# AT&T Thinking Of Dropping The Name DIRECTV



## toofastgtp (Nov 24, 2008)

Personally I think this is a very, very bad idea to even think about.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/at-t-reviewing-directv-units-name-1421947868


----------



## tonyd79 (Jul 24, 2006)

Yeah, why use a name that has positive recognition. Ask Boston Market how that works out....


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

The above link requires a WSJ subscription. Try this one:

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCwQqQIwAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.wsj.com%2Farticles%2Fat-t-reviewing-directv-units-name-1421947868&ei=HoXBVL62E5LeoASbroG4BA&usg=AFQjCNHCTfpZqxMJFLocOg1i9GdwkusRog&sig2=6fdqugQDG-QRvEo4TT6rQg&bvm=bv.84349003,d.cGU


----------



## MysteryMan (May 17, 2010)

My advice for Randall Stephenson is if it's not broken then don't fix it.


----------



## ohiomedic (Aug 7, 2013)

If it's not broke don't fix it. If you do have to have the AT&T name in there at least keep Directv, call it Directv by AT&T in advertising,


----------



## yosoyellobo (Nov 1, 2006)

Directv AT&T


----------



## PCampbell (Nov 18, 2006)

Why would they drop one of the best known names in TV???


----------



## juniormaj (Feb 9, 2009)

I've had DirecTV for 20+ years. I've had AT&T>Cingular>AT&T for almost as long.
I really hope they leave the name alone.


----------



## litzdog911 (Jun 23, 2004)

This reads mostly like an excuse to keep the AT&T + DirecTV merger in the news.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

> "With six or seven million video subscribers-growing at 24%-we still can't make money because of the programming costs. Put it together with DirecTV and we have a profitable business to sell into," Mr. Stephenson said. "With DirecTV, we have an ability for someone to walk out of an AT&T store with an ipad and lots of programming. No one else can do that."





> Mr. Stephenson said it was "inevitable" that the traditional "bundle" of cable television channels will crumble as more content travels "over the top" to customers via the Internet.
> 
> He said he wanted AT&T to be part of that transition and was fully prepared for erosion of the DirecTV customer base over time.


It looks like AT&T did not buy DirecTV for the name ... they bought them for the customer base and the programming. Changing the brand name on the recently purchased service should not be a surprise.

AT&T has the brand issue "under review" ... which is a smart business move. While it may seem to be a no brainer to keep the DirecTV name (and perhaps even apply it to Uverse service) the decision will be made looking at the future business ... the one where DirecTV's satellite customer database erodes and the customers (AT&T hopes) move on to other AT&T products.

Without due diligence I would rebrand the satellite service as AT&T DirecTV. AT&T UVerse being their current product. But where does over the top distribution fit in? It isn't satellite and it isn't fiber. A unified name "AT&T" for all of their video services might make sense. A decision left up to the experts.


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

> 'With DirecTV, we have an ability for someone to walk out of an AT&T store with an ipad and lots of programming. No one else can do that.


From that article. I guess Mr. Stephenson forgot about Verizon


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

PCampbell said:


> Why would they drop one of the best known names in TV???


Perhaps because, as Mr. Stephenson hinted, the market for traditional multichannel TV is going to erode as OTT becomes the new distribution paradigm and DIRECTV represents the old school.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

peds48 said:


> From that article. I guess Mr. Randall forgot about Verizon


Does Verizon offer comprehensive conventional television programming for hand-held devices on their wireless network?


----------



## BrucePadgett (Nov 14, 2007)

"AT&T DirecTV", with the second word in smaller print, as it will ultimately be dropped. I expect them to follow suit with the "U-Verse" branding as well.


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

How ironic it all is. 

Wonder how many are aware that AT&T was derived from "American Telegraph and Telephone"?


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

harsh said:


> Does Verizon offer comprehensive conventional television programming for hand-held devices on their wireless network?


Nope, but they def could! They already have a conventional TV platform


----------



## caseyf5 (Mar 22, 2009)

Hello Everyone,

As far as I am concerned the "AT&T brand name is something that I would scrape off my shoe if I stepped on it. It has been degraded repeatedly and went to the bottom for a long time ago!!!!


----------



## CraigerM (Apr 15, 2014)

How about AT&T Direct? They could have it go AT&T DirecTV, Direct Internet and Direct Phone? I wonder if AT&T would want everything to flow? Would AT&T DirecTV flow well with UVerse Internet and UVerse Phone?.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

I think AT&T would be dumb to drop the Directv name, since it has a lot of goodwill associated with it, but there would be immediate tax advantages to dropping the name so who knows.

If I still get the same service I don't really care whether it says Directv or AT&T on the bill.


----------



## TheRatPatrol (Oct 1, 2003)

yosoyellobo said:


> Directv AT&T


DirecAT&Tv


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

I think their concern is simply about how to promote triple play deals as being from truly one company if they don't all have the same name. Triple play bundles from multiple companies doesn't have as good a track record as does deals from the same single company. 

How about DIRECT AT&T. For the entire company.


----------



## tonyd79 (Jul 24, 2006)

harsh said:


> Does Verizon offer comprehensive conventional television programming for hand-held devices on their wireless network?


What does that mean? You can stream Fios linear channels on your mobile device regardless of wireless carrier, so in that sense, yes. And they are working on unbundling from traditional fios and delivering via their wireless network independently. If that is what you mean, then, technically, no, for now.


----------



## adamson (Nov 9, 2007)

litzdog911 said:


> This reads mostly like an excuse to keep the AT&T + DirecTV merger in the news.


You said it all in one sentence! Dead on.


----------



## Drew2k (Aug 16, 2006)

I'm not a huge fan of AT&T as a service provider, but if AT&T wants to rebrand DIRECTV to fit into a triple-play pack they're going to have to come up with something good. 

"AT&T TV" is silly sounding to me - it's just a bunch of letters, like you're constantly trying to spell something but can't pronounce it. 

"AT&T DIRECTV" is better, but still a mouthful. I can't really see them keeping "DIRECT" as part of the name if they want their package components to "match".

I think Cablevision came up with some great names (Optimum TV, Optimum Voice, and Optimum Online) but they were smart and named the services (Optimum) differently from the company (Cablevision). AT&T should do the same thing to create a new brand that both distances the services from the company (for those who aren't fans of AT&T) and allows the component services to more naturally fit together for marketing.


----------



## Bill Broderick (Aug 25, 2006)

Drew2k said:


> I think Cablevision came up with some great names (Optimum TV, Optimum Voice, and Optimum Online) but they were smart and named the services (Optimum) differently from the company (Cablevision). AT&T should do the same thing to create a new brand that both distances the services from the company (for those who aren't fans of AT&T) and allows the component services to more naturally fit together for marketing.


But the Cablevision brand is a steaming pile of dog crap. Of course changing their name was good for them. There is no logical reason for distancing one's self from a brand name that has a high customer satisfaction rating.


----------



## Drew2k (Aug 16, 2006)

Bill Broderick said:


> But the Cablevision brand is a steaming pile of dog crap. Of course changing their name was good for them. There is no logical reason for distancing one's self from a brand name that has a high customer satisfaction rating.


I'm not clear on which brand name you are referencing in the end of your post, about having a high customer satisfaction rating.

If you meant AT&T, then I can't say I agree, because I know a lot of people (I'm one) who hate them either as a provider or for their customer service.

If you meant DIRECTV, then I agree it's a great brand name. But I don't see how AT&T can make it fit the voice and internet services, which some are speculating is the reason for the DIRECTV name to be dropped, so I was saying *if* AT&T decided to not use the DIRECTV name, then I'd prefer they not use the AT&T name (because, like others, I associate it with bad customer service) but come up with a new brand name that can work with three services.

Just my 2¢ of course...


----------



## txfeinbergs (Nov 16, 2005)

harsh said:


> Perhaps because, as Mr. Stephenson hinted, the market for traditional multichannel TV is going to erode as OTT becomes the new distribution paradigm and DIRECTV represents the old school.


It's too bad that AT&T doesn't have a viable OTT option. Sorry, but Uverse at 18 mbps down isn't going to cut it.


