rid of the d*installers, billing, content contacts etc.. 

Long term who knows. I'd guess they would want to have fiber everywhere for competitive internet since that is the only real 100% gateway and cable with its current infrastructure already has a huge advantage. Fiber really is the only answer to remain competitive. who knows if they'll do tv over fiber or keep the birds running there are pros and cons to both but regardless we are a decade or more until then.

D*is selling at a good time. Market is at saturation, time to cash out for top dollar and let the new guy deal with retention issues as new sub's dry up.


----------



## peds48

Aridon said:


> They also benefit from getting rid of the d*installers, billing, content contacts etc..


That would be sweet, at least for me, but I just don't see the AT&T CEO installing DIRECTV® (AT&T) dishes&#8230;.


----------



## Aridon

peds48 said:


> That would be sweet, at least for me, but I just don't see the AT&T CEO installing DIRECTV® (AT&T) dishes&#8230;.


I just don't see them retaining third party contractors for the work when they have their own in house union work force as a sunk cost. Perhaps they would prefer to keep the sub's and dwindle their own in house but I don't think they would be allowed to do that. Installing a dish is pretty straight forward I don't see much reason to keep the sub's just for that.


----------



## west99999

In most areas it takes them weeks to get internet installed for customers if they were to try and do the DirecTV installations as well with their tech force they would have a major problem.


----------



## AmazinglySmooth

I don't think AT&T saves much from combining the services. Uverse has too small a footprint. I think the goal is to squeeze the content owners by having more subscribers with which to negotiate.


----------



## Drucifer

Will be nice if we could return defective boxes to AT&T Cell Phone store.


----------



## acostapimps

Drucifer said:


> Will be nice if we could return defective boxes to AT&T Cell Phone store.


I wish we could buy specific model receivers there, and they would set you up an installation date.


----------



## carlsbad_bolt_fan

Drucifer said:


> Will be nice if we could return defective boxes to AT&T Cell Phone store.


In my area, those that need to return AT&T Uverse equipment do so at a local UPS Store.

Sent from my iPad using DBSTalk mobile app


----------



## Athlon646464

*UPDATE: **FCC restarts clock on Comcast-TWC, AT&T-DirecTV mergers*

(reuters.com) - U.S. Federal Communications Commission on Wednesday restarted its informal 180-day countdown to review the proposed mergers between Comcast Corp and Time Warner Cable Inc, and AT&T Inc and DirecTV.

Full Story Here


----------



## Herdfan

Drucifer said:


> Will be nice if we could return defective boxes to AT&T Cell Phone store.


Actually I never thought about that. Not sure if they actually service U-Verse out of the stores, but I did get my M-I-L an RF remote at one once.

But it would be nice if I decided I wanted a new DVR to just stop by the ATT store and get one.


----------



## Laxguy

Drucifer said:


> Will be nice if we could return defective boxes to AT&T Cell Phone store.


Very unlikely. The stores won't even accept turn ins of cell phones under their own program. This just last week.


----------



## Sgtsbabygirl1

I've heard "rumors" that the plan is to stop selling uverse tv in 2015, and set subs up with dtv. Can't verify that yet though. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Laxguy

Sgtsbabygirl1 said:


> I've heard "rumors" that the plan is to stop selling uverse tv in 2015, and set subs up with dtv. Can't verify that yet though.


Sure, wherever they can get LoS, DIRECTV® goes in. Otherwise, fios or cable....


----------



## Sgtsbabygirl1

Working in retention, I find it amusing every time someone calls talking about canceling to go to Uverse. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Athlon646464

Sgtsbabygirl1 said:


> Working in retention, I find it amusing every time someone calls talking about canceling to go to Uverse.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


 :rolling:


----------



## Mike Bertelson

Sgtsbabygirl1 said:


> Working in retention, I find it amusing every time someone calls talking about canceling to go to Uverse.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


I know two friends who've done just that. They like it...not so sure after the recent switch to Frontier but we'll see how that goes.

Mike


----------



## Jon J

Sgtsbabygirl1 said:


> Working in retention, I find it amusing every time someone calls talking about canceling to go to Uverse.


A pioneer in online DBS info forums and well-respected member here recently switched to FIOS and TiVo. Seems to be working out very well.


----------



## jimmie57

Sgtsbabygirl1 said:


> Working in retention, I find it amusing every time someone calls talking about canceling to go to Uverse.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


I currently pay $78 for 50Mbs internet, $53 for home phone and $140 for DirecTV. Last year they ran the Fiber Optics cable behind my house and offered me 45Mbs internet, unlimited home phone service and all channels and DVR service for $145 per month for 2 years and no installation fees.

The only reason I did not switch was because of my physically handicapped son. He is used to DirecTV and does not want to change.
DirecTV is expensive so don't get too amused at the customer.


----------



## MysteryMan

jimmie57 said:


> I currently pay $78 for 50Mbs internet, $53 for home phone and $140 for DirecTV. Last year they ran the Fiber Optics cable behind my house and offered me 45Mbs internet, unlimited home phone service and all channels and DVR service for $145 per month for 2 years and no installation fees.
> 
> The only reason I did not switch was because of my physically handicapped son. He is used to DirecTV and does not want to change.
> DirecTV is expensive so don't get too amused at the customer.


You're a good father Jimmie!


----------



## Sgtsbabygirl1

jimmie57 said:


> I currently pay $78 for 50Mbs internet, $53 for home phone and $140 for DirecTV. Last year they ran the Fiber Optics cable behind my house and offered me 45Mbs internet, unlimited home phone service and all channels and DVR service for $145 per month for 2 years and no installation fees.
> 
> The only reason I did not switch was because of my physically handicapped son. He is used to DirecTV and does not want to change.
> DirecTV is expensive so don't get too amused at the customer.


Dtv is definitely expensive! I understand why people switch. But, the customers who curse and scream and threaten to go to the restroom on the dtv equipment? Yes, the prospect of them heading back to dtv in a year or two makes me giggle!

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Sgtsbabygirl1

Jon J said:


> A pioneer in online DBS info forums and well-respected member here recently switched to FIOS and TiVo. Seems to be working out very well.


Didn't say anything about FIOS.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## jimmie57

Sgtsbabygirl1 said:


> I've heard "rumors" that the plan is to stop selling uverse tv in 2015, and set subs up with dtv. Can't verify that yet though.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


I can not say one way or the other about the plans,
but,
Last week I did see an AT&T truck and a DirecTV truck at a house 3 doors down from me. This makes me think they were getting a mix of service, especially since they now have a DirecTV dish on their roof.


----------



## Oli74

I have DTV at home with 3 boxes and TWC for house phone and Internet. I love it I pay about 165.00 for DTV and pay about 65 for TWC not bad maybe with the AT&T merger I would pay less if theirs a bundle 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Sgtsbabygirl1

Oli74 said:


> I have DTV at home with 3 boxes and TWC for house phone and Internet. I love it I pay about 165.00 for DTV and pay about 65 for TWC not bad maybe with the AT&T merger I would pay less if theirs a bundle
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


That's how I'm hoping this will play out. Especially feeling that directv really is a superior service, all around. I would love, as an agent, to be able to provide a more cost effective bundle!

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Oli74

Since we are near the end the year we probably won't here any news on the merger or buying of until 2015 I just hope we hear something in the 1st quarter of 2015 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## MrWindows

Not really sure why all the threats from people here about leaving DirecTV if the AT&T purchase goes through. Silly. I have been an AT&T cell customer for 15 years, and a DirecTV customer off and on for around twenty, and much of that time was a landline customer of AT&T or one of its subsidiary companies (Pacific Bell/Southwestern Bell). Everyone has their horror stories. I've had to appeal to Executive Customer Care a couple of times to get things straightened out, but it got straightened out.

For the last 9 years I've lived in CenturyLink territory (formerly Qwest/US West), and I've gone through a couple of technology transitions for the Internet service, which overall works pretty well, and plenty fast enough (40Mbps/5Mbps), for under a hundred bucks for landline, unlimited long distance, and internet, with bundling discounts for DirecTV billing. I've skipped the mobile bundling because they only do Verizon. My previous cable company had decent service at first, but deteriorated rapidly as the economic downturn hit, and they suddenly had streams of customers abandoning their mortgages, leaving the area and skipping out on their bills. When I found out they weren't paying the content providers which was why channels were disappearing, I switched back to DirecTV.

I wish DirecTV would treat their existing customers better, sure. I've looked at the new CenturyLink Prism service, which is a rebranded AT&T UVerse, and I find that it would end up costing me about $15-20 more a month, so I've stuck with DirecTV for now. The Prism/UVers technology works pretty well, good picture. I would be a little hesitant of switching because it requires the 40Mbps internet service that I already have, and reserves half of it for video content. I wouldn't mind the bundle discount, though.

I expect AT&T to rebrand UVerse as an AT&T DirecTV service, and mirror the content on both services. DirecTV is a much stronger brand identity. They would gain the benefits of a combined AT&T/DirecTV negotiating position when contracts come up for renewals, and of course as others have mentioned, would expand AT&T's footprint in areas it no longer really haves much of a presence outside of mobile. I'd like to see AT&T, CenturyLink and Verizon all expand their FttH operations, but laying fibre, especially in dense metro areas, is not only expensive but problematic in getting the required approvals. Verizon has the same issue with FIOS and their DSL - my brother in California cannot get Verizon to install DSL, even though he had it prior to going overseas, because they have no capacity and no plans to add any. AT&T could bypass much of that. As also mentioned, they could setup cell towers or AT&T CO's as DirecTV redistribution points, although most mobile companies have been selling off their tower operations for the cash. Not sure if that would be of much benefit.

I think it will be a benefit to DirecTV, providing some deep pockets for expansion, and to AT&T, gaining more national footprint and stature in content access. I would hope I gain some bundling discounts, and maybe some better treatment as a long-time customer.


----------



## peds48

MrWindows said:


> Not really sure why all the threats from people here about leaving DirecTV if the AT&T purchase goes through.


Some companies screw you more than others, and AT&T has screwed me the most. Once the deal is signed, I am gone. I will be killing two birds with one stone!


----------



## inkahauts

Considering I expect DIRECTV to basically take over all the video services and to be let run by DIRECTV I think it's silly for anyone to worry about it till you actually see a problem that's new.


----------



## mrknowitall526

inkahauts said:


> Considering I expect DIRECTV to basically take over all the video services and to be let run by DIRECTV I think it's silly for anyone to worry about it till you actually see a problem that's new.


I foresee it being a problem with anyone who bundles their Telco phone and DSL with Directv on the same bill, namely Verizon and Century Link.


----------



## inkahauts

mrknowitall526 said:


> I foresee it being a problem with anyone who bundles their Telco phone and DSL with Directv on the same bill, namely Verizon and Century Link.


I don't see why it would be. Uverse still isn't in those areas so I doubt they'd change any of their agreements for that reason.

I could see it maybe going away if att ever launches a wireless internet service for the home. Because then they could compete in those markets. Till then nope...


----------



## JoeTheDragon

MrWindows said:


> Not really sure why all the threats from people here about leaving DirecTV if the AT&T purchase goes through. Silly. I have been an AT&T cell customer for 15 years, and a DirecTV customer off and on for around twenty, and much of that time was a landline customer of AT&T or one of its subsidiary companies (Pacific Bell/Southwestern Bell). Everyone has their horror stories. I've had to appeal to Executive Customer Care a couple of times to get things straightened out, but it got straightened out.
> 
> For the last 9 years I've lived in CenturyLink territory (formerly Qwest/US West), and I've gone through a couple of technology transitions for the Internet service, which overall works pretty well, and plenty fast enough (40Mbps/5Mbps), for under a hundred bucks for landline, unlimited long distance, and internet, with bundling discounts for DirecTV billing. I've skipped the mobile bundling because they only do Verizon. My previous cable company had decent service at first, but deteriorated rapidly as the economic downturn hit, and they suddenly had streams of customers abandoning their mortgages, leaving the area and skipping out on their bills. When I found out they weren't paying the content providers which was why channels were disappearing, I switched back to DirecTV.
> 
> I wish DirecTV would treat their existing customers better, sure. I've looked at the new CenturyLink Prism service, which is a rebranded AT&T UVerse, and I find that it would end up costing me about $15-20 more a month, so I've stuck with DirecTV for now. The Prism/UVers technology works pretty well, good picture. I would be a little hesitant of switching because it requires the 40Mbps internet service that I already have, and reserves half of it for video content. I wouldn't mind the bundle discount, though.
> 
> I expect AT&T to rebrand UVerse as an AT&T DirecTV service, and mirror the content on both services. DirecTV is a much stronger brand identity. They would gain the benefits of a combined AT&T/DirecTV negotiating position when contracts come up for renewals, and of course as others have mentioned, would expand AT&T's footprint in areas it no longer really haves much of a presence outside of mobile. I'd like to see AT&T, CenturyLink and Verizon all expand their FttH operations, but laying fibre, especially in dense metro areas, is not only expensive but problematic in getting the required approvals. Verizon has the same issue with FIOS and their DSL - my brother in California cannot get Verizon to install DSL, even though he had it prior to going overseas, because they have no capacity and no plans to add any. AT&T could bypass much of that. As also mentioned, they could setup cell towers or AT&T CO's as DirecTV redistribution points, although most mobile companies have been selling off their tower operations for the cash. Not sure if that would be of much benefit.
> 
> I think it will be a benefit to DirecTV, providing some deep pockets for expansion, and to AT&T, gaining more national footprint and stature in content access. I would hope I gain some bundling discounts, and maybe some better treatment as a long-time customer.


as long as you not forced over to Uverse tv with it's lower bit rates and HD steems limts. also no NHL network.


----------



## Laxguy

JoeTheDragon said:


> as long as you not forced over to Uverse tv with it's lower bit rates and HD steems limts. also no NHL network.


No one who has DIRECTV® will be forced to switch.


----------



## mreposter

It'll be interesting to see if they leave Uverse TV and Directv as separate services or attempt to merge them into one brand. With different delivery methods and boxes/software in the field, will they even be able to deliver the same experience on both platforms?


----------



## Sgtsbabygirl1

[QUOTE="mre]It'll be interesting to see if they leave Uverse TV and Directv as separate services or attempt to merge them into one brand. With different delivery methods and boxes/software in the field, will they even be able to deliver the same experience on both platforms?
[/QUOTE]
I expect uverse to disappear.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## inkahauts

[QUOTE="mre]It'll be interesting to see if they leave Uverse TV and Directv as separate services or attempt to merge them into one brand. With different delivery methods and boxes/software in the field, will they even be able to deliver the same experience on both platforms?
[/QUOTE]
There statements appear to suggest they will move uverese to a DIRECTV platform.. I would assume that means software wise, but who knows?

In a few years I'd expect one set of boxes that can work for either service..


----------



## Drucifer

inkahauts said:


> There statements appear to suggest they *will move uverese to a DIRECTV platform.*. I would assume that means software wise, but who knows?
> 
> In a few years I'd expect one set of boxes that can work for either service..


Makes sense that all television service would be in one department.

The Q is, will the next generation DVR boxes also accept wireless from a cell tower?


----------



## slice1900

Drucifer said:


> Makes sense that all television service would be in one department.
> 
> The Q is, will the next generation DVR boxes also accept wireless from a cell tower?


Wireless for what?

For internet access, the receivers won't, but they might add an a cellular antenna to the dish for rural markets where they're getting cellular internet.

I bet they'll merge them as far as equipment and branding, but some people can't receive Directv via satellite due to trees or being in an apartment or whatever, so they'll have to continue to deliver it to some people via phone lines. Fortunately there are some advances in DSL technology that scale as high as 1 Gbit/sec, so the limitations current Uverse customers experience may eventually go away assuming their areas are upgraded.


----------



## Drucifer

slice1900 said:


> Wireless for what?
> 
> . . . .


For two-way transmission between Company and their Equipment -- as they are merging with one of the larger cellular companies. Or do you think that tidbit should be ignored?


----------



## JoeTheDragon

slice1900 said:


> Wireless for what?
> 
> For internet access, the receivers won't, but they might add an a cellular antenna to the dish for rural markets where they're getting cellular internet.
> 
> I bet they'll merge them as far as equipment and branding, but some people can't receive Directv via satellite due to trees or being in an apartment or whatever, so they'll have to continue to deliver it to some people via phone lines. Fortunately there are some advances in DSL technology that scale as high as 1 Gbit/sec, so the limitations current Uverse customers experience may eventually go away assuming their areas are upgraded.


Uverse TV as it is now should be just for people with out LOS / rain fade backup.

Now if they go cell then TV data better not count as part of your cap at all or all it can take is a few hours of TV at $10 a GB to really run your data bill up.


----------



## harsh

Laxguy said:


> No one who has DIRECTV® will be forced to switch.


Of course if DIRECTV becomes U-verse in principle (if not in name), what the company that bought the AT&T name calls it is academic.


----------



## Oli74

Well I hope not to switch I been a loyal customer for over 7 years 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## slice1900

Drucifer said:


> For two-way transmission between Company and their Equipment -- as they are merging with one of the larger cellular companies. Or do you think that tidbit should be ignored?


I think that will be important to rural customers who will get TV+internet bundles for the first time. But why should a typical customer in a city who gets their internet from say FIOS care? AT&T isn't going to require you to use AT&T cellular for internet in order to get Directv any more than Comcast requires you to get your internet through them in order to get TV from them.


----------



## Drucifer

slice1900 said:


> I think that will be important to rural customers who will get TV+internet bundles for the first time. But why should a typical customer in a city who gets their internet from say FIOS care? AT&T isn't going to require you to use AT&T cellular for internet in order to get Directv any more than Comcast requires you to get your internet through them in order to get TV from them.


I wouldn't consider my area rural, but my Internet connection is old DSL. Verizon wont bring in FiOS because they added LTE.

Wireless is not the future of Internet transmission. It is the now. It doesn't matter if you're remote rural or the near suburb, the cost of a wired infrastructure is mega more costly to install and maintain compared to wireless that gets better every year.


----------



## inkahauts

slice1900 said:


> Wireless for what?
> 
> For internet access, the receivers won't, but they might add an a cellular antenna to the dish for rural markets where they're getting cellular internet.
> 
> I bet they'll merge them as far as equipment and branding, but some people can't receive Directv via satellite due to trees or being in an apartment or whatever, so they'll have to continue to deliver it to some people via phone lines. Fortunately there are some advances in DSL technology that scale as high as 1 Gbit/sec, so the limitations current Uverse customers experience may eventually go away assuming their areas are upgraded.


Actually that's the exact direction I see them heading eventually. Wireless lte in all areas they can't provide Uverse. Uverse rollout will never go too Much further they will Go to lte. The key is capacity and by the time The boxes are built It'll likely be there one way or the other.


----------



## Herdfan

inkahauts said:


> Actually that's the exact direction I see them heading eventually. Wireless lte in all areas they can't provide Uverse. Uverse rollout will never go too Much further they will Go to lte. The key is capacity and by the time The boxes are built It'll likely be there one way or the other.


So here is the question. Can they use LTE to transmit TV? Not like internet streaming, but more like cable and sat where the info is just sent and it is up to the receiver to get it. How much bandwidth would this take to provide 200 or so channels?


----------



## slice1900

Herdfan said:


> So here is the question. Can they use LTE to transmit TV? Not like internet streaming, but more like cable and sat where the info is just sent and it is up to the receiver to get it. How much bandwidth would this take to provide 200 or so channels?


No, not a chance. 200 channels is well over a gigabit without error correction overhead even if you compress it more than you should (and not including any provision for future services like 4K) Building the infrastructure to deliver that to everyone would cost one hell of a lot more than it does to launch satellites, and be far more limiting.


----------



## Aridon

I imagine their plan is to distribute tv via satellite and free up that bandwidth for internet on the copper.

They can better compete with cable that way without laying fiber.


----------



## slice1900

Aridon said:


> I imagine their plan is to distribute tv via satellite and free up that bandwidth for internet on the copper.
> 
> They can better compete with cable that way without laying fiber.


Except where LOS is a problem, or people have aesthetic objections to having a dish on their house.

There are recent technological upgrades for DSL that will raise its speeds a lot higher than what Uverse is capable of. It requires laying some new fiber to set up distribution points closer to people's houses (nearly 200 Mbps for houses within 1000 ft; over 1 Gbps for those within 300 ft) but they don't need the much more expensive step of running fiber into the house like FIOS. I think a lot of DSL investment was waiting for G.fast to be standardized before going forward since it provides such a large leap above the regular ADSL2 AT&T Uverse uses or even the VDSL2 that Centurylink uses, offering the up to gigabit speeds similar to that which FIOS and DOCSIS 3.1 will soon offer.

Owning Directv will give AT&T the ability to compete with Verizon and cable providers for double/triple play packages by bundling TV, internet and cellular service together. I think there will still be a Uverse offering that delivers TV over copper lines like it does now, though I'll bet it eventually uses Directv's equipment and channel lineup, and perhaps the Directv name. I don't think they're going to make any wholesale changes in their business model, but Directv gives them a quick way to offer TV nationwide that they currently don't have and couldn't get without many years and tens of billions in investment.

Investing in LTE upgrades for towers in rural areas is dicey because it is harder to pay back, because there are fewer customers there. But if they can sell them fixed internet service they can get a much better return on that investment. Owning Directv would allow them to create bundles that can go head to head with the competition.

I don't think things will change much for today's Directv customers, other than maybe getting a lot of offers to save money if you sign up for AT&T cellular service and/or AT&T fixed wireless broadband. They aren't going to require you to use it, any more than Comcast requires you to sign up for their internet or Verizon requires you to use their cellular service if you want FIOS. I don't know if we'll see them selling fixed wireless broadband in more populated areas - in places where people can get 100Mbps and eventually gigabit cable or FIOS internet there's no way LTE based broadband can compete price-wise. But that's fine, they can still offer those people double play packages for TV + cellular service and compete better than they do today being able to offer only cellular to them.


----------



## jtudor

So will AT&T possibly give bundling discounts to existing DTV customers, or only to new customers?


----------



## Laxguy

jtudor said:


> So will AT&T possibly give bundling discounts to existing DTV customers, or only to new customers?


Yes, it's possible.


----------



## mreposter

inkahauts said:


> There statements appear to suggest they will move uverese to a DIRECTV platform.. I would assume that means software wise, but who knows?
> 
> In a few years I'd expect one set of boxes that can work for either service..


I couple questions come to my mind about turning Uverse into Directv...

1. Does Uverse's land-line based network have the capacity to deliver the full Directv channel lineup, including Sunday ticket? My understanding was that Uverse was about at capacity. Then there are the rumored new programming additions that may come with the next satellite, including 4K stuff.

2. If they do want to merge the TV side into one service, does that mean they either rewrite the software on the Uverse boxes (expensive, time consuming) or swap out all the boxes (even more expensive.)

3. There are some things the Uverse boxes do that the D* don't (or charge extra for) like Whole Home DVR is free with Uverse, but not for D*, and the Uverse guide shows live channels previews. It's not that big a deal, but the technical differences between Uv and D* may be speed bumps to a merger.

Those are the sorts of questions that have me thinking (if the merger goes through) that they would leave Uverse as-is for a 2-3 years until they can work out the technical details. Sure, the back-office operations, distribution, etc, would be merged but the customer side act like 2 separate companies.


----------



## jimmie57

I believe that they want DirecTV for the huge revenue / cash flow stream that it generates.
I also believe that the wired and sat distribution of TV will always be there. This is like buying a car and do you want a standard car or one with a bigger motor, automatic transmission, etc. Each method has it's strengths.

