# AT&T looking to snap up DirecTV?



## robmadden1 (Nov 2, 2008)

Analyst Eagan Starts Coverage of Liberty Entertainment
Cites AT&T Partnership, Possible Acquisition
By Linda Moss -- Multichannel News, 10/24/2008 10:32:00 AM

Collins Stewart analyst Tom Eagan has initiated coverage of Liberty Entertainment shares, issuing a “buy” rating Friday that cited the strength of DirecTV.

Liberty Entertainment shares were off $1, or 6%, to $16.52 in Friday afternoon trading.

Liberty Entertainment holds Liberty Media’s 52% stake in DirecTV, and in his report Friday Eagan was bullish on the prospects for the nation’s largest satellite provider. He called DirecTV “one of the best-positioned companies in the subscription TV space,” citing in part AT&T’s recent decision to pick DirecTV as its only satellite partner for a triple-play package.

That decision, according to Eagan, means the “probability” of AT&T acquiring DirecTV “has increased.”

In September, Liberty Media’s board approved the transformation of Liberty Entertainment from a tracking stock to an asset-based stock.

Last month, at Liberty Media’s investor day chairman John Malone downplayed the prospect that Liberty Entertainment would quickly move to increase its stake in DirecTV.

“Just because we’re spinning this to our shareholders, don’t expect some quick shotgun marriage between DirecTV and the entertainment unit,” Malone said.

With Liberty Entertainment’s stock now trading at a discount, Eagan doesn’t think it will seek to acquire the rest of DirecTV. Instead, the analyst suggested that DirecTV could try to acquire Liberty Entertainment.

In there is no Liberty Entertainment-DirecTV merger, Eagan wrote that he expected that Liberty Entertainment would sell its DirecTV stake to AT&T.

multichannel.com/article/CA6608348.html


----------



## RAD (Aug 5, 2002)

I seem to remember similar type comments when SBC/AT&T picked Dish as their satellite provider and we all know who that's turned out.


----------



## Davenlr (Sep 16, 2006)

If AT&T buys DirecTv, I'm switching to Dish. I absolutely hate AT&T.


----------



## Mightyram (Jan 9, 2007)

No matter who owns DirecTV... I have never seen any real difference in how the company is run and I have been a member since 1997.


----------



## Ken S (Feb 13, 2007)

Mightyram said:


> No matter who owns DirecTV... I have never seen any real difference in how the company is run and I have been a member since 1997.


Oh, I disagree. I think the company made several changes under News Corp. They went to their own manufactured receivers, they decreased the quality of their customer service operation and they began to significantly and regularly raise prices. There's all sorts of evidence to indicate they didn't make the necessary investment in their internal systems to handle things like the website and distribution functions. As a DirecTV customer for over 10 years I'm delighted to be rid of them.

Would AT&T be better? Can't say...the only part of AT&T that used to really impress me was the old Bell Labs and that was spun off (Lucent), watered down (Alcatel merger) and basically made inconsequential.


----------



## PicaKing (Oct 8, 2006)

Davenlr said:


> If AT&T buys DirecTv, I'm switching to Dish. I absolutely hate AT&T.


Brilliant logic---obviously a rocket scientist


----------



## MIKE0616 (Dec 13, 2006)

RAD said:


> I seem to remember similar type comments when SBC/AT&T picked Dish as their satellite provider and we all know who that's turned out.


This is the *opinion* of an "analyst" (read that: sales hack) who is simply interested in peddling stock to customers and we all know how they *never* spin the truth just to make a commission, right?


----------



## mreposter (Jul 29, 2006)

ATT ending its relationship with E* could be seen as a first step in moving to a D* acquisition. There were also plenty of rumors when News Corp and Liberty worked out the asset transfer of D* that Liberty was only stepping in to clean D* up and spin/sell it off.


----------



## paja (Oct 23, 2006)

Davenlr said:


> If AT&T buys DirecTv, I'm switching to Dish. I absolutely hate AT&T.


I dumped DISH for the AT&T U-verse and I couldn't be happier. The DISH CS is the worst I've ever dealt with. AT&T blows DISH away in that category and the fact that their hd dvr is even better than the 622 I had, which was one of the few good things about DISH.


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

As stated above, majority ownership of the corporation has changed before and there hasn't been a huge difference. Some could point out this decision or that and say it could be because of the majority stockholders, but that's all hypothesis.


----------



## DarinC (Aug 31, 2004)

Personally, I liked DirecTV best when it was under GM/Hughes. Though it's hard to say how much of my perception of their changes are due to ownership, their increase in size, or other random issues. But I definitely feel their quality and customer service has gone downhill. Honestly, now that it just seems to be a commodity that is constantly getting traded, I doubt that will improve, regardless of who buys it.


----------



## terron (Oct 11, 2008)

Wouldn't this ultimately bring AT&T back to another divestiture? I have never been pleased at AT&T when my previous employer used them for Frame Relay services; I can only hope this doesn't go any further.


----------



## Herdfan (Mar 18, 2006)

Stuart Sweet said:


> As stated above, majority ownership of the corporation has changed before and there hasn't been a huge difference. Some could point out this decision or that and say it could be because of the majority stockholders, but that's all hypothesis.