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

slice1900 said:


> I think AT&T would be dumb to drop the Directv name, since it has a lot of goodwill associated with it, but there would be immediate tax advantages to dropping the name so who knows.


What precedent have you on this latter association? Goodwill as an accounting matter doesn't hinge on what an entity is called. I look forward to learning more!


----------



## adamson (Nov 9, 2007)

Here in Dunnellon, FL there are haves and have nots for high speed internet. Location is key here if you want any type of high speed internet. Where I am you have Comcast, AT&T, and a quickly failed muni FTTH system stolen by a fluke company called Florida Cable Inc. As of today you cannot get AT&T DSL 3Mb at all because it is capped/no ports. Comcast's system is antique which had no HD 3yrs ago, now just a handful of channels and their internet goes out multiple times a day. I am lucky to still have FTTH with Florida Cable Inc formerly Greenlight Communications Dunnellon. There are reports that AT&T may sell off our market. So what possibly will they do for the have nots who cannot get any of the above? I'm sure nothing. I cannot even get 1 bar on my cell phone and this is my second cell phone provider here. I'm not the only one either with cell issues. At this point I am at the mercy of Directv for tv, and by that I mean please do not merge with this company. Case in point period. A top notch provider may be ruined in short order and I am so unsettled over this you have no idea.


----------



## adamson (Nov 9, 2007)

BTW AT&T sends people to this day info with their bill that they can get dsl...when they cannot! Or they will take your order with phone service and not tell you you will never get dsl at all, they did that to me. Screw this company!


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

Laxguy said:


> What precedent have you on this latter association? Goodwill as an accounting matter doesn't hinge on what an entity is called. I look forward to learning more!


When you purchase an entire company you also purchase the goodwill on their books as an asset. If you dispose of the brand, you can write off the goodwill associated with the brand. It would get more complicated for a company that has multiple brands, but AT&T isn't like buying P&G here. You get to amortize that goodwill anyway (I think over 15 years?) so dropping the brand doesn't give any tax benefit you wouldn't already have, it just accelerates the process.

Directv has been carrying about $4 billion in goodwill on their balance sheet the last few fiscal years, I would expect it is similar now. Having a deduction that size in FY2015 would help pay that $28.50 per Directv share in cash under the buyout terms. Not that AT&T is hurting for cash or doesn't have a lot of borrowing ability and very attractive interest rates.

I doubt the decision to drop a well regarded brand would be made purely for financial reasons, but it may be one consideration on AT&T's part.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

inkahauts said:


> I think their concern is simply about how to promote triple play deals as being from truly one company if they don't all have the same name. Triple play bundles from multiple companies doesn't have as good a track record as does deals from the same single company.
> 
> How about DIRECT AT&T. For the entire company.


The reason triple play deals from different companies don't work has nothing to do with them having different names, it has to do with them having different ownership.

It is no different than if you and I were vendors on a beach, and you were selling burgers and I was selling beers. If there are some people who are buying both, maybe we say "hey, we should offer people who buy both some sort of discount to encourage more people to do that, it will help both our sales".

The problem is, we don't agree that we should each put up an equal half of the discount. You think the bundling will benefit my beer sales more, I think it will benefit your burger sales more. Because we can't agree on that, we decide to go 50/50 on the discount but are only willing to make it a small discount.

Another guy moves in selling both burgers and beers and offers a much better deal for both, because he doesn't care whether the bundle sells more beers or more burgers, since he benefits either way.


----------



## armophob (Nov 13, 2006)

It is a great big spinning death star swallowing everthing it comes in contact with.

At&T is not even really At&T. At the core it is really SBC and that company's management style.

They will totally do this. Just like Trump, putting their name on everything before they destroy it.

http://www.att.com/Common/attrev1/331012_timeline_evolution16.pdf


----------



## BLMN (Sep 6, 2011)

adamson said:


> Here in Dunnellon, FL there are haves and have nots for high speed internet. Location is key here if you want any type of high speed internet. Where I am you have Comcast, AT&T, and a quickly failed muni FTTH system stolen by a fluke company called Florida Cable Inc. As of today you cannot get AT&T DSL 3Mb at all because it is capped/no ports. Comcast's system is antique which had no HD 3yrs ago, now just a handful of channels and their internet goes out multiple times a day. I am lucky to still have FTTH with Florida Cable Inc formerly Greenlight Communications Dunnellon. There are reports that AT&T may sell off our market. So what possibly will they do for the have nots who cannot get any of the above? I'm sure nothing. I cannot even get 1 bar on my cell phone and this is my second cell phone provider here. I'm not the only one either with cell issues. At this point I am at the mercy of Directv for tv, and by that I mean please do not merge with this company. Case in point period. A top notch provider may be ruined in short order and I am so unsettled over this you have no idea.


I have access to nothing other than wireless by AT&T in my state. My state (New Hampshire) is owned by Fairpoint communications (verizon sold it's footprint years ago) when it comes to landline phones and DSL internet, the only other option is Comcast. I wonder if they (AT&T) are going to bundle directv service with phone+internet over 3G/4G hotspots. and also its not even guaranteed, where I live I barely have 3G signal.


----------



## jimmie57 (Jun 26, 2010)

I think that would be a mistake. Black and Decker owns Snapper and several other well known brand names. One of the reasons they bought them was the name and reputation that they brought to the company. I believe they will keep the Uverse format and to keep the 2 systems separate in everyone's minds keeping the DirecTV name does that.

Of course companies make bone head decisions all the time like the one now where Turbo Tax moved a lot of the forms to push it's customers to the higher priced versions of the software as just 1 example.


----------



## sweep49 (Jul 15, 2008)

I am not happy that DirecTV will become part of AT&T, and think that changing the name would be a mistake. I have not had good experiences with AT&T and avoid them when possible. On balance, I don't think the merger will be a good thing for us loyal DTV customers.


----------



## FHSPSU67 (Jan 12, 2007)

DIRECTV
A member of the AT&T family of technology


----------



## mobilelawyer (Aug 16, 2006)

I fear the worst, but I have some hope they won't destroy the Directv brand. Some accuse me of being overly optimistic. If they leave out the Directv name and simply mix the satellite service with u-verse as a single brand, I see more potential for confusion.


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

Has this merger even been approved? I'm hoping it gets shot down. I've had AT&T on 2 services (land line and cell) and they overcharge considerably on both. Then again, so does DirecTV . I dropped them for cell and went to T-Mobile. Saving a ton. Considering dropping them on the land line too. I'm getting a $5 bundle discount with DirecTV, but seeing as they overcharge by $15/mo vs Cox for a land line, I'll still be $10/mo ahead.


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

slice1900 said:


> When you purchase an entire company you also purchase the goodwill on their books as an asset. If you dispose of the brand, you can write off the goodwill associated with the brand. It would get more complicated for a company that has multiple brands, but AT&T isn't like buying P&G here. You get to amortize that goodwill anyway (I think over 15 years?) so dropping the brand doesn't give any tax benefit you wouldn't already have, it just accelerates the process.
> 
> Directv has been carrying about $4 billion in goodwill on their balance sheet the last few fiscal years, I would expect it is similar now. Having a deduction that size in FY2015 would help pay that $28.50 per Directv share in cash under the buyout terms. Not that AT&T is hurting for cash or doesn't have a lot of borrowing ability and very attractive interest rates.
> 
> I doubt the decision to drop a well regarded brand would be made purely for financial reasons, but it may be one consideration on AT&T's part.


 But a name change doesn't affect the write down (or not) of goodwill. You don't need to change the name, and if you do, you don't need to take any write down (or off).

And, yes, the AT&T accountants might decide to write off all or a part of the goodwill now on DIRECTV's books once the acquisition is completed.


----------



## tonyd79 (Jul 24, 2006)

It is all silly.

AT&T UVerse is a product.
AT&T DirecTV (or AT&T Direct or DirecTV by AT&T) is a product
AT&T Wireless is a product

Why rename them at all? In fact, you can mix and match for bundling services. Pick one from column A, etc.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Laxguy said:


> Wonder how many are aware that AT&T was derived from "American Telegraph and Telephone"?