They have just installed a combo on my street last week.
They put in AT& T phone and internet and DirecTV TV service all in the same house and in the same day.

This is what they are really looking for, the probability of getting a customer to get more services from them.


----------



## swaff

slice1900 said:


> No, not a chance. 200 channels is well over a gigabit without error correction overhead even if you compress it more than you should (and not including any provision for future services like 4K) Building the infrastructure to deliver that to everyone would cost one hell of a lot more than it does to launch satellites, and be far more limiting.


If you so it via IP which is what Uverse does, you don't transmit all 200 channels at the same time.


----------



## slice1900

mreposter said:


> I couple questions come to my mind about turning Uverse into Directv...
> 
> 1. Does Uverse's land-line based network have the capacity to deliver the full Directv channel lineup, including Sunday ticket? My understanding was that Uverse was about at capacity. Then there are the rumored new programming additions that may come with the next satellite, including 4K stuff.
> 
> 2. If they do want to merge the TV side into one service, does that mean they either rewrite the software on the Uverse boxes (expensive, time consuming) or swap out all the boxes (even more expensive.)
> 
> 3. There are some things the Uverse boxes do that the D* don't (or charge extra for) like Whole Home DVR is free with Uverse, but not for D*, and the Uverse guide shows live channels previews. It's not that big a deal, but the technical differences between Uv and D* may be speed bumps to a merger.
> 
> Those are the sorts of questions that have me thinking (if the merger goes through) that they would leave Uverse as-is for a 2-3 years until they can work out the technical details. Sure, the back-office operations, distribution, etc, would be merged but the customer side act like 2 separate companies.


Uverse only transmits the channels you are watching/recording, with that model adding available channels doesn't affect the bandwidth to subscribers. 4K channels will take a lot more bandwidth, so delivering 4K via the current Uverse setup is probably not feasible. They'll need to upgrade the DSL side of things to a newer standard to gain more bandwidth for that. I doubt AT&T is too worried about 4K though, since there are no actual 4K channels yet nor any even announced.

As for the equipment, I think it would take a year or two before they'd even have equipment/software ready that could work for both Directv & Uverse. I suppose it is possible they could load different software onto a HR44 and make it work with Uverse, but it seems more likely they'd develop a new generation of boxes designed with the needs of both. It isn't something they could do overnight, and when they do have equipment ready it isn't like they're going to try to upgrade all the existing Uverse customers as quickly as possible. They'd do it over a period of years - why throw away the investment in the current equipment they have until it is old or the subscriber upgrades to a service that their old equipment can't do?


----------



## Sgtsbabygirl1

slice1900 said:


> They'd do it over a period of years - why throw away the investment in the current equipment they have until it is old or the subscriber upgrades to a service that their old equipment can't do?


 The only disagreement I have with that is that in every article where they talk about Uverse, it's always mentioned how much money uverse TV is losing ATT. I think they're going to drop it ASAP.


----------



## slice1900

swaff said:


> If you so it via IP which is what Uverse does, you don't transmit all 200 channels at the same time.


Yes, but the guy I was replying to specifically said "not like internet streaming". He was asking how much bandwidth it would take to broadcast 200 channels, not to broadcast a few channels at a time.

However, I think broadcast 200 channels to everyone would be a lot easier to make work via LTE than broadcasting a handful of channels to numerous individual customers. The LTE cells would have to be tiny in any non-rural area to handle that. The reason we can get 10 or 20 Mbps from LTE now is because only a fraction of the people connected to a cell are downloading at any one time. If everyone is getting their TV that way, many people would be downloading at once, and you'd need a tower every few blocks to handle it.

Of course, you could use LTE multicast facilities so you aren't delivering to everyone individually, but you'll end up sending most channels since in a large enough area probably most channels are being watched/recorded by someone. Might as well make things simpler by broadcasting everything to everyone at that point!


----------



## slice1900

Sgtsbabygirl1 said:


> The only disagreement I have with that is that in every article where they talk about Uverse, it's always mentioned how much money uverse TV is losing ATT. I think they're going to drop it ASAP.


I suppose that's possible, but how many people who receive Uverse TV today can't/won't get satellite service? They'd leave behind an awful lot of very pissed off customers if they sent 6 million people a letter "we're dropping Uverse in a year, but we're going to send someone out to put up a dish and give you Directv for the same price"


----------



## James Long

Sgtsbabygirl1 said:


> The only disagreement I have with that is that in every article where they talk about Uverse, it's always mentioned how much money uverse TV is losing ATT. I think they're going to drop it ASAP.


It depends on where UVerse is losing money. If they are losing money in areas that can be combined with DirecTV (such as installations and customer service) it may be worth keeping UVerse alive.

New endeavors such as UVerse are EXPECTED to lose money. DirecTV lost money for many years until the service overcame the initial build out costs. Once the infrastructure is in place it is easier (and cheaper) to pay to maintain it and improve it than it was to initially construct.

Will it save money to shut UVerse down? That is a question for the bean counters. Throwing away the level of investment that they have made seems to be a waste. Finding a way to keep it alive through efficiencies seems more likely.


----------



## jimmie57

James Long said:


> It depends on where UVerse is losing money. If they are losing money in areas that can be combined with DirecTV (such as installations and customer service) it may be worth keeping UVerse alive.
> 
> New endeavors such as UVerse are EXPECTED to lose money. DirecTV lost money for many years until the service overcame the initial build out costs. Once the infrastructure is in place it is easier (and cheaper) to pay to maintain it and improve it than it was to initially construct.
> 
> Will it save money to shut UVerse down? That is a question for the bean counters. Throwing away the level of investment that they have made seems to be a waste. Finding a way to keep it alive through efficiencies seems more likely.


Uverse is not just TV. The lady across the street has Dish for TV and she let them come in and put in her internet and internet phone.
Uverse is not going away any time soon.


----------



## swaff

slice1900 said:


> Yes, but the guy I was replying to specifically said "not like internet streaming". He was asking how much bandwidth it would take to broadcast 200 channels, not to broadcast a few channels at a time.
> 
> However, I think broadcast 200 channels to everyone would be a lot easier to make work via LTE than broadcasting a handful of channels to numerous individual customers. The LTE cells would have to be tiny in any non-rural area to handle that. The reason we can get 10 or 20 Mbps from LTE now is because only a fraction of the people connected to a cell are downloading at any one time. If everyone is getting their TV that way, many people would be downloading at once, and you'd need a tower every few blocks to handle it.
> 
> Of course, you could use LTE multicast facilities so you aren't delivering to everyone individually, but you'll end up sending most channels since in a large enough area probably most channels are being watched/recorded by someone. Might as well make things simpler by broadcasting everything to everyone at that point!


I'm not talking about streaming either. As was noted above, the only channels that Uverse sends to the sub are the ones being watched or recorded at the time. Kind of like full-time on-demand and it definitely uses multicast. It's a different paradigm from either cable or sat service. With cable and sat all of the channels are delivered to the box and tuned there. With Uverse, the box defines which channels are delivered to it. You could do the same thing with LTE. After all, it's just a different transmission medium.


----------



## slice1900

swaff said:


> I'm not talking about streaming either. As was noted above, the only channels that Uverse sends to the sub are the ones being watched or recorded at the time. Kind of like full-time on-demand and it definitely uses multicast. It's a different paradigm from either cable or sat service. With cable and sat all of the channels are delivered to the box and tuned there. With Uverse, the box defines which channels are delivered to it. You could do the same thing with LTE. After all, it's just a different transmission medium.


It isn't practical with LTE because the cells would have to be tiny to support hundreds of people all streaming one or more channels at once. The cellular system was not designed to support full time data access for a large number of people in a cell. If you browse the web or view a video it takes only a short time where you are downloading data then you have plenty of time where you aren't. Streaming channels full time is a different matter and really not feasible for wireless.


----------



## hdtvfan0001

jimmie57 said:


> I believe that they want DirecTV for the huge revenue / cash flow stream that it generates.
> I also believe that the wired and sat distribution of TV will always be there. This is like buying a car and do you want a standard car or one with a bigger motor, automatic transmission, etc. Each method has it's strengths.
> 
> They have just installed a combo on my street last week.
> They put in AT& T phone and internet and DirecTV TV service all in the same house and in the same day.
> 
> This is what they are really looking for, the probability of getting a customer to get more services from them.


That makes a lot of sense on several fronts.


----------



## harsh

swaff said:


> If you so it via IP which is what Uverse does, you don't transmit all 200 channels at the same time.


That depends on how finely partitioned your network is. You have to send a stream of every channel that someone is watching on each partition.


----------



## hdtvfan0001

So getting back to topic ---

Being a customer of both AT&T and DirecTV...there have been only very small signs on the consumer end (so far) of this planned pairing.

Perhaps 2015 will reflect something more tangible.


----------



## slice1900

hdtvfan0001 said:


> So getting back to topic ---
> 
> Being a customer of both AT&T and DirecTV...there have been only very small signs on the consumer end (so far) of this planned pairing.
> 
> Perhaps 2015 will reflect something more tangible.


There's only so much they can (or should) do until it is approved. Assuming it is, I'm sure you'll see something, if only an AT&T logo added to your Directv bill


----------



## SledgeHammer

slice1900 said:


> There's only so much they can (or should) do until it is approved. Assuming it is, I'm sure you'll see something, if only an AT&T logo added to your Directv bill


Weird. I've had an AT&T logo on my DirecTV bill for many years now .


----------



## Oli74

This is a great article of the merger and its stocks 
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/analyzing-t-directv-merger-using-234240340.html

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Lord Vader

I noticed in that article that the author explained the merger will reduce DirecTV's content and programming costs. I'm willing to bet that that will _not_ result in price decreases to current customers' programming packages.


----------



## fleckrj

Lord Vader said:


> I noticed in that article that the author explained the merger will reduce DirecTV's content and programming costs. I'm willing to bet that that will _not_ result in price decreases to current customers' programming packages.


Of course not. The merger is for the benefit of the shareholder - not the customer.


----------



## Lord Vader

When was the last time any such company lowered its rates in such situations?


----------



## slice1900

Lord Vader said:


> I noticed in that article that the author explained the merger will reduce DirecTV's content and programming costs. I'm willing to bet that that will _not_ result in price decreases to current customers' programming packages.


The best you can hope for is that future price increases are less than they would otherwise be. No one has decreasing cost for TV, and never will so long as provider's contracts always have built in yearly increases.

Where you might possibly see savings is if you're able to bundle AT&T broadband or cellular. Just like with cable bundling TV & internet, that's where the real savings are.


----------



## Lord Vader

Not really, if one doesn't have or want AT&T for cellular or broadband.


----------



## slice1900

Lord Vader said:


> Not really, if one doesn't have or want AT&T for cellular or broadband.


How's that different from any other bundling offer? Obviously you have to be willing to take the bundle to get any savings from it.


----------



## harsh

Lord Vader said:


> I noticed in that article that the author explained the merger will reduce DirecTV's content and programming costs.


The reduction in costs is something that has been claimed since the beginning by those who are trying to sell the merger. It isn't something new or something that the author divined.

I believe it is a load of horsefeathers and the combined entity will not realize anywhere near 1.6 billion dollars in lower programming costs.


----------



## Lord Vader

I don't doubt that; however, that wasn't my point. ;-)


----------



## Laxguy

Lord Vader said:


> When was the last time any such company lowered its rates in such situations?


1787, when the Bangalory Buggy Whip Company merged with the Absolutely Super Buggy Whip Holder Company.


----------



## Athlon646464

Herdfan said:


> So here is the question. Can they use LTE to transmit TV? Not like internet streaming, but more like cable and sat where the info is just sent and it is up to the receiver to get it. How much bandwidth would this take to provide 200 or so channels?


See this story.........


----------



## Athlon646464

*Update: **AT&T Eyes TVE Blitz With DirecTV*

(lightreading.com) - AT&T Inc. Chairman & CEO Randall Stephenson highlighted those plans on the company's fourth-quarter earnings call with financial analysts late Tuesday afternoon. He explained how AT&T intends to use its wireless assets and DirecTV Group Inc. satellite TV assets and content rights to distribute video programming to every video-capable device a mobile customer might have by the end of this year, assuming the deal still passes federal regulatory muster as expected....

Full Story Here


----------



## cypherx

That's all well and good, but did you see AT&T might take away the DirecTV name? I think that would be a huge mistake. When you say the brand name DirecTV, I think highly of the company and that is very successful, popular and a high end service. When you say the brand name AT&T I think negatives like crappy customer service, spotty signal reception, expensive and overpriced, too big to fail, etc...

If they are debating on wiping the DirecTV name what else are they going to dissolve from DirecTV? All the receivers going to get u-verse software next? 

I'd rather this and the Comcast/TWC merger both be denied.


----------



## Oli74

http://www.multichannel.com/news/technology/att-adds-73000-u-verse-tv-subs-q4/387359?utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=twitterfeed 
The ATT U is growing

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Coachbulldog

My concern isn't the name or even the programming because I believe as time passes all of that will work itself out. My fear about AT&T buying Directv is what will happen to customer service. Not once time, even when I called or emailed to complain about something like no access to WatchESPN, has Directv customer service been anything but great. On the other hand, AT&T's customer service reputation is lousy. One of the main reasons I have stayed with Directv is their high quality customer service and I would hate to lose that in the AT&T takeover.


----------



## harsh

Athlon646464 said:


> (lightreading.com) - AT&T Inc. Chairman & CEO Randall Stephenson highlighted those plans on the company's fourth-quarter earnings call with financial analysts late Tuesday afternoon. He explained how AT&T intends to use its wireless assets and DirecTV Group Inc. satellite TV assets and content rights to distribute video programming to every video-capable device a mobile customer might have by the end of this year, assuming the deal still passes federal regulatory muster as expected....


The fail in this campaign is in assuming that either of the entities have already negotiated rights to take their content onto the Internet. DIRECTV seems to have been pretty slow in negotiating rights to authentication of streaming services and you have to wonder if AT&T is any better off.


----------



## inkahauts

I guess you haven't seen all the streaming channels DIRECTV has on iOS and android devices already. And the fact they have seemingly added a couple of the biggest ones in the last couple weeks.


----------



## harsh

inkahauts said:


> I guess you haven't seen all the streaming channels DIRECTV has on iOS and android devices already. And the fact they have seemingly added a couple of the biggest ones in the last couple weeks.


"The last couple of weeks" is precisely what I mean by slow to release. There are reportedly 123 channels available for in-home streaming but only 65 for OOH streaming.

https://support.directv.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/3624/~/what-tv-channels-are-available-to-watch-live-on-my-computer,-tablet-or-mobile


----------



## longrider

harsh said:


> "The last couple of weeks" is precisely what I mean by slow to release. There are reportedly 123 channels available for in-home streaming but only 65 for OOH streaming.
> 
> https://support.directv.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/3624/~/what-tv-channels-are-available-to-watch-live-on-my-computer,-tablet-or-mobile


I am sure this is due to contracts with the content providers. The infrastructure for streaming is obviously in place so for whatever reason the channels dont want to be made available outside the location they are licensed for


----------



## harsh

longrider said:


> I am sure this is due to contracts with the content providers.


Everyone else is negotiating with the same content providers.


----------



## peds48

harsh said:


> Everyone else is negotiating with the same content providers.


But not all negations are the same. There is the HBO window, a 28 window etc...


----------



## inkahauts

harsh said:


> Everyone else is negotiating with the same content providers.


How many does dish have a contract for that also allows you to use a channels app for to get their on demand and streaming content? Anything via sling doesn't count. That's in the realm of genie go not streaming channels.


----------



## harsh

inkahauts said:


> How many does dish have a contract for that also allows you to use a channels app for to get their on demand and streaming content?


dishanywhere.com lists 139 "networks".


----------



## slice1900

I wonder if one of the reasons Dish has had more negotiation battles was to secure those streaming rights, since they've obviously been planning that Sling TV offering for a while and presumably will expand it in the future.


----------



## Laxguy

Sounds way too plausible and reasonable to be true!


----------



## JosephB

harsh said:


> Everyone else is negotiating with the same content providers.


And just about every single provider, from Dish to telephone companies to all the various cable companies have different sets of channels available for streaming. Then throw in-home, out-of-home, and TV Everywhere in the mix and I doubt there are any two providers who have exactly the same streaming availability except for cable companies that share procurement (Bright House/TWC or the rural cable coops)


----------



## inkahauts

harsh said:


> dishanywhere.com lists 139 "networks".


That's in reference to using sling built into a receiver yes? Or something else? I mean strictly using a channels app. Like the HBO app and out of home. Many say channels are anywhere but then still aren't out of home.


----------



## harsh

inkahauts said:


> That's in reference to using sling built into a receiver yes?


An emphatic no.

dishanywhere.com is accessible from phones, tablets and computers from anywhere that isn't explicitly blocked. Some of the DRM content requires a special player that isn't available for Linux.

The ability to play content from a Sling enabled DVR is on top of the network offerings.


----------



## hdtvfan0001

Oops....for a minute there I thought I inadvertently jumped into a Dish topic thread...something I would never consider doing under any circumstances (since I'm NOT a Dish customer). :nono2:

As for the actual topic...

How the Dir4cTV organization "transforms" over time will be interesting to follow. Since both AT&T and DirecTV have their own core competencies, it's reasonable to assume they will retain those through careful consideration of the resources and staff required.


----------



## peds48

inkahauts said:


> That's in reference to using sling built into a receiver yes? Or something else? I mean strictly using a channels app. Like the HBO app and out of home. Many say channels are anywhere but then still aren't out of home.


How many of these 139 can be played in "out of home mode"?

And to be fair, lots of those "offerings" can be watch without any active cable subscription.


----------



## harsh

peds48 said:


> How many of these 139 can be played in "out of home mode"?


All.


----------



## harsh

hdtvfan0001 said:


> How the Dir4cTV organization "transforms" over time will be interesting to follow. Since both AT&T and DirecTV have their own core competencies, it's reasonable to assume they will retain those through careful consideration of the resources and staff required.


Is it not equally reasonable to assume that some of the core incompetencies will be retained as well? Buyouts are rarely a perfect storm of best in breed.


----------



## hdtvfan0001

harsh said:


> Is it not equally reasonable to assume that some of the core incompetencies will be retained as well? Buyouts are rarely a perfect storm of best in breed.


Only if one is limited to viewing the negative side of the world.

Buyouts can indeed bring best in class...I've been through 3 of them personally, and every time, the resulting whole was better than the original parts.

The sky is not falling for everyone (thank goodness) and no tinfoil hat is required...and for anyone looking from the outside in without the facts...those "glass-is-half-full" nearsighted views hold very little water (pun intended). Then again...it's all predictable if one lives under the domain of questionable Ergen-omics.


----------



## harsh

hdtvfan0001 said:


> Only if one is limited to viewing the negative side of the world.


It would seem that those who see the bright side only are the ones with limited vision.


----------



## hdtvfan0001

harsh said:


> It would seem that those who see the bright side only are the ones with limited vision.


Then again...relying on "Googling on the Internet" as the sole or primary source of one's knowledge or formulating one's perspectives is limited and narrow.

Expanding one's sources of information (example: having a particular service and being one of their customers) allows for not only better information, but the foundation for realism. So does actually going through a large AT&T/DirecTV-like acquisition and seeing the results firsthand. Some folks here have that foundation.


----------



## lparsons21

hdtvfan0001 said:


> Then again...relying on "Googling on the Internet" as the sole or primary source of one's knowledge or formulating one's perspectives is limited and narrow.
> 
> Expanding one's sources of information (example: having a particular service and being one of their customers) allows for not only better information, but the foundation for realism. So does actually going through a large AT&T/DirecTV-like acquisition and seeing the results firsthand. Some folks here have that foundation.


In the case of D* being bought by AT&T, being a customer of either doesn't give some magical inside info. What will happen might not resemble anything that D* and AT&T told the news people or even the powers that be. D* hasn't given their customer base any real info about the purchase, so Googling is as good as any way to get as much info as possible.

It may or may not turn out to be a real benefit to the user, but odds are it at least shouldn't be horrible. But this purchase isn't about the customer or their wants and to believe otherwise is a bit foolish, imo. It has always been about AT&T's bottom line.

Personally I hope AT&T comes in and revamps the UI on D* equipment. The one they have now is old and very outdated and is long overdue for some serious work by excellent programmers. Maybe even some really good programmers could fix the blasted CIG while they are at it! But that's just me.


----------



## hdtvfan0001

lparsons21 said:


> In the case of D* being bought by AT&T, being a customer of either doesn't give some magical inside info.


That's true...but it's more information than one would get than a non-customer. Agree that it's only part of the information picture.


----------



## lparsons21

hdtvfan0001 said:


> That's true...but it's more information than one would get than a non-customer. Agree that it's only part of the information picture.


I was a customer for the last year and got zilch from D* other than some very broad email. Most of what I know (or don't) comes from reading here and satelliteguys plus some news stories now and then.


----------



## hdtvfan0001

lparsons21 said:


> I was a customer for the last year and got zilch from D* other than some very broad email. Most of what I know (or don't) comes from reading here and satelliteguys plus some news stories now and then.


OK. Thanks.


----------



## slice1900

harsh said:


> It would seem that those who see the bright side only are the ones with limited vision.


I'd say those who view only the negative or view only the positive are equally limited in their vision.


----------



## harsh

hdtvfan0001 said:


> Then again...relying on "Googling on the Internet" as the sole or primary source of one's knowledge or formulating one's perspectives is limited and narrow.
> 
> Expanding one's sources of information (example: having a particular service and being one of their customers) allows for not only better information, but the foundation for realism. So does actually going through a large AT&T/DirecTV-like acquisition and seeing the results firsthand. Some folks here have that foundation.


Assuming that DIRECTV will remain entirely autonomous and will continue on as they have in the past after the merger is folly. Nobody here or anywhere else has a "foundation" built on the end result. If someone is certain that AT&T is anything like Hughes or News Corp, they're deluded. Those with any insight might be those who have already been assimilated by the AT&T organization.

Asserting that a DIRECTV subscription grants one omniscience in all that was, is and will be DIRECTV is not logical.


----------



## harsh

slice1900 said:


> I'd say those who view only the negative or view only the positive are equally limited in their vision.


Absolutely. True perspective requires an understanding of the frame of reference.


----------



## hdtvfan0001

harsh said:


> Absolutely. True perspective requires an understanding of the frame of reference.


----------



## slice1900

Found an interesting, if occasionally hypocritical, petition on the FCC site from Dish regarding the Directv/AT&T deal.

Dish is unhappy that Directv is underutilizing the three transponders at 110 and complaining about the possibility of AT&T/Directv warehousing spectrum. Not sure what they call all that wireless spectrum that Dish owns and has NEVER made any use of - sounds like warehousing to me! These days some legacy SD channels are delivered to PR from 110, so while those transponders were used in the US in the past Dish is right that they're underutilized now. I have no idea what the FCC rules hold constitutes proper 'use' of DBS spectrum, they did they approve when Directv requested to tilt D5 towards PR for this purpose.

Dish says the merger isn't in the public interest since it would eliminate one competitor in the markets where Uverse competes. That didn't seem to stop Dish's CEO Charlie Ergen from approaching Directv's CEO Mike White about a merger less than a year ago! Nor did combining a satellite and telecom company worry him when he wanted to buy Sprint! Ergen is probably pissed he came calling on Directv too late, when they were already deep in talks with AT&T.