Actually, I think it would be very safe to say the decision to leave TiVo and go with the NDS based DVR had a very direct correlation to ownership.

I also think that RM being able to require the Spaceway sats be part of the purchase from Hughes led to level of HD LIL we have today. Not sure Hughes would have done this on their own.


----------



## Albie (Jan 26, 2007)

I just don't see it. Why would AT&T want to put out the kind of cash/stock that it would require to gain control of D*? One of the reasons they (AT&T) are only doing fiber to the node with copper to the home for U-Verse is the tremendous outlay of cash to run fiber to the home like Verizon FIOS. Right now it would prove complimentary to their U-Verse service in markets where U-Verse isn't (most of the country), but what about in 5-7 years when they have it rolled out to a significant part of the country (Maybe 30-40%). I think it makes more sense to just partner with D* to offer the bundle as a partner where they can control where it is offered and contract the areas offered as U-Verse is rolled out.


----------



## DarinC (Aug 31, 2004)

Herdfan said:


> I also think that RM being able to require the Spaceway sats be part of the purchase from Hughes led to level of HD LIL we have today. Not sure Hughes would have done this on their own.


IIRC, they had already re-purposed those for HD service long before NewsCorp got involved. It just took a while for those to get built, deployed, etc.


----------



## Herdfan (Mar 18, 2006)

DarinC said:


> IIRC, they had already re-purposed those for HD service long before NewsCorp got involved. It just took a while for those to get built, deployed, etc.


I don't think so. If they had, it had not been announced.

From Wikipedia:



> After News Corp purchased a controlling interest in Hughes Electronics (which was renamed to DirecTV Group), the company sold off its controlling interest in Hughes Network Systems but retained SPACEWAY-1 and SPACEWAY-2 for use in the DirecTV satellite television subsidiary of Hughes Electronics [13]. Boeing retrofitted the first two satellites for bent-pipe Ka-band communications


----------



## raott (Nov 23, 2005)

Help me understand why this is a hypothesis:



Stuart Sweet said:


> As Some could point out this decision or that and say it could be because of the majority stockholders, but that's all hypothesis.


But this is not:


Stuart Sweet said:


> majority ownership of the corporation has changed before and there hasn't been a huge difference.


The move to NDS DVRs was driven by Rupert and was a HUGE change.


----------



## DarinC (Aug 31, 2004)

Herdfan said:


> I don't think so. If they had, it had not been announced.


Hmmm, well it appears the timing was much tighter than I remembered. I first remember it being discussed at dbsforums (Dan Collins always had good scoops back in the day), but that site died long ago. The first reference to an official announcement I can find is this one from November of 2003. I believe News Corp acquired DirecTV that December (edit: takeover approved 12-20-2003), but of course there were talks for months ahead of time. So it's hard to say... DirecTV wasn't under control of News Corp at the time, but they certainly could have been influenced.


----------



## kfcrosby (Dec 17, 2006)

If AT&T does in fact purchase DirecTv, I'm another switching to Dish. When AT&T obtained BellSouth my DSL service has done nothing but go south.. Customer service is horrible (and some of you are complaining now about DTV CS) and it is the 40 year old AT&T attitude,,, be reasonable, do it our way, and if you don't like it, too bad.


----------



## Swheat (Aug 10, 2005)

I disagree, at least for me. My dsl with bellsouth has been almost flawless and I, for one, think it might be a good thing.


----------



## Seismo (Jun 22, 2007)

PicaKing said:


> Brilliant logic---obviously a rocket scientist


You've never hated a company so much you refuse to have anything to do with them? I used to work for GE's computer services division.
To this day, I refuse to buy even GE light bulbs.


----------



## finaldiet (Jun 13, 2006)

I believe I read somewhere that ATT is starting to be a vender for DTV. When talking to ATT about u-verese recently he agreed with me and ask how I knew. We have u-verse here and its cheap right now. The only problem I have is you can't record a lot of hours in HD. I have ATT phone ,cell service and DSL now. With u-verse added with all channels, including sports,movie channels,etc., the cost was around $110 a month for the complete bundle.


----------



## BattleZone (Nov 13, 2007)

Albie said:


> I just don't see it. Why would AT&T want to put out the kind of cash/stock that it would require to gain control of D*? One of the reasons they (AT&T) are only doing fiber to the node with copper to the home for U-Verse is the tremendous outlay of cash to run fiber to the home like Verizon FIOS. Right now it would prove complimentary to their U-Verse service in markets where U-Verse isn't (most of the country), but what about in 5-7 years when they have it rolled out to a significant part of the country (Maybe 30-40%). I think it makes more sense to just partner with D* to offer the bundle as a partner where they can control where it is offered and contract the areas offered as U-Verse is rolled out.


I completely agree with this. AT&T doesn't really want DirecTV; they want Uverse. They *have* to have a sat provider *temporarily* in order to allow all of their customers to have bundled TV if they want it, but it is not at all a secret that they will be trying to get everyone to Uverse.

Heck, whenever Uverse rolls out a new neighborhood here, they call their bundled Dish customers and offer them a "free upgrade", and they currently have an agreement with Dish in place. We've done several dozen re-installs of Dish for furious customers who were "upgraded" without even being told that they were being changed from Dish to Uverse; the change was "sold" to them with the implication that it was an upgrade of their Dish service.