Incorporated in 1885, the company name was actually "American Telephone and Telegraph Company".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AT%26T_Corporation

I would remind that the current AT&T has little to do with the original company other than sharing the name.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

tonyd79 said:


> It is all silly.
> 
> AT&T UVerse is a product.
> AT&T DirecTV (or AT&T Direct or DirecTV by AT&T) is a product


It isn't silly if you believe that MVPDs (that Uverse and DIRECTV represent) are going the way of the horse and buggy.

I would argue that between the two, Uverse is better positioned for life after MVPDs.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

tonyd79 said:


> Yeah, why use a name that has positive recognition. _*Ask Boston Market how that works out....*_


That brings up a question that has bothered me for years: We have several Boston Market places near us and I never see any cars in the parking lots. When I walk by, I see no customers. How do they stay in business?

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

MysteryMan said:


> My advice for Randall Stephenson is if it's not broken then don't fix it.


It never ceases to amaze me how dumb corporate executives are. I've sat in meetings many times wondering how these dopes attain the status that they obviously don't deserve. Why would they change the name? I could see it if they kept the name and had a small squib below it that said "A subsidiary of AT&T". But a major change? Naw.

Rich


----------



## tonyd79 (Jul 24, 2006)

harsh said:


> It isn't silly if you believe that MVPDs (that Uverse and DIRECTV represent) are going the way of the horse and buggy.
> 
> I would argue that between the two, Uverse is better positioned for life after MVPDs.


What does that have to do with it? I am talking PRODUCT LINES. If a product line goes away, it goes away. You are tying a whole name to a technology/product line? AT&T already does this, BTW. They have AT&T Uverse and AT&T Wireless, for example. Funny how Uverse has its own name.

Besides, no matter how much the sky is falling for traditional TV delivery products, they aren't going away for what amounts to eons in business marketing terms, which focus on quarterly and yearly results. Anyone abandoning them too soon is pretty stupid. There is still money to be made. And AT&T must agree because they are trying to acquire one.


----------



## APB101 (Sep 1, 2010)

I haven't gone through to many postings.

Perhaps&#8230;

*Direc-T-verse*.

I would actually keep the DirecTV brand for Video and, of course, retain the AT&T name for Voice and Phone.

It is risky to do a name-change to a well-recognized brand. And there are more subscribers with DirecTV than U-verse.


----------



## Alan Gordon (Jun 7, 2004)

March 24, 1995

That's the day I first got DirecTV service. Due to escaping the clutches of Pegasus Satellite who came into our lives a few years after first subscribing to DirecTV, it's a new account that says customer since 2005, but I've still never had a day without DirecTV service since March 24, 1995. 

As long as they keep the name DirecTV until my 20th anniversary on March 24, 2015, I'll be happy. After that, they can call it "Turd Bird" for all I care...


----------



## nmetro (Jul 11, 2006)

Watch the come up with something like ATTSat


----------



## APB101 (Sep 1, 2010)

nmetro said:


> Watch [them] come up with something like ATTSat


Or&#8230;

_U-sat_.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

Laxguy said:


> But a name change doesn't affect the write down (or not) of goodwill. You don't need to change the name, and if you do, you don't need to take any write down (or off).
> 
> And, yes, the AT&T accountants might decide to write off all or a part of the goodwill now on DIRECTV's books once the acquisition is completed.


A name change would affect it. You can only write down goodwill after acquisition via amortization, or because it becomes "impaired". Something has to happen to cause a reduction in the brand's value. While the company has some freedom to determine this, they can't just decide to write it down to zero because they want a tax deduction. If they drop the name, it no longer has value since the brand no longer exists, so it may be written down.


----------



## JosephB (Nov 14, 2005)

I have to agree with an earlier post and think that this is just a way for them to get in the news and keep the idea of the merger fresh while there is no actual news going on.

Of course they are testing whether or not they should keep the DirecTV name, it would be criminally irresponsible for them not to. In the end, I suspect they'll keep the DirecTV name around and dump the U-Verse name for everything except *maybe* keeping it around for the wireline broadband product.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

Part of the issue is they want a United front for offering services to customers. They also want it to sound newer than the old att which is why they came up with Uverse a few years ago. So they may be trying to figure out how to make Uverse and DIRECTV sounds like one company. I suspect there will be only one name for all their tv services by the time they are finished. The question is how will they relate that name with their wireless and Internet services. 

They should have learned from the Cingular name change. Stick with what people already like.


----------



## Rob (Apr 23, 2002)

AT&T Direct is my bet.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

tonyd79 said:


> What does that have to do with it? I am talking PRODUCT LINES. If a product line goes away, it goes away.


I'm suggesting that what DIRECTV stands for is eventually going away as pay TV transitions away from one large packages of channels to multiple smaller subscriptions.


----------



## tonyd79 (Jul 24, 2006)

harsh said:


> I'm suggesting that what DIRECTV stands for is eventually going away as pay TV transitions away from one large packages of channels to multiple smaller subscriptions.


So, you drop the PRODUCT name when you drop the product. What are you not getting? There are YEARS of money to be made with the current setup. Yes, change a name because it may not be popular 10 years from now. Yup. And, then again, it might be. It depends on what you do with it.

I am sure you do not see the irony in your argument when talking about a company called American TELEPHONE and TELEGRAPH. Yup, very up to date.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

I don't see why calling all their video services from Uverse style to sat delivery to over the top to even their wireless mobile video offerings shouldn't be called directv. It's tv direct to you. On any device. Anywhere. It's a perfect name for it IMHO. And allows them to market it as your one service for all things video. Then call att their one solution for all things communication. Home phone. Cell phone. Video calling even. And then call their internet services Uverse connecting every information scheme in the universe. And they can all have the moniker AT&T.

So you would have 

DIRECTV by AT&T

Uverse by AT&T

AT&T


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

tonyd79 said:


> So, you drop the PRODUCT name when you drop the product. What are you not getting? There are YEARS of money to be made with the current setup. Yes, change a name because it may not be popular 10 years from now. Yup. And, then again, it might be. It depends on what you do with it.
> 
> I am sure you do not see the irony in your argument when talking about a company called American TELEPHONE and TELEGRAPH. Yup, very up to date.


Actually, I just got a new telegraph machine. They now have built in wi-fi and are cordless. Who'd have thunk it?


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

tonyd79 said:


> I am sure you do not see the irony in your argument when talking about a company called American TELEPHONE and TELEGRAPH. Yup, very up to date.


The company name is NOT American Telephone and Telegraph. The company name is AT&T. It is no longer an abbreviation.

Look back at the original article ... AT&T would like to unify their video services as they move forward with plans for "over the top" content delivery. They want DirecTV's 20 million subscribers and content (specifically NFL Sunday Ticket, which was singled out in the merger documents). They get the name, should they choose to use it. But they want the customer base and content.


----------



## Bill Broderick (Aug 25, 2006)

I can't wait until existing customers begin to call them asking for equipment branded with the new name of the company to replace the "obsolete" equipment with the old company's name.


----------



## Drew2k (Aug 16, 2006)

tonyd79 said:


> I am sure you do not see the irony in your argument when talking about a company called American TELEPHONE and TELEGRAPH. Yup, very up to date.





James Long said:


> The company name is NOT American Telephone and Telegraph. The company name is AT&T. It is no longer an abbreviation.
> 
> Look back at the original article ... AT&T would like to unify their video services as they move forward with plans for "over the top" content delivery. They want DirecTV's 20 million subscribers and content (specifically NFL Sunday Ticket, which was singled out in the merger documents). They get the name, should they choose to use it. But they want the customer base and content.


It seems you left off the important part of Tony's post, but ended up in fact support his main point, which was in the first part of his post:



tonyd79 said:


> So, you drop the PRODUCT name when you drop the product. What are you not getting? There are YEARS of money to be made with the current setup. Yes, change a name because it may not be popular 10 years from now. Yup. And, then again, it might be. It depends on what you do with it.
> 
> I am sure you do not see the irony in your argument when talking about a company called American TELEPHONE and TELEGRAPH. Yup, very up to date.


Harsh is arguing against continuing to use the name DIRECTV after the merger because he claims DIRECTV won't have a future as an OTT provider.