Dish proposes a few remedies to these and various other issues:


Handing over those three transponders on 110. If they had to pick one of Dish's remedies to accept, this would be the one.
Unbundling/wholesaling Uverse broadband. AT&T would fight very hard against this unless a similar requirement is imposed on Comcast/TWC (which would be to AT&T's advantage as it would add the option of deploying Uverse over Comcast/TWC pipes!)
Don't allow AT&T contracts to restrict networks from granting online rights to competitors. This seems reasonable to protect Sling TV from interference, though to my knowledge no one has ever done this. It is surely a bigger worry from the Comcast/TWC merger.
Require AT&T offer Dish and other mobile providers roaming on AT&T's network. AT&T would fight this - there's very little roaming in the US cellular market anymore for both competitive and technological reasons.
Dish petition: http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7522785138
Directv/AT&T rebuttal (to Dish's and various other petitions): http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=60000973737
Dish reply to Directv/AT&T rebuttal: http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=60001012262
Link to all the correspondence: http://www.fcc.gov/transaction/att-directv


----------



## inkahauts

I didn't see one reason in his list to even give the time of day too. Nothing... There are things that need to be looked at but dishes reasons are as you said totally hypocritical and self serving only. He wants 110 for himself. How is that in the public interest in general?


----------



## hdtvfan0001

inkahauts said:


> I didn't see one reason in his list to even give the time of day too. Nothing... There are things that need to be looked at but dishes reasons are as you said totally hypocritical and self serving only. He wants 110 for himself. How is that in the public interest in general?


After more than 20 years of self-serving operations, Charlie continues to try to battle anything DirecTV does to sustain his own agenda and Ebenezer Scrooge philosophy of running a company based on glue and duct tape. History has shown that anytime DirecTV makes any kind of business move, Charlie finds it necessary to "counter" it with some form of action, regardless of if it has any value, merit, or purpose....rather...he's all about doing things his way and making money for his shareholders in the process (and of course he and his family own most of Dish). It has nothing to do with "the public interest" as you correctly pointed out.

At this point, with the AT&T move, Charlie is running out of options to compete....so he has to figure out how he can continue to battle somehow...even if it is with a duct tape and glue campaign of bogus reasons.

This latest move on 110 is just the latest example.


----------



## James Long

Meanwhile DirecTV is sold to the next owner (if they can get approval for the sale). Perhaps AT&T will spin the satellite services off in a few years once they own what they really want (rights to NFL Sunday Ticket and "20 Million" subscribers to convert to OTT services).

The owners of DirecTV are trying to make money by selling the company.
AT&T is trying to make money by buying a profitable company and its assets.

I do not expect DISH to get the three transponders at 110 ... but it is worth asking for them. By not asking they guarantee that they won't get them. By asking there is at least a possibility. It may be a one in a trillion possibility but it is worth asking.


----------



## harsh

slice1900 said:


> Dish is unhappy that Directv is underutilizing the three transponders at 110 and complaining about the possibility of AT&T/Directv warehousing spectrum. Not sure what they call all that wireless spectrum that Dish owns and has NEVER made any use of - sounds like warehousing to me! These days some legacy SD channels are delivered to PR from 110, so while those transponders were used in the US in the past Dish is right that they're underutilized now.


Is the FCC licensing the terrestrial frequencies that DISH has yet?


----------



## harsh

hdtvfan0001 said:


> After more than 20 years of self-serving operations, Charlie continues to try to battle anything DirecTV does to sustain his own agenda and Ebenezer Scrooge philosophy of running a company based on glue and duct tape.


Versus DIRECTV that is on path to change majority ownership for the fourth time in not too many years and this time, hitching their wagon to the Death Star?


----------



## studechip

harsh said:


> Versus DIRECTV that is on path to change majority ownership for the fourth time in not too many years and this time, *hitching their wagon to the Death Star?*


More hyperbole and FUD. What a surprise.


----------



## slice1900

harsh said:


> Is the FCC licensing the terrestrial frequencies that DISH has yet?


I don't know what the situation is with the existing wireless frequencies Dish has, but the ones just won in that recent auction have "use by" dates that have to meet specific milestones of being used to cover a certain percentage of customers in the markets in which they were auctioned.

No more warehousing, they're going to have to build out a wireless infrastructure, sell off those frequencies, or buy or be bought by someone else who can put them to use.


----------



## slice1900

inkahauts said:


> I didn't see one reason in his list to even give the time of day too. Nothing... There are things that need to be looked at but dishes reasons are as you said totally hypocritical and self serving only. He wants 110 for himself. How is that in the public interest in general?


The comments were interesting in that they claimed that having a slot all to yourself, like Directv has at 101, is better than sharing a slot. Whatever advantage Dish would have if they had 110 all to themselves must not be too high on their list, if it is true that Directv at some point offered to trade their three transponders at 110 for three at 119. Directv can easily cover 110 in the future using older satellites, so there's no benefit to Dish to breaking up Directv's holdings like that. Dish would take the deal if there was a real benefit to holding all the slots at 110. If there isn't, they'd rather potentially inconvenience Directv a bit.

If the FCC doesn't make them give up the three 110 transponders as a condition of the merger, maybe Directv can offer that 110 for 119 trade again and see if Dish backpedals on the idea that holding an entire slot is an advantage. They'd probably only be willing to do it if they got something more, like three transponders at 110 in exchange for two at 119. Directv might not want to do that as it would be advantageous for Dish


----------



## James Long

slice1900 said:


> Whatever advantage Dish would have if they had 110 all to themselves must not be too high on their list, if it is true that Directv at some point offered to trade their three transponders at 110 for three at 119.


That is a nice IF ... and it would be interesting to know for sure that such an offer was ever on the table.

In the distant past it would have been more harmful to DISH to give up three channels at 119 than gain three at 110. DISH's primary satellite location was 119 and nearly all of their core channels originated from 119. Many customers could use a single LNB dish and get all of their programming. 110 was used for some local markets, channels in higher level packages and Spanish channels. DISH customers only needed 110 (on a two LNB dish) if they subscribed to programming that was unique to 110. Giving up three transponders at 119 would have required more customers to get 110 dishes. (110 is DISH's third orbital location. DISH had services at 119 and 61.5 before adding 110.)

I noticed how carefully worded DISH's complaint was ... avoiding DISH's total control of 61.5 and 148 by referring to full ConUS locations and making it sound like 101 was more valuable than 110 or 119. They also glossed over the many past ConUS uses of 110 by DirecTV.

IF DirecTV is forced to divest 110 I do not see why the FCC would give DISH the channels. The FCC still refuses to give DISH permanent control over the two unassigned transponders at 61.5 ... DISH uses them under special temporary authority and cannot put permanent channels on those transponders. If the FCC is unwilling to give DISH the two transponders at 61.5, leaving them open for a "potential new entrant" to the DBS market I expect the FCC would maintain ownership of the transponders at 110 for a "potential new entrant" and let DirecTV use them under STA for as long as DirecTV wants.


----------



## slice1900

I remember reading somewhere that Directv had offered to trade the three transponders at 110 for three at 119 at some time in the past, but I have no idea if it is true, and if so when that was. It seems odd Dish would have used 119 as their primary location in the past since they have more transponders at 110 and it has a better look angle to the NE, but I defer to your much greater knowledge of Dish.

The FCC might as well give Dish permanent ownership of those two tpns because it seems unlikely anyone would launch a third DBS provider today, and if they did they wouldn't want anything to do with a location that offers only two transponders. If the FCC is hoping for a third entrant, I hope they have a couple full slots reserved.


----------



## James Long

slice1900 said:


> I remember reading somewhere that Directv had offered to trade the three transponders at 110 for three at 119 at some time in the past, but I have no idea if it is true, and if so when that was. It seems odd Dish would have used 119 as their primary location in the past since they have more transponders at 110 and it has a better look angle to the NE, but I defer to your much greater knowledge of Dish.
> 
> The FCC might as well give Dish permanent ownership of those two tpns because it seems unlikely anyone would launch a third DBS provider today, and if they did they wouldn't want anything to do with a location that offers only two transponders. If the FCC is hoping for a third entrant, I hope they have a couple full slots reserved.


The original assignments were small ... usually 8 transponders or 11 on each "arc". Back when they were assigned, the FCC considered 61.5-101-110-119 as eastern and 148-157-166-175 as western. They assigned an equal number of channels on each "arc". The FCC's intent was two orbital locations per company with one arc serving the eastern US and the other serving the western US, AK and HI. Most companies did not build their western assignments and served the entire US from the eastern locations.

DISH got their assignment at 119 and built that first, then built their assignment at 61.5 (including supporting Sky Angel's DBS license by providing use of a satellite). The 28 transponders at 110 came later from an auction won by MCI then sold to DISH. (If I recall correctly, the three transponders carved out were part of an assignment made to USSB.) Most of their dishes were single orbital location pointed at 119 so they filled that up first then overflowed to 110. (The rest of the story is irrelevant, so I will stop.)

There was an auction for the remaining DBS licenses but the results were cancelled. DISH has basically abandoned 148. 157, 166 and 175 are still "available" but basically unusable for ConUS service. The FCC has no "full slots" available for ConUS except for potential "tweeners" where a DBS satellite with reversed polarity would be placed between the existing slots at 101-110-119.

I do not see the FCC doing DISH any favors ... even with the two transponders at 61.5 . But perhaps this will get the conversation started and a swap between 110 and 119 would be possible. DISH is in a better position today than they were a decade ago to lose three transponders at 119 as long as they are replaced at 110.

A deep technology question for DirecTV experts: DirecTV used a special stacking arrangement on their 101-110-119 LNB where the 110 LNB signal was mixed with the 119 LNB signal. The switch commands for 110 were the same as for 119. Does anyone know where the cutoff is for that mix? Could DirecTV use transponders 19, 20, 21 at 119? Or has that triple LNB gone out of use?


----------



## harsh

slice1900 said:


> I don't know what the situation is with the existing wireless frequencies Dish has, but the ones just won in that recent auction have "use by" dates that have to meet specific milestones of being used to cover a certain percentage of customers in the markets in which they were auctioned.


I asked because you made a case that DISH was somehow violating their right to own the frequencies. I often note that DIRECTV underutilizes their 110W license, but they have long had a license and they're not being good stewards of those frequencies.


----------



## slice1900

James Long said:


> A deep technology question for DirecTV experts: DirecTV used a special stacking arrangement on their 101-110-119 LNB where the 110 LNB signal was mixed with the 119 LNB signal. The switch commands for 110 were the same as for 119. Does anyone know where the cutoff is for that mix? Could DirecTV use transponders 19, 20, 21 at 119? Or has that triple LNB gone out of use?


There are still some triple LNBs around but I doubt Directv would use the three additional transponders on 119 for MPEG2 SD customers so we can ignore that. It might be a slight problem on the SL5 - here's the specs on it:

http://www.wnc.com.tw/index.php?action=pro_detail&top_id=28&scid=29&tid=43&lid=43&id=219

Adding transponders 19-21 would push the lowest frequencies to 12501 MHz for transponder 20 and 12486 MHz for transponder 19. The cutoff listed in WNC's document is 12500 MHz, so transponder 19 might be a bit dicey. Depends on the roll off of that 12500 - 12700 MHz filter, but that transponder would probably be weaker than the rest. Easy enough to work around by using a different modulation on that transponder (resulting in less capacity for it)

EDIT: actually those are center frequency numbers so the bottom edges would be 12 MHz lower. So the SL5 may not be able to fully utilize all three "new" transponders. Whether that's a problem would depend on Directv's future plans for 119 - I would assume any Directv/Dish trade of 110 for 119 would take a few years to happen as Directv needs to migrate PR off MPEG2 SD before it can give up 110. Though Dish might be able to take possession of 110 earlier if they could provide the PR spots for Directv and use it in CONUS for their own spots right away - maybe that earlier possession for 110 and later handover for 119 could be the incentive for both to make this trade?


----------



## harsh

When asked about the "synergies" that were being referenced as major drivers for the merger, an interesting tidbit of speculation on the part of Mike White from the recent earnings call transcript:



Mike White said:


> Even in areas like our technology platform having one set of apps, not 2 for TV Everywhere, having one dot-com website, our set-top box technology, we think, there is substantial net present value synergies for shifting to one kind of platform over time.


The "having one dot-com website" phrase speaks loudly to me about a post merger vision of DIRECTV identity and independence.


----------



## slice1900

harsh said:


> When asked about the "synergies" that were being referenced as major drivers for the merger, an interesting tidbit of speculation on the part of Mike White from the recent earnings call transcript:
> 
> The "having one dot-com website" phrase speaks loudly to me about a post merger vision of DIRECTV identity and independence.


What's the difference between directv.com and att.com/directv? And again, who really cares if they rebrand it and the Directv name goes away? If Dish changed its name to Sling Satellite, would it really matter to anyone?


----------



## harsh

slice1900 said:


> What's the difference between directv.com and att.com/directv?


If you didn't know DIRECTV was some sort of subdivision of AT&T would you visit att.com to find DIRECTV?


----------



## Shades228

harsh said:


> If you didn't know DIRECTV was some sort of subdivision of AT&T would you visit att.com to find DIRECTV?


One website does not equal one domain.


----------



## James Long

harsh said:


> If you didn't know DIRECTV was some sort of subdivision of AT&T would you visit att.com to find DIRECTV?


Easy solution: Redirect

Visit http://officemax.com/ and you will be redirected to http://officedepot.com/ 
http://directv.com/ can be easily redirected to http://att.com/directv or http://att.com/satellite or whatever.


----------



## inkahauts

Yep. The domain isn't as important as I believe that he was talking more about the actual experience once in the page, having the same look and feel and features.


----------



## Athlon646464

*Update: **Documents Access Case Might Delay Regulatory Approval of AT&T-DirecTV Deal*

(forbes.com) - AT&T's acquisition of satellite-TV provider DirecTV and the merger between Comcast and Time Warner Cable could be delayed as an ongoing federal case about access to sensitive cable industry documents is complicating the review process. AT&T had agreed to acquire DirecTV in May of last year and regulatory approvals by the Justice Department and the Federal Communications Commission were expected to take about a year....

Full Story Here


----------



## harsh

Again, more lip-service to these mysterious "synergies".


----------



## Oli74

Athlon646464 said:


> *Update: **Documents Access Case Might Delay Regulatory Approval of AT&T-DirecTV Deal*
> 
> (forbes.com) - AT&T's acquisition of satellite-TV provider DirecTV and the merger between Comcast and Time Warner Cable could be delayed as an ongoing federal case about access to sensitive cable industry documents is complicating the review process. AT&T had agreed to acquire DirecTV in May of last year and regulatory approvals by the Justice Department and the Federal Communications Commission were expected to take about a year....
> 
> Full Story Here


Key word "Might" so possible it won't

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## harsh

Oli74 said:


> Key word "Might" so possible it won't


Haven't the recent delays been pinned on the documentation access argument as it is?


----------



## hdtvfan0001

I suspect the real meat of the article is highlighted below...and SHOULD be a concern.



> According to a recent report, *a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals voiced concerns over the FCC granting limited access of confidential cable-industry business documents and contracts to competitors such as Dish Network.* A lawyer arguing for the content companies said that the FCC's decision to grant access was "totally unprecedented" and that disclosure of the documents "would be highly damaging" to the interests of his clients. On the other hand, the FCC argued that it had strong protections in place for restricting access to the documents.


----------



## slice1900

Dish is asking because they win either way. Either they get access to Directv's deals with content providers like Disney, or they delay the proceedings.


----------



## hdtvfan0001

slice1900 said:


> Dish is asking because they win either way. Either they get access to Directv's deals with content providers like Disney, or they delay the proceedings.


Or another way of looking at it...Dish is desperate to continue existing...so it works hard and uses nearly any tactic to interfere with any competitor or content provider to try and survive to fight another day. That's consistent with their "hold channels hostage for pricing" by dropping channels without any regard for their customers.

Assuming the AT&T acquisition goes through after this faux noise...Dish will be in a very lowly place to exist much longer without getting bought by somebody else themselves.


----------



## damondlt

hdtvfan0001 said:


> Or another way of looking at it...Dish is desperate to continue existing...so it works hard and uses nearly any tactic to interfere with any competitor or content provider to try and survive to fight another day. That's consistent with their "hold channels hostage for pricing" by dropping channels without any regard for their customers.
> 
> Assuming the AT&T acquisition goes through after this faux noise...Dish will be in a very lowly place to exist much longer without getting bought by somebody else themselves.


Stop Traffic, I totally agree with you! :righton:


----------



## slice1900

hdtvfan0001 said:


> Or another way of looking at it...Dish is desperate to continue existing...so it works hard and uses nearly any tactic to interfere with any competitor or content provider to try and survive to fight another day. That's consistent with their "hold channels hostage for pricing" by dropping channels without any regard for their customers.
> 
> Assuming the AT&T acquisition goes through after this faux noise...Dish will be in a very lowly place to exist much longer without getting bought by somebody else themselves.


Dish doesn't have any reason to be 'desperate', they hold billions of dollars worth of cellular spectrum. Granted, that may end up being sold, leased or otherwise not used in any way that has anything to do with their satellite TV business. I think Ergen is just one of those businessmen who believes you compete as much if not more by trying to hurt your competition as by improving your own business. He's the guy in the three legged race at the family reunion who pushes his nephew into the mud so he and his son can win 

I think when the dust settles one of two things happens. If the AT&T deal is denied, Dish may be in a better situation compared to cable/satellite competitors five years down the road than it is today - if they set up their own cellular network across the US and sell a double/triple play product to match cable companies and that Directv can't compete with. If the AT&T deal is approved, then Dish has additional options of buying Sprint or T-Mobile, or selling itself to Verizon, with near-certainty of approval (hard to approve Directv/AT&T and deny Dish/Verizon)

It is all about the different market positions each has chosen. Directv for years has concentrated more on higher spending customers, who are less price sensitive and less likely to cut the cord, so its value lies in complementary offers alongside Directv service - that's why AT&T wants them. Dish is more down market, so their customers are more likely to cut the cord. Dish was smart to offer Sling TV as it is better to cannibalize your own customers than wait for someone to do it for you. Now they'll still have a relationship with those customers to sell them additional services if/when Dish becomes or merges with a cellular provider. I could see them throwing in Sling TV for free as a perk for signing up for a new two year cell phone contract, that sort of thing.


----------



## James Long

It looks like people forget that DirecTV is owned ... and sold to different owners over the years with AT&T next in line to own the company. DISH owns. They have bought other companies for the valuable parts. There is a completely different attitude when your CEO is saying "who can we sell to" instead of "who can we buy".

It is good that AT&T has agreed to purchase DirecTV - it shows it has value. But statements from AT&T lead me to believe that AT&T wants DirecTV for the parts that work well - NFL Sunday Ticket, ~20 million subscribers they can market OTT services to, the current billions of dollars in annual profits to pump up their other businesses. The good parts.


----------



## slice1900

What difference does it make if a company is "owned" or "owns"? That does not affect you as a customer in any way whatsoever. If you think AT&T only wants Directv for the "good parts that work well", what are the bad parts you think don't work well? Can you provide some examples of bad decisions Directv's previous owners made, and if so has Dish never made any bad decisions since Ergen maintains tight control? If the distinction matters, why is Directv larger and more profitable than Dish?


----------



## James Long

slice1900 said:


> What difference does it make if a company is "owned" or "owns"? That does not affect you as a customer in any way whatsoever. If you think AT&T only wants Directv for the "good parts that work well", what are the bad parts you think don't work well? Can you provide some examples of bad decisions Directv's previous owners made, and if so has Dish never made any bad decisions since Ergen maintains tight control? If the distinction matters, why is Directv larger and more profitable than Dish?


The primary difference between owned and owns is the owners intentions. If a company like AT&T buys a company they are looking for an investment ... and have no loyalty or interest in the company beyond the investment. When they no longer see value in the company they bought (or see more value in divesting than keeping) they sell. It has not happened yet to DirecTV, but often when a company is sold it is not sold intact.

AT&T has made no secret of why they want DirecTV. Some of the items I listed above. The content delivery industry that includes satellite and cable is changing. Satellite has leveled off - the years of adding multiple millions of customers per year are gone. Declining years are ahead. As people move off of satellite AT&T would like those people to subscribe to AT&T services - including their planned OTT service. DISH has introduced their own OTT service as an option to satellite and cable customers. Platform neutral subscription seems to be the way the industry is going.

I don't keep a list of all the poor decisions DirecTV past CEOs and other leaders have made. You will need to read old posts in the forums to figure that out for yourself. If you beileve DirecTV is perfect and has never made a poor decision you are only deluding yourself. DISH isn't perfect but they are not the topic of this thread.

As a customer I prefer a situation where the people in charge are looking for a way to keep the company I am a customer of running - not just as a profit center for a few years but as the main thing. An opinion - if you disagree that is fine with me. Being a satellite customer is not like being a member of a co-op. DirecTV is not sending their customers profit sharing checks every year - their profits go to the stockholders. What benefit are high profits to a satellite customer? As long as the company stays in business, profitability isn't my problem - nor yours (as a customer).

I find it interesting that the difference in profitability between the two satellite companies is not much different than the difference in ARPU. These companies get their money from their customers - and as a customer I'd like to give them as little as possible. I am more concerned about my bank balance than theirs.


----------



## hdtvfan0001

James Long said:


> The primary difference between owned and owns is the owners intentions. If a company like AT&T buys a company they are looking for an investment ... and have no loyalty or interest in the company beyond the investment. When they no longer see value in the company they bought (or see more value in divesting than keeping) they sell. It has not happened yet to DirecTV, but often when a company is sold it is not sold intact.
> 
> AT&T has made no secret of why they want DirecTV. Some of the items I listed above. The content delivery industry that includes satellite and cable is changing. Satellite has leveled off - the years of adding multiple millions of customers per year are gone. Declining years are ahead.


I respectively disagree and point out that as recently this week...with the ruling on net neutrality, its the cable companies that have the biggest future success risk. Cable companies face limited/pricing-controlled revenue with growing costs as their biggest challenge.

The Internet is now a commodity, and that cash-cow revenue stream that has been feeding the cable company coffers for many years is about to go away. That translates into small investments going forward, which likely could result in less services and slower streaming adoption (especially without national access to affordable high-speed broadband, which is NOT the case today).

Put simple, the cable companies will now have to retool their business/pricing models.

DirecTV has a long track record of outpacing the competition on several fronts over time - net subscriber growth for one. AT&T has its own struggles, as the rollout of UVerse has been nothing short of slow, inconsistent, and problem-laden. Verizon has de-funded their expansion of FIOS, and Comcast continues to have all sorts of challenges with the acquisitions they made with Universal.

In reality, AT&T now has the potential for a solid base to build from (DirecTV), and allows them to concentrate on their core competencies - which clearly is not the TV service portion of the business. THAT is what the acquisition attractive - stability in one area that they have their greatest weakness, and as a complimentary service run by people who know that industry and market.


----------



## Diana C

slice1900 said:


> ....I think when the dust settles one of two things happens. If the AT&T deal is denied, Dish may be in a better situation compared to cable/satellite competitors five years down the road than it is today - if they set up their own cellular network across the US and sell a double/triple play product to match cable companies and that Directv can't compete with. If the AT&T deal is approved, then Dish has additional options of buying Sprint or T-Mobile, or selling itself to Verizon, with near-certainty of approval (hard to approve Directv/AT&T and deny Dish/Verizon)...


Except that the LAST thing Verizon wants is to get deeper into the TV distribution business. If Verizon bought Dish it would be SOLELY for the wireless spectrum. They would likely turn around and sell the satellite TV business off to some other owner, just as they have divested their FiOS business outside of the northeast.

