# Liberty Media Board OK's Plan To Spin Out Entertainment Unit



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

> SAN FRANCISCO -(Dow Jones)- Liberty Media Corp., a holding company run by John Malone, said Friday its board had authorized a plan to split off most of a unit that holds a majority stake in satellite television operator DirecTV Group Inc. (DTV).
> 
> Under the proposed plan, owners of Liberty Media's (LMDIA) tracking stock would receive shares of a subsidiary that will hold much of the businesses, assets and liabilities currently represented by the tracking stock. The proposed transaction is intended to be tax-free to shareholders.


Read more here:

http://www.nasdaq.com//aspxcontent/...ESDJONLINE000977.htm&cdtime=12/12/2008+9:41PM


----------



## MIAMI1683 (Jul 11, 2007)

So now to wonder what that means for D*. If Liberty were to "sell it".


----------



## dodge boy (Mar 31, 2006)

I'll buy it....


----------



## Phil T (Mar 25, 2002)

Glad is is not still owned by GM.


----------



## Steve615 (Feb 5, 2006)

http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?t=147468

Posted during the early morning hours today.


----------



## JLucPicard (Apr 27, 2004)

Steve615 said:


> Posted during the early morning hours today.


Props, but I think posted by a moderator may trump that.


----------



## willc (Apr 26, 2008)

Anyone seeing AT&T buying directv? It looks like what they are setting up for.


----------



## mreposter (Jul 29, 2006)

That helps explain D*'s announcement of canceling projects and cutting budgets. That sounds more and more like they're setting it up for a sale.


----------



## TheRatPatrol (Oct 1, 2003)

No wonder they haven't added any more HD channels. :sure:

But seriously, what do you think this means for D* and its subscribers?


----------



## mreposter (Jul 29, 2006)

Having so many different owners and management structures over just the last few years can't be good for them. People inside the company spend all their time worried about their jobs and worried about reorgs and layoffs that productivity goes down the toilet.


----------



## Piratefan98 (Mar 11, 2008)

mreposter said:


> Having so many different owners and management structures over just the last few years can't be good for them. People inside the company spend all their time worried about their jobs and worried about reorgs and layoffs that productivity goes down the toilet.


I agree with that, but also would have no problem with the idea of a sale. Liberty has floundered at the helm, and I'd be perfectly happy to hear news of new ownership.

Jeff


----------



## JLucPicard (Apr 27, 2004)

Piratefan98 said:


> I agree with that, but also would have no problem with the idea of a sale. Liberty has floundered at the helm, and I'd be perfectly happy to hear news of new ownership.
> 
> Jeff


Aside from a slide in customer service, I'm not so sure of what floundering Liberty has done.

Sometimes it's a matter of dealing with the devil you know versus the devil you don't. New ownership isn't going to necessarily mean a change for the better.


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

JLucPicard said:


> Aside from a slide in customer service, I'm not so sure of what floundering Liberty has done.


How about their decision not to add HD national channels?


----------



## bidger (Nov 19, 2005)

JLucPicard said:


> Sometimes it's a matter of dealing with the devil you know versus the devil you don't. New ownership isn't going to necessarily mean a change for the better.


Only thing is I'm not sure I really know the _devil_ that's in charge right now. If Liberty isn't committed to going forward, then I hope they do sell...even if that means to AT&T.


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

bidger said:


> If Liberty isn't committed to going forward, then I hope they do sell...even if that means to AT&T.


I want Liberty to sell as well, but I'm not sure if selling to AT&T would be a good thing. They have made a large investment in deploying U-verse, and DirecTV would be competition to that. Maybe they would position U-verse as the bargain service, and DirecTV as the premium service?


----------



## Hank Scorpio (Dec 11, 2007)

Jeremy W said:


> I want Liberty to sell as well, but I'm not sure if selling to AT&T would be a good thing. They have made a large investment in deploying U-verse, and DirecTV would be competition to that. Maybe they would position U-verse as the bargain service, and DirecTV as the premium service?