Tony is arguing that it can continue to be called DIRECTV until such a time as OTT kills it and points to AT&T as an example of rebranding, which you just backed up... "telephone & telegraph" were removed from the name when it was no longer relevant, so Tony is saying it can be the same with use of the "DIRECTV" name.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Drew2k said:


> It seems you left off the important part of Tony's post, but ended up in fact support his main point, which was in the first part of his post:


Tony would vehemently like AT&T to keep and use the DirecTV name. My point is AT&T is considering NOT doing what Tony wants ... for the reasons mentioned. I don't support Tony's argument. AT&T is considering ONE unified brand for video services ... not separate brands beginning AT&T. If the brands are kept separate where would OTT fit in? Another separate brand?

Tony's complaint about "American Telephone & Telegraph" not being an up to date name is misleading. That is not the company name nor the name AT&T is considering using for DirecTV services. I repeat: AT&T is NOT considering rebranding DirecTV as "American Telephone & Telegraph". They are considering rebranding as "AT&T" or some other unified brand.



Drew2k said:


> Harsh is arguing against continuing to use the name DIRECTV after the merger because he claims DIRECTV won't have a future as an OTT provider.


AT&T is arguing against continuing to use the name DirecTV. Perhaps you missed that in the initial article? This isn't about harsh or me or Tony or you ... this is about AT&T and what they believe is the best brand name for their product line going forward. And they, as stated, are considering dropping the DirecTV brand.


----------



## Drew2k (Aug 16, 2006)

James Long said:


> *AT&T is arguing against continuing to use the name DirecTV. *Perhaps you missed that in the initial article? This isn't about harsh or me or Tony or you ... this is about AT&T and what they believe is the best brand name for their product line going forward. And they, as stated, are considering dropping the DirecTV brand.


Your'e opener is misleading as AT&T is not arguing against continuing to use the name DIRECTV; they have made no decisions but are evaluating whether or not to drop it. To say they are arguing against it's use means they have made a decision, and at least publicly they haven't. 

I also never said this was about me, you, Harsh, or Tony, so I'm not sure why you took it that way. I was trying to clarify a point I believed one forum member was making in response to another, so of course I referenced the poster's names, but I'll just drop it and leave it to Tony to reply.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Drew2k said:


> Your'e opener is misleading as AT&T is not arguing against continuing to use the name DIRECTV; they have made no decisions but are evaluating whether or not to drop it.


There seems to be a vested interest among posters to keep the DirecTV name. AT&T does not have that interest. They ARE willing to not use the DirecTV name. I never claimed their decision was already made ... so please, let my posts stand for themselves. Dropping the DirecTV name would not be under consideration unless AT&T thought their future could be better without the satellite company's name.


----------



## armophob (Nov 13, 2006)

Exactly,
I posted a timeline link in Post#34


harsh said:


> Incorporated in 1885, the company name was actually "American Telephone and Telegraph Company".
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AT%26T_Corporation
> 
> I would remind that the current AT&T has little to do with the original company other than sharing the name.


----------



## armophob (Nov 13, 2006)

It will be great for business.
They just won a tug of war game with all of us Directv users, by letting go of the rope and we all just fell on our asses.
Instead of waging war with U-Verse vs Directv, they bought it and now they can start cranking up the prices.



James Long said:


> Dropping the DirecTV name would not be under consideration unless AT&T thought their future could be better without the satellite company's name.


----------



## APB101 (Sep 1, 2010)

inkahauts said:


> Part of the issue is they want a United front for offering services to customers. They also want it to sound newer than the old att which is why they came up with Uverse a few years ago. So they may be trying to figure out how to make Uverse and DIRECTV sounds like one company. I suspect there will be only one name for all their tv services by the time they are finished. The question is how will they relate that name with their wireless and Internet services.
> 
> They should have learned from the Cingular name change. Stick with what people already like.


Some have mentioned _AT&T DirecTV_.

Perhaps ownership needs indication: _AT&T*'s* DirecTV_.

That would make it sounds like they're one.

The logo would change to combine the two as one powerful force.


----------



## MysteryMan (May 17, 2010)

If AT&T has to why not keep the DIRECTV name and logo and add in fine print at the bottom "An AT&T Company". Several major motion picture studios (Columbia (A Sony Pictures Entertainment Company), Universal (An MCA Company), Warner Bros. (An AOL Time Warner Company) have done this.


----------



## Barcthespark (Dec 16, 2007)

Me thinks this is much ado about nothing. It is the quality of the product, not the name, that matters most.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

APB101 said:


> Some have mentioned _AT&T DirecTV_.


Where does the DirecTV vs come from? Looking back and the trademark registrations, I don't see where DIRECTV has registered DirecTV.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

MysteryMan said:


> If AT&T has to why not keep the DIRECTV name and logo and add in fine print at the bottom "An AT&T Company". Several major motion picture studios (Columbia (A Sony Pictures Entertainment Company), Universal (An MCA Company), Warner Bros. (An AOL Time Warner Company) have done this.


AT&T has "AT&T U-verse®: the Evolution of Digital TV, Internet, and Voice" ... not "U-verse powered by DirecTV" or "an AT&T company". What would AT&T DirecTV (or AT&T DIRECTV) be? Yet another evolution of Digital TV? Two brands that mean the same thing is one brand too many. I'm sure fans of the DirecTV brand would rather see the U-verse brand dropped. DirecTV fans are not making this decision (read on).



APB101 said:


> Some have mentioned _AT&T DirecTV_.
> 
> Perhaps ownership needs indication: _AT&T*'s* DirecTV_.
> 
> That would make it sounds like they're one.


The telephone companies seem to prefer takeover naming. It isn't Ameritech, an SBC company or Ameritech, an AT&T company or AT&T's Ameritech. It is one brand ... not weakened by an "'s" or forced into a tagline. The attitude of "we bought you, we own you, we're changing your name" is prevalent. SBC bought a good brand name, "AT&T" and has applied it to everything they own. I do not see them doing anything less with DirecTV.

I expect there to be a transition period ... but AT&T wants one brand. I expect that brand to be as strongly worded as possible. Possessives are weak ... taglines are weak. AT&T DirecTV or simply AT&T is a stronger brand.



APB101 said:


> The logo would change to combine the two as one powerful force.


While I have seen some interesting combinations the logo is the first thing I expect to see change. The death star will rule. If the DIRECTV name is kept I expect:









Do not forget that the people making this decision see AT&T as the powerful force, the company that bought another company, the company that "bought you, own you and will be changing your name".


----------



## billsharpe (Jan 25, 2007)

Barcthespark said:


> Me thinks this is much ado about nothing. It is the quality of the product, not the name, that matters most.


Gotta agree with that comment.

AT&T can do whatever they like with the name. I'd be more concerned about price increases down the road.


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

Hmmmm.....



CraigerM said:


> How about AT&T Direct? They could have it go AT&T DirecTV, Direct Internet and Direct Phone? I wonder if AT&T would want everything to flow? Would AT&T DirecTV flow well with UVerse Internet and UVerse Phone?.


AT&T Direct. That has real marketing possibilities for everything wireless - using RF is certainly more "direct" to you the individual and encompasses all the possibilities derived from staring at a flat screen fed by wifi/cell/satellite.

But it's AT&T so they'll screw it up somehow.


----------



## nuspieds (Aug 9, 2008)

Brands come and go; that's just the nature of an open market in which there are M&As.

But as consumers, we _do _get attached to brands and in the open market, some brands are viewed more favorably than others. Ultimately, though, if a brand name changes but you are getting the same or better service, unless the new name is personally offensive to you (for whatever reason), what's the issue? None. We just have to remember to be grown-up about it, get past the name change, and our attachment to the old name. I'm not saying it isn't sad or disappointing to see a beloved brand disappear; rather, that if you are continuing to get the same or better service for which you are paying, then even easier for you to accept it and move on.