I'm not sure of the wisdom of buying Sprint or T-Mobile. Sprint is a dead man walking that not even Charlie could turn around quickly. T-Mobile is a bit better, but you have a huge culture Nclash between them and Dish.

Some of Dish's wireless assets have development deadlines within a couple of years, so if they don't do something soon, they will start to lose them. It will take billions to develop those licenses and unless you have a partner who already has tower access it can be impossible to get adequate coverage.

Tower access is not often discussed, but critical in the mobile wireless business. Many communities fight cell towers (for both valid and invalid reasons) so building new towers is very hard. The tower owners know this and are charging ever higher fees for access. The fees are high enough that they are becoming major sources of revenue for towns, radio stations and tall buildings.


----------



## harsh

hdtvfan0001 said:


> I respectively disagree and point out that as recently this week...with the ruling on net neutrality, its the cable companies that have the biggest future success risk. Cable companies face limited/pricing-controlled revenue with growing costs as their biggest challenge.


AT&T has made no secrets about their concerns over 'net neutrality and its possible impact on their expansion plans.

The only companies that aren't on the hot plate are the ones that haven't yet deployed.


----------



## harsh

Diana C said:


> Many communities fight cell towers (for both valid and invalid reasons) so building new towers is very hard.


The communities are mostly losing these battles. The FCC asks for comments, but they have a mandate that drives them to do whatever must be done that overrides the protestations from the locals.


----------



## James Long

hdtvfan0001 said:


> I respectively disagree and point out that as recently this week...with the ruling on net neutrality, its the cable companies that have the biggest future success risk. Cable companies face limited/pricing-controlled revenue with growing costs as their biggest challenge.


Cable having worse problems does not negate the problems satellite is facing. The promised benefit of net neutrality helps companies that are moving past delivering content solely over their own connections to customers (whether wires, fiber or satellite). Net neutrality supports companies that seek to go "over the top" like AT&T and DISH. It seeks to protect them from an ISP with its own TV delivery from unfairly blocking or restricting the OTT company's service.



hdtvfan0001 said:


> Put simple, the cable companies will now have to retool their business/pricing models.


Cable/IPTV may need to unbundle TV and charge separately for the "access to content" and the "delivery of content". Unlimited data for watching content sold by your data provider will be gone. (After all, charging for delivering content from an OTT and not charging for content delivered by your ISP would be "unfair".)


----------



## slice1900

James Long said:


> The primary difference between owned and owns is the owners intentions. If a company like AT&T buys a company they are looking for an investment ... and have no loyalty or interest in the company beyond the investment. When they no longer see value in the company they bought (or see more value in divesting than keeping) they sell. It has not happened yet to DirecTV, but often when a company is sold it is not sold intact.


What the heck do you think Directv's current owners (i.e., the shareholders) are doing, if not "looking for an investment"? Why do you think they made the decision to sell? You're living in la-la land if you think there's "loyalty" to the company from corporate management or shareholders of ANY Fortune 500 company. The days of a guy starting in the mailroom and working his whole life for the same company, possibly working his way all the way up to CEO, are long gone (if they ever existed)

The management and the investors of Fortune 500 companies are out to make a buck, they are not mom & pop founders of a small business that stays in a small town even though they could grow and be more profitable if they pulled up stakes and moved elsewhere. The loyalty Directv will get from AT&T's management, board of directors and shareholders will be no different than the loyalty Directv gets today from its own management, board of directors and shareholders, i.e. zero.

There are a small number of large companies where the control rests with one or a few individuals, due to majority stock or voting stock ownership. I'm not sure but I would guess Dish is one. Oracle would be another example. Do you think Charlie Ergen and Larry Ellison show "loyalty" towards Dish and Oracle, respectively? That loyalty you probably imagine Ergen shows towards Dish only extends so far as it overlaps with his own best interest. If he decided he was no longer interested in the satellite business but was interested in the cellular business, he could spin off Dish's cellular spectrum holdings into a new company, sell Dish, and begin the work of becoming a cellular mogul. Do you doubt that's a possibility, believing he has some loyalty towards Dish and keeping it as an "owner" instead of "owned" that would prevent him from doing that?



James Long said:


> If you beileve DirecTV is perfect and has never made a poor decision you are only deluding yourself.


I didn't suggest they were perfect or have never made a poor decision, I asked for examples of poor decisions that were made for them because they were owned, that you believe would not have been made had they been operating independently at the time.



James Long said:


> As a customer I prefer a situation where the people in charge are looking for a way to keep the company I am a customer of running - not just as a profit center for a few years but as the main thing. An opinion - if you disagree that is fine with me. Being a satellite customer is not like being a member of a co-op. DirecTV is not sending their customers profit sharing checks every year - their profits go to the stockholders. What benefit are high profits to a satellite customer? As long as the company stays in business, profitability isn't my problem - nor yours (as a customer).


That's an ideal situation, but once again you are in la la land if you think any Fortune 500 company is operating in a way where "keep it running" is the sole goal. It is the fiduciary duty of the management of a corporation to maximize shareholder value - the shareholders can sue them if they manage a company otherwise. They will run it to keep it running if that's the way to maximize shareholder value. If someone offers to buy the company or its assets for significantly more than the current stock price and higher than the most optimistic estimates of what the share price will be in the short/medium term, they will sell out. You're fooling yourself if you believe there are any exceptions among companies the size of Directv or Dish.

Profits matter because the more profit a company makes from its business, the less attractive parting it out and selling it for the assets is. A company that makes little money, especially if it is in a declining business as satellite/cable TV may soon be, is often worth more stripped of its assets than it is worth continuing to operate as a going concern.



James Long said:


> I find it interesting that the difference in profitability between the two satellite companies is not much different than the difference in ARPU. These companies get their money from their customers - and as a customer I'd like to give them as little as possible. I am more concerned about my bank balance than theirs.


You assume the average customer at Dish is getting the same value as the average customer at Directv. Directv made a business decision long ago to go after the 'higher value' customers. Customers who want more, and are willing to spend more to get it. The difference in APRU is not reflected in the difference when comparing similar packages. Directv may cost more, but nowhere near the degree the difference in APRU suggests. There's a reason Dish makes it very difficult to go above 6 receivers, and Directv has residential customers with more than 60 (that have been reported here by installers, that's probably not the record)


----------



## slice1900

harsh said:


> The communities are mostly losing these battles. The FCC asks for comments, but they have a mandate that drives them to do whatever must be done that overrides the protestations from the locals.


They may lose, but they delay them for months/years and increase costs. Coming in as a new entrant and trying to negotiate with either owners of existing cell towers or property owners and neighbors/communities trying to put up new ones would be far from cheap or easy.


----------



## James Long

When I worked with cell towers I could get on a tower in a matter of months ... there were a couple that took less than a month from first contact to antennas live - and I was not paying what the cell companies pay for tower space. (The level of money a cell carrier pays for tower space does a lot to encourage a tower owner/lease company to allow the antennas on their tower.) There were a couple of companies where it was not worth the phone call ... they did not lease to anyone. But for the most part it was not hard to get a lease.

Partnering with a company that already has tower access will help - but a "T-Mobile/DISH partnership" trying to get on a tower leased (in part) to T-Mobile will still need to get permission and pay using the same process as a new entrant. The only benefit would be a prior relationship between the lessor and lessee - Joe calls Bill and asks to add more antennas and since Bill knows Joe (and already has a business relationship) the paperwork flows smoother.

BTW: It does not take much to provide FCC minimum coverage. The system does not need to be as robust as AT&T or Verizon Wireless to be considered "active" and "in service". It just needs to exist in the right areas to cover the minimum required by the license. The system can be "Safe Auto" cellular - it does not need to be "Lloyds of London" to satisfy the FCC.


----------



## slice1900

Even if it is easy, it won't be cheap. And given the prices paid at the last auction for spectrum, the tower owners are probably rubbing their hands with glee thinking about how much they're going to jack up the rates for new leases? After all, if the value of spectrum is 4x higher than original estimates, companies should be willing to pay at least 4x more to put that investment to use. I'll bet the inflation rate for tower access leases makes the inflation rate for sports rights and local channel carriage look tiny by comparison.

Makes me wish I lived just outside of town on a large acreage and had a spot where someone wanted to put up a tower. You could probably retire on that income pretty easily these days!


----------



## Diana C

harsh said:


> The communities are mostly losing these battles. The FCC asks for comments, but they have a mandate that drives them to do whatever must be done that overrides the protestations from the locals.


Maybe in your neck of the woods...but here AT&T has been trying to put up a tower in my town or the one next door for about 8 years and haven't had any luck yet. Last I heard, they were in federal circuit court.


----------



## Laxguy

Where is "here"? The Garden State is pretty good size. You could be in the Pine Barrens or Central Hoboken! Far Hills, Ho-Ho-Kus, Hopewell, or Camden! 

Though I bet it's none of the above....


----------



## harsh

Diana C said:


> Maybe in your neck of the woods...but here AT&T has been trying to put up a tower in my town or the one next door for about 8 years and haven't had any luck yet.


Lawsuits only delay the inevitable. The towers will come as the wireless operators have their own version of OTARD.


----------



## Oli74

Forecast mixed on Comcast merger as AT&T merger moves along

http://www.philly.com/philly/business/20150308_Forecast_mixed_on_Comcast_merger_as_AT_T_merger_moves_along.html

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Oli74

AT&T Eyes DirecTV Acquisition for Broadband Video

http://m.homemediamagazine.com/cable/att-eyes-directv-acquisition-broadband-video-35412

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Laxguy

They have this many homes wired? Doesn't that make them one of the largest ISPs? Or are they including LTE phones or something else?



> "The ability to bundle our 57 million broadband [households] with DirecTV's video product offering is a huge advantage," Stephens told attendees March 11 at Deutsche Bank Media, Internet & Telecom confab in Palm Beach, Fla. "We [also] think pay-TV has a long life to it."


----------



## hdtvfan0001

Laxguy said:


> They have this many homes wired? Doesn't that make them one of the largest ISPs? Or are they including LTE phones or something else?


Wondering that too.

Add in the re-definition of "broadband" recently (which raised the criteria for what is considered high-speed broadband)...and it really makes you wonder if the availability of true high-speed Internet is anywhere near the financial people's estimates.


----------



## dpeters11

harsh said:


> The communities are mostly losing these battles. The FCC asks for comments, but they have a mandate that drives them to do whatever must be done that overrides the protestations from the locals.


In my neighborhood, Verizon wanted to build a tower and the community was against it, to a great extent because it would block the view of the water tower. About 2 years later and it hasn't gone anywhere. Last I heard they were going to see if they could get access to a different tower already in the neighborhood.


----------



## harsh

dpeters11 said:


> In my neighborhood, Verizon wanted to build a tower and the community was against it, to a great extent because it would block the view of the water tower.


It must be a very attractive water tower.


----------



## slice1900

Laxguy said:


> They have this many homes wired? Doesn't that make them one of the largest ISPs? Or are they including LTE phones or something else?


I think they must have 57 million people living in areas where they can offer Uverse or DSL, not that they have that many people signed up with them. They'd need to cover pretty much the whole US to get 57 million broadband subscribers - I'm not sure even Comcast post-merger will have that many.


----------



## dpeters11

harsh said:


> It must be a very attractive water tower.


It is a focal point of the community, even has Christmas lights. Though I do think of Marvin the Martian whenever someone says something like that, but do admit as water towers go, it looks pretty good. I have a weak spot for Art Deco.

http://landmarkhunter.com/photos/52/78/527888-L.jpg


----------



## harsh

dpeters11 said:


> http://landmarkhunter.com/photos/52/78/527888-L.jpg


It is quite the antenna farm already. I can't imagine that a symmetrically arranged array on top would hurt the aesthetics a whole lot.


----------



## 242424

dpeters11 said:


> It is a focal point of the community, even has Christmas lights. Though I do think of Marvin the Martian whenever someone says something like that, but do admit as water towers go, it looks pretty good. I have a weak spot for Art Deco.
> 
> http://landmarkhunter.com/photos/52/78/527888-L.jpg


Sure looks better than any I've seen


----------



## dpeters11

harsh said:


> It is quite the antenna farm already. I can't imagine that a symmetrically arranged array on top would hurt the aesthetics a whole lot.


They didn't want to put it on the water tower, they wanted to build a whole new cell tower about a block away.


----------



## dennisj00

Not as pretty as this one!

http://www.postandcourier.com/storyimage/CP/20130319/PC16/130319226/AR/0/AR-130319226.jpg


----------



## longrider

dennisj00 said:


> Not as pretty as this one!
> 
> http://www.postandcourier.com/storyimage/CP/20130319/PC16/130319226/AR/0/AR-130319226.jpg


Movin' to the country, gonna eat me a lot of peaches...


----------



## WestDC

longrider said:


> Movin' to the country, gonna eat me a lot of peaches...


ALso Throw out your TV


----------



## gpg

FCC stops the clock again.
http://money.cnn.com/2015/03/13/media/time-warner-comcast-fcc-pause/


----------



## Oli74

Is the AT&T DirecTv Merger Closing Imminent?

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/t-directv-merger-closing-imminent-161624126.html?soc_src=mediacontentstory&soc_trk=tw

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## James Long

There are hurdles to cross. It sounds like waiting is the current step.


----------



## harsh

Oli74 said:


> Is the AT&T DirecTv Merger Closing Imminent?


The closing isn't imminent until the FCC gets its pound of flesh and as the article points out, that's currently tied up in a lawsuit over trade secret level contract details.

The clock must be running with no "hurdles" in sight in order to consider consummation imminent and even if everything is shiny with the AT&T-DIRECTV part of the investigation, it remains stapled to the Comcast-TWC portion -- for better or worse.


----------



## Diana C

Laxguy said:


> Where is "here"? The Garden State is pretty good size. You could be in the Pine Barrens or Central Hoboken! Far Hills, Ho-Ho-Kus, Hopewell, or Camden!
> 
> Though I bet it's none of the above....


The extreme NE corner of the state...right along the Hudson, about half way between the George Washington and Tappan Zee Bridges.

One of the problems is terrain...this part of Bergen County has a number of narrow valleys with hills just high enough to block any reasonably sized tower. As a result, it takes a lot of towers to cover the area. Verizon has a tower in town, and I get great signal, AT&T's nearest tower is only one town (and about 2 miles) away, but over a hill and I get nothing at all unless I go to the top floor of the house and stand near a window that faces the tower (and then I get 1 or 2 bars at best). I assume that Verizon and AT&T are unable to come to terms to share a tower.



harsh said:


> Lawsuits only delay the inevitable. The towers will come as the wireless operators have their own version of OTARD.


I checked, and AT&T gave up on erecting a tower in our town or the two adjoining towns about a year ago. So, in this case the delay negated any inevitability.


----------



## slice1900

Diana C said:


> I assume that Verizon and AT&T are unable to come to terms to share a tower.


This may start to change. I've read that cellular companies have been divesting their towers to third parties. Considering the legalities and other difficulties I suppose it may make sense for companies to specialize in erecting/owning/operating cellular towers.

Maybe Verizon puts it in the sale contract "no leasing to AT&T" and vice versa, but if there are no strings you'd think many such towers would eventually host antennas from all major carriers.


----------



## jimmie57

slice1900 said:


> This may start to change. I've read that cellular companies have been divesting their towers to third parties. Considering the legalities and other difficulties I suppose it may make sense for companies to specialize in erecting/owning/operating cellular towers.
> 
> Maybe Verizon puts it in the sale contract "no leasing to AT&T" and vice versa, but if there are no strings you'd think many such towers would eventually host antennas from all major carriers.


Third party owners of real estate and towers has been ongoing for a long time.
This company, American Tower, has been doing it since 1995.

Copied from the Yahoo Financial section:

Business Summary

American Tower Corporation is a real estate investment trust. It invests in the real estate markets across the globe. The firm through its subsidiaries *owns, operates and develops wireless and broadcast communications real estate. Through its subsidiaries it leases antenna space on multi-tenant communications sites to wireless service providers, radio and television broadcast companies, wireless data providers, government agencies and municipalities and tenants in a number of other industries*. American Tower Corporation was founded in 1995 and is headquartered in Boston, Massachusetts.


----------



## fleckrj

Diana C said:


> Verizon has a tower in town, and I get great signal, AT&T's nearest tower is only one town (and about 2 miles) away, but over a hill and I get nothing at all unless I go to the top floor of the house and stand near a window that faces the tower (and then I get 1 or 2 bars at best). I assume that Verizon and AT&T are unable to come to terms to share a tower.


Where I live, and I think it is the same across the country, Verizon and AT&T use different frequencies, and the frequency that Verizon uses penetrates better than the frequency that AT&T uses. I live on top of a small hill, so terrain should not be the issue. I can receive a Verizon and a Sprint signal in my house, but I have to go outside to get an AT&T signal. Once I am outside, AT&T has four bars, but inside, there is nothing. My daughters (both of whom are engineers) say it is because I live in a Faraday cage, but the Verizon signal penetrates extremely well, even in my basement.


----------



## slice1900

jimmie57 said:


> Third party owners of real estate and towers has been ongoing for a long time.
> This company, American Tower, has been doing it since 1995.


Yes, there have been companies doing that for many years, but the big carriers have mostly owned and operated their own towers. Divesting those tower assets to third parties like American Tower is something relatively new.


----------



## Herdfan

fleckrj said:


> My daughters (both of whom are engineers) say it is because I live in a Faraday cage,


I always told my daughter her middle school commons/cafeteria was a Faraday cage. Signal everywhere in the school but that one room. Since it is new (2012) school, I would bet they built it that way on purpose.


----------



## slice1900

Herdfan said:


> I always told my daughter her middle school commons/cafeteria was a Faraday cage. Signal everywhere in the school but that one room. Since it is new (2012) school, I would bet they built it that way on purpose.


They probably didn't built it on purpose to stop cellular signals, but built it with concrete & rebar walls and ceiling so it would be the safe place in the school to go in the event of a tornado. The newly built schools around were designed that way, preferably the auditorium if the school has one, since there are no windows that require impact resistant glass.

I mean, why would you shield the cafeteria and leave the classrooms open to cellular? That's the exact opposite of how it should be! Shielding a room from cellular signals is actually pretty easy. Modern low-e glass already does a pretty good job of blocking RF, especially triple pane, despite not being grounded. There are thin transparent films that can be affixed to older windows that will drop signal by 40 db across the whole spectrum and cost only a buck per sq ft. Even cheaper on walls and ceiling. The materials to shield a typical classroom would be only a couple thousand dollars, plus installation which includes grounding all the shielding to be really effective.

I'm sure if you shielded all the classrooms there would be some parents who would scream bloody murder that they can't contact their kids if they hear about a lockdown at the school, or to let them know they can't pick them up or whatever. Somehow those of us who grew up before cell phones managed to get along just fine in the world without our parents being able to contact us 24x7...I feel sorry for today's kids!


----------



## Herdfan

Her middle school had a zero tolerance policy on cell phones. Kids could have them, but they were to remain in their lockers during the day. If kid was caught, the phone was confiscated and a parent had to come to the school to retrieve it. Funny thing is the kid were not allowed to call their parents to have them come to the school that day, so best case was the kids was without the phone overnight or worst case, over a weekend.


----------



## boukengreen

Herdfan said:


> Her middle school had a zero tolerance policy on cell phones. Kids could have them, but they were to remain in their lockers during the day. If kid was caught, the phone was confiscated and a parent had to come to the school to retrieve it. Funny thing is the kid were not allowed to call their parents to have them come to the school that day, so best case was the kids was without the phone overnight or worst case, over a weekend.


thats how my high school was 8 years ago and the only time I got caught with my phone was one time during basketball pe when the team was practicing and I was in the locker room and the freshman coach just looked and shook his head at me


----------



## James Long

I am glad that I made it through school and college before cell phones were popular. Especially camera phones. Too much room for abuse.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot

Take this for what you want, but with the information coming out on Friday of the Justice department now leaning against the Comcast-TWC merger, several media experts have spoken out that they now expect that the AT&T-DirecTV merger to have a much harder time being approved.

It was a slam dunk if Comcast-TWC went through.

Now, not so much.


----------



## harsh

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> Take this for what you want, but with the information coming out on Friday of the Justice department now leaning against the Comcast-TWC merger, several media experts have spoken out that they now expect that the AT&T-DirecTV merger to have a much harder time being approved.


I disagree with these particular media experts.

In the Comcast-TWC merger, they're trying to combine the top two companies in the cable space (TV, broadband and phone). In contrast, the AT&T-DIRECTV merger seeks to combine two giants in mostly different (but complementary) disciplines. Not that AT&T's Uverse doesn't represent a significant operation, but the main concern seems to be the broadband side of things where DIRECTV doesn't bring a dish to that table of the potluck.


----------



## Diana C

Yes, harsh is correct about the difference. The Comcast/TWC is specifically in trouble because of broadband. If these were "just" cable TV operations there would be no issues. But given the scrutiny that broadband service has been under the past few months, the Justice Dept is questioning whether a single company should control access to the Internet for roughly a third of the country.

The only reason to block AT&T/DirecTV is because it does remove one competitor in places where AT&T sells UVerse. However, that is in only a few markets, and is just a TV service issue (which is a declining business anyway).

IMHO, the fate of Comcast/TWC has no bearing on AT&T/DirecTV.


----------



## James Long

"Leanings" ... more fear, uncertainty and doubt. A few weeks ago the "rumor" was that the merger would be approved within a few weeks. Too many media types writing stories based on their gut and not on actual outcomes.

When the DOJ or another government agency actually rules we will have something to work with. But now, it is just FUD.


----------



## harsh

James Long said:


> But now, it is just FUD.


And so it goes with those who are addicted to either producing or consuming "the news". Bloggers are the new weathercasters.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot

harsh said:


> I disagree with these particular media experts.
> 
> In the Comcast-TWC merger, they're trying to combine the top two companies in the cable space (TV, broadband and phone). In contrast, the AT&T-DIRECTV merger seeks to combine two giants in mostly different (but complementary) disciplines. Not that AT&T's Uverse doesn't represent a significant operation, but the main concern seems to be the broadband side of things where DIRECTV doesn't bring a dish to that table of the potluck.





Diana C said:


> Yes, harsh is correct about the difference. The Comcast/TWC is specifically in trouble because of broadband. If these were "just" cable TV operations there would be no issues. But given the scrutiny that broadband service has been under the past few months, the Justice Dept is questioning whether a single company should control access to the Internet for roughly a third of the country.
> 
> The only reason to block AT&T/DirecTV is because it does remove one competitor in places where AT&T sells UVerse. However, that is in only a few markets, and is just a TV service issue (which is a declining business anyway).
> 
> IMHO, the fate of Comcast/TWC has no bearing on AT&T/DirecTV.


Totally incorrect.

TWC and Comcast do not compete against each other.....

DirecTV and AT&T compete against each other in every market AT&T is in.

Furthermore, DirecTV/AT&T would become the largest MVPD in the Country if approved and Comcast/TWC was not.


----------



## inkahauts

Eh, I think controlling all the internet is huge deal. Look from the back end what they have done to Netflix already.and that's what they are talking about. They compete over that kind of thing now albeit indirectly.


----------



## Diana C

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> Totally incorrect.
> 
> TWC and Comcast do not compete against each other.....
> 
> DirecTV and AT&T compete against each other in every market AT&T is in.
> 
> Furthermore, DirecTV/AT&T would become the largest MVPD in the Country if approved and Comcast/TWC was not.