No, AT&T just needs a sat provider to get them by for a couple of years until they can have a wider rollout of Uverse.


----------



## nickg2 (Nov 28, 2005)

to tell you the truth, I wish Primestar still had my account. they were VERY easy to work with.


----------



## Elephanthead (Feb 3, 2007)

ATT is flush with I Phone cash, chomping up dtv would be nothing. I think this is simply a way to push the bundle and stave off people dumping the home phone lines. God knows DTV pushes the home phone line even though their equipment can connect through the interweb. You would think they were already one company.


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

DarinC said:


> Personally, I liked DirecTV best when it was under GM/Hughes.


As did I. However, under News Corp. they made a great move by positioning DirecTV as a premium brand and the undisputed HD leader. I don't know if that would have happened under GM/Hughes, and I really don't think it would have happened if Liberty was running the show earlier.


----------



## Herdfan (Mar 18, 2006)

IIP said:


> No, AT&T just needs a sat provider to get them by for a couple of years until they can have a wider rollout of Uverse.


What about the rest of the country that doesn't have AT&T? I don't expect to see FIOS here any time soon, so I still need a TV provider. They would still have a good market even if they had good penetration with FIOS.


----------



## Herdfan (Mar 18, 2006)

Jeremy W said:


> As did I. However, under News Corp. they made a great move by positioning DirecTV as a premium brand and the undisputed HD leader. I don't know if that would have happened under GM/Hughes, and I really don't think it would have happened if Liberty was running the show earlier.


I completely agree. I think NewsCorp. really pushed the HD thing and Liberty is not. Somehow NewsCorp. was able to get agreements in place for HD channels *prior* to the launch of D10 and Liberty does not seem to have that ability.

CS under Hughes was far better than it is now.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

Liberty's purchase was an "investment" purchase.....AT&T would be a technology purchase. I only see them pulling the trigger if they feel that their own Uverse product isn't going to make it in the HD world.


----------



## Herdfan (Mar 18, 2006)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> if they feel that their own Uverse product isn't going to make it in the HD world.


My MIL has U-Verse and it certainly has its limitations. Worked fine for her, but for a family with multiple HD TV's, it just can't cut it. Just last night, my wife and daughter were watching Dancing in HD, I was recording the CBS comedy lineup in HD and watching MNF in HD. I could not do that with U-Verse so until it can overcome that, it will have limited appeal to larger families.

She did just get MRV so that is cool.


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

Herdfan said:


> My MIL has U-Verse and it certainly has its limitations.


One of them being awful PQ.


----------



## Herdfan (Mar 18, 2006)

Jeremy W said:


> One of them being awful PQ.


She has an awful HDTV so I didn't know what to blame.:lol:


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

Herdfan said:


> She has an awful HDTV so I didn't know what to blame.:lol:


I've seen U-verse on a good HDTV (what a shame) and it still looked awful. DirecTV's old HD Lite would be an improvement.


----------



## Steady Teddy (Jan 23, 2007)

U-verse recently became available where I live and a door-to-door rep kept boasting about the *SD* picture quality. I told him I didn't give a damn about SD, I wanted more HD. Yet he said their SD looked almost as good as HD. I had to look at a mirror to make sure someone didn't write "gullible idiot" on my forehead.

At any rate, I already have AT&T phone and DSL service so if I could get a discount for subscribing to all 3 services then I'm all for the acquisition.


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

Steady Teddy said:


> Yet he said their SD looked almost as good as HD.


Sure, if he's talking about _their _HD.


----------



## BattleZone (Nov 13, 2007)

Jeremy W said:


> One of them being awful PQ.


It's awful now that they've squeezed 2 HD streams and 2 SD streams, but it's going to get worse, because Uverse customers are complaining that they want more simultaneous HD. AT&T has already announced plans to go to 3 HD/1 SD by early next year, and that they will have to compress everything further in order to make that happen (which is obvious).

Whoever at AT&T signed off on the "Fiber to the neighborhood" instead of "Fiber to the home" like FiOS obviously didn't consider the demand for HDTV, and now they've got infrastructure that just is not ready to deal with it. Worse, there's no way to fix it without completely starting over.

Verizon is having to spend a lot more money up-front, but at least they were smart enough to figure out that HD would be important, and thus justified the expense.


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

IIP said:


> Worse, there's no way to fix it without completely starting over.


That's not true. They have FTTN in place already, all they have to do is extend it out. It's a huge investment, sure, but they don't have to tear up what's already there.


----------



## curt8403 (Dec 27, 2007)

Jeremy W said:


> That's not true. They have FTTN in place already, all they have to do is extend it out. It's a huge investment, sure, but they don't have to tear up what's already there.


I know this will raise people's hackles, but AT&T should fire the monkey that designed their Uverse system :lol: 
(I am joking)


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

curt8403 said:


> I know this will raise people's hackles, but AT&T should fire the monkey that designed their Uverse system :lol:
> (I am joking)


The technical design of the system is fine, but they should fire the monkey who decided FTTN was worthwhile in the first place. Building a brand new network with such severe limitations was so stupid. I could see that years ago when they announced U-verse, but the idiots in charge thought they could get away by being cheap.