All that said, however, just because your beloved brand name survives in an M&A is by no means a guarantee of the status quo, either. Case in point: The airline I fly today is certainly _not_ the same one I flew prior to its merger a couple of years ago--even though my preferred airline was the brand name that was retained. Of course I was jubilant that my brand had survived, but there was new management and, ultimately, the products and services changed (for the worse, in my opinion). If someone said to me that I could have my airline back with the management style, products, and services that I loved so much but the brand name would have to change, let me tell you that in less than a heartbeat I would have already forgotten the old brand name. 

This experience with my "new" airline is exactly what I fear most about the AT&T acquisition.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

While I can understand the business reasons for keeping or dumping a particular brand name, as a consumer I don't care about brand names at all. I don't understand how people could personally get attached to a brand name like Directv, Black and Decker, Hershey's, Pepsi or whatever.

Which would you rather have, keep the Directv brand but have the service go way downhill and make Comcast look like heaven by comparison, or they change the name to TurdTV but have the service improve a lot from what you get now? They could use the little poop emoji as their logo!


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

It used to be if a brand could build a great product, people would try them first for anything they offered over others if they enjoyed the experience. The same still holds true today. So if someone has a great relationship with ATT wireless, they may be more prone to just go with ATT's DIRECTV rather than even looking at Dish etc. I know its hard for people here to really see that, but there's so many people who do shop that way, the vast majority really. Even if they say they don't.


----------



## alnielsen (Dec 31, 2006)

James Long said:


> The telephone companies seem to prefer takeover naming. It isn't Ameritech, an SBC company or Ameritech, an AT&T company or AT&T's Ameritech. It is one brand ... not weakened by an "'s" or forced into a tagline. The attitude of "we bought you, we own you, we're changing your name" is prevalent. SBC bought a good brand name, "AT&T" and has applied it to everything they own. I do not see them doing anything less with DirecTV.
> 
> I expect there to be a transition period ... but AT&T wants one brand. I expect that brand to be as strongly worded as possible. Possessives are weak ... taglines are weak. AT&T DirecTV or simply AT&T is a stronger brand.


It sure was a wakeup day at Ameritech when the merger was finalized. The press release said it was to be a merger of equals. We were informed by SBC, we bought your ass and you will do things this way. Then SBC changed their name to The New AT$T(mistake intended), I expect that the name Directv will be tossed in the circular file to be lost forever.


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

Wish there was a way we could place bets! I'd be giving odds that the DIRECTV name will survive for at least three years.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Laxguy said:


> Wish there was a way we could place bets! I'd be giving odds that the DIRECTV name will survive for at least three years.


Three years from now I'd agree it will be here. I expect there will be a transition and not an instant change. Four years might be more of a bet. 

(And no, I don't make or take bets.)


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Laxguy said:


> Wish there was a way we could place bets! I'd be giving odds that the DIRECTV name will survive for at least three years.


That was the assurance that came from the boards. A sucker bet.

After the three years, the assimilation would be complete and all bets about naming, independence of operations and the El Segundo office are off.


----------



## longrider (Apr 21, 2007)

What I find interesting is how industry specific the renaming practices are. In telephone my company has been Mountain Bell, US West, Qwest, and now Century Link. Cable where I used to live has gone from United Cable, to a name I forget, to AT&T, to Comcast. Airlines also lose a name in a merger. However oil companies make a point to keep all the different names, sometimes reflected in the corporate name - ConocoPhillips, ExxonMobil, and sometimes not - ConocoPhillips also owns Union 76 and Valero owns Diamond Shamrock. Or look at rental cars. You see a dozen counters at the airport but 3 companies control 9 brands and 95% of the market. 

I do expect the DirecTV name to go away as a separate name but it could stick around as part of a name. AT&T DirecTV? What I don't expect is the footnote style - DirecTV, an AT&T company or DirecTV, a subsidiary of AT&T


----------



## wilbur_the_goose (Aug 16, 2006)

STUPID.

Actually, AT&T should change their name. They don't exactly do "T"elegraph anymore...


----------



## swaff (Feb 15, 2009)

harsh said:


> After the three years, the assimilation would be complete and all bets about naming, independence of operations and the El Segundo office are off.


Corporate Headquarters is in Dallas.

Headquarters for Mobility remains in Atlanta where it's been since all of the last merger activity.

I don't see El Segundo going away anytime soon.

As to the name, I've heard Mr. Stephenson say on many occasions that we bought the premium company.

I tend to agree that this was put out there as part of the testing for reaction and to get headlines for a couple of days or so.


----------



## GLJones (Feb 12, 2008)

They can't do this easily. How are they going to change the logo on the satellites? You can see right in the commercial that they have the DirecTV logo on them and no way to change it. 


U


----------



## armophob (Nov 13, 2006)

Laxguy said:


> Wish there was a way we could place bets! I'd be giving odds that the DIRECTV name will survive for at least three years.


I will take that bet. Remember Cingular?


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

swaff said:


> Corporate Headquarters is in Dallas.


One of the "don't panic" promises was that El Segundo would remain the DIRECTV center of operations during the assimilation.


----------



## Coachbulldog (Nov 17, 2014)

More than the name change, I'm worried that AT&T will ruin Directv's customer service. Even though I have been critical with Directv's lack of mobile streaming options, in the 12 years I have been with them their customer service has always been great. On the other hand, AT&T's reputation for customer service, at least in the area where I live, is lousy. Now that Directv appears to be coming on board with more mobile streaming options I am looking forward to staying with them. But customer service is important to me and I hope AT&T doesn't push me and other customers away.


----------



## swaff (Feb 15, 2009)

armophob said:


> I will take that bet. Remember Cingular?


Remember Cricket? Oh, wait. We're still using that name.


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

James Long said:


> Tony would vehemently like AT&T to keep and use the DirecTV name. My point is AT&T is considering NOT doing what Tony wants ... for the reasons mentioned. I don't support Tony's argument. AT&T is considering ONE unified brand for video services ... not separate brands beginning AT&T. If the brands are kept separate where would OTT fit in? Another separate brand?
> 
> Tony's complaint about "American Telephone & Telegraph" not being an up to date name is misleading. That is not the company name nor the name AT&T is considering using for DirecTV services. I repeat: AT&T is NOT considering rebranding DirecTV as "American Telephone & Telegraph". They are considering rebranding as "AT&T" or some other unified brand.
> 
> AT&T is arguing against continuing to use the name DirecTV. Perhaps you missed that in the initial article? This isn't about harsh or me or Tony or you ... this is about AT&T and what they believe is the best brand name for their product line going forward. And they, as stated, are considering dropping the DirecTV brand.


I Agree with James.
If I spent 50 Billion dollars on a company, I would certainly call it by the Parent name.
Like it or Not ATT is by far a Giant in value compared to Directv.

Not sure why anyone would be really surprised at this. Its a Quite common practice.


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

I'd do massive surveys and a few focus groups before deciding to keep or change the name of a major acquisition. ATT is doing just that.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

The story and reaction in itself are a trial balloon. Not only does it get people used to the concept of a non-DirecTV name, it allows AT&T to gauge reaction.


----------



## swaff (Feb 15, 2009)

James Long said:


> The story and reaction in itself are a trial balloon. Not only does it get people used to the concept of a non-DirecTV name, it allows AT&T to gauge reaction.


 :up:


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

James Long said:


> The story and reaction in itself are a trial balloon. Not only does it get people used to the concept of a non-DirecTV name, it allows AT&T to gauge reaction.


Yes, and as someone else mentioned, keeps them in the news!


----------



## stickywicket (Jan 26, 2006)

FHSPSU67 said:


> DIRECTV
> A member of the AT&T family of technology


I like it. This makes sense to me.


----------



## VLaslow (Aug 16, 2006)

So, I wouldn't know if I was signing up for Uverse service or DirecTV service? Perfect!


----------



## CraigerM (Apr 15, 2014)

I found the full transcript of what was said at AT&T's conference call. To view the full transcript you need to sign in with a Google email account.

http://seekingalpha.com/article/2856226-at-and-ts-t-ceo-randall-stephenson-on-q4-2014-results-earnings-call-transcript

"DIRECTV quickly and significantly shores up the economics of our U-verse video product and it brings us the best content relationships in the industry."


----------



## DN2014 (Mar 29, 2014)

armophob said:


> I will take that bet. Remember Cingular?