I think AT&T is just one potential suitor; Time Warner isn't unthinkable, nor is a foreign investor like Sony, they've both been rumored before and both could still fill a need with D*. You could also see private equity firms enter the picture, though that wouldn't really be such a great thing as it would likely mean another short ownership followed by yet another sell.

Or Charlie may view the Sirius/XM merger as a roadmap.


----------



## Herdfan (Mar 18, 2006)

Jeremy W said:


> I want Liberty to sell as well,


Ditto on the Liberty sale. Their history does not bode well for customers, so the quicker they sell, the better for us.

Maybe we as DBSTalkers could get a VC firm to stake us with the money to buy it. After all, there are enough people here that know exactly how a satellite company should be run. :lol:


----------



## celticpride (Sep 6, 2006)

I dont care who buys directv as long as they continue to add HD channels and still bring back tivo HD dvrs.


----------



## TheRatPatrol (Oct 1, 2003)

celticpride said:


> I dont care who buys directv as long as they continue to add HD channels and still bring back tivo HD dvrs.


And keep NFLST.

Maybe AT&T could use their U-verse for internet (where available) and D* for their TV, offer a bundle package.

Would Charlie buying it be a good thing or a bad thing?

Hope Comcast doesn't buy it.

What is a VC firm?

So is this something we need to worry about or not?


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

theratpatrol said:


> And keep NFLST.
> 
> Maybe AT&T could use their U-verse for internet (where available) and D* for their TV, offer a bundle package.
> 
> ...


Echostar is not a viable candidate...they have plenty of cash issues.

One other possiblity is that they may choose to try to raise capital through the sale of stock for just the new entity. Companies often do the same thing Libery just did, just to reorg and raise capital and/or make a purchase themselves.

There are also tax onsiderations through these "accounting" changes, so tha may/may not come into play.

But the org change itself means little in terms of anything being modified in terms of DirecTV at this time.


----------



## sorahl (Oct 24, 2002)

as an AT&T Employee i hope we do NOT buy DirecTv.....


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

sorahl said:


> as an AT&T Employee i hope we do NOT buy DirecTv.....


As a non-employee....I agree with you that I also would not like AT&T to buy DirecTV for likely different reasons than yours....but we're on the same page on that main point.


----------



## rahlquist (Jul 24, 2007)

Something to keep in mind. The company I work had been up for sale for a year and a half to two years. We finally had some interested parties the mid part of this year, however due to the current financial crisis none of the companies interested in buying us were able to secure the financing needed to acquire us. Then finally in September our parent company who had us up for sale shut the process down since it looked like nobody would be able to get financing. Keep in mind that our company is probably selling for less than one tenth what D* would sell for and we too are a straight up profitable company with revenues in excess of 850 million in 06. So you can see small potatoes. I highly doubt a outright sale is going to happen of D* in todays credit tight climate.


----------



## tcusta00 (Dec 31, 2007)

rahlquist said:


> Something to keep in mind. The company I work had been up for sale for a year and a half to two years. We finally had some interested parties the mid part of this year, however due to the current financial crisis none of the companies interested in buying us were able to secure the financing needed to acquire us. Then finally in September our parent company who had us up for sale shut the process down since it looked like nobody would be able to get financing. Keep in mind that our company is probably selling for less than one tenth what D* would sell for and we too are a straight up profitable company with revenues in excess of 850 million in 06. So you can see small potatoes. I highly doubt a outright sale is going to happen of D* in todays credit tight climate.


Warren Buffet has the money.  :lol:

Don't think it's his cup o' tea though.


----------



## Hank Scorpio (Dec 11, 2007)

tcusta00 said:


> Warren Buffet has the money.  :lol:
> 
> Don't think it's his cup o' tea though.


I think anything he can see growth potential in is his cup; the question is, what is D*s growth potential?


----------



## sorahl (Oct 24, 2002)

i heard about a guy in florida who used to be in hedge funds might have the cash...