----------



## RAD (Aug 5, 2002)

Jeremy W said:


> That's not true. They have FTTN in place already, all they have to do is extend it out. It's a huge investment, sure, but they don't have to tear up what's already there.


While that's true they're a bunch of money that was spent on ASDL2 hardware in those VRAD's that wouldn't be reused.


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

RAD said:


> While that's true they're a bunch of money that was spent on ASDL2 hardware in those VRAD's that wouldn't be reused.


It's actually VDSL, not ADSL2, but your point is valid.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Stuart Sweet said:


> As stated above, majority ownership of the corporation has changed before and there hasn't been a huge difference. Some could point out this decision or that and say it could be because of the majority stockholders, but that's all hypothesis.


Substantial ownership has changed before, but never before has a majority of the stock been owned by a single shareholder. As noted in the report, Liberty Media now owns over 50% of the outstanding DIRECTV stock where News Corp owned only 38% of it.


----------



## curt8403 (Dec 27, 2007)

harsh said:


> Substantial ownership has changed before, but never before has a majority of the stock been owned by a single shareholder. As noted in the report, Liberty Media now owns over 50% of the outstanding DIRECTV stock where News Corp owned only 38% of it.


Harsh, does Dish have the Mountain?


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

curt8403 said:


> Harsh, does Dish have the Mountain?


Huh?


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

raott said:


> Help me understand why this is a hypothesis:
> 
> But this is not:
> 
> The move to NDS DVRs was driven by Rupert and was a HUGE change.


I disagree.. I don't care who was in charge, I think that was a long time coming... Tivo had to many issues with people being able to crack open content, and that made hollywood nervous... add that to the fact that they wanted more money and Directv wasn't going to simply give them more... Its always about the money with things like that...


----------



## curt8403 (Dec 27, 2007)

harsh said:


> Huh?


a sports channel covering college sports in the mountain west


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

curt8403 said:


> a sports channel covering college sports in the mountain west


Ah! The Mtn.

No. DISH subscribers must rely on Versus (another Comcast property) for their Mountain West Conference coverage.

What does this have to do with a theorized acquisition of D* by AT&T or the fact that Liberty Entertainment apparently owns more than 50% of DIRECTV and can theoretically do with it what they please?


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

inkahauts said:


> I disagree.. I don't care who was in charge, I think that was a long time coming...


If it wasn't the association with News Corp, then why did DIRECTV re-open the door to TiVo-based receivers as soon as Rupert bailed out?


----------



## curt8403 (Dec 27, 2007)

harsh said:


> Ah! The Mtn.
> 
> No. DISH subscribers must rely on Versus (another Comcast property) for their Mountain West Conference coverage.
> 
> What does this have to do with a theorized acquisition of D* by AT&T or the fact that Liberty Entertainment apparently owns more than 50% of DIRECTV and can theoretically do with it what they please?


just side distractions, I consider the whole discussion of AT&T trying to buy Directv to be a speculative ruse.

AT&T thinks they are a big fish, and would not want to encounter a bigger fish in a bigger pond.


----------



## curt8403 (Dec 27, 2007)

harsh said:


> If it wasn't the association with News Corp, then why did DIRECTV re-open the door to TiVo-based receivers as soon as Rupert bailed out?


that discussion (between directv and TIVO) has been going on for a long long time, as to would tivo allow directv to include the technology needed for our new HD.


----------



## Shades228 (Mar 18, 2008)

I don't think this would happen. There's too many negatives for D* and not enough positives. They're already going to have AT&T selling their service as of Feb. If AT&T owned them it would be a lot better for Verizon and Qwest to go to Dish to offer something different in areas where they are sharing customer base with AT&T. Also U-verse is targeting high population areas so they would be essentially swapping sub base's making their investment worth less. 

Also no one is going to talk about merges with the current administration changing until they know who is going to be appointed to the FCC and what their stances of regulation are going to be.

*edit* The only way I could see this being a positive for both companies is if they decided to use the technology in tandem. If they offered VoD, Locals through fiber and then national through the satellite that might be something to look into however from a technology standpoint it would be very costly due to having to design, manufacture, and support specific hardware for those areas only. So again something I don't really see happening.


----------



## ehilbert1 (Jan 23, 2007)

I'm a huge D* fan and I'm not going anywhere. That being said..... My sister has U-verse and it looks fantastic on both of her HDtvs. Plus the MRV feature is just amazing. The price she pays right now is great too. I hope that D* gets their act together and they let us enjoy that feature without networking systems. I'm sure if AT&T can do it so can D*.


----------



## curt8403 (Dec 27, 2007)

ehilbert1 said:


> I'm a huge D* fan and I'm not going anywhere. That being said..... My sister has U-verse and it looks fantastic on both of her HDtvs. Plus the MRV feature is just amazing. The price she pays right now is great too. I hope that D* gets their act together and they let us enjoy that feature without networking systems. I'm sure if AT&T can do it so can D*.


Eye thaought dat Eweverse ran on a network backbone


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

ehilbert1 said:


> My sister has U-verse and it looks fantastic on both of her HDtvs.


Due to the way the U-verse system is designed, picture quality is the same in all locations, much like DirecTV. So if you thought it looked fantastic, I have to say that you don't know what good HD really is.