But that is different, Cingular bought AT&T wireless, and kept the AT&T name


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

CraigerM said:


> "DIRECTV quickly and significantly shores up the economics of our U-verse video product and it brings us the best content relationships in the industry."


TWC and Comcrap excepted!


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

James Long said:


> The story and reaction in itself are a trial balloon. Not only does it get people used to the concept of a non-DirecTV name, it allows AT&T to gauge reaction.


I really don't think most customers or potential customers really care what it's called.
I'm sorry, but I really don't see Direct being flooded with phone calls over a name change. 
Huge corporations have name changes all the time , from mergers and buyouts.
Most people do not care what they do.

I bet most customers don't even know Att is in the process of owning directv.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

damondlt said:


> I really don't think most customers or potential customers really care what it's called.
> I'm sorry, but I really don't see Direct being flooded with phone calls over a name change.
> Huge corporations have name changes all the time , from mergers and buyouts.
> Most people do not care what they do.
> ...


Sadly, I believe you're correct.

Rich


----------



## Groundhog45 (Nov 10, 2005)

I just dread the screw job we will get from the two monopolies if the DirecTV/AT&T and the Comcast/Time Warner deals go through. All I foresee is lousy customer service, higher cost, and declining product.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

Rich said:


> Sadly, I believe you're correct.


For most customers, it doesn't make one bit of difference who owns them. Sure, with the new ownership service may get worse (it could also get better, but everyone seems to assume it must only get worse) but service can get better or worse if Directv remains independent so it really doesn't matter to the typical customer.


----------



## mrdobolina (Aug 28, 2006)

APB101 said:


> I haven't gone through to many postings.
> 
> Perhaps&#8230;
> 
> ...


I have only read as far as this post, but I was thinking the same thing and wanted to see if someone else had posted it yet.

I'd simplify it: DIRECTVerse. That unifies the video offerings (DIRECTV and Uverse) and also allows AT&T to offer even more under a "unified" umbrella. I think of it like this: The whole universe of AT&T services direct to the consumer. Or something like that.


----------



## Diana C (Mar 30, 2007)

The most likely outcome is that the satellite service will become UVerse or the IP multicast video service will become DirecTV. It makes no sense to have two video services, owned by the same company and delivering nearly identical content to have two different names. UVerse today already refers to two different technologies, one fiber based, one DSL based, so adding a satellite based service is just another delivery medium.

Personally, I think DirecTV is TOO well known as a satellite service to use that name for fiber and DSL (and a future OTT service). So, if I had to bet, I'd say that DirecTV will get changed to UVerse. A customer will just subscribe to AT&T UVerse, and which medium it comes over will be determined by the location.


----------



## btedford (Mar 10, 2010)

I don't think that they will rename DirecTV or give the name to another product. It's been DirecTV for over 20 years now and it's a valuable brand name. If they give the name to another product, it will just confuse the average consumer. Either you keep the name, or retire it completely.


----------



## JoeTheDragon (Jul 21, 2008)

Diana C said:


> The most likely outcome is that the satellite service will become UVerse or the IP multicast video service will become DirecTV. It makes no sense to have two video services, owned by the same company and delivering nearly identical content to have two different names. UVerse today already refers to two different technologies, one fiber based, one DSL based, so adding a satellite based service is just another delivery medium.
> 
> Personally, I think DirecTV is TOO well known as a satellite service to use that name for fiber and DSL (and a future OTT service). So, if I had to bet, I'd say that DirecTV will get changed to UVerse. A customer will just subscribe to AT&T UVerse, and which medium it comes over will be determined by the location.


they will need to work on add NHLnet back to Uverse. Also the uverse stream limit needs to be upped to a min of 6 HD to be forced off of sat and even then 6 is to low for commercial use.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

JoeTheDragon said:


> they will need to work on add NHLnet back to Uverse. Also the uverse stream limit needs to be upped to a min of 6 HD to be forced off of sat and even then 6 is to low for commercial use.


Uverse needs to go beyond ADSL2 for that. That type of delivery will never be practical for commercial use, but what difference does it make - AT&T will have Directv for the commercial customers...


----------



## alnielsen (Dec 31, 2006)

DN2014 said:


> But that is different, Cingular bought AT&T wireless, and kept the AT&T name


Ah no, Cingular was a merger of Ameritech and Bell South's wireless divisions. First Ameritech was merged with SBC. SBC then changed it's name to ATT. Later it took over Bell South.
I was working at Ameritech (and later SBC) before and while this was happening.


----------



## coolman302003 (Jun 2, 2008)

JoeTheDragon said:


> Also the uverse stream limit needs to be upped to a min of 6 HD to be forced off of sat and even then 6 is to low for commercial use.


They do 6 HD streams for the very limited customers on GigaPower service; such as in Austin, TX. They also get the total home DVR with 1TB of storage, unlike the rest.

http://www.att.com/esupport/article.jsp?sid=KB401042&cv=813


----------



## Diana C (Mar 30, 2007)

I would expect the DSL service to be de-emphasized, and customers will get fiber where available, satellite elsewhere.


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

Can LTE carry enough in areas that don't get fibre to do a good internet speed? That's what I am hoping for us country foik.


----------



## Diana C (Mar 30, 2007)

AT&T has already deployed a fixed LTE service (http://www.multichannel.com/news/technology/att-fixed-wireless-service-goes-nationwide/374744) that delivers between 5 and 12 Mbps. Verizon's XLTE uses a two AWS channels to deliver some amazing wireless speeds (I've gotten well over 40Mbps). Given the huge spectrum buy that AT&T and Verizon made in the most recent FCC auction round, they should be able to roll out their own wide channel solution, at least doubling those speeds.

So, LTE has some legs, but now that the FCC has defined Broadband as being 25 Mbps down and 3 Mbps up (it used to be 4 down, 1 up), only the upper end would have a chance to qualify.

ETA: I think that in really rural areas fixed LTE will be used for internet service, but not for video. Even if they can get the throughput, LTE is just not stable enough to carry full HD (or worse UHD) video reliably. Using DSL was an attempt to be able to offer video without having to install millions of miles of cable. Satellite achieves the same result, without the compromises, and covers the entire country. Since they WANT to invest in wireless (where the profits are bigger) I would expect that this would be their strategy going forward. Fiber for TV, Voice and Data where they have it installed, and satellite for TV, LTE for Voice and Data where they don't. Using LTE also gets them mobile device support for the cost of writing a client app.

This could be a great strategy...AT&T would be a national provider and the only one with a true triple play bundle.


----------



## Blackhawks (Oct 21, 2011)

There's a difference, CellularOne was owned by SBC, which with Bell South created Cingular, who purchased AT&T Wireless and retained the Cingular name. 

SBC purchased Bell South (partner with SBC in Cingular), then purchased AT&T Long-Distance. The rest is history, as SBC changed their name and Cingular's to AT&T. 

History is on the wall and DTV's name will most likely be changed, but who knows. 


Sent from my iPhone using DBSTalk


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

Yes, thanks, Diana. My only concern is for data bumps here in the sticks. I envisioned what you wrote for the melding of the two companies some time ago, but was (am) unsure of what the build out possibilities are for my neck of the woods. On the low end, I am sure.


----------



## Diana C (Mar 30, 2007)

Laxguy said:


> Yes, thanks, Diana. My only concern is for data bumps here in the sticks. I envisioned what you wrote for the melding of the two companies some time ago, but was (am) unsure of what the build out possibilities are for my neck of the woods. On the low end, I am sure.


Of course...that is the $100,000 question. They have promised to extend service to rural areas, but have been reticent about exactly what that means. Of course, the value of their promises may also be suspect.


----------



## CraigerM (Apr 15, 2014)

What if they change the DTV name to UVerse TV but its not based on location, except in rural areas? What if its based on what a customer wants? A UVerse TV customer may not want a dish on the roof and decide they want it through IP? Or they would want it through IP because their home is networked with CAT 5/6. Another customer who has more than four TV's and their set-up could not handle the HD stream limitations? Then they would want UVerse through the dish? Maybe in the future like you said Diane another UVerse TV offering would be OTT. I could see the UVerse name matching these solutions perfectly, Uverse TV offered over multiple ways. One problem might be explaining to a new customer HD PQ over copper vs. HD PQ over the dish.