So what? That's not the point. Sure, there is no single place in the country where Comcast and TWC are both available (of course not, they have cable monopolies in most places). This isn't about geographical competition. The Comcast/TW deal is in trouble because of size. Comcast is already the largest TV and Broadband provider in the country. The DOJ is concerned that making it even bigger would give them too much power in the marketplace when dealing with providers and customers.

For example, a Comcast that serves broadband to half of all households can extract whatever peering or interconnect fees they want from content providers like Netflix, Amazon, Vudu, Crackle, etc. since failing to pay up means they lose half the market. This would give Comcast the ability to control customer access to competitive services.

_Edited to add:_

ATT/DirecTV, on the other hand, combines a much smaller cable TV operator and moderate size broadband provider with the 2nd largest TV provider. DirecTV has 20 million TV customers, and ATT has 6 million UVerse customers, only 4 million of which are TV subscribers (and non-UVerse broadband is in the 10s of thousands). So ATT/DirecTV will have 24 million TV customers and 6 million broadband customers. That's pretty much the size of Comcast today for TV and less than 1/7 as many broadband customers (counting residential and business users). TWC has over 12.5 million TV subscribers and 11 million broadband customers. If they have to divest 10% of them, that would still leave a combined Comcast/TW with roughly 34 million TV customers and 60 million broadband customers - a third larger than ATT/DirecTV for TV and *10 times larger* for broadband (and ATT/DirecTV would be the #2 provider in the country).

Even if ATT/DirecTV is approved and Comcast/TW is blocked, Comcast would still be the #1 broadband provider (by a WIDE margin) and less than 10% smaller than ATT/DirecTV as a MVPD (assuming Comcast/TW divest of at least 2 million TV customers - without divestiture they would be the same size).

Source for subscriber counts: http://www.multichannel.com/news/cable-operators/top-20-multichannel-providers/326351 (2 year old data, but the relative margins are still about the same).


----------



## Diana C

There was an article in the NY Times Business Section yesterday about how Comcast's failure to abide by conditions placed upon them in the NBC-Universal acquisition is also a contributing factor. Basically, no one thinks they will pay any more attention to any restrictions that allow the deal to go forward than they have in the past. They also pointed out what I discuss above, namely that a combined Comcast/Time Warner Cable would control broadband access for half the country.


----------



## harsh

Diana C said:


> There was an article in the NY Times Business Section yesterday about how Comcast's failure to abide by conditions placed upon them in the NBC-Universal acquisition is also a contributing factor.


A paper in Philly or Boston noted this last week and I've been on this since the first noise about the merger. If Comcast decides to run off and do their own thing as they did with NBC Universal (especially the CSN Philly fair market value clause), any protections sought are summarily defenestrated.


----------



## Laxguy

Now there's a word I wouldn't chuck out of a window!


----------



## bill buckner

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-04-23/comcast-said-planning-to-withdraw-offer-for-time-warner-cable


----------



## Drucifer

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> Totally incorrect.
> 
> *TWC and Comcast do not compete against each other.....*
> 
> DirecTV and AT&T compete against each other in every market AT&T is in.
> 
> Furthermore, DirecTV/AT&T would become the largest MVPD in the Country if approved and Comcast/TWC was not.


Yes they do, but it is extremely rare for a locale to change their cable provider.


----------



## inkahauts

Yeah they both can bid on territories directly to cities any time a contract is up.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot

Diana C said:


> So what? That's not the point. Sure, there is no single place in the country where Comcast and TWC are both available (of course not, they have cable monopolies in most places). This isn't about geographical competition. The Comcast/TW deal is in trouble because of size. Comcast is already the largest TV and Broadband provider in the country. The DOJ is concerned that making it even bigger would give them too much power in the marketplace when dealing with providers and customers.
> 
> For example, a Comcast that serves broadband to half of all households can extract whatever peering or interconnect fees they want from content providers like Netflix, Amazon, Vudu, Crackle, etc. since failing to pay up means they lose half the market. This would give Comcast the ability to control customer access to competitive services.
> 
> _Edited to add:_
> 
> ATT/DirecTV, on the other hand, combines a much smaller cable TV operator and moderate size broadband provider with the 2nd largest TV provider. DirecTV has 20 million TV customers, and ATT has 6 million UVerse customers, only 4 million of which are TV subscribers (and non-UVerse broadband is in the 10s of thousands). So ATT/DirecTV will have 24 million TV customers and 6 million broadband customers. That's pretty much the size of Comcast today for TV and less than 1/7 as many broadband customers (counting residential and business users). TWC has over 12.5 million TV subscribers and 11 million broadband customers. If they have to divest 10% of them, that would still leave a combined Comcast/TW with roughly 34 million TV customers and 60 million broadband customers - a third larger than ATT/DirecTV for TV and *10 times larger* for broadband (and ATT/DirecTV would be the #2 provider in the country).
> 
> Even if ATT/DirecTV is approved and Comcast/TW is blocked, Comcast would still be the #1 broadband provider (by a WIDE margin) and less than 10% smaller than ATT/DirecTV as a MVPD (assuming Comcast/TW divest of at least 2 million TV customers - without divestiture they would be the same size).
> 
> Source for subscriber counts: http://www.multichannel.com/news/cable-operators/top-20-multichannel-providers/326351 (2 year old data, but the relative margins are still about the same).


So you say AT&T should have no issue purchasing DirecTV?

Interesting in a statement today they had to acknowledge it:

The bonds are contingent on AT&T's ability to acquire DirecTV. Company leaders told analysts during a first-quarter earnings call that they are confident the deal would go through, but that was before Comcast (NASDAQ: CMCSA), facing government pressure, backed away from its Time Warner Cable (NYSE: TWC) acquisition. *If the DirecTV deal falls through, AT&T said it would redeem some of the bonds at a premium.*

Not everyone was enthused about the deal, according to a Barron's Blog Post.

"Given the low growth mix of AT&T's businesses, challenging competitive environment and declining margins and cash flow in its existing operations, we believe that the company may be hard-pressed to achieve the leverage reduction goal," Bruce Falbaum, portfolio manager of Cohanzick Managements' Nexus Fund, told _Barron's_ in an email. "With respect to DTV, they are paying a very high price for cash flow to replace declines in cash flow in their other businesses."

Leverage Reduction Goals - you know what that means for the end user....


----------



## Laxguy

Leverage Reduction Goals - you know what that means for the end user....

By itself, it means absolutely nothing to an end user; it's a corporate strategy for managing finances.


----------



## hdtvfan0001

Laxguy said:


> Leverage Reduction Goals - you know what that means for the end user....
> 
> By itself, it means absolutely nothing to an end user; it's a corporate strategy for managing finances.


Yup.


----------



## harsh

If the merger is nixed by the regulators, DIRECTV owes AT&T a cool $1.4 billion. It is DIRECTV that needs to be thinking about where it might come up with that kind of scratch.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/05/19/att-directv-idUSL1N0O40LA20140519


----------



## James Long

harsh said:


> If the merger is nixed by the regulators, DIRECTV owes AT&T a cool $1.4 billion. It is DIRECTV that needs to be thinking about where it might come up with that kind of scratch.
> 
> http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/05/19/att-directv-idUSL1N0O40LA20140519


You are misreading it: "DirecTV has agreed to pay a $1.4 billion break-up fee to AT&T, or roughly 3 percent of the deal value, *if it ends the deal to accept a higher bid*."

The fee would be due if DirecTV calls off the deal to accept a higher bid. The merger documents linked earlier in the thread confirm this penalty. Regulators nixing the deal is not DirecTV ending the deal to accept a higher bid.


----------



## Laxguy

Right on. There were also contingent penalties if DIRECTV® didn't come through with Sunday Ticket, but I think those conditions were all met (ones beyond just extending it, which we know about.)

A One-point-four billion dollar mistake-by attributing a penalty to DIRECTV® for actions by a regulatory body when it is contingent on an action by DIRECTV® reminds me of a good rule to follow:  To not enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought. YMMV......


----------



## slice1900

If Directv had agreed to pay a $1.4 billion breakup fee for a merger it didn't initiate based on regulatory factors it couldn't control, there would be a shareholder lawsuit against Mike White for breach of fiduciary duty. The target of a buyout would never agree to such terms, only a fool would consider that a possibility.


----------



## adamson

What crap is all I see posted in this thread!

People this purchase by ATT is about my TV provider and yours. ATT is not going to get you anything that you do not have already. Their claim of internet expansion is nothing than a lie. We are soon to lose the best TV provider ever and all I see some of you write here is the above postings. This is not about a cell phone...or broadband...or to save you a meager $5.00 monthly for a bundle. The focus needs to be on what we have now, and how it will be maintained by ATT. Nobody will be coming to your door after this merge is complete to offer you one thing, but your bill and quality of service will change while you sleep and play on your beloved smart phones.

There needs to be a thread for my point of view because this thread has turned to what it has pure bs! Enough people it is TV that is at issue.


----------



## inkahauts

What are you actually trying to say? And it's entirely possible this deal would add a few stations to both services. Epxi being one example. 

And this deal is about bandwidth.


----------



## rmmccann

I'm no fan of ATT, but this deal makes sense for them. It gives them a true triple play service and some real bargaining power with content providers. It also allows them to provide a better product by ditching Uverse and switching those customers over to DirecTV as time goes by.

For us consumers, although we may see some immediate benefit with additional channels and bundle discounts, ultimately we may end up with higher bills and worse customer service. Living in an area where ATT has no landline infrastructure and is second to Verizon in wireless, this deal won't benefit me much at all.

It's all conjecture though. We don't know what's going to happen. It may end up being the best thing that could happen to DirecTV and for us.


----------



## MarkN

Or the worst.......


----------



## Laxguy

It could end up just fine, indeed. No sense in sweating the "might be's". 

Who's the landline provider in your area of ND? Is ATT active in beefing up cell service?


----------



## rmmccann

Laxguy said:


> It could end up just fine, indeed. No sense in sweating the "might be's".
> 
> Who's the landline provider in your area of ND? Is ATT active in beefing up cell service?


We're mostly CenturyLink/Qwest or local Co-ops. We also have Midcontinent Communications (Cable company) throughout much of the state. I'm not sure on much of the western part of the state where our oil boom is happening, but on the eastern end you pretty much have two choices - CenturyLink (or one of their CLEC resellers - same crap copper) or Midco. The Co-ops are actively running FTTH, so it's almost better to live in the more rural areas or smaller towns. Fargo (our "big" city) has several more choices due to size and access to fiber, however I do not believe ATT is one of those players selling data.

Verizon is definitely the top cellco in the state, however ATT does come in at a close second. Sprint lags behind and T-Mo is in a distant 4th. The cell provider won't benefit me one way or the other simply because my phone is paid for by my work.


----------



## rmmccann

MarkN said:


> Or the worst.......


I suppose sometimes it's better to gloom and doom and be wrong than to be hopeful and disappointed?


----------



## Herdfan

Let's face it, DirecTV has had some horrible owner's in the past and is still the best TV provider out there. So it is resilient no matter who owns it.


----------



## adamson

inkahauts said:


> What are you actually trying to say? And it's entirely possible this deal would add a few stations to both services. Epxi being one example.
> 
> And this deal is about bandwidth.


Do not care about Epix, for me would prefer a news package and riddens to the rest except networks.

The deal is about bandwidth is total bogus...it may be their claim but I bet none of this provides me and most others anything. ATT is trying to flee our area now and sell off the dsl which is maxed out on ports yet they lie and say you can get dsl. ATT is never to be trusted and I need to decide soon what to do. Expand my FTTH to include TV or stay with them.


----------



## Diana C

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> So you say AT&T should have no issue purchasing DirecTV?
> 
> Interesting in a statement today they had to acknowledge it:
> 
> The bonds are contingent on AT&T's ability to acquire DirecTV. Company leaders told analysts during a first-quarter earnings call that they are confident the deal would go through, but that was before Comcast (NASDAQ: CMCSA), facing government pressure, backed away from its Time Warner Cable (NYSE: TWC) acquisition. *If the DirecTV deal falls through, AT&T said it would redeem some of the bonds at a premium.*
> 
> Not everyone was enthused about the deal, according to a Barron's Blog Post.
> 
> "Given the low growth mix of AT&T's businesses, challenging competitive environment and declining margins and cash flow in its existing operations, we believe that the company may be hard-pressed to achieve the leverage reduction goal," Bruce Falbaum, portfolio manager of Cohanzick Managements' Nexus Fund, told _Barron's_ in an email. "With respect to DTV, they are paying a very high price for cash flow to replace declines in cash flow in their other businesses."
> 
> Leverage Reduction Goals - you know what that means for the end user....


Again...so what? Every public statement about finances of either company must, by SEC regulations, disclose ANY possible negative factors that could influence the valuation of either company

To repeat, a combined DirecTV/ATT would have about 26 million TV subscribers, but only ~8 million broadband customers. The difference between 20 million and 26 million is insignificant when you consider that Comcast is nearly that size with NO merger or acquisitions, and Dish Network is approaching the 20 million point as well. All of this needs to also be considered in light of the general decline in traditional linear TV delivery and the corresponding rise in IPTV based systems. TV may be the big thing to some customers, but from a regulatory POV, broadband competition is WAY more important than TV. Besides, ATT is an overbuilder in almost every market they serve, so it would be reducing competition in the TV arena from 4 providers (Dish, DirecTV, ATT and whatever cable provider is the incumbent) to 3. In fact, I don't know of ANY market where ATT Uverse is available without at least one traditional cable service being available as well.

An ATT that can off load TV service to satellite, on the other hand, would become a more effective competitor in the broadband arena. It would appear that ATT plans to move all their FTTN customers over to satellite for TV, keeping the current IPTV based UVerse service for the FTTH customers. For the FTTN areas, this would release several Mbit/sec of bandwidth for standard data usage.

The future is all about broadband and that is what regulators are looking at closely. Which is not to say that the DirecTV/ATT deal is a slam dunk...no major merger or acquisition ever is...but competition in the TV market is not at the top of the regulators' minds. At the end of the day, I think that the decision will turn on whether they feel making ATT a better broadband competitor is better than the loss of 1 of 4 TV competitors in a few markets. Personally, I think the deal will be approved, but it is dangerous to predict the actions of regulators as absolutes. The odds of approval are very good, but stranger things have happened.

Finally, in regards to concerns about what ATT might do to DirecTV's service quality, I think that if they survived News Corp as an owner, they can survive anything.


----------



## James Long

Diana C said:


> Finally, in regards to concerns about what ATT might do to DirecTV's service quality, I think that if they survived News Corp as an owner, they can survive anything.


I do not recall News Corp having a plan to convert DirecTV subscribers to another service. News Corp also owned DirecTV during a period of growth in the subscription satellite TV industry. Now we are in a period of plateau ... slow growth at best but really just preparing for a decline.


----------



## Aridon

I'm genuinely curious what AT&T's end game is with all this. The future is IP delivery and AT&T simply doesn't have the network to do that. Uverse is a joke even in the limited areas that it is available.

So what is the plan here? 

Linear TV is on the decline. IP delivery is the next wave of the future. So you have "competitors" like Sling show up. I use quotes because I'm not convinced Sling and the likes offers as much as people think with lack of DVR functions and dubious picture quality. Lets assume that improves. Now the big boys, Comcast as an example, will start getting into the fray and when they do things will start to get interesting.

What is going to happen when you lose control of your local DVR? I can tell you right now that advertisers and distribution partners want time shifting crippled and they are going to get it when things move to IP based delivery. Sure, at first, you'll have a choice. Over time though the choice will be closed and while you might be able to watch stuff on demand the cable company will demand you watch the commercials in full. 

Where does that leave Directv? I don't really know. Obviously they can't deliver over IP and AT&T isn't going to change that anytime soon. They need some serious build out of their broadband holdings to even be competitive today with Comcast or TWC. They really are behind the times in most areas. Will people see Directv as some kind of advantage then? Will people go back to paying $15 for their DVR or whatever the price will be then? 

Where does that leave AT&T? What do they do with their existing Uverse setups? Do they continue to expand that and run two different delivery systems? Move people to dishes and use the TV bandwidth to bump people's speeds up to something closer to what the cable co's offer? Are they going to finish fiber deployment sometime this century and compete there? AT&T has a TON of work to do in order to catch up in the Internet arena in most areas.

I'm curious if Directv is really just some cash cow investment or if its actually going to figure into their long term strategy some how. Seems odd to pay top dollar right now at the high point for a cash cow type investment. Directv has had a great run but things are slowing. Great time to sell, not sure on the buy part. Should be interesting to watch this unfold over time.


----------



## Laxguy

Aridon said:


> I'm genuinely curious what AT&T's end game is with all this. The future is IP delivery and AT&T simply doesn't have the network to do that. Uverse is a joke even in the limited areas that it is available.


That's quite a premise. In many parts of the US, IP delivery- satisfactory IP delivery, that is, is a very long way off.

I agree, it's interesting to speculate and to watch. I am rather sanguine about the next five years.


----------



## slice1900

James Long said:


> I do not recall News Corp having a plan to convert DirecTV subscribers to another service. News Corp also owned DirecTV during a period of growth in the subscription satellite TV industry. Now we are in a period of plateau ... slow growth at best but really just preparing for a decline.


Neither does AT&T have a plan to convert Directv subscribers to another service. At worst their service will have a different name. Uverse subscribers are the ones who will be converted, their FCC filings strongly hinted they would be adopting Directv STB hardware/software. Though both sides might be better off if they started with a clean sheet of paper...


----------



## Herdfan

slice1900 said:


> Uverse subscribers are the ones who will be converted, their FCC filings strongly hinted they would be adopting Directv STB hardware/software.


But not all U-Verse subs can get satellite. My M-I-L has U-Verse mainly because she can't receive a sat signal at her home. So if AT&T moves as many over to sat as they can, which will probably be a large majority of their base, what happens to the few 100K that can't move? Do they get dumped?


----------



## rmmccann

Herdfan said:


> But not all U-Verse subs can get satellite. My M-I-L has U-Verse mainly because she can't receive a sat signal at her home. So if AT&T moves as many over to sat as they can, which will probably be a large majority of their base, what happens to the few 100K that can't move? *Do they get dumped?*


Or sold to the highest bidder. You see this happen with copper plants all the time. The big guys get tired of paying for the "less desirable" areas and sell the customer base and infrastructure to someone who's more interested in it.

Honestly, if it was only 100K of a total of 26m+ that they had to worry about being unable to get service, it's an easy decision. "Sorry, we are discontinuing Uverse TV service for you."


----------



## Diana C

Aridon said:


> I'm genuinely curious what AT&T's end game is with all this. The future is IP delivery and AT&T simply doesn't have the network to do that. Uverse is a joke even in the limited areas that it is available.
> 
> So what is the plan here...


Most of the points you raise are the reasons the Comcast/TWC deal was in trouble. Take a look at the actual subscriber numbers for the top 10 MVPDs. The only one that has any really significant numbers of broadband customers is Comcast (which, depending how you count them, supplies broadband to 30% to 50% of the country). AT&T has significantly more broadband customers than they have TV customers, and IIRC they are the #5 or 6 MVPD. When it comes to the "last mile" providers of broadband, the phone companies (ATT, Verizon, CenturyLink, etc) are bigger than most cable companies.

Then you need to consider that both AT&T and Verizon are more focused on developing and delivering wireless broadband. The reason is simple: it is WAY more profitable. Besides the fact that the rates are higher, the infrastructure costs are almost negligible when you compare it to pulling cable or fibre to every home. Instead of FTTN, with wireless delivery they only need FTTT (fibre to the town). Before you think wireless broadband can never compete with wired, keep in mind that only a few years ago no one thought that you get close to 10Mbits per second over a wireless link (and Verizon's XLTE delivers that in many areas today).

From AT&T's perspective, DirecTV gives them two things. First, it makes them a national player in MVPD instantly. Combine that with wireless data and phone (which AT&T can also supply across a large part of the country) and they now have a national triple play package. The UVerse areas, whether they are FTTH or FTTN, have an additional wired option for data and phone. For the FTTN customers, anyone they can move over to satellite also releases a few megabits per second of bandwidth for each customer, making their wired broadband more competitive.

Secondly, DirecTV is quite profitable, so yes...it is a cash cow. That's not a bad thing when it is also a linchpin in their plans.


----------



## Diana C

James Long said:


> I do not recall News Corp having a plan to convert DirecTV subscribers to another service. News Corp also owned DirecTV during a period of growth in the subscription satellite TV industry. Now we are in a period of plateau ... slow growth at best but really just preparing for a decline.


No, News Corp moved all DirecTV DVR users over to a new hardware/software platform that they are still trying to get right. Remember that until News Corp came along, DirecTV had more TiVo users than TiVo themselves. If you look at the financials from those days, News Corp was a disaster In that area as well.


----------



## slice1900

Herdfan said:


> But not all U-Verse subs can get satellite. My M-I-L has U-Verse mainly because she can't receive a sat signal at her home. So if AT&T moves as many over to sat as they can, which will probably be a large majority of their base, what happens to the few 100K that can't move? Do they get dumped?


The delivery technology is unimportant, if subscribers get the same DVRs, running the same software with the same guide info, with the same packages at the same prices.


----------



## rmmccann

slice1900 said:


> The *delivery technology is unimportant*, if subscribers get the same DVRs, running the same software with the same guide info, with the same packages at the same prices.


To some degree, you are absolutely right. The problem is where Uverse is deployed, some of the lines are old copper. It takes bandwidth to stream HD and when the bandwidth is limited on the copper side, you run into problems where you either have no bandwidth left for TVs or none left for internet. At least with DirecTV, the only limitation is the line of sight. You can always upgrade customers to support additional tuners.


----------



## Diana C

And those subs are the ones AT&T wants to migrate to satellite. Where there is no line of sight they obviously won't be able to migrate them. Over time, churn will gradually eliminate the remaining Uverse over copper users.


----------



## James Long

slice1900 said:


> Neither does AT&T have a plan to convert Directv subscribers to another service.


You must have missed the discussion about AT&T's planned OTT service.


----------



## slice1900

James Long said:


> You must have missed the discussion about AT&T's planned OTT service.


How does such an offering constitute migrating existing Directv customers? Dish offering Sling TV doesn't mean that Dish's satellite customers are being forced to switch.


----------



## Herdfan

Diana C said:


> Before you think wireless broadband can never compete with wired, keep in mind that only a few years ago no one thought that you get close to 10Mbits per second over a wireless link (and Verizon's XLTE delivers that in many areas today).


Speed yes, but what kind of bandwidth? I have excellent cable internet. I was an Adelphia customer and they did a complete Fiber to the Node upgrade in my area before they went bankrupt. I was the first person on my node and with Comcast I routinely get 100+ down. Until the kids come home from school. It slows down noticeably. Still much better than DSL could ever offer me, but still an issue.

Would wireless _ever_ have the bandwidth to support that many concurrent users streaming Netflix?


----------



## Herdfan

slice1900 said:


> The delivery technology is unimportant, if subscribers get the same DVRs, running the same software with the same guide info, with the same packages at the same prices.


Oh, please don't give us the U-Verse DVR.


----------



## dennisj00

Herdfan said:


> Oh, please don't give us the U-Verse DVR.


I wouldn't take them for free!


----------



## slice1900

Herdfan said:


> Oh, please don't give us the U-Verse DVR.


The Genie and/or Cxx Client could probably support Uverse today with updated software. The reverse isn't true, since the Uverse equipment lacks the tuners that are required. What you fear is impossible, though I suppose they could design new hardware and leave the same Uverse UI. I don't know why they would, if they do all-new hardware I bet it gets all-new software.