----------



## Jhon69 (Mar 28, 2006)

Why is it nobody's giving Chase Carey any credit here?.I believe it was his vision that has turned DirecTV into the best satellite company out there and besides he is DirecTV's CEO. 


As for AT&T if they go into this agreement like they did with Dish then AT&T will consider those with AT&T will be AT&T customers not DirecTV's and if they continue UVerse then when that becomes available in your neighborhood AT&T will switch you to UVerse.Even though I like AT&T and DirecTV both I will keep them separate.Unless AT&T buys DirecTV and gives me no choice!.:eek2:


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

Jhon69 said:


> Why is it nobody's giving Chase Carey any credit here? I believe it was his vision that has turned DirecTV into the best satellite company out there


DirecTV has lost their focus on HD since Liberty took over, so where is his vision now? I would have given him credit before, but now he gets little to none.


----------



## Jhon69 (Mar 28, 2006)

Jeremy W said:


> DirecTV has lost their focus on HD since Liberty took over, so where is his vision now? I would have given him credit before, but now he gets little to none.


DirecTV is still #1 in HD right?.If not I could understand your answer.

I also can understand the HDTV owner's pain they wanted 250 HD channels yesterday.Guess that's why I don't have an HDTV yet. I have been down that road before with other technologies.All I can say is soon!.


----------



## Jhon69 (Mar 28, 2006)

curt8403 said:


> that discussion (between directv and TIVO) has been going on for a long long time, as to would tivo allow directv to include the technology needed for our new HD.


Yea it's just so interesting that it was stated that John Malone liked Tivo and both DirecTV and AT&T have previously had Tivo DVRs.Now AT&T is going with DirecTV.It's starting to look like a good match for both companies.The only question remains does AT&T have any stock that John Malone wants to swap for?.It could be a done deal.


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

Jhon69 said:


> DirecTV is still #1 in HD right?


Barely. They're missing a good number of national channels.


----------



## Herdfan (Mar 18, 2006)

Jeremy W said:


> Barely. They're missing a good number of national channels.


And there is no excuse for missing the HBO suite and ESPNU.


----------



## Shades228 (Mar 18, 2008)

Herdfan said:


> And there is no excuse for missing the HBO suite and ESPNU.


$$


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

Jeremy W said:


> Barely. They're missing a good number of national channels.


That's a matter of opinion.

In the mean time, Dish is scapering to try to keep up on the HD LIL side...and not doing well...


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> That's a matter of opinion.


No, it's not. Now, if I had said something like "They're missing a good number of *high quality* national channels" that would be an opinion. But what I said was a fact.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

Jeremy W said:


> No, it's not. Now, if I had said something like "They're missing a good number of *high quality* national channels" that would be an opinion. But what I said was a fact.


Wish I could agree with you, but my sense of accuracy and fairness prohibits it. 

Out simply... there are not that many mainstream National channels that broadcast in HD which are omitted from the DirecTV inventory....some, but not a "good number".


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

Shades228 said:


> $$


No kidding, that's the whole point. DirecTV used to snatch up all the HD they could, now they're leaving channels out. Obviously it's because of money, but that was never a problem before.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

Jeremy W said:


> No kidding, that's the whole point. DirecTV used to snatch up all the HD they could, now they're leaving channels out. Obviously it's because of money, but that was never a problem before.


Neither of those points are based on anything more than conjecture and opinion....which is OK, as log as we all know thats the case...

I guess getting business agreements signed, pricing negotiations, bandwidith, viewer preferences, and other factors didn't come into play....


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> Neither of those points are based on anything more than conjecture and opinion


Honestly, what is your deal? I am not stating opinion here, I wish you would stop this harassment.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

Jeremy W said:


> Honestly, what is your deal? I am not stating opinion here, I wish you would stop this harassment.


Harassment?

You are joking, right?

Unless you work for DirecTV, and are disclosing facts (which has its own implications)....any such information here is conjecture or opinion as to channel availability and choices from any of us....

There's nothing wrong with that, as I stated earlier...but lets not call it something different that what it is....  

Also to get back to topic....

The probablity of an acquisition. I suspect, will be first based on financial considerations (ROI) and business ones second. That's the way these things usuall work.


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> Unless you work for DirecTV, and are disclosing facts (which has its own implications)....any such information here is conjecture or opinion as to channel availability and choices from any of us....


Really? So it's conjecture and opinion that channels like ESPN U, Travel Channel HD, AMC HD, and the entire suite of HBO's new channels all exist, and are carried by other providers, but aren't carried by DirecTV? You must have very different definitions of "conjecture" and "opinion" than I do.

And people call _me_ a DirecTV fanboy...


----------



## curt8403 (Dec 27, 2007)

Jeremy W said:


> And people call _me_ a DirecTV fanboy...


And I happen to like Pancakes with Butter and Maple Syrup.
That is neither Here, nor There.

I doubt that AT&T will attempt to acquire Directv. It makes no sense to buy a company, just to squash it, and then get fined heavily by the FTC and the FCC


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

Jeremy W said:


> Really? So it's conjecture and opinion that channels like ESPN U, Travel Channel HD, AMC HD, and the entire suite of HBO's new channels all exist, and are carried by other providers, but aren't carried by DirecTV? You must have very different definitions of "conjecture" and "opinion" than I do.
> 
> And people call _me_ a DirecTV fanboy...