----------



## mreposter (Jul 29, 2006)

Jeremy W said:


> I want Liberty to sell as well, but I'm not sure if selling to AT&T would be a good thing. They have made a large investment in deploying U-verse, and DirecTV would be competition to that. Maybe they would position U-verse as the bargain service, and DirecTV as the premium service?


I would think that if AT&T buys them that they would merge the two services and simply deliver it two ways. Long term, services like Uverse and FIOS are significant threats to D* and E*. By buying D*, Uverse gets much bigger, much faster and over time can move customers over to fiber instead of satellite, if the technology proves superior. Adding the 16 million or so D* customers should also help AT&T lower their programming costs and give them access to things like NFL Sunday Ticket.


----------



## Herdfan (Mar 18, 2006)

theratpatrol said:


> What is a VC firm?


Venture Capital



tcusta00 said:


> Warren Buffet has the money.  :lol:
> 
> Don't think it's his cup o' tea though.





Hank Scorpio said:


> I think anything he can see growth potential in is his cup; the question is, what is D*s growth potential?


Actually, Buffet doesn't even need to see that high of growth potential. He likes steady positive cash flows which D* could provide him.


----------



## studdad (Aug 11, 2008)

PLEASE, OH PLEASE LET THEM SELL. Liberty has been a slimy disaster.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

studdad said:


> PLEASE, OH PLEASE LET THEM SELL. Liberty has been a slimy disaster.


Huh?

Based on what?

They haven't even owned them that long, so what possible foundation of fact could you have to make such a claim?


----------



## cnmsales (Jan 9, 2007)

mreposter said:


> That helps explain D*'s announcement of canceling projects and cutting budgets. That sounds more and more like they're setting it up for a sale.


This is a dead on thought.


----------



## Piratefan98 (Mar 11, 2008)

studdad said:


> PLEASE, OH PLEASE LET THEM SELL. Liberty has been a slimy disaster.


Agreed. Especially as it pertains to delivering new national HD, and also as it pertains to living up to the hype/propoganda in their official press releases.

This company is becoming the used car salesman of HD companies. Maybe we'll get lucky and the rumors of a proposed sale will pan out.

Jeff
Turd Bird Customer Since March, 2008


----------



## tcusta00 (Dec 31, 2007)

Piratefan98 said:


> Agreed. Especially as it pertains to delivering new national HD, and also as it pertains to living up to the hype/propoganda in their official press releases.
> 
> This company is becoming the used car salesman of HD companies. Maybe we'll get lucky and the rumors of a proposed sale will pan out.
> 
> ...


Why did you switch to such a crappy service?


----------



## Piratefan98 (Mar 11, 2008)

tcusta00 said:


> Why did you switch to such a crappy service?


As soon as D11 was successfully and safely off the platform ..... and upon reading DirecTV's press release touting their National HD aspirations, I joined. I was stupid enough to believe that when the company issued a press release, that they actually were being honest. Silly me. :lol:

Lesson-learned Jeff


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

Um, other than a delay in getting up additional hbo (of which 65% of the programing can be seen in HD on the channels that are up) channels, can you please tell me what press release they sent out that they haven't followed through on that made you get directv? And what was your old service?


----------



## Barmat (Aug 27, 2006)

Hank Scorpio said:


> I think anything he can see growth potential in is his cup; the question is, what is D*s growth potential?


Without broadband internet next to nothing. The future is a combo of both and any company that offers both has an advantage. Thats why I could see AT&T as the best fit. D* can not survive on sunday ticket alone to keep adding subs.


----------



## studdad (Aug 11, 2008)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> Huh?
> 
> Based on what?
> 
> They haven't even owned them that long, so what possible foundation of fact could you have to make such a claim?


look at Pirates response above, and you will understand my viewpoint in a nutshell.


----------



## studdad (Aug 11, 2008)

inkahauts said:


> Um, other than a delay in getting up additional hbo (of which 65% of the programing can be seen in HD on the channels that are up) channels, can you please tell me what press release they sent out that they haven't followed through on that made you get directv? And what was your old service?