----------



## Herdfan

On the flip side, how hard would it be to make the Genie line be compatible with U-Verse. It can record from the internet and stream You-tube etc., but could it be configured to use the U-Verse stream?


----------



## James Long

slice1900 said:


> How does such an offering constitute migrating existing Directv customers? Dish offering Sling TV doesn't mean that Dish's satellite customers are being forced to switch.


I did not say "forced to switch". I pointed out that there is a path and a plan. Nothing forced. Just one ginormous company with more than one way to sell subscription TV ... unlike News Corp who didn't have another system of TV content delivery.


----------



## harsh

Diana C said:


> No, News Corp moved all DirecTV DVR users over to a new hardware/software platform that they are still trying to get right.


Was the move at the behest of News Corp or was DIRECTV simply growing weary of NDS (majority owned by News Corp at the time)?

NDS subsequently sold in 2012 to Cisco.


----------



## harsh

Herdfan said:


> On the flip side, how hard would it be to make the Genie line be compatible with U-Verse. It can record from the internet and stream You-tube etc., but could it be configured to use the U-Verse stream?


It probably wouldn't be all that difficult in smaller installs, but look at how many HD channels Uverse can stream at once. They claim that they can deliver five on their "Gigapower" installations but how many markets have that technology?

Converting the Genie's DECA band to a higher frequency MoCA band may not be feasible so there might have to be some shuffling or conversion to GigE.


----------



## inkahauts

It's entirely possible that a new box will come down the pipe someday that works with both and maybe even a new DIRECTV Wireless Boradband Internet Connection Kit that also works with att lte services.


----------



## Diana C

Herdfan said:


> ...Would wireless _ever_ have the bandwidth to support that many concurrent users streaming Netflix?


Yes. There are numerous new transmission technologies being pursued by many different organizations all focused on improving service levels. We are not very far away from wireless being able to compete on almost every level with wired. And most any shortcomings that are imposed by physics (such as reception issues inside a steel frame structure) are solvable as well. Verizon and AT&T clearly feel that wireless is the future, and they already have the national infrastructure to support it.


----------



## Diana C

harsh said:


> Was the move at the behest of News Corp or was DIRECTV simply growing weary of NDS (majority owned by News Corp at the time)?
> 
> NDS subsequently sold in 2012 to Cisco.


It was News Corp that drove the move away from TiVo and towards an in-house software based on the Sky+ platform. The red/blue/yellow/green buttons (now down to just a red button the RC7x remotes) were an artifact of that move. They still license Videoguard technology.


----------



## jimmie57

Netflix does not want the sale to go thru to AT&T.
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/netflix-calls-fcc-reject-proposed-144137306.html


----------



## slice1900

Netflix raised some issues they have with AT&T and want the government to impose conditions to remedy them as part of the merger agreement, even though they aren't related to the merger per se. This is fairly common as the best time for companies to address such concerns is when companies want to merge and are willing to accept conditions to make it happen.


----------



## Drucifer

Herdfan said:


> But not all U-Verse subs can get satellite. My M-I-L has U-Verse mainly because she can't receive a sat signal at her home. So if AT&T moves as many over to sat as they can, which will probably be a large majority of their base, what happens to the few 100K that can't move? *Do they get dumped?*


ATT will sell it. Plain & simple, they'll be sat & wireless when they're gone.


----------



## harsh

Drucifer said:


> ATT will sell it. Plain & simple, they'll be sat & wireless when they're gone.


I disagree. I believe that ultimately, satellite will be a memory for most and DIRECTV will typically be delivered terrestrially. This is why DIRECTV needs this merger. If they didn't, they wouldn't be partnering with someone who will provide them a terrestrial path.


----------



## Paul Secic

dennisj00 said:


> I wouldn't take them for free!


Uverse is awful!


----------



## Stuart Sweet

harsh said:


> I disagree. I believe that ultimately, satellite will be a memory for most and DIRECTV will typically be delivered terrestrially. This is why DIRECTV needs this merger. If they didn't, they wouldn't be partnering with someone who will provide them a terrestrial path.


I disagree with this assessment. Satellite delivery is still a very viable methodology and DIRECTV's satellite fleet will certainly serve them long into the 2020s. By that time I forecast that linear TV as a concept will falter and eventually fail. Everything will be IP streamed, and even multicast IP can be delivered by satellite.


----------



## slice1900

Stuart Sweet said:


> I disagree with this assessment. Satellite delivery is still a very viable methodology and DIRECTV's satellite fleet will certainly serve them long into the 2020s. By that time I forecast that linear TV as a concept will falter and eventually fail. Everything will be IP streamed, and even multicast IP can be delivered by satellite.


DVB-S2X includes provision for IP transport streams.


----------



## harsh

Stuart Sweet said:


> Everything will be IP streamed, and even multicast IP can be delivered by satellite.


As the content providers get more stinky about DRM, I think this will hit a wall.

It could go either way but I see a situation where people become so unattached to their televisions for general TV viewing that DTH satellite will no longer make much sense.

Then again, I don't buy the idea that bundling is all-important to being a MCVP. I see having a broadband as being the only component needed for future TV delivery.


----------



## hdtvfan0001

harsh said:


> I see having a broadband as being the only component needed for future TV delivery.


Time will tell...but plenty of other folks don't share that forecast...especially with the contrasting dynamics of broadband pricing and capacity controls.


----------



## damondlt

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-05-05/netflix-urges-u-s-to-spurn-at-t-merger-with-directv-as-proposed


----------



## harsh

hdtvfan0001 said:


> Time will tell...but plenty of other folks don't share that forecast...especially with the contrasting dynamics of broadband pricing and capacity controls.


This is surely why the FCC being so vocal (if not active) about insuring broadband competition and neutrality.

Most of the arguments about those who don't buy my argument revolve around supporting those who live way out yonder in East Jesus. As time goes on, these people are better served than most think with newer and more widely deployed wireless technologies.


----------



## Laxguy

That'd be doable for urban areas no doubt, but for those of us dwelling outside of E. Jehovah, no.


----------



## harsh

damondlt said:


> http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-05-05/netflix-urges-u-s-to-spurn-at-t-merger-with-directv-as-proposed


Now they're attacking on both the video and broadband fronts.


----------



## Laxguy

harsh said:


> Now they're attacking on both the video and broadband fronts.


Let's be clear that "they" are competitors seeking concessions or advantages for themselves, not the FCC itself, or Justice, etc.


----------



## damondlt

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-05-05/netflix-urges-u-s-to-spurn-at-t-merger-with-directv-as-proposed

http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/envelope/cotown/la-et-ct-netflix-urges-for-revisions-to-att-directv-deal-20150505-story.html

http://www.usnews.com/news/business/articles/2015/05/05/netflix-says-fcc-should-demand-changes-in-at-t-directv-deal


----------



## trh

Netflix is opposed to the AT&T/DIRECTV merger?

[sarcasm]Didn't see that coming[/sarcasm].


----------



## damondlt

They are not opposed to it. Did you read any of the links?


----------



## peds48

I am not understanding Netflix fears, DIRECTV® has no Broadband footprint not are the adding one, so how is is this merger going to affect Netflix in a manner that is or not happening now?


----------



## damondlt

peds48 said:


> I am not understanding Netflix fears, DIRECTV® has no Broadband footprint not are the adding one, so how is is this merger going to affect Netflix in a manner that is or not happening now?


Its not so much Directv they are worried about, Its ATT
Netflix is afraid when ATT is in control of 30 million more customers, that they will start Throttling down internet so Nexflix is almost impossible to stream.

"Once it acquires DirecTV and its video business, *AT&T will have an increased incentive to hinder streaming entertainment offerings*, Netflix and Cogent said in filings dated May 4 and April 30 at the Federal Communications Commission. Netflix's filing, in which it asked the FCC to "reject the merger as it as currently proposed," appeared on the FCC website Tuesday."

Netflix earlier told the FCC that competitive harm from the $48.5 billion tie-up of the biggest U.S. telephone and satellite-TV companies might be avoided through conditions *to ensure "the combined entity cannot abuse its control over Internet traffic." It asked regulators to keep AT&T from charging content providers to connect to its network;* Cogent also requested restrictions.

I understand fully what Netflix concerns are.

I would say this is a good thing IMO.
Why should ATT have any control over what anyone one does with their internet?


----------



## WB4CS

I can't wait for the day when linear TV is gone and everything is done via streaming & IPTV. I also can't wait for the days of truly unlimited data with no monthly caps and no bandwidth throttling. 

It's never going to happen, but it's nice to dream about such things


----------



## James Long

trh said:


> Netflix is opposed to the AT&T/DIRECTV merger?





damondlt said:


> They are not opposed to it. Did you read any of the links?


The articles certainly do not FAVOR a merger without setting additional restrictions on AT&T.



damondlt said:


> Netflix is afraid when ATT is in control of 30 million more customers, that they will start Throttling down internet so Nexflix is almost impossible to stream.


AT&T is not adding "30 million more customers" that they can throttle.


----------



## Laxguy

> AT&T is the second-largest U.S. wireless carrier, while DirecTV is the second-largest pay-TV provider. Should the acquisition go through, it would make it the country's largest pay-TV provider with extensive broadband reach.


From the Times article. They seem to conflate wireless, TV and internet! ATT does not have "extensive broadband reach"- I hope they do some time soon!


----------



## slice1900

Their worries about AT&T's broadband reach are theoretical. IF AT&T builds out a nationwide fixed LTE broadband network, then they'll have an extensive reach. Thing is, Verizon is going to do the same, as will Sprint, T-Mobile and probably US Cellular (maybe merged into one or two larger companies) so AT&T won't be without competition, and some of those competitors won't have any linear TV to protect. That's very different from the Comcast merger where at least for many people today cable is the only viable broadband alternative able to meet the FCC's 25 Mbps standard - something AT&T's fixed LTE will not even reach.


----------



## harsh

Laxguy said:


> Let's be clear that "they" are competitors seeking concessions or advantages for themselves, not the FCC itself, or Justice, etc.


That kind of depends on which side you're on. If you're the juggernaut, it appears to be an attack of ants. If your the ants, you want to make sure the juggernaut is at least wearing Vibram soles.


----------



## harsh

Laxguy said:


> ATT does not have "extensive broadband reach"- I hope they do some time soon!


Instead, they've chosen to reach where it is most profitable and the rest are left to find their own way.


----------



## Laxguy

harsh said:


> That kind of depends on which side you're on. If you're the juggernaut, it appears to be an attack of ants. If your the ants, you want to make sure the juggernaut is at least wearing Vibram soles.


Colorful analogy! It may fit perfectly, or not at all. Have to think about it.


----------



## peds48

James Long said:


> The articles certainly do not FAVOR a merger without setting additional restrictions on AT&T.
> 
> *AT&T is not adding "30 million more customers" that they can throttle.*


Exactly, this is why I dint understand Netflix fears.... ATT would be adding just 30 million video customers


----------



## harsh

peds48 said:


> Exactly, this is why I dint understand Netflix fears.... ATT would be adding just 30 million video customers


To sweeten the deal for the regulators, AT&T has promised a significant build-out to extend and/or improve their broadband services. If they do all this and then artificially hobble the content customers really want to download, it is a hollow gesture.


----------



## trh

trh said:


> Netflix is opposed to the AT&T/DIRECTV merger? [sarcasm]Didn't see that coming[/sarcasm].





damondlt said:


> They are not opposed to it. Did you read any of the links?





damondlt said:


> Netflix's filing, in which it asked the FCC to "reject the merger as it as currently proposed," appeared on the FCC website Tuesday."


When Netflix asked the FCC to *reject *the current merger, I read that to mean that Netflix does not support the merger.

Yes, I did read the links. Did you?


----------



## trh

harsh said:


> To sweeten the deal for the regulators, AT&T has promised a significant build-out to extend and/or improve their broadband services. If they do all this and then artificially hobble the content customers really want to download, it is a hollow gesture.


How is 'broadband' defined? The old definition or the FCC's new and improved definition?


----------



## harsh

trh said:


> The old definition or the FCC's new and improved definition?


I assumed it was obvious that it would be AT&T's definition of broadband: that which allows customers (or those who also serve their customers) opportunities to shower AT&T with even more fundage with a token capital outlay on AT&T's part.


----------



## rmmccann

trh said:


> How is 'broadband' defined? The old definition or the FCC's new and improved definition?


Broadband is now classified under Title II, so they can't just arbitrarily throttle traffic. If they throttle Netflix as a "network management" technique, they have to do that for ALL streaming video content including YouTube, Amazon Video, or their own possible VOD services. They can't favor one over the other in any way - all traffic is equal.

I'm sure Netflix's concern is more to do with VOD than it is with the acquisition itself. ATT could set itself up to make available a very large library of media utilizing its Sat/Cable subscribers as a negotiation linchpin with content providers (think about what's become available as content agreements are renewed - all of them are including VOD as part of the package). This library would be in direct competition with Netflix and their business model. Netflix will either have to create more original content or possibly purchase media at higher costs.


----------



## harsh

rmmccann said:


> If they throttle Netflix as a "network management" technique, they have to do that for ALL streaming video content including YouTube, Amazon Video, or their own possible VOD services. They can't favor one over the other in any way - all traffic is equal.


It sounds like this involves certain classes of traffic. Who decides what the classes are and what falls into a particular class?


----------



## rmmccann

harsh said:


> It sounds like this involves certain classes of traffic. Who decides what the classes are and what falls into a particular class?


To a certain extent, the ISPs. The FCC would have to weigh in if someone felt it was unreasonable.

We're a ways off from seeing the true effects of the reclassification, but I don't think there can be much argument about what constitutes video, audio, or just plain data. It's either a streamed media format or a download. A music download in iTunes would not be the same thing as listening to an online radio station because with one there is a finite amount of data in order to receive the file, while the other is a stream of traffic that is constant as long as the user is listening.

I'm not going to proclaim myself an expert by any means in this because there is so much legalese involved in the rules, leaving it very open to interpretation (and reinterpretation). Ultimately, the FCC (and the courts) are going to decide what is what.


----------



## dpeters11

I don't have access to the entire article, but the headline speaks volumes. Final approval could be just weeks away.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/us-authorities-near-end-of-at-t-directv-review-unlikely-to-block-deal-1431448987


----------



## longrider

Here is the key paragraph:



> Regulators have signaled they are more worried about providing choice in Internet access and new, online video options than they are about concentration in pay TV. That market lost subscribers in the first quarter for the first time ever, according to research firm MoffettNathanson, and the industry contracted by 0.5% over the past 12 months.


----------



## harsh

rmmccann said:


> A music download in iTunes would not be the same thing as listening to an online radio station because with one there is a finite amount of data in order to receive the file, while the other is a stream of traffic that is constant as long as the user is listening.


I think you're way off base in your assumptions. The cost of inspecting all packets to see what kind of data they contain would be astronomical. Making assumptions based on flow or timing isn't practical either. I regularly download binaries from Usenet over a TLS connection and while my ISP can tell where it is coming from, they simply can't know what it is in there. Traffic on peer networks can be just as difficult to pin down.

Your iTunes example proves my point given that some transactions are downloaded titles while others are streamed. Figuring out which is by no means trivial.

There's also the insurmountable issue of more and more widely used encryption and/or VPN that makes identification of content impossible.


----------



## rmmccann

harsh said:


> I think you're way off base in your assumptions. *The cost of inspecting all packets to see what kind of data they contain would be astronomical*. Making assumptions based on flow or timing isn't practical either. I regularly download binaries from Usenet over a TLS connection and while my ISP can tell where it is coming from, they simply can't know what it is in there. Traffic on peer networks can be just as difficult to pin down.
> 
> Your iTunes example proves my point given that some transactions are downloaded titles while others are streamed. Figuring out which is by no means trivial.
> 
> There's also the insurmountable issue of more and more widely used encryption and/or VPN that makes identification of content impossible.


This type of traffic inspection is *already being done* on large carrier networks via DPI appliances. The technology has been out for over a decade. This (along with other equally mature technology) is how networks can identify and provide quality of service/priority to things like VoIP while putting less priority on web traffic and other traffic that is less sensitive to latency and bandwidth issues. If you have or have ever used a UTM device like a SonicWall, this is what these devices do - they analyze layer 7 of the incoming packets and block, allow, or shape the packet as needed to meet the rules configured on the device. If you Google "traffic shaping appliance" you'll find tons of results. Many of these companies produce carrier grade appliances which are meant to process gigabits of data per second.

You are right that you can obscure this traffic by using end-to-end encryption or tunnelling techniques (like VPN), however this type of scenario for your average end user is by no means even close to the norm. It's less of an issue than you think and really only comes into play with techie individuals.

The reason everyone wanted Title II was to prevent companies like Comcast from making it prohibitively expensive for companies like Netflix to reach their end users, while making their own VOD services faster and more readily available. Another one that comes to mind was when one of the cellular companies was offering to make certain streaming radio/media free from data charges. What they do not intend Title II to do is prevent reasonable network management policies. These are the policies that are put in place to help during peak hours to ensure all customers are given fair access to resources (and in the case of SLA connections, help ensure they get their guaranteed bandwidth).

Let's assume we have a very busy cell site. In this case, it would be reasonable for the ISP to put in a network management technique that throttled (but did not block) all streaming video content during peak usage when bandwidth is scarce. It would NOT be OK for them to only throttle Netflix.


----------



## Laxguy

Thank you. Makes sense. 

One question- someone, and it may have been "harsh" said it was nigh impossible to ID types of traffic on an active network. And I may have misunderstood his or her exact point, but can you please comment?


----------



## rmmccann

Laxguy said:


> Thank you. Makes sense.
> 
> One question- someone, and it may have been "harsh" said it was nigh impossible to ID types of traffic on an active network. And I may have misunderstood his or her exact point, but can you please comment?


To understand a little better about how it actually works, you need to have a little background understanding of how a packet is made up and how applications are able to use them. To start with, the OSI model is very useful:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OSI_model

Layer 1 of the model constitutes the electrical signal or the physical medium for the data. In other words, the individual 1s and 0s of the packet. This is the most basic form of the data and is essentially the "machine language".

Layer 2 is the next step up. Layer 2 is generally at a switch or hub level. If you have a wireless router, for example - layer 2 is going to be the "LAN" ports and the wireless. Layer 2 is for broadcast type traffic, which is where things like DHCP take place.

Layer 3 is the IP layer and deals with routing between nodes. This is the handoff between your LAN and Internet. It's how a packet sent from your computer reaches another computer on a different network. This is where IP addresses and what not come into play. You can do some very basic traffic management here, but it's very limited.

Layer 4 has to do with the individual protocol. TCP, UDP, ICMP. This is where we can start fine tuning our packet and traffic matching. Instead of concerning ourselves with _where_ the traffic originated, we can start to determine what _type_ of traffic it is.

Layers 5-7 are where you really can identify what the traffic is. This is where you'll find out if a packet is meant for Skype, is an HTTP stream (a website for example), or a video stream. Layer 7 is where the most granular identification takes place as it identifies the type of traffic. For example, a UTM (unified threat management) device can identify if a particular connection contains a virus and block it before it ever hits the user's computer.

Where things get tricky is when encryption and tunneling are involved. This can mask the data that is actually inside the packet, leaving us only with information like "this is a VPN connection" or "this traffic is encrypted and destined for this user. With encryption, if you don't know the private keys to decrypt the data, all you can do is determine it's an encrypted packet - you won't know what's inside. You could encrypt a streaming video for example and packet shaping devices wouldn't be able to determine what's inside, only that it's a constant stream of data.

When you tunnel traffic (like a VPN), you are essentially connecting into another system and can obscure the destination. You hear about people using VPNs in europe, etc to watch Netflix. This is because the traffic is routed to the endpoint of the tunnel and then out to the internet. So if a movie is flagged a "Canada only" and you can only view it from a Canadian ISP or from Canadian IP space, if you dial a VPN into a Canadian system from the US, you could view the video.


----------



## harsh

rmmccann said:


> This type of traffic inspection is *already being done* on large carrier networks via DPI appliances.


I covered this with my reference to astronomical cost. It is one thing to filter the packets for an enterprise but it is quite something else to filter and route a backbone.


----------



## rmmccann

harsh said:


> I covered this with my reference to astronomical cost. It is one thing to filter the packets for an enterprise but it is quite something else to filter and route a backbone.


And I covered it by telling you it's already being done by large carriers on the "backbone." Sandvine and Procera are two companies that provide solutions for this very purpose and for those very customers. One of the ISPs I work closely with in the area has a Procera box for their connection. They're a smaller ISP in comparison to someone like Comcast, but they routinely shape 10GBps of traffic. I wish I could recall where I heard, but I want to say it was Charter or Cox that had a Sandvine setup.

It's certainly expensive but not prohibitively so and much cheaper than having to upgrade peering agreements every couple of months or bore more lines in the ground to cover capacity. If you think packet shaping seems expensive on the tier 1 level, you should see what the core routing and switching equipment costs. In any event, that is a discussion for a different topic.

Back on topic - regardless of concern by these other companies, it sounds unlikely this won't get approved. Although the, many said the same thing with the Comcast / TWC merger and we know how that turned out.


----------



## peds48

rmmccann said:


> If you Google "traffic shaping appliance" you'll find tons of results. Many of these companies produce carrier grade appliances which are meant to process gigabits of data per second.


I did, and this is what I got....









Fair enough?? !rolling


----------



## rmmccann

peds48 said:


> I did, and this is what I got....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Traffic Shaping Device.gif
> 
> Fair enough?? !rolling


I guess it's better than the stop sign Verizon was using for Netflix traffic.


----------



## Diana C

harsh said:


> I covered this with my reference to astronomical cost. It is one thing to filter the packets for an enterprise but it is quite something else to filter and route a backbone.


 AT&T doesn't need to filter or inspect anything to slow down Netflix traffic in particular (not that I think they'd do so). AT&T, like Verizon and Comcast, are tier 1 internet providers. For Netflix traffic to get from their servers to AT&T's network it has to either travel across a tier 1 or 2 provider that already peers with AT&T or set up peering directly. In either case, there is a single chokepoint where they can slow a particular provider's traffic. This is exactly what Verizon and Comcast did to force Netflix to pay for direct peering. In the case of Verizon, it has been pretty much proven that they simply under powered the peering point between them and Level 3 (where most of the Netflix traffic entered Verizon's network). They did that to obtain a more favorable peering arrangement with Netflix (i.e. make Netflix effectively pay for both sides of the connection) than they had with Level 3.


----------



## Oli74

DirecTV, AT&T Extend Merger Termination Date

http://www.multichannel.com/news/fcc/directv-att-extend-merger-termination-date/390667?utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=twitterfeed

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## ericknolls

What do you think of AT&T dropping DIRECTV'S name? Do you have a name you prefer? Like AT&T Direct or something else?


----------



## dpeters11

Something a wise man wrote:

http://forums.solidsignal.com/content.php/3990-DEBUNKING-THE-BLOGS-Will-AT-T-drop-the-DIRECTV-name


----------



## ericknolls

ericknolls said:


> What do you think of AT&T dropping DIRECTV'S name? Do you have a name you prefer? Like AT&T Direct or something else?


I was asking for a company name or logo. I read that article on Engadget or another tech blog. Sorry for the multiple posts.


----------



## harsh

ericknolls said:


> What do you think of AT&T dropping DIRECTV'S name? Do you have a name you prefer? Like AT&T Direct or something else?


If you would be so kind as to search this thread for the term "name change", there was some theories advanced over a year ago about what you seem to be asking. I believe it started at post #168.