I have no interest in any but 1 of those channels....so in my *opinion*, they are meaningless, as well as that those are not "a good number" either.

Your *opinion *is contrary in terms of them being "as good number of National Channels", and certainly a welcome point of view.

Great...we disagree.

That doesn't require name-calling, nor does it encompass "harrassment".

I respect your *opinion*, but dispute your definition of "a good number". I also dispute the need for some of them, but that's my *opinion*.

The *conjecture* issue is in regards to the *reason* for those channel not being in the inventory, and I again state that unless we have access to the facts, that either one of us stating the reasons is *conjecture*.

There...now we have all that cleared up, and can return to our regularly scheduled programming...uh...the topic.


----------



## ehilbert1 (Jan 23, 2007)

Jeremy W said:


> Due to the way the U-verse system is designed, picture quality is the same in all locations, much like DirecTV. So if you thought it looked fantastic, I have to say that you don't know what good HD really is.


Ok I get that a lot of people on here love D* and aren't open to anything else,but that statement was uncalled for. I have two HDtvs with HR20's on them and they look great. My sisters looks great too. Just because she has U-verse doesn't mean you know what her TV picture looks like. Christ I wasn't putting down D* and I wasn't promoting AT&T I just made a statement. Some of you guys take this stuff to serious and you love to put people down when you can. It's funny how people do that a lot on the net and would never do that in person. I don't post much because of people like you.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

Jeremy W said:


> Due to the way the U-verse system is designed, picture quality is the same in all locations, much like DirecTV. So if you thought it looked fantastic, I have to say that you don't know what good HD really is.





ehilbert1 said:


> Ok I get that a lot of people on here love D* and aren't open to anything else,but that statement was uncalled for statement. Some of you guys take this stuff to serious. Thats why I don't post much.


Agree with you on all counts.

Please keep visiting and posting.

We welcome all participants. 

Most of us are here to help, communicate useful information, and generally have some fun along the way doing the first 2 things.


----------



## Shades228 (Mar 18, 2008)

Jeremy W said:


> Barely. They're missing a good number of national channels.


The problem is a good number is not a fact it's opinion. Hell you could say that D* is missing a good number of national non hd channels too. Every premium service has more channels that any 1 carrier supplies. The carriers pick and choose them. There is no definition of what a good number is. To some it could be 2 to others it could be 20.

They cover more HD programming then anyone else. Depending on what you like to watch it might be good enough or not good enough. HD locals went live in my area today. This means that for the most part everything I currently watch is available to me in HD. Would I like more HD channels? Sure but it's not make or break to me now.

They spent the money up front knowing that it would launch them as the leader. Which means they probably spent more then they wanted to in some cases just to get the magic numbers up. Now they're the leader, and will be for awhile, so they can be more shrewd in negotiations and take more time.

The bottom line is there are 20 different posts about this same topic and it's always the same thing. We all want more HD however even if they launched a HD channel in the last month people still want more. Oh wait they did.


----------



## Shades228 (Mar 18, 2008)

Back to the subject however I don't see anyone looking to do anything until the administration changes and people get a feel for what the new FCC will be like. Once that gets in place all sorts of merging rumors will start again. Dish losing subs non stop and losing programming. D* acquisition slowing down. That means of course new merger rumors.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Herdfan said:


> And there is no excuse for missing the HBO suite and ESPNU.


I can understand the expectation of the ESPNU HD offering, but DIRECTV's HBO and Cinemax offerings have always been disappointingly limited.


----------



## DarinC (Aug 31, 2004)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> That's a matter of opinion.


Here is a list of HD channels not currently carried. That list may not be up to date; there are two I know that are now carried, and there may even be some missing. But to the best of my knowledge, that's 37 channels. I guess if you want to say your opinion is that that's not a "good number", then that's your prerogative. But it's a rather silly point to make when the vast majority of folks (including you) would probably say that if DirecTV increased their current national HD channel count by 50%, they'd consider that to be a "good number".



hdtvfan0001 said:


> Neither of those points are based on anything more than conjecture and opinion....which is OK, as log as we all know thats the case...


So you honestly believe that money is not the primary reason why they didn't bother to have more agreements lined up by the time DirecTV-11 went live? You don't think that if Chase Carey said "forget about getting a good deal on TravelHD, let's just pay what they want", that there'd still be an issue that would prevent it? Business is ALL about money. There is no technical reason why more HD channels can't be carried. If DirecTV wanted to pay the price the vendors want, they could get it. If the vendors were willing to sell at the price DirecTV wanted to pay, they could get it. You can try and waffle around and say "the agreements are more complex, they have to negotiate packages, etc."... those are all issues that money can fix. As I've said before, DirecTV doesn't NEED more channels, because they are satisfied with the position they are currently in. They will use it as a bargaining chip to get the agreements they want on their terms. And money is the most important term in any such contract.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

harsh said:


> I can understand the expectation of the ESPNU HD offering, but DIRECTV's HBO and Cinemax offerings have always been disappointingly limited.


Especially from the perspective of any Dish subscriber....