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

Diana C said:


> Of course...that is the $100,000 question. They have promised to extend service to rural areas, but have been reticent about exactly what that means. Of course, the value of their promises may also be suspect.


The extremely low data caps, and expensive data allowances with home LTE and Satellite Internet is the major problem with these services.
While they surely cover many areas, but that's mostly affordable for surfing the internet, sending emails, and checking facebook.
But streaming Netflix, Hulu, or any on demand . Forget it! Huge monthly bills, or big time throttled down internet speeds.
A minimum of 100 GB usage per month is very common now days. Satellite cost $120 a month For just 25 GBs.
Let's not even talk about the price of 100 GB of LTE service. Well over $300 per month.

Att better find a better way at a better price.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

damondlt said:


> The extremely low data caps, and expensive data allowances with home LTE and Satellite Internet is the major problem with these services.
> While they surely cover many areas, but that's mostly affordable for surfing the internet, sending emails, and checking facebook.
> But streaming Netflix, Hulu, or any on demand . Forget it! Huge monthly bills, or big time throttled down internet speeds.
> A minimum of 100 GB usage per month is very common now days. Satellite cost $120 a month For just 25 GBs.
> ...


Don't base your assumptions of AT&T's pricing for fixed LTE broadband on the caps and pricing they use for cellular plans. They don't have to price them anywhere near the same, and I guarantee they won't. This is a revenue maximization game, and while capacity is tight in urban areas because of the density of cellular users, the same is not true in rural areas. There would be few cellular users per cell leaving tons of slack capacity in each cell that can be sold to fixed LTE broadband plans at a far lower and more affordable price and with much higher caps than they sell cellular plans.

Similar to how services like FIOS or even DSL/cable modems are only offered in more dense areas, fixed LTE broadband will probably only be offered in rural areas. FIOS doesn't make sense in rural areas, fixed LTE broadband doesn't make sense in urban areas.


----------



## mkdtv21 (May 27, 2007)

Let's say ATT did decide to turn Directv into Uverse tv and have a dual satellite and iptv service with the Uverse branding, this would come to the question about which platform ATT would decide to keep for their tv service. Etiher the HR platform for both satellite and iptv or mediaroom for both satellite and iptv. I certainly can't see ATT having two separate platforms under the Uverse name confusing many customers.


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

slice1900 said:


> Don't base your assumptions of AT&T's pricing for fixed LTE broadband on the caps and pricing they use for cellular plans. They don't have to price them anywhere near the same, and I guarantee they won't. This is a revenue maximization game, and while capacity is tight in urban areas because of the density of cellular users, the same is not true in rural areas. There would be few cellular users per cell leaving tons of slack capacity in each cell that can be sold to fixed LTE broadband plans at a far lower and more affordable price and with much higher caps than they sell cellular plans.
> 
> Similar to how services like FIOS or even DSL/cable modems are only offered in more dense areas, fixed LTE broadband will probably only be offered in rural areas. FIOS doesn't make sense in rural areas, fixed LTE broadband doesn't make sense in urban areas.


This is not an assumption, Verizon currently right now has home LTE services in my area. And they are priced the same. 
It uses the same data from your cell phone data packages.
Or you can buy just home LTE system and again The data prices are the same as cell phones.
Sure this is not ATT, but do you really believe they are going to be any different?

I don't. 
I would say don't assume Att is going to offer you 100 GB a month for $30 a month, or anything more even remotely reasonable compared to landline services from Fios, Comcast, or and Cable companies for that matter.
http://www.verizonwireless.com/b2c/lte-internet-installed/

This is what I found for Att version.
http://www.fiercewireless.com/story/att-launches-lte-capable-home-phone-and-internet-service/2013-07-29


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

That link talks about AT&T selling the service in places like Baltimore, eastern PA, DC, etc. I'm talking rural - places where when you go there you're on Edge because they never upgraded to 3G - because 3G's smaller cells would have required putting up a lot more towers. LTE has similar cell size to 2G/Edge so those areas will start to be upgraded. That's where they'll have excess capacity. Not in Baltimore or DC.


----------



## CraigerM (Apr 15, 2014)

mkdtv21 said:


> Let's say ATT did decide to turn Directv into Uverse tv and have a dual satellite and iptv service with the Uverse branding, this would come to the question about which platform ATT would decide to keep for their tv service. Etiher the HR platform for both satellite and iptv or mediaroom for both satellite and iptv. I certainly can't see ATT having two separate platforms under the Uverse name confusing many customers.


Good point. I was thinking they could choose DTV's boxes and guide. I am not sure if they could reconfigure DTV's software to work with both IPTV and Satellite? I they can't do that then I could see AT&T just going with one name and one delivery method.


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

Where are you located? That will make a difference. In general, I think slice's scenario will prevail.


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

Laxguy said:


> Where are you located? That will make a difference. In general, I think slice's scenario will prevail.


Darn. Wrote and hit post before reading slice's reply. Question was of damont as to his location.

Putting one's location in one's profile helps a number of discussions.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

CraigerM said:


> Good point. I was thinking they could choose DTV's boxes and guide. I am not sure if they could reconfigure DTV's software to work with both IPTV and Satellite? I they can't do that then I could see AT&T just going with one name and one delivery method.


It would be pretty easy to make a Directv receiver work with Uverse, Uverse is just IP video which Directv equipment already handles. You can't add Directv capability to a Uverse receiver without practically redesigning it from the ground up to add the necessary hardware.

AT&T and Directv filed a document with the FCC last year that stated they'd use Directv's platform and software for Uverse. This isn't binding so they can always change their mind, but it makes a lot of sense. This doesn't mean they'd use Directv's current receivers like a HR44, and if they drop the Directv name they might say "AT&T" on them, but it would likely be a pretty familiar GUI and remote for Directv customers...

http://www.dbstalk.com/topic/211911-att-agrees-to-purchase-directv-was-att-looking-to-buy-direct-tv/page-38#entry3263187


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

slice1900 said:


> That link talks about AT&T selling the service in places like Baltimore, eastern PA, DC, etc. I'm talking rural - places where when you go there you're on Edge because they never upgraded to 3G - because 3G's smaller cells would have required putting up a lot more towers. LTE has similar cell size to 2G/Edge so those areas will start to be upgraded. That's where they'll have excess capacity. Not in Baltimore or DC.


I live in a rural place, that is the prices.
So again don't you assume it's going to be affordable when it isn't right now.
All those upgrades you stated cost millions, and after spending millions, companies tend to not drop prices dramatically.

Doesn't matter where it is , if your too Rural chances are there is no towers let alone LTE services with abundance of unused data available. 
It's just not in these areas like you think.
Don't go by them coverage maps, they are way over exaggerated.


----------



## CraigerM (Apr 15, 2014)

slice1900 said:


> It would be pretty easy to make a Directv receiver work with Uverse, Uverse is just IP video which Directv equipment already handles. You can't add Directv capability to a Uverse receiver without practically redesigning it from the ground up to add the necessary hardware.
> 
> AT&T and Directv filed a document with the FCC last year that stated they'd use Directv's platform and software for Uverse. This isn't binding so they can always change their mind, but it makes a lot of sense. This doesn't mean they'd use Directv's current receivers like a HR44, and if they drop the Directv name they might say "AT&T" on them, but it would likely be a pretty familiar GUI and remote for Directv customers...
> 
> http://www.dbstalk.com/topic/211911-att-agrees-to-purchase-directv-was-att-looking-to-buy-direct-tv/page-38#entry3263187


Thanks for reminding me. I remember skimming over that document and forgot they wanted to use the DTV equipment and guide. Changing the DTV logo on the DTV guide to UVerse TV would be easy. How long would it take to reconfigure the DTV boxes and guide for use on IPTV? Could that also be a factor in choosing the name? If they use the DTV boxes and guide but choose the UVerse TV name they have more boxes than UVerse TV does. Also would AT&T not want to loose any customers and would that be why they would want to do a hybrid system?