Let's see, UP TO 150 HD Channels, is an implication that they will actually have 150 HD Channels, and NO, most reasonable people do not count HDPPV as an HD Channel. When people see a statement like that, they assume they will get very close to 150 HD channels. What is the truth? Well, if you buy every damn "add on" and the most expensive package and count HD PPV, you still will not get close to that number. The whole thing is a friggen joke. With D12 they will announce UP TO 200 HD Channels, and how much you wanna bet that if they do come close to that, 95% of the new channels will be RSNs and HDPPV channels. It's a disgrace brought on by the new owners, and one that disgusts me.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

studdad said:


> Let's see, UP TO 150 HD Channels, is an implication that they will actually have 150 HD Channels, and NO, most reasonable people do not count HDPPV as an HD Channel. When people see a statement like that, they assume they will get very close to 150 HD channels. What is the truth? Well, if you buy every damn "add on" and the most expensive package and count HD PPV, you still will not get close to that number. The whole thing is a friggen joke. With D12 they will announce UP TO 200 HD Channels, and how much you wanna bet that if they do come close to that, 95% of the new channels will be RSNs and HDPPV channels. It's a disgrace brought on by the new owners, and one that disgusts me.


Well....to those who feel that strongly about it...then there's always 1-800 - GetDish....


----------



## PCampbell (Nov 18, 2006)

I have U Verse for internet and phone, there support is much better than Directv. Having Directv and U verse is a good fit, I think it would sell well as U verse HD is not very good.


----------



## man_rob (Feb 21, 2007)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> Well....to those who feel that strongly about it...then there's always 1-800 - GetDish....


You gonna pay off their contracts?


----------



## Herdfan (Mar 18, 2006)

inkahauts said:


> Um, other than a delay in getting up additional hbo (of which 65% of the programing can be seen in HD on the channels that are up)


But only if I record them. It does me no good if I am sitting in front on my TV looking for somehting to watch.

Had they not issued the press release, then I would not be complaining, but since 1) They issued it, and 2) They have not issued a rescintion of it, I am well within my right to complain.


----------



## ATARI (May 10, 2007)

mreposter said:


> That helps explain D*'s announcement of canceling projects and cutting budgets. That sounds more and more like they're setting it up for a sale.


Yep, I've seen this before. D* is trying to look it's best for a potential suitor.


----------



## wmj5 (Aug 26, 2007)

I would love to see sony buy out D*, I bet we would have a receiver that would work,when I went with D* in 1995 I bought 7 of thier receivers, you might ask why I bought 7, well ever time a new model would come out I got it, and then I figured I couldn't keep up with them so I quit, but I have the last model sony put out, I think it is the A65A, but theres not a scratch on it nowhere, It's in the box it came in.


----------



## dodge boy (Mar 31, 2006)

Well there goes the CE Forum.....


----------



## kevinwmsn (Aug 19, 2006)

We need to find a billionaire to buy it?

Let's ask Mark Cuban... He wanted to buy Cubs and got shot down by owners.

Let's just hope Bill Gates doesn't buy it, the stability of the boxes will go down the toilet.


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

kevinwmsn said:


> Let's just hope Bill Gates doesn't buy it, the stability of the boxes will go down the toilet.


UltimateTV was almost universally loved by everyone who used it.


----------



## Barmat (Aug 27, 2006)

Jeremy W said:


> UltimateTV was almost universally loved by everyone who used it.


I had UltimateTV and I would call it very good but not great. Didn't hold a candle to the first D*Tivo service.


----------



## tcusta00 (Dec 31, 2007)

Piratefan98 said:


> As soon as D11 was successfully and safely off the platform ..... and upon reading DirecTV's press release touting their National HD aspirations, I joined. I was stupid enough to believe that when the company issued a press release, that they actually were being honest. Silly me. :lol:
> 
> Lesson-learned Jeff


See, that's what I don't get... you switched from Comcast, with arguably less HD than DirecTV. Your stated reasons for switching back in March have all been met ("bent over backwards" were your words), I presume since those were your "deal breakers." So why the bologna arguments about DirecTV not having met expectations?