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

DarinC said:


> So you honestly believe that money is not the primary reason why they didn't bother to have more agreements lined up by the time DirecTV-11 went live? You don't think that if Chase Carey said "forget about getting a good deal on TravelHD, let's just pay what they want", that there'd still be an issue that would prevent it? Business is ALL about money.


So I guess if there is a limit to bandwidth at any particular point in time, and a business chooses to decide just how that bandwidth is allocated....

Likewise...if some channels want to charge more than the perceived ROI to add them, then that would also appear to be a business decision.

Yes money is involved....but the process of determining channel offerings is not as simple of a decision as you seem to make it.

Think of it another way....

If you ask the first 100 people you meet on the street which 150 HD channels they feel they "have to have" or "really want to have"....you'd likely get 80% concurrance overlap and 20% variances.

The same thing holds true for what content providers offer, their pricing model, and how they choose to allocate their bandwidth. It's about choices, including Return On (the) Investment.

Those viewers who like the channels offered by a service subscribe, those who don't use another service.

Choices are good. Patience is good.

In a short time we've gone from less than 10 HD channels to over 130. Perhaps we can wait a bit longer...


----------



## Shades228 (Mar 18, 2008)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> Especially from the perspective of any Dish subscriber....


No it's true HBO/Max have always had less channels then competition for those 2 packages in areas I've lived in. They do have more Showtime and Starz then most so I think it's safe to say that we know which they would prefer customers sign up with. Especially since HBO had a price increase that other premium movie channels didn't have.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> Especially from the perspective of any Dish subscriber....


My local Comcast offers 15 SD HBO and Cinemax channels and Charter at the vacation house offers 12.

It isn't just DISH Network customers that enjoy a larger palette of HBO and Cinemax channels.


----------



## curt8403 (Dec 27, 2007)

harsh said:


> My local Comcast offers 15 SD HBO and Cinemax channels and Charter at the vacation house offers 12.
> 
> It isn't just DISH Network customers that *enjoy* a larger palette of HBO and Cinemax channels.


I *enjoy* a nice MLT: a mutton, lettuce and tomato sandwich, where the mutton is nice and lean and the tomato is ripe. They're so perky, I love that.


----------



## rahlquist (Jul 24, 2007)

curt8403 said:


> I enjoy a nice MLT: a mutton, lettuce and tomato sandwich, where the mutton is nice and lean and the tomato is ripe. They're so perky, I love that.


Is that mutton or mutt?


----------



## mreposter (Jul 29, 2006)

harsh said:


> If it wasn't the association with News Corp, then why did DIRECTV re-open the door to TiVo-based receivers as soon as Rupert bailed out?


If I remember correctly, NDS, the company that designed D*'s current HD-DVRs is controlled by News Corp. When News first took control of D* they dropped Tivo for NDS. Now that News is out of the picture, D*/Liberty are cozying up to Tivo again. It's probably all wild speculation, but it's one way of interpreting events...


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

harsh said:


> My local Comcast offers 15 SD HBO and Cinemax channels and Charter at the vacation house offers 12.
> 
> It isn't just DISH Network customers that enjoy a larger palette of HBO and Cinemax channels.


If one's into that sort of thing.....just curious why a Dish person even cares at all about what DirecTV even does...


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

Shades228 said:


> No it's true HBO/Max have always had less channels then competition for those 2 packages in areas I've lived in. They do have more Showtime and Starz then most so I think it's safe to say that we know which they would prefer customers sign up with. Especially since HBO had a price increase that other premium movie channels didn't have.


The point was the that poster who I responded to is only a Dish subscriber, yet repeatedly posts in the DirecTV threads...which prompts the question...why would this person care what DirecTV does...


----------



## curt8403 (Dec 27, 2007)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
> 
> OK....lets try to get back to the topic at hand....
> 
> ...


i agree, the chances of AT&T purchasing directv are those of a









in


----------



## Canis Lupus (Oct 16, 2006)

that "snowball" actually looks more like a candle. :grin:



curt8403 said:


> i agree, the chances of AT&T purchasing directv are those of a
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Shades228 (Mar 18, 2008)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> The point was the that poster who I responded to is only a Dish subscriber, yet repeatedly posts in the DirecTV threads...which prompts the question...why would this person care what DirecTV does...


The grass is always greener however he knows with his anti D* posts if he would then be an outcast on both sides. So he makes quips here and there to hide his jealousy.


----------



## mreposter (Jul 29, 2006)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> The point was the that poster who I responded to is only a Dish subscriber, yet repeatedly posts in the DirecTV threads...which prompts the question...why would this person care what DirecTV does...


Maybe there's nothing good to watch on Dish, so he hangs out here to kill time.


----------



## DarinC (Aug 31, 2004)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> So I guess if there is a limit to bandwidth at any particular point in time, and a business chooses to decide just how that bandwidth is allocated....


I don't understand your point. They currently have plenty of available bandwidth to add a decent number of channels. For the time being, they have chosen not to fill it with any of the available choices. There is a limited amount of bandwidth, but that limit has not been reached. It's irrelevent to the conversation, unless you think they believe that _none _of the channels that are currently available are worthy of the bandwidth, and they are holding out for something better.



> Likewise...if some channels want to charge more than the perceived ROI to add them, then that would also appear to be a business decision.


Exactly.



> In a short time we've gone from less than 10 HD channels to over 130.