----------



## ericknolls

Thank you dpeters11 and harsh for the info. It was very helpful and useful for me.


----------



## ericknolls

DirecTV made a profit in 2013 and 2014. I don't understand why they are putting themselves up for sale. I read their financials for both years. They made $33.3 billion and made an astonishing $4.7 billion in operating profit. Bank of America had $2 trillion in assets an had a $3 billion in profit for 2014. No wonder they let us keep our old receiver's. Go figure!!!


----------



## slice1900

ericknolls said:


> DirecTV made a profit in 2013 and 2014. I don't understand why they are putting themselves up for sale. I read their financials for both years. They made $33.3 billion and made an astonishing $4.7 billion in operating profit. Bank of America had $2 trillion in assets an had a $3 billion in profit for 2014. No wonder they let us keep our old receiver's. Go figure!!!


Directv didn't "put themselves up for sale". Like any publicly traded company their stock price and therefore the value of the company is known. If someone comes along and offers a significant premium to that value, why would the shareholders say no unless they thought the stock market undervalued it?

Even the most profitable public company in the world, Apple, could be bought out if someone came along and offered to buy out the shareholders for $1 trillion (which would be about 32% more than its current value) Kind of hard to come up with that kind of money though so I wouldn't hold my breath for that one 

Letting you keep your old receivers has nothing to do with whether the company makes money or not. They'd do the same if they were losing money. Thosee receivers are outdated, and Directv doesn't want to use them anymore. It is cheaper for them to let you deal with recycling it than to pay shipping and dispose of it themselves.


----------



## damondlt

ericknolls said:


> DirecTV made a profit in 2013 and 2014. I don't understand why they are putting themselves up for sale. I read their financials for both years. They made $33.3 billion and made an astonishing $4.7 billion in operating profit. Bank of America had $2 trillion in assets an had a $3 billion in profit for 2014. No wonder they let us keep our old receiver's. Go figure!!!


Exactly as Slice stated .

It all about corporate greed.
Sky is the limit when it comes to money.

That's all publicly traded company's. 
Not just Directv and AT&T.


----------



## MysteryMan

It always amazes me how people are offended by corporations making large profits. If given the opportunity to do the same they would do so in a heart beat.


----------



## damondlt

MysteryMan said:


> It always amazes me how people are offended by corporations making large profits. If given the opportunity to do the same they would do so in a heart beat.


Who mentioned anything about having an issue with it? It's facts!

And acually I do have an issue with alot of these Huge companys, because less than 3% of these Billion dollar companies are the ones getting filthy rich at the expense of the others 97% working their balls off to make 20-40k a year.

And when these Huge mergers go bad, the rich stay rich, and all the employees whom built-up these companies are now unemployed and broke.
There is a point at which your company becomes too big.
That is known as Corporate Greed.


----------



## damondlt

Here is a list of Huge corporations that actually give back and share their wealth. 
Just for you MysteryMan. 
No AT&T or Directv. 
Verizon made the list.
http://foundationcenter.org/findfunders/topfunders/top50giving.html

Directv donated 4.2 million total over the past 5 years.
How much did Mr White make last year?
Walmart donated 1.4 Billion in 2014 alone.


----------



## MysteryMan

damondlt said:


> Who mentioned anything about having an issue with it? It's facts!
> 
> And acually I do have an issue with alot of these Huge companys, because less than 3% of these Billion dollar companies are the ones getting filthy rich at the expense of the others 97% working their balls off to make 20-40k a year.
> 
> And when these Huge mergers go bad, the rich stay rich, and all the employees whom built-up these companies are now unemployed and broke.
> There is a point at which your company becomes too big.
> That is known as Corporate Greed.


There are two kinds of people in the world. Those who choose to work smart and those who choose to work hard. The overwhelming majority (Your 97%) chose to work hard while the Michael Whites (Your 3%) chose to work smart. While I can't answer for you and others I can honestly say it's better to be in that 3% than in that 97%.


----------



## damondlt

MysteryMan said:


> There are two kinds of people in the world. Those who choose to work smart and those who choose to work hard. The overwhelming majority (Your 97%) chose to work hard while the Michael Whites (Your 3%) chose to work smart. While I can't answer for you and others I can honestly say it's better to be in that 3% than in that 97%.


If only it was that simple.
Most people don't have their families millions and billions to jump start their life.
Most of these 3% were born with money.

A lot of these companies forget where it really comes from.
Customers and Fans 97%
Not the 3% who is reaping the benifits.
Mr White made 12 million last year and 18 million the year before.
That's just HIM.
What does an average of Directv's CSR pull in last year?
$25,000.
I guess they must just be lazy and stupid according you.


----------



## James Long

OK ... live without the big companies that you despise. Some may be evil ... but they are a necessary evil.

Evil empires don't all start from silver spoons. Many of our current evil empires started in garages by people who had an idea and took the risk to turn it in to an industry.


----------



## Tom Robertson

Probably time to bring this :backtotop

Peace,
Tom


----------



## damondlt

James Long said:


> Evil empires don't all start from silver spoons.


The ones in question here did.
Walmart is privately owned and actually gives back. Sure they take a lot of heat but starting pay at our local distribution center is $35,000 per year with full benifits. And far more advancement opportunity then any directv employees.
You ever wonder why directv subs out their work to Mastec and doesn't keep it in house?
Because then they don't have to pay employee benifits , that saves them millions so the executives can make millions in benifits and bonuses. 
And for what?
Sorry but at least Charlie Ergen can install a satellite dish.


----------



## Tom Robertson

damondlt said:


> The ones in question here did.
> Walmart is privately owned and actually gives back. Sure they take a lot of heat but starting pay at our local distribution center is $35,000 per year with full benifits. And far more advancement opportunity then any directv employees.
> You ever wonder why directv subs out their work to Mastec and doesn't keep it in house?
> Because then they don't have to pay employee benifits , that saves them millions so the executives can make millions in benifits and bonuses.
> And for what?
> Sorry but at least Charlie Ergen can install a satellite dish.


Actually AT&T/DIRECTV does have to pay Mastec employees health benefits. Mastec isn't going to through them in for free. 

DIRECTV does have employees who install dishes. Heck, even Michael White has done it. (Don't know if he's ever done a Big Ugly Dish install like Charlie has, but does it really matter?) 

All companies outsource something: electricity, water, gas, phones, etc. How they chuse what to keep in house is based on their analysis of core competencies and market differentiaters. Some companies outsource nearly everything but the very core secret sauce, some keep as much in house as possible.

Peace,
Tom


----------



## damondlt

Tom Robertson said:


> Actually AT&T/DIRECTV does have to pay Mastec employees health benefits. Mastec isn't going to through them in for free.
> 
> DIRECTV does have employees who install dishes. Heck, even Michael White has done it. (Don't know if he's ever done a Big Ugly Dish install like Charlie has, but does it really matter?)
> 
> All companies outsource something: electricity, water, gas, phones, etc. How they chuse what to keep in house is based on their analysis of core competencies and market differentiaters. Some companies outsource nearly everything but the very core secret sauce, some keep as much in house as possible.
> 
> Peace,
> Tom


Yeah I saw Michael Whites dish install. 


Again it's life, just the way it is!
But it doesn't make it right or even wrong.
There is no balance anymore.
I would like to see where Directv supplies the benifits to Mastec employees.
Mastec isn't owned by Directv.
They are a subcontractor for many companies.


----------



## Tom Robertson

damondlt said:


> Yeah I saw Michael Whites dish install.
> 
> 
> Again it's life, just the way it is!
> But it doesn't make it right or even wrong.
> There is no balance anymore.
> I would like to see where Directv supplies the benifits to Mastec employees.
> Mastec isn't owned by Directv.
> They are a subcontractor for many companies.


Mastec gives benefits to their employees. Mastec charges DIRECTV enough money to profit on the subcontracting. Therefore, DIRECTV indirectly pays for the benefits to the Mastec employees. Again, Mastec ain't in this to lose money by giving away benefits without charging for them. 

In the larger scope of things, DIRECTV customers pay for DIRECTV employee benefits. And Mastec employees. And Mastec's electric company's employee benefits. Subcontracting doesn't mean companies don't pay benefits.

Peace,
Tom


----------



## peds48

Tom Robertson said:


> In the larger scope of things, DIRECTV customers pay for DIRECTV employee benefits. And Mastec employees. And Mastec's electric company's employee benefits. Subcontracting doesn't mean companies don't pay benefits.
> 
> Peace,
> Tom


Thanks to all of you DIRECTV® customers for giving me free DIRECTV®!!! :goodjob: !rolling


----------



## James Long

Tom Robertson said:


> Mastec gives benefits to their employees. Mastec charges DIRECTV enough money to profit on the subcontracting. Therefore, DIRECTV indirectly pays for the benefits to the Mastec employees. Again, Mastec ain't in this to lose money by giving away benefits without charging for them.


Does Mastec hire employees with benefits or subcontractors that are responsible for their own employee's benefits?
(If I recall correctly the "DirecTV installer sex offender" was a subcontractor to Mastec.)

State laws vary, but in Indiana contract employees are not guaranteed benefits unless they are treated as regular employees despite the contract. (For example, in most cases if a contract employee is required to work exclusively for the employer they are considered a regular employee.) Attempting to convert an employee into a contract employee to avoid paying benefits is a crime.


----------



## slice1900

James Long said:


> Does Mastec hire employees with benefits or subcontractors that are responsible for their own employee's benefits?
> (If I recall correctly the "DirecTV installer sex offender" was a subcontractor to Mastec.)
> 
> State laws vary, but in Indiana contract employees are not guaranteed benefits unless they are treated as regular employees despite the contract. (For example, in most cases if a contract employee is required to work exclusively for the employer they are considered a regular employee.) Attempting to convert an employee into a contract employee to avoid paying benefits is a crime.


Unless Directv requires that its subcontractors provide benefits to all their employees and maintain the same requirement to their subcontractors, there will be some who don't have benefits. Employers with fewer than 50 employees are not required to provide benefits, so if Mastec subbed out some work to a company with 20 employees, they don't have to provide them with benefits unless there is some contractual requirement that dictates it.


----------



## harsh

slice1900 said:


> Directv didn't "put themselves up for sale".


I disagree. Mike White was hired, in part, to identify a suitable partner going forward. Once the deal is done, he's done.


----------



## damondlt

James Long said:


> Does Mastec hire employees with benefits or subcontractors that are responsible for their own employee's benefits?
> (If I recall correctly the "DirecTV installer sex offender" was a subcontractor to Mastec.)
> 
> State laws vary, but in Indiana contract employees are not guaranteed benefits unless they are treated as regular employees despite the contract. (For example, in most cases if a contract employee is required to work exclusively for the employer they are considered a regular employee.) Attempting to convert an employee into a contract employee to avoid paying benefits is a crime.


PA as well.
If you are a sub, you have to provide the benefits of your employees. 
Not the guy you are subbing off of.

They would be considered Directv employees if Directv was providing the benifits.
MASTEC is a contract company.

But anyway I will keep a close eye on the merger.


----------



## slice1900

harsh said:


> I disagree. Mike White was hired, in part, to identify a suitable partner going forward. Once the deal is done, he's done.


Do you have a source for that claim? If that's the case he was pretty slow in making this happen, as he was hired over five years ago.


----------



## damondlt

Yeah I would agree that ridiculous. 
Michael White was brought in to make them money.
Has nothing to do with AT&T


----------



## dennisj00

You guys are arguing over semantics. A sub-contractor of any company is billing his costs plus a profit (hopefully) whether it includes benefits or not. You could be pocketing the profit just like any evil company and not providing benefits.

Losing money on any contract is not a sustainable business plan on a continuing basis.


----------



## harsh

slice1900 said:


> Do you have a source for that claim?


I do not. I wonder if he would be retiring (or waiting to retire) if he didn't see the buyout as an integral part of his tenure.


----------



## slice1900

harsh said:


> I do not. I wonder if he would be retiring (or waiting to retire) if he didn't see the buyout as an integral part of his tenure.


It sounds like he was already slated for retirement in 2015 before the deal was announced. He turns 63 this year, it is not unusual for someone to retire at that age or earlier if they're well off. I'm nowhere near that age but I'd retire tomorrow if I had half his wealth


----------



## James Long

FYI: This is not a forum for politics. A few off topic posts that went that way have been removed.


----------



## damondlt

slice1900 said:


> It sounds like he was already slated for retirement in 2015 before the deal was announced. He turns 63 this year, it is not unusual for someone to retire at that age or earlier if they're well off. I'm nowhere near that age but I'd retire tomorrow if I had half his wealth


Yes exactly in the last 2 years alone he has taken in 30 million dollars.
I'm sure he doesn't need a Merger deal to ensure his retirement. 
 
It's not like he his going to have to install Directv system part time to make ends meet.


----------



## TheRatPatrol

And I'm sure he has TWC at his mansion for the Dodgers games.


----------



## Oli74

Merger closer as AT&T shares go up

http://www.thestreet.com/story/13173032/1/att-shares-rise-as-directv-merger-nears-sprint-climbs-on-best-buy-partnership.html

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## AmazinglySmooth

AT&T wants to buy Dish too?

http://news.yahoo.com/t-welcome-net-neutrality-rules-hates-much-allowed-130538157.html


----------



## dpeters11

AmazinglySmooth said:


> AT&T wants to buy Dish too?
> 
> http://news.yahoo.com/t-welcome-net-neutrality-rules-hates-much-allowed-130538157.html


No, that article is just badly written. Replace each reference to Dish with DirecTV.


----------



## Tom Robertson

Interestingly, while the yahoo version still shows "Dish", the article on BGR has apparently been updated to show DIRECTV. Looks like a brain fart that has been corrected but the fart remains on yahoo.

Peace,
Tom


----------



## James Long

Once something is on the Internet it is hard to get rid of ... even a fart. 

Is the merger end near? We've seen that reported months ago and yet closure has not come. Reporting or wishful thinking?


----------



## inf0z

James Long said:


> Once something is on the Internet it is hard to get rid of ... even a fart.
> 
> Is the merger end near? We've seen that reported months ago and yet closure has not come. Reporting or wishful thinking?


Hard to tell for sure - any one who is part of the merger discussions has probably signed a pretty strict NDA.


----------



## slice1900

James Long said:


> Is the merger end near? We've seen that reported months ago and yet closure has not come. Reporting or wishful thinking?


The "clock" is still stopped, so they don't have a deadline at the moment. So they could announce it at any time, or announce the clock has restarted and then at least there's an official drop dead date when we'll know one way or another.


----------



## harsh

The rumor mill has it that AT&T is contemplating agreeing to Net Neutrality elements at some point. The deadline for compliance is apparently quite squishy and may take years.

If I were a regulator, I'd be very hesitant to accept any pledges that AT&T makes at this point. I think about where Comcast is in their compliance and I say no dice until _after_ compliance.


----------



## James Long

slice1900 said:


> The "clock" is still stopped, so they don't have a deadline at the moment. So they could announce it at any time, or announce the clock has restarted and then at least there's an official drop dead date when we'll know one way or another.


Per the FCC - March 13th, 2015 (when the clock stopped at 170 days):
"We take this opportunity to remind the public that the 180-day clock represents a good faith undertaking by the Commission to complete action on assignment and transfer of control applications within a certain timeframe and is a means to keep interested parties informed of the progress of those reviews. The clock carries with it no procedural or substantive rights or obligations but merely represents an informal benchmark by which to evaluate the Commission's progress. Although the Commission seeks to meet the 180-day benchmark, the Commission retains the discretion to determine whether, in any particular review proceeding, events beyond the agency's control, the need to obtain additional information, or the interests of sound analysis constitute sufficient grounds to stop the clock."

I hope that the optimists that believe the deal could be closed "any day now" have a reason to believe that the FCC will restart the clock soon (other than the obvious "it has been two months ... they have to restart it some time").


----------



## Tom Robertson

The FCC can, at anytime, start the clock and accept or deny it straight away. I wouldn't be surprised by such at this point.

Now, as to do I sense this is coming soon? By human standards or by satellite company standards? 

I sense the whispers are coming to a resolution. Who blinks first? It _could_ happen very quickly at this point. Or a stalemate could develop, and soon is measured by the time to design, build, and launch a satellite... 

Peace,
Tom


----------



## slice1900

Well there were rumors a couple months ago that the Comcast deal was about to be approved, so while most of us think the AT&T deal will go through we should take the word of supposed "insiders" quoted in the press with a grain of salt.


----------



## Oli74

AT&T appears ready to play ball with the FCC to land DirecTV

http://www.digitaltrends.com/web/att-directv-merger-net-neutrality/

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## damondlt

Oli74 said:


> AT&T appears ready to play ball with the FCC to land DirecTV
> 
> http://www.digitaltrends.com/web/att-directv-merger-net-neutrality/
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Yep I agree with those terms, and I'm sure Netflix will be happy as well.
Seems very fair to me.


----------



## slice1900

Dish is apparently talking to T-Mobile (again...didn't they discuss this a couple years ago?) I guess between the likely impending tie-up of Directv & AT&T, and Dish's need to start using the cellular licenses they own before the deadline, Dish needs a dance partner too.


----------



## harsh

slice1900 said:


> Dish's need to start using the cellular licenses they own before the deadline, Dish needs a dance partner too.


From the perspective of regulators, the business case for this merger is probably better than that of AT&T and DIRECTV. They currently compete only for suburban (as opposed to rural) Internet which is something that the gubmint is pushing hard to find players for. It doesn't hurt that the combined US entities would remain an also-ran in terms of customer bases.


----------



## Oli74

Big Four to FCC Impose Local into Local on DirecTV- AT&T Merger 
http://www.tvtechnology.com/news/0086/big-four-to-fcc-impose-local-into-local-on-directv-att-merger/276424 
You think this good?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## longrider

Oli74 said:


> Big Four to FCC Impose Local into Local on DirecTV- AT&T Merger
> http://www.tvtechnology.com/news/0086/big-four-to-fcc-impose-local-into-local-on-directv-att-merger/276424
> You think this good?
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


My understanding is that covering those last markets was planned with the launch of DirecTV-14 which was set long before the merger was even dreamed of. Also I dont see what this has to do with the merger other than somebody taking advantage of a regulatory process to force something they want.


----------



## harsh

longrider said:


> Also I dont see what this has to do with the merger other than somebody taking advantage of a regulatory process to force something they want.


This is the only opportunity anyone will get to effect change. It is like changing TV providers: make sure you get everything you want up front because they won't be all that interested after you've accepted the deal.


----------



## slice1900

While I agree this should be simple to do in the next few months, I'm curious that the article said Directv had committed to doing this by 2008. Anyone have further details?

The problem with these sorts of conditions, like Verizon's commitment to provide fiber internet to everyone in NYC in exchange for a $2/month fee on every subscriber in the city, is that there are never any penalties specified for failure to meet the commitment. If they were forced to refund all those fees for failure to deliver, they'd probably find they were able to do it after all.

I guess the problem is that these conditions are generally not coming from the FCC, but from outside groups/companies. The FCC doesn't care if one provider fails to offer all locals or fails to provide fiber to every NYC household, but if they're going to add these conditions they need some sort of stick that insures compliance or a predefined penalty for non-compliance.


----------



## 242424

Oli74 said:


> Big Four to FCC Impose Local into Local on DirecTV- AT&T Merger
> http://www.tvtechnology.com/news/0086/big-four-to-fcc-impose-local-into-local-on-directv-att-merger/276424
> *You think this good?*
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


It's only good if they make them do it in HD


----------



## HoTat2

longrider said:


> My understanding is that covering those last markets was planned with the launch of DirecTV-14 which was set long before the merger was even dreamed of. Also I dont see what this has to do with the merger other than somebody taking advantage of a regulatory process to force something they want.


What gets me is that the way these broadcasters talk here is a clear admission that they need MVPDs like DIRECTV to help get their signal out more than DIRECTV needs them. Yet they hypocritically act like it's the other way around and insist DIRECTV and others pay them ever inceasing retransmission fees to carry their signals.

Sent from my SGH-M819N using Tapatalk


----------



## inkahauts

242424 said:


> It's only good if they make them do it in HD


It's not good period. They should never be forced.

And truly in the end I think it's dumb anyway. I believe they are all coming soon so it's a mute point.


----------



## 242424

inkahauts said:


> It's not good period. They should never be forced.
> 
> And truly in the end I think it's dumb anyway. I believe they are all coming soon so it's a mute point.


So I assume you have locals and aren't being bent over paying for distant networks?


----------



## harsh

slice1900 said:


> While I agree this should be simple to do in the next few months, I'm curious that the article said Directv had committed to doing this by 2008. Anyone have further details?


I'm recalling that a 100% LIL coverage requirement was part of STELA (2010, or maybe SHVERA in 2004) and not something DIRECTV expressly committed to doing. The FCC formally certified DISH's compliance in 2010.


----------



## James Long

harsh said:


> I'm recalling that a 100% LIL coverage requirement was part of STELA (2010, or maybe SHVERA in 2004) and not something DIRECTV expressly committed to doing. The FCC formally certified DISH's compliance in 2010.


The 100% coverage requirement was something special that only applied to DISH.
It was written into the law by Congress to allow DISH out of their permanent ban on providing distant networks.
After being certified, DISH was allowed to provide distants to the extent permitted by law.
(DISH provides distants of their choice in short markets as part of their regular packages with locals.)

The coverage requirement does not apply to DirecTV. They did not lose their ability to carry distants under the original laws.


----------



## Drucifer

I hate these transition periods in takeovers. It seems like getting anything from the company getting taken over is nearly impossible.


----------



## inkahauts

242424 said:


> So I assume you have locals and aren't being bent over paying for distant networks?


Doesn't matter. When you try and force a company to provide services they always cost more and you get less than if you let the marketplace deal with it.

I think it's bad they don't have every DMA covered yet... But I think this year it will end.

And I never think one company can or should be bale to force another to do them a favor in business just because. Especially when you know they want to use it as leverage in negotiating a price for their channels. That would make the rates being asked for in those markets go even higher when DIRECTV starts negotiating. In fact i can see it delaying the big networks getting picked up while all the little ones get turned on. To me
It's a negotiating ploy plain and simple and that should never be built into a condition the government set for a merger.

Especially since it won't actually do anything anyway.

And my rates are sky high already in part because of my locals.


----------



## 242424

So that's a yes....


----------



## harsh

James Long said:


> The 100% coverage requirement was something special that only applied to DISH.


While it was offered up to appease the broadcasters, apparently my recollection wasn't up-to-date and that element of STELA didn't make it. Senator Claire McCaskill of the Senate Commerce Committee was pushing for the requirement in the Fall of 2009 but House Communications Chair Rick Boucher thought it would stink the bill.

According to a law digest, in order maintain their "qualified carrier" status, DIRECTV had "agreed to" servicing all 210 DMAs. In contrast, DISH was forced to actually do it to regain qualified carrier status that had been taken away.

An article published yesterday on rbr.com indicates that DIRECTV agreed to 100% coverage quite a while ago [as part of the News Corp merger as it happens].



rbr.com said:


> It's been 12 long years since DirecTV promised to provide local-into-local television service in all Nielsen DMAs and it still hasn't made good. NAB and the four large networks says the FCC should require a make-good before allowing the satcaster to merge with AT&T.


The following letter was sent to the FCC in February 2008 by the NAB in order to light a fire under DIRECTV:

http://www.nab.org/documents/newsRoom/pdfs/021908_Mago_DIRECTV.pdf

Note that the DIRECTV merger with News Corp was not conditional on the assurances that DIRECTV had made (as stated in the letter) but DIRECTV had nonetheless made the committment in writing to the FCC.