----------



## Piratefan98 (Mar 11, 2008)

tcusta00 said:


> See, that's what I don't get... you switched from Comcast, with arguably less HD than DirecTV. Your stated reasons for switching back in March have all been met ("bent over backwards" were your words), I presume. So why the bologna arguments about DirecTV not having met expectations?


A little more research on your part would have revealed that I didn't join then. After several emails to DirecTV, it was made clear that the CSR gave me bogus information about a 30-day trial period. I cancelled that scheduled install, and went back to the drawing board. Eventually, after going through hoops and up and down ladders with different CSRs, I did finally get to a comfort zone for signing on. But not until after the launch and the press release.

I followed the D11 launch thread daily .... read of the progress .... saw the pics of the actual launch, etc. And once DirecTV issued the press release telling us what their plans were for D11, that was the last straw and I finally DID sign up. You don't seem to be able to find any fault with that press release, which I think is awfully weird.

Anyway ..... I suppose we could spend days rehashing threads, but the bottom line is, the D11 press release WAS one of the factors that finally pushed me over the edge, for good. That doesn't mean Comcast is better, because it's not. All it means is that in my view (and the view of many), DirecTV fell short on the commitments in its D11 press release, and has become slimy and shady in it's marketing. Back when I signed on, their ad national ad campaign revovled around making fun of the competitors HD counts. And now, DirecTV has become what they used to mock.

Jeff


----------



## tcusta00 (Dec 31, 2007)

Piratefan98 said:


> That doesn't mean Comcast is better, because it's not.


Then no provider offers what you want. You're with the provider that has the most of what you want.


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

Barmat said:


> I had UltimateTV and I would call it very good but not great. Didn't hold a candle to the first D*Tivo service.


Well, there were a lot of people who absolutely refused to switch to Tivo, because they thought UltimateTV was better.


----------



## RobertE (Jun 10, 2006)

Piratefan98 said:


> A little more research on your part would have revealed that I didn't join then. After several emails to DirecTV, it was made clear that the CSR gave me bogus information about a 30-day trial period. I cancelled that scheduled install, and went back to the drawing board. Eventually, after going through hoops and up and down ladders with different CSRs, I did finally get to a comfort zone for signing on. But not until after the launch and the press release.
> 
> I followed the D11 launch thread daily .... read of the progress .... saw the pics of the actual launch, etc. And once DirecTV issued the press release *telling us what their plans were for D11*, that was the last straw and I finally DID sign up. You don't seem to be able to find any fault with that press release, which I think is awfully weird.
> 
> ...


Their plans as outlined in this press release? http://dtv.client.shareholder.com/releasedetail.cfm?ReleaseID=300485



> EL SEGUNDO, Calif., Mar 20, 2008 (BUSINESS WIRE) -- A powerful, new DIRECTV satellite, launched successfully today from the Pacific Ocean-based Sea Launch platform, will further boost DIRECTV's HD *capacity*, enabling the industry's HD leader to deliver *up to *150 national HD channels when the satellite goes into service this fall. With the additional *capacity*, DIRECTV will also *expand its delivery of local HD channels *to more than 100 markets, representing 84 percent of U.S. TV households.


Emphasis in bold is mine.

Lets see according to the press release:
Expanded capacity: check
Up to 150 HD channels: check
Expanded HD locals: check

So unless your all reading a different press release, or reading things into this on, it sure appears that they have fullfilled everything they planned to do with DirecTv 11.


----------



## thumperr (Feb 10, 2006)

This deal is all about increasing the stock price of the parent company. this doesn;t appear that liberty is abondanding DirecTV.


----------



## man_rob (Feb 21, 2007)

RobertE said:


> Their plans as outlined in this press release? http://dtv.client.shareholder.com/releasedetail.cfm?ReleaseID=300485
> 
> Emphasis in bold is mine.
> 
> ...