Why is it no surprise to me that you subscribe to the same math that DirecTV does.


----------



## JoeTheDragon (Jul 21, 2008)

DarinC said:


> I don't understand your point. They currently have plenty of available bandwidth to add a decent number of channels. For the time being, they have chosen not to fill it with any of the available choices. There is a limited amount of bandwidth, but that limit has not been reached. It's irrelevent to the conversation, unless you think they believe that _none _of the channels that are currently available are worthy of the bandwidth, and they are holding out for something better.
> 
> Exactly.
> 
> Why is it no surprise to me that you subscribe to the same math that DirecTV does.


Is better then comcast math.


----------



## gregjones (Sep 20, 2007)

DarinC said:


> Why is it no surprise to me that you subscribe to the same math that DirecTV does.


OK, use a different number. Any number you use is much larger than the number of channels prior to September 2007. Do people also complain when the dollar store only charges 99 cents?


----------



## DarinC (Aug 31, 2004)

gregjones said:


> Any number you use is much larger than the number of channels prior to September 2007.


I agree that there was definitely a huge increase last year. In fact, I don't have a problem with the number of channels now... the vast majority of what *I* watch I already get in HD.  But that doesn't change the fact I don't like misleading marketing. DirecTV used to point out that some of their competitors fluff their numbers, now they do the same thing. I thought their honest marketing tacticts were an attribute. It's a shame that it's a thing of the past.



> Do people also complain when the dollar store only charges 99 cents?


Don't know why they would, but a more relevant question would be: if they advertise that everything's $1, and when you go in you find out that everything is $2 unless you pay a $25/year membership fee, would people complain? Would the fact that another dollar store in town does something similar make it ok?


----------



## paulman182 (Aug 4, 2006)

DarinC said:


> Don't know why they would, but a more relevant question would be: if they advertise that everything's $1, and when you go in you find out that everything is $2 unless you pay a $25/year membership fee, would people complain? Would the fact that another dollar store in town does something similar make it ok?


Most people don't seem to complain about a "free" cellphone, even though it comes with a $50/month bill.

I think anyone who takes corporate statements and advertising at face value is setting themselves up for disappointment. Even if the corporations mean it at the time, situations and plans change.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

DarinC said:


> I don't understand your point. It's irrelevent to the conversation, unless you think they believe that _none _of the channels that are currently available are worthy of the bandwidth, and they are holding out for something better.


I see that you don't understand it, despite others pointing to the same thing.

Clearly you also don't accept the reality that these are also very much business and technology decisions, not just monetary ones. You're always welcome to your opinion, but as for you writing off things as "irrelevant", that's just your opinion and is taken as such and accept that you disagree.


----------



## DarinC (Aug 31, 2004)

paulman182 said:


> I think anyone who takes corporate statements and advertising at face value is setting themselves up for disappointment.


I agree wholeheartedly. I just think it's a shame it has to be that way, and I'm saddened to see DirecTV lowering their standards.


hdtvfan0001 said:


> I see that you don't understand it, despite others pointing to the same thing.


No others, just you. Shades said the issue was money, Jeremy agreed, you seem to be the only one debating it.


> Clearly you also don't accept the reality that these are also very much business and technology decisions, not just monetary ones.


I'd be open to other reasons if you could explain them. How is technology preventing adding more channels? How is "business" preventing adding more channels, beyond the obvious correlation that business is about money?

Again, from a business perspective, I don't disagree with DirecTV's decision to not unleash a bunch of new channels... it simply doesn't make financial sense. I just don't understand why you insist it has to be something much more intangible and complex. But honestly, it's not really important to me. It's not even on topic to the thread. You were the one who seemed to debate the point, and if that's your opinion, that's fine.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

DarinC said:


> I just think it's a shame it has to be that way, and I'm saddened to see DirecTV lowering their standards.


You can't be serious, so ... :lol: :lol: :lol: 


> But honestly, it's not really important to me. It's not even on topic to the thread.


...yet you continue to debate the point...   

So lets get :backtotop

Thank you.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> The point was the that poster who I responded to is only a Dish subscriber, yet repeatedly posts in the DirecTV threads...which prompts the question...why would this person care what DirecTV does...


It isn't so much what DIRECTV does or doesn't do but the silliness that the fanboys and apologists proffer as justification for various peculiarities of the programming and hardware offerings.


----------



## Paul Secic (Dec 16, 2003)

Jeremy W said:


> No kidding, that's the whole point. DirecTV used to snatch up all the HD they could, now they're leaving channels out. Obviously it's because of money, but that was never a problem before.


Perhaps it's the economy. For what you pay Directv you'd think they give you more HD. The same goes Dish, TW ETC.


----------



## Paul Secic (Dec 16, 2003)

ehilbert1 said:


> Ok I get that a lot of people on here love D* and aren't open to anything else,but that statement was uncalled for. I have two HDtvs with HR20's on them and they look great. My sisters looks great too. Just because she has U-verse doesn't mean you know what her TV picture looks like. Christ I wasn't putting down D* and I wasn't promoting AT&T I just made a statement. Some of you guys take this stuff to serious and you love to put people down when you can. It's funny how people do that a lot on the net and would never do that in person. I don't post much because of people like you.


AMEN Brother!


----------