----------



## James Long

harsh said:



> While it was offered up to appease the broadcasters, apparently my recollection wasn't up-to-date and that element of STELA didn't make it.


Correct. There is no REQUIREMENT to offer locals in all markets.



harsh said:


> According to a law digest, in order maintain their "qualified carrier" status, DIRECTV had "agreed to" servicing all 210 DMAs. In contrast, DISH was forced to actually do it to regain qualified carrier status that had been taken away.


Your reading is incorrect. DirecTV never was a "qualified carrier" and has no need to become a "qualified carrier". That term applies only to a carrier who has lost permission to carry distants via court order.



harsh said:


> An article published yesterday on rdr.com indicates that DIRECTV agreed to 100% coverage quite a while ago [as part of the News Corp merger as it happens].


Access to that article is blocked ... but at best a "failure to keep a promise" not any violation of a requirement.

The current efforts are to turn the "promise" into a requirement. Something that is best served by the marketplace - not by pressure from the NAB or broadcasters. One might as well have Pac-12 or Time Warner writing letters to get their channels forced onto DirecTV's system as part of the merger.

If subscribers in the markets DirecTV does not provide locals want locals there are other providers. If that market pressure is not enough to get DirecTV to add locals after all of these years perhaps the need is not that strong.


----------



## harsh

James Long said:


> Access to that article is blocked.


I'm having no trouble accessing the article. Perhaps you could try a private browsing session.


----------



## Tom Robertson

Article requires registration and login.

Peace,
Tom


----------



## Laxguy

Please, gentlemen, don't confuse the issue with facts! A harsh analysis would indicate it won't stop the Attack Basset.....


----------



## harsh

Tom Robertson said:


> Article requires registration and login.


I see that now when I do a private session. Apparently the site that referred me to it (Google) gave me a cookie.

In any event, the NAB letter provides documentation for slice1900's question in post #1331 about the existence of the DIRECTV commitment to carrying 100% LIL by 2008.


----------



## James Long

harsh said:


> In any event, the NAB letter provides documentation for slice1900's question in post #1331 about the existence of the DIRECTV commitment to carrying 100% LIL by 2008.


And as already stated, and acknowledged by you, a "commitment" not a requirement. DirecTV has not violated any FCC rule, federal law or previous merger condition in this matter. Let it go and lets move on.


----------



## Tom Robertson

I wonder how much effect the problems of D-10 and D-11 had on DIRECTV's ability to meet their intended commitment. As D-14 and D-15 are fully deployed, perhaps they will have the capacity to finish the last stragglers. 

Peace,
Tom


----------



## harsh

Tom Robertson said:


> I wonder how much effect the problems of D-10 and D-11 had on DIRECTV's ability to meet their intended commitment.


The issue may have been one of the DMA market boundaries changing and not being able to take full advantage of the Spaceways because they were needed to cover newly introduced (or identified) dedicated spot beam shortcomings.


----------



## inkahauts

Tom Robertson said:


> I wonder how much effect the problems of D-10 and D-11 had on DIRECTV's ability to meet their intended commitment. As D-14 and D-15 are fully deployed, perhaps they will have the capacity to finish the last stragglers.
> 
> Peace,
> Tom


Considering we know that d10 had to turn off and not use its spots at all id bet that it is the reason myself. Otherwise they'd have had all three d10 d11 d12 doing locals (they could have modified d12 to work as d14 now is recall they did make changes to make it work with d10 conus). An entire sat not working is a pretty big deal.


----------



## slice1900

inkahauts said:


> Considering we know that d10 had to turn off and not use its spots at all id bet that it is the reason myself. Otherwise they'd have had all three d10 d11 d12 doing locals (they could have modified d12 to work as d14 now is recall they did make changes to make it work with d10 conus). An entire sat not working is a pretty big deal.


Was D12 originally intended to utilize Ka hi for its spot beams and changed during construction once D10's issues were known? It wouldn't make much sense for it to be Ka lo which would overlap with D10's frequencies. If D10 was healthy and D12 was Ka hi, there would have been no need for D14 have spot beams and they would have covered all markets years ago. Or if it did it would have covered all remaining markets and they wouldn't need either Spaceway any longer.


----------



## HoTat2

slice1900 said:


> Was D12 originally intended to utilize Ka hi for its spot beams and changed during construction once D10's issues were known? It wouldn't make much sense for it to be Ka lo which would overlap with D10's frequencies. If D10 was healthy and D12 was Ka hi, there would have been no need for D14 have spot beams and they would have covered all markets years ago. Or if it did it would have covered all remaining markets and they wouldn't need either Spaceway any longer.


No, D12 was originally intended to be an "on ground" spare to be "quickly" (relatively speaking) launched in case either D10 or D11 got in trouble, and was constructed with the same Ka-lo band payloads as D10 and 11 for both it's spotbeams and CONUS xpndrs.

However, DIRECTV soon changed this plan of having such a valuable asset sitting dormant on the ground in storage this way waiting for something to possibly go wrong with D10 or 11, and decided to modify just it's CONUS payload to 16 xpndrs on the Ka-hi band and launch it to 103W.


----------



## inkahauts

Yeah it was called an identical ground spare. I don't believe for one minute it was ever truly intended to be just that. And they altered its payload once they saw I path of how to use it with instead of as a replacement for its two sisters. There is a reason it wasn't launched immediately. And that was IMHO so its payload could be tweaked to work with instead of replace once it was decided it didn't need to replace.


----------



## DBSSTEPHEN

What actually happened to the D 13 satellite


----------



## slice1900

Given the lead time for launch scheduling, a ground spare seems pretty pointless.


----------



## slice1900

DBSSTEPHEN said:


> What actually happened to the D 13 satellite


Apparently it was going to go to 110 but they canceled it. Not sure why they'd build a new satellite for a location with only three transponders, rather than use old ones moved from 101 or 119...

They probably just put something in they would cancel so they wouldn't have a '13'


----------



## lucky13

slice1900 said:


> They probably just put something in they would cancel so they wouldn't have a '13'


I resent that.


----------



## Tom Robertson

inkahauts said:


> Yeah it was called an identical ground spare. I don't believe for one minute it was ever truly intended to be just that. And they altered its payload once they saw I path of how to use it with instead of as a replacement for its two sisters. There is a reason it wasn't launched immediately. And that was IMHO so its payload could be tweaked to work with instead of replace once it was decided it didn't need to replace.


I suspect much of what happened with D12 was to walk a fine line with investors, launch failure rates, and future-proofing with a lower cost.

By building D12 but not scheduling a launch, Wall Street looked at a lower cost profile plus an insurance policy if there were a launch failure. Satellite insurance is very expensive--why not use it to build a satellite instead. 

Then, after the successful launches, DIRECTV could wait for the right financial point to launch D12. HD did well, DIRECTV did well, Wall street was satisfied with DIRECTV performance to allow the launch costs to make even more money via more HD.

Plus I'm sure it didn't hurt when DIRECTV negotiated a 3 satellite construction contract. (Too bad, D10 and D11 had problems. Boeing is probably still kicking themselves...)

Peace,
Tom


----------



## slice1900

Tom Robertson said:


> Plus I'm sure it didn't hurt when DIRECTV negotiated a 3 satellite construction contract. (Too bad, D10 and D11 had problems. Boeing is probably still kicking themselves...)


I'm aware of the multiple issues D10 has had, but hadn't ever heard about issues with D11. What were they?


----------



## inkahauts

Tom Robertson said:


> I suspect much of what happened with D12 was to walk a fine line with investors, launch failure rates, and future-proofing with a lower cost.
> 
> By building D12 but not scheduling a launch, Wall Street looked at a lower cost profile plus an insurance policy if there were a launch failure. Satellite insurance is very expensive--why not use it to build a satellite instead.
> 
> Then, after the successful launches, DIRECTV could wait for the right financial point to launch D12. HD did well, DIRECTV did well, Wall street was satisfied with DIRECTV performance to allow the launch costs to make even more money via more HD.
> 
> Plus I'm sure it didn't hurt when DIRECTV negotiated a 3 satellite construction contract. (Too bad, D10 and D11 had problems. Boeing is probably still kicking themselves...)
> 
> Peace,
> Tom


Yep makes sense. Also fits why they waited to really finalize the payload specs I think.


----------



## Oli74

http://www.multichannel.com/news/telco-tv/directv-att-merger-completed-shortly/391812?utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=twitterfeed
Getting closer and closer

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## James Long

Reminds me of Monty Python .... Wait for it, wait for it.


----------



## harsh

The longer they are forced to wait, the more hair-brained ideas that the competitors or broadcasters are going to come up with as conditions for the the FCC allowing the merger.


----------



## peds48

harsh said:


> The longer they are forced to wait, the more hair-brained ideas that the competitors or broadcasters are going to come up with as conditions for the the FCC allowing the merger.


The broadcasters can come up with as many "hair-brained" ideas they want, however is up to the FCC to see if those "hairs" have any "brains"


----------



## Oli74

http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2015/07/01/att-directv-justice-department-approval/29575943/ 
One step closer 
The companies still need final approval from the Justice Department's antitrust leadership, according to the report.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## James Long

Plus the FCC ... but there is optimism in the article.


----------



## Shades228

James Long said:


> Plus the FCC ... but there is optimism in the article.


I would guess that the FCC has already approved it and is just waiting for the hurdles to be cleared. Given the pauses that have happened if they were going to deny it I think it would have happened then.


----------



## Drucifer

Oli74 said:


> http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2015/07/01/att-directv-justice-department-approval/29575943/
> One step closer
> The companies still need final approval from the *Justice Department's antitrust leadership*, according to the report.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


They been awful quiet on the situation.


----------



## slice1900

Drucifer said:


> They been awful quiet on the situation.


Because there are no real antitrust concerns involved here. The only places where competition will be lessened is in Uverse country where consumers go from 4 to 3 options. But most of the country never had that 4th option (TV from their telco) in the first place so they don't view that as an issue. The broadband expansion (which brings in all the streaming options) in underserved areas is more than worth it as a trade for that in the view of the regulators.


----------



## harsh

peds48 said:


> The broadcasters can come up with as many "hair-brained" ideas they want, however is up to the FCC to see if those "hairs" have any "brains"


Given the selection process and backgrounds of the commission, what are the chances that they consider the issues more important than those who raised them?


----------



## peds48

harsh said:


> Given the selection process and backgrounds of the commission, what are the chances that they consider the issues more important than those who raised them?


Net neutrality. Enough said....


----------



## Oli74

Why Forbes believe that the DirecTv AT&T merger is almost done deal. 
http://www.forbes.com/sites/greatspeculations/2015/07/06/why-we-believe-that-the-directv-att-merger-is-almost-a-done-deal/2/

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## harsh

Oli74 said:


> Why Forbes believe that the DirecTv AT&T merger is almost done deal.


The basis of the article, the second extension, is weeks old news.

The done deal talk has been hot and heavy for the last four months but it isn't reasonable to reason when giant commercial interests trying to get a leg up play such a big part.


----------



## Drucifer

When the commercials with the new logos hit the airwaves, I'll know the deal been approved. I wonder if they're in the can already.


----------



## Tom Robertson

Drucifer said:


> When the commercials with the new logos hit the airwaves, I'll know the deal been approved. I wonder if they're in the can already.


The logos might not change for awhile. Or you might see dual logos on the DIRECTV ads.

Peace,
Tom


----------



## harsh

Tom Robertson said:


> The logos might not change for awhile. Or you might see dual logos on the DIRECTV ads.


I'm guessing that by the end of the promised honeymoon period, the cyclone will disappear entirely.


----------



## Herdfan

My AT&T Wireless store says "DirecTV Now Available" on its marquee.


----------



## west99999

I was told by my local ATT store that as of June 23rd they were told to stop selling ATT Uverse TV (unless specifically asked for it) and push only Directv to customers. They said this was nationwide direction.


----------



## slice1900

west99999 said:


> I was told by my local ATT store that as of June 23rd they were told to stop selling ATT Uverse TV (unless specifically asked for it) and push only Directv to customers. They said this was nationwide direction.


That doesn't make much sense, given that the deal hasn't even been approved yet, and there are a lot of customers who cannot get Directv due to being in an apartment or having trees in the way.


----------



## JoeTheDragon

slice1900 said:


> That doesn't make much sense, given that the deal hasn't even been approved yet, and there are a lot of customers who cannot get Directv due to being in an apartment or having trees in the way.


or maybe they can move the install work over to the non union directv installers


----------



## Laxguy

slice1900 said:


> That doesn't make much sense, given that the deal hasn't even been approved yet, and there are a lot of customers who cannot get Directv due to being in an apartment or having trees in the way.


What makes sense is they stop selling Uverse, and sell DIRECTV* over wires to those apartment dwellers.

*Called U-Direct or whatever.....


----------



## jimmie57

Laxguy said:


> What makes sense is they stop selling Uverse, and sell DIRECTV* over wires to those apartment dwellers.
> 
> *Called U-Direct or whatever.....


I never thought of them being able to distribute the DirecTV signals over their Uverse fiber optics network.
HHMMMNNN.


----------



## slice1900

Laxguy said:


> What makes sense is they stop selling Uverse, and sell DIRECTV* over wires to those apartment dwellers.
> 
> *Called U-Direct or whatever.....


I agree that's probably what they'll do, but stopping sales of Uverse already when the deal isn't even approved yet doesn't make sense. Maybe AT&T has contacts inside the FCC and knows it is already approved and the only thing remaining is what conditions will be attached, but even then I'm quite skeptical they are already telling their people to stop selling Uverse, when there isn't a "Directv over Uverse" product yet, or equipment to support it.


----------



## harsh

jimmie57 said:


> I never thought of them being able to distribute the DirecTV signals over their Uverse fiber optics network.


I have doubts that it could be anywhere near the same product. If DIRECTV ceases to be a "premium" service to go along with its premium pricing, then its done.


----------



## jimmie57

harsh said:


> I have doubts that it could be anywhere near the same product. If DIRECTV ceases to be a "premium" service to go along with its premium pricing, then its done.


We can get on our DirecTV accounts online now. I see no reason that AT&T could not transmit it to places that do not want a dish just for the site of it being on the roof or the times when it has the rain fade, etc.
They have been bundling with DirecTV for years here in my part of Texas.


----------



## Laxguy

harsh said:


> I have doubts that it could be anywhere near the same product. If DIRECTV ceases to be a "premium" service to go along with its premium pricing, then its done.


The sky is falling! The sky is falling!!


----------



## west99999

slice1900 said:


> That doesn't make much sense, given that the deal hasn't even been approved yet,


Well thats whats happening according to the email the ATT guy showed me. I also know a DirecTV guy that was sent out of state to train ATT. They are moving like the deal is done.


----------



## James Long

west99999 said:


> Well thats whats happening according to the email the ATT guy showed me. I also know a DirecTV guy that was sent out of state to train ATT. They are moving like the deal is done.


Was this an "authorized retailer" location or a company owned store? Independent retailers would have more leeway in deciding what products to offer.


----------



## west99999

ATT corporate store.


----------



## inkahauts

ATT person came by trying to sell me uverese internet and tv. He didn't have a clue and said they upgraded my area recently and i should be able to get it fine now. Across the street has had it for ages, my side cant get it. They haven't upgraded (he claims he saw them installing new poles and this was for that, it wasn't they where redoing electrical lines), I've seen no new vrads. And when i told him how much I could record and uverse cant do that, he said they can do four plus you can watch ten shows streaming over the internet
I don't think he gets it... ATT needs a lot of work to fix all the stuff he was saying about the differences between att and Directv....


----------



## Laxguy

Totally sure he was legit??


----------



## harsh

jimmie57 said:


> I see no reason that AT&T could not transmit it to places that do not want a dish just for the site of it being on the roof or the times when it has the rain fade, etc.


Bandwidth would be a tough nut. Some areas are still limited to three or four somewhat narrow streams per household.

Extending that to wireless service areas would be a pretty hefty load. Broadcasting one channel to lots of customers is easy but broadcasting lots of channels to lots of customers hasn't much changed.

There is also an expectation of picture quality that Uverse has typically been pretty far behind DIRECTV on.


----------



## Tom Robertson

There are some Uverse areas on DSL with only one HD stream per house. 

Peace,
Tom


----------



## inkahauts

Laxguy said:


> Totally sure he was legit??


Yeah he was a rep that worked for a third party. But had his att badge and shirt.


----------



## Oli74

http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2015/07/21/fcc-set-approve-t-directv-deal/30484649/

Soon very soon

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Oli74

From the Wall St journal

http://www.wsj.com/articles/fcc-poised-to-approve-at-ts-49-billion-acquisition-of-directv-1437511631

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## James Long

Oli74 said:


> http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2015/07/21/fcc-set-approve-t-directv-deal/30484649/
> 
> Soon very soon


One day the "any day now" stories will be right. 
But this is the most positive step I have seen that isn't just speculation ... a named source putting out a statement.

"An order recommending that the AT&T/DirecTV transaction be approved with conditions has circulated to the commissioners," [FCC Chairman Tom] Wheeler said in a statement.


----------



## JosephB

As far as the retail store stories, AT&T has been reselling DirecTV service for years. Legally they can't act as a joined company until the transaction closes. There will be all kinds of weird stories coming out until AT&T actually starts the integration process, there are thousands of stores, some are authorized retailers some are corporate stores, and in the case of authorized resellers they might separately be resellers of DirecTV, too. Just chill and let the process happen. They have already said publicly and in FCC filings that their plans are to continue to distribute TV services both via VDSL/fiber as well as satellite, but that both platforms will standardize on the DirecTV "platform" meaning that eventually everyone will have DirecTV set top boxes, no matter if the bits that come into your house do so via a copper wire, fiber optics, or a satellite dish. And on the branding who knows. My one-semester-of-college-marketing-class tells me that it would make more sense to dump the U-Verse name and stick with the DirecTV name for their TV services, even if U-Verse branding is kept for their internet services (which they're starting to stray away from with their "GigaPower" branding anyway)



James Long said:


> One day the "any day now" stories will be right.
> But this is the most positive step I have seen that isn't just speculation ... a named source putting out a statement.
> 
> "An order recommending that the AT&T/DirecTV transaction be approved with conditions has circulated to the commissioners," [FCC Chairman Tom] Wheeler said in a statement.


DOJ and FCC have made it official. The FCC voting on it is just a formality and is the last step. It's a done deal now.


----------



## slice1900

The USA Today and other articles suggest that AT&T can't except their own service from data caps that apply to other services. In other words, you can't have Netflix running into the cap but not count Directv's VOD against your cap.

I wonder exactly how that language is written - depending on how it is, the minute it applies AT&T would be in violation for all 6 million Uverse users - since Uverse is delivered via the same IP service that delivers your internet. They presumably have an exclusion for that, with some language about if its a private network rather than via the internet, since that's basically how Uverse is delivered today, but that makes language very important. They'd want to allow it to deliver all the normal Directv channels, but stuff like VOD or PPV (via internet not satellite) would have to be excluded because that would damage competitors like Netflix. Stuff like "catch up" viewing that uses the internet falls in between, so it would depend on the language of what AT&T agrees to.


----------



## James Long

JosephB said:


> DOJ and FCC have made it official. The FCC voting on it is just a formality and is the last step. It's a done deal now.


The only "uncertainty" I can acknowledge is not knowing the conditions. I doubt that they will be to onerous to allow the deal to go forward - but AT&T must agree to the conditions to get the approval.



slice1900 said:


> They presumably have an exclusion for that, with some language about if its a private network rather than via the internet, since that's basically how Uverse is delivered today, but that makes language very important.


Equal should be equal. If Netflix puts a server inside AT&T's network they should be treated the same as any other content server within the network. If the server is outside the network it should be treated the same as outside servers. If "AT&T/DirecTV VOD" is offered an inside connection for VOD then others should be offered the same service. Whether my opinion of should translates to the FCC conditions is yet to be seen.


----------



## Steve615

I wasn't sure where to post this topic. If it needs to be moved elsewhere, mods please feel free to do so.

FCC chairman Tom Wheeler and the DOJ (Department Of Justice) have given their blessings for the merger. It appears the last remaining hurdle is a vote from the FCC's five commissioners.

http://www.fiercecable.com/story/att-directv-deal-gets-approval-fccs-wheeler-justice-department/2015-07-22


----------



## slice1900

James Long said:


> Equal should be equal. If Netflix puts a server inside AT&T's network they should be treated the same as any other content server within the network. If the server is outside the network it should be treated the same as outside servers. If "AT&T/DirecTV VOD" is offered an inside connection for VOD then others should be offered the same service. Whether my opinion of should translates to the FCC conditions is yet to be seen.


I would anticipate that the language will not permit them any leeway for VOD, since that's an area of very active competition, but for streaming channels it may be different because Uverse is sort of already doing that today. If Uverse TV counts against the cap they'll effectively be forced to remove all caps on those customers, because Dish could come along and say "why is Uverse not counted against the cap but Sling TV is?" I can already hear Ergen warming up the lawyers getting ready to mess with AT&T 

We'll just have to see how the rules are written, but if it is like anything else there will be gray areas so we'll be none the wiser after it is announced...

This type of question may become a problem for cable TV companies down the road depending on how net neutrality is interpreted and enforced. Today cable TV is broadcast via QAM encoded RF channels, separate from your internet connection. With DOCSIS 3.1 cable companies have discussed a transition to all-IP delivery, so your cable TV will come through your cable modem as IP. If the FCC holds net neutrality to mean that _any_ TV delivered by IP must be treated the same, they would create a disincentive for cable companies to switch to all IP delivery, despite the advantages, because doing so would make them subject to those rules and open the door for streaming TV competition like Sling TV.


----------



## adamson

Blah


----------



## sabrewulf

The end is near.


----------



## Laxguy

Is the sky falling yet??

</Chicken Little>


----------



## dhkinil

well, my biggest issue (and mod, feel free to move, just let me know if it appears somewhere else) is NHLCI. I really do not like the idea of having any ATT product in my house, not that I am all that in love with Comcast which is my ISP. SO....... if I ultimately decide that a comcast bundle is better than allowing ATT into my house, does comcast now get all CI feeds in HD, in other words, will I be able to always get (except for the NHL Network, NBCSN and local blackout stuff, Rangers feed is blacked out here when they play the Hawks if not on NBCSN) the Rangers in HD on whatever MSG channel they are on that night?


----------



## harsh

James Long said:


> If Netflix puts a server inside AT&T's network they should be treated the same as any other content server within the network. If the server is outside the network it should be treated the same as outside servers.


Neutrality could mean that in-network and out-of-network no longer exist: everything on the WAN side of the router is the Internet.

The ISP could still demand that you not host servers as a condition.


----------



## harsh

Steve615 said:


> FCC chairman Tom Wheeler and the DOJ (Department Of Justice) have given their blessings for the merger. It appears the last remaining hurdle is a vote from the FCC's five commissioners.


If Wheeler was the commission, this would be important. As it is, he appears to be engaging in a no-cost lobbying effort on behalf of AT&T by making statements that aren't necessarily representative of what the other commission members are thinking.


----------



## longrider

A working link:

http://www.cnbc.com/2015/07/24/fcc-approves-of-att-directv-deal-with-conditions.html


----------



## alnielsen

I just heard over the radio that the FCC approved the merger.


----------



## James Long

Please see new thread ...
http://www.dbstalk.com/topic/218691-fcc-grants-approval-of-att-directv-transaction/


----------