So 130 channels (even the 130 figure is a bogus claim because of the massive expansion of PPVs instead of real networks) qualifies for up to? (By your logic, they could have added just one channel, and fulfilled their promise.)


----------



## slacker_x (Oct 9, 2007)

man_rob said:


> So 130 channels (even the 130 figure is a bogus claim because of the massive expansion of PPVs instead of real networks) qualifies for up to? (By your logic, they could have added just one channel, and fulfilled their promise.)


 While I don't like including PPV in the HD Count, DirecTV does have a lot of HD channels, they have the capability to add up to 150 if they would just figure out whats stopping them right now. We've been over this and 1 qualifies as "up to 150"


----------



## gregjones (Sep 20, 2007)

Jeremy W said:


> Well, there were a lot of people who absolutely refused to switch to Tivo, because they thought UltimateTV was better.


Jeremy, I often agree with you but not this time. There are people devoted to almost any product that is marginally efficient. People like to feel validated in having made the right choice and often evangelize for a product after buying it. People don't want to feel they've chosen poorly or been taken.

UltimateTV had a lot of fans. DirecTivo had a lot of fans. The HR2x had a ton of fans. Unfortunately, the only objective measure we have is the number of units that were in use at the peak of usage for that model.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

gregjones said:


> Jeremy, I often agree with you but not this time. There are people devoted to almost any product that is marginally efficient. People like to feel validated in having made the right choice and often evangelize for a product after buying it. People don't want to feel they've chosen poorly or been taken.
> 
> UltimateTV had a lot of fans. DirecTivo had a lot of fans. The HR2x had a ton of fans. Unfortunately, the only objective measure we have is the number of units that were in use at the peak of usage for that model.


What a great post!

Kudos on articulating the reality.


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

gregjones said:


> Jeremy, I often agree with you but not this time.


OK, so how come you didn't provide a single point to prove I was wrong? I've read so many posts from UltimateTV users who refused to switch to Tivo, and yet I can't even think of a single post I've read from someone who used UltimateTV, switched to Tivo, and found it to be better.

If you took out the first sentence of your post, I would think you were agreeing with me. So I really don't understand why you say you're not.


----------



## Herdfan (Mar 18, 2006)

RobertE said:


> Their plans as outlined in this press release? Lets see according to the press release:
> Expanded capacity: check
> Up to 150 HD channels: check
> Expanded HD locals: check
> ...


So by all technical aspects, they fulfilled their end of what they said. I agree that they did.

But they have not yet fulfilled their June 2007 PR with respect to the HBO suite of HD channels. *There is no possible way to spin it that they have.*


----------



## Herdfan (Mar 18, 2006)

gregjones said:


> UltimateTV had a lot of fans. DirecTivo had a lot of fans. The HR2x had a ton of fans. Unfortunately, the only objective measure we have is the number of units that were in use at the peak of usage for that model.


If they had been playing on a level field, then yes this would have been true. But IIRC, Ultimate TV service cost twice what TiVo service did. That was a deciding factor for many people.

Ultimate TV had many unique features of which some are now just making their way into our DVRs and some (such as negative padding) still have not.


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

Herdfan said:


> There is no possible way to spin it that they have.


John Malone didn't come to your house, punch you in the face, and take away your HBO subscription, did he? So there is no problem.

I rest my case.


----------



## Herdfan (Mar 18, 2006)

Jeremy W said:


> John Malone didn't come to your house, punch you in the face, and take away your HBO subscription, did he? So there is no problem.
> 
> I rest my case.


Please explain how this is relative to them not living up the what was stated in their press release?


----------



## gregjones (Sep 20, 2007)

Jeremy W said:


> UltimateTV was almost universally loved by everyone who used it.


This is the post that started the discussion. My post explains why that is true. People, after spending hundreds of dollars on a piece of electronics, often feel compelled to defend their reasons for buying it. They chose to buy UltimateTV. This means they made a conscious decision to buy this one product instead of others. This is a specific piece of hardware that was not as available mass-market and incurred an extra fee.

Of course people that bought it liked it. Most people that buy Fords have somewhat favorable opinions of Fords. Most people that only buy Sony equipment have a favorable opinion of Sony hardware.

The only time you see behavior not fall in line with this is when people buy commodity hardware. If the person can't remember the brand-name on their DVD player, they probably don't have a very favorable opinion of it. But people that have paid for a Blu-Ray player will undoubtedly have very favorable opinions of Blu-Ray technology.

My point is that you don't ask the people that bought if they did the right thing. The opinion is hopelessly skewed. That is like polling people after church to see if they have a favorable opinion of Christians.


----------



## RobertE (Jun 10, 2006)

Herdfan said:


> So by all technical aspects, they fulfilled their end of what they said. I agree that they did.
> 
> But they have not yet fulfilled their June 2007 PR with respect to the HBO suite of HD channels. *There is no possible way to spin it that they have.*


Here's the link to the June 07 PR.

http://dtv.client.shareholder.com/releasedetail.cfm?ReleaseID=286351

Not trying to spin anything. I agree that they missed the mark on the 6/07 PR. For that people do have a legit complaint. Why they missed the mark is anyones guess. I don't know, you don't know, nor does anyone on this board know. Those that do know, I presume can't disclose what the issue is.


----------



## RobertE (Jun 10, 2006)

man_rob said:


> So 130 channels (even the 130 figure is a bogus claim because of the massive expansion of PPVs instead of real networks) qualifies for up to? (By your logic, they could have added just one channel, and fulfilled their promise.)


By my logic? 

On the technical terms, they did meet everything they announced.

If anyone still has a hard time understanding "Up To", please take a moment to enlighten yourselves here: http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/up_to


----------



## Piratefan98 (Mar 11, 2008)

RobertE said:


> If anyone still has a hard time understanding "Up To", please take a moment to enlighten yourselves here: http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/up_to


Have you considered press-release writing as a vocation? 

Jeff


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

RobertE said:


> By my logic?
> 
> On the technical terms, they did meet everything they announced.
> 
> If anyone still has a hard time understanding "Up To", please take a moment to enlighten yourselves here: http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/up_to


Yes, they did. You are correct.

Unfortunately....some other folks prefer a world of perfection as opposed to the world of reality....


----------



## Mariah2014 (Apr 21, 2006)

Att won't be a buyer in this case and if they some how due by Directv. They, like liberty, would sell quickly. The government has basicaly stoped dish network from buying it. Yes, dish network buying it would be a bad thing because then you need cable to back it up because of all the channels dish network drops and sometimes readds after a while. Comcast is the only one mentioned besides sony that would have a shot at it. Comcast only because of the fact they have pull in congrees and the fcc. Remember, John Malone has sent people down this path before. TCI became ATT Cable Services, which laster merged with Comcast. I agree, if he is going to sell, a quick sale would be a good thing. Dish network and time warner would both send you down the same path by dropping channels and sports would be no priorty to them. Paid programing and channels that cost little or nothing are a priorty to them. The credit crisis is the reason this is happening and probably a reason they don't want you to know about when it comes to new channel additions either.


----------



## gregjones (Sep 20, 2007)

mshaw2715 said:


> Att won't be a buyer in this case and if they some how due by Directv. They, like liberty, would sell quickly. The government has basicaly stoped dish network from buying it. Yes, dish network buying it would be a bad thing because then you need cable to back it up because of all the channels dish network drops and sometimes readds after a while. Comcast is the only one mentioned besides sony that would have a shot at it. Comcast only because of the fact they have pull in congrees and the fcc. Remember, John Malone has sent people down this path before. TCI became ATT Cable Services, which laster merged with Comcast. I agree, if he is going to sell, a quick sale would be a good thing. Dish network and time warner would both send you down the same path by dropping channels and sports would be no priorty to them. Paid programing and channels that cost little or nothing are a priorty to them. The credit crisis is the reason this is happening and probably a reason they don't want you to know about when it comes to new channel additions either.


Dish hasn't been in a position to buy DirecTV for a very long time.


----------