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

damondlt said:


> I live in a rural place, that is the prices.
> So again don't you assume it's going to be affordable when it isn't right now.
> All those upgrades you stated cost millions, and after spending millions, companies tend to not drop prices dramatically.
> 
> ...


Are you being cute? There's rural and there's rural. Distance from urban centers, state wealth distribution, policy, all are local. What you experience is not necessarily what others will. You don't know what I think regarding "unused data available", nor have I said anything about those coverage maps. 

Can you not simply state what your location is?? You don't seem like the paranoid type.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

I think I remember him saying he lived in PA. There is nowhere in PA that I'd consider rural for the purposes of AT&T having a lot of slack LTE capacity.

Just look at the LTE coverage maps, and the 3G coverage maps. See all those places that aren't covered by either. That's where "rural" is.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

The provider in his signature helps. Expanded by Wikipedia: "Blue Ridge Communications is a regional cable television, Internet and voice over IP provider that serves much of the Poconos area and central Pennsylvania in the USA."

And yes, there is a difference between rural and rural. What some people call rural others would consider suburban. For others suburban has the same building types and services as the center of a major city. Rural can be the flatlands of Kansas where signals seem to go forever or mountain terrain where the cell tower on the other side of the ridge doesn't serve you.


In my opinion, you get the network(s) you get and AT&T wants to sell you television service regardless of how you connect. Broadcast satellite works if one has LOS ... which may be difficult in a city with buildings or an area with trees and mountains in the way. Fibered areas are limited to where they have run their cables. Cellular/wireless areas are limited to where towers are available.

I do NOT expect AT&T to pick one and ditch the others. They will use any means possible to get their service to their customers. Including other carrier's data service (eg: Comcast or Verizon) when they introduce OTT services.


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

James Long said:


> The provider in his signature helps. Expanded by Wikipedia: "Blue Ridge Communications is a regional cable television, Internet and voice over IP provider that serves much of the Poconos area and central Pennsylvania in the USA."And yes, there is a difference between rural and rural. What some people call rural others would consider suburban. For others suburban has the same building types and services as the center of a major city. Rural can be the flatlands of Kansas where signals seem to go forever or mountain terrain where the cell tower on the other side of the ridge doesn't serve you.In my opinion, you get the network(s) you get and AT&T wants to sell you television service regardless of how you connect. Broadcast satellite works if one has LOS ... which may be difficult in a city with buildings or an area with trees and mountains in the way. Fibered areas are limited to where they have run their cables. Cellular/wireless areas are limited to where towers are available.I do NOT expect AT&T to pick one and ditch the others. They will use any means possible to get their service to their customers. Including other carrier's data service (eg: Comcast or Verizon) when they introduce OTT services.


Exactly, thank you for clearing that up.

And again, coverage maps are marketing tools more so then accuracy, and 3G is in no way shape or form LTE service.

I consider Rural 20 miles to town.
And some of yous need to stop turning threads personal.
We are having a nice discussion. 
And I just don't agree that LTE is or is going to be the affordable answer.
And I've stated my reasons. 
And they are 100% to this date.

What happends in 2 years is anyone's guess, but I don't see LTE method being an affordable practical method in that time.


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

slice1900 said:


> I think I remember him saying he lived in PA. There is nowhere in PA that I'd consider rural for the purposes of AT&T having a lot of slack LTE capacity.
> 
> Just look at the LTE coverage maps, and the 3G coverage maps. See all those places that aren't covered by either. That's where "rural" is.


Then you have never been to PA! Ever!.

I'm fairly sure my Signature says Wayne County Pa.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&ei=45fOVNb0BMWpgwTnmoTIBA&url=http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newfoundland,_Pennsylvania&ved=0CCEQFjAB&usg=AFQjCNEOd3VcFFcLni92K6pTzvSPx6yqAw


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

Also, just to give you an Idea on what speed our Att LTE service is here, its 3 MBPS down and 3 up.

Not exactly what I would call HD streaming quality.


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

damondlt said:


> Then you have never been to PA! Ever!.
> 
> I'm fairly sure my Signature says Wayne County Pa.


I didn't see it, but thank you for the info. If you put it in your Profile, no one ever need ask again.

I'm more familiar with Bucks county; Philly suburbs; Pittsburg; and the town where Arnold Palmer played a lot.

20 Miles outside a city might be deep suburbs or really in the stix.


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

Laxguy said:


> I didn't see it, but thank you for the info. If you put it in your Profile, no one ever need ask again.
> 
> I'm more familiar with Bucks county; Philly suburbs; Pittsburg; and the town where Arnold Palmer played a lot.
> 
> 20 Miles outside a city might be deep suburbs or really in the stix.


Trust me Pa has very very remote areas. I'm just lucky we have 3 major state routes that Blue ridge cable serves.
But if you are in any private development off of one or these roads, Than you are only getting Satellite.

LTE here is Very Hit or miss.
CELL SERVICE is gone 2 miles in either direction. And is gone for around 10 miles beyond that.

There is also massive amounts of State game lands, which do not support cell towers.
I'm at 1300 feet, 5 miles in any direction it's 2000 feet, this is the way it is all over the Pocono mts.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

damondlt said:


> I live in a rural place, that is the prices.
> So again don't you assume it's going to be affordable when it isn't right now.
> All those upgrades you stated cost millions, and after spending millions, companies tend to not drop prices dramatically.
> 
> ...


It's not here yet but in a few years every cell provider will offer lte to homes. And it won't have the prices and limits as current cell does. Heck cell phones will change dramatically in the next five years. I don't think minutes will be sold at all by then. Just data. It's coming but the technology isn't there yet. But do you really think att and Verizon don't want to offer Internet in each other's areas?

As for the box stuff it'll be DIRECTV platform I think. They basically said as much in the filings. But who they work out the boxes etc it'll take time. But I think it's all going to come from the DIRECTV department.


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

Honestly, I see Verizon leasing their landline services, Exactly how the PPL electric does in Pa.

In PA we have this thing called Electric choice, you can buy your electronic from whom ever you choose, but PPL still owns the lines.
So you pay a Generation Charge from the provider you choose, and you pay PPL the Transmission charges.
Of course it's still one bill and sometimes it's cheaper and sometimes it's not for various reasons. 
But Verizon is more firmly planted here in PA than Att. So I'm curious to see the future. 

But again I don't see this being cost effective, I just see it being available.


----------



## CraigerM (Apr 15, 2014)

I found this article about combing the messaging styles of the two companies.

http://marcrudov.com/article/2015/01/23/att-directv-dilemma/


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

I agree with this article.


----------



## dennisj00 (Sep 27, 2007)

damondlt said:


> Then you have never been to PA! Ever!.
> 
> I'm fairly sure my Signature says Wayne County Pa.
> https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&ei=45fOVNb0BMWpgwTnmoTIBA&url=http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newfoundland,_Pennsylvania&ved=0CCEQFjAB&usg=AFQjCNEOd3VcFFcLni92K6pTzvSPx6yqAw


Check your sig. . . no mention of Wayne County.


----------



## JosephB (Nov 14, 2005)

VLaslow said:


> So, I wouldn't know if I was signing up for Uverse service or DirecTV service? Perfect!


When DirecTV is fully integrated, there won't be a difference. The idea is that what is today U-Verse will be functionally the same as DirecTV, just delivered over a different pipe. Most people won't know or care of how their TV is delivered, they buy based on cost and can they get their favorite channels. Don't think of it in terms of how folks on internet message boards dedicated to satellite TV think, because we're a tiny, tiny, TINY minority.



DN2014 said:


> But that is different, Cingular bought AT&T wireless, and kept the AT&T name


This is complicated. Old AT&T spun out AT&T Wireless as a separate company, so there were "two" AT&T's: the old legacy long distance AT&T (which owned some cable companies at that point) and the wireless AT&T. Cingular was a joint venture between SBC and BellSouth to get national coverage out of their wireless assets. Cingular bought AT&T Wireless and dropped the AT&T name. Then, a relatively short time later SBC bought the old long distance AT&T and renamed the combined company AT&T (the old AT&T having sold off their cable companies by now). Cingular kept using the Cingular name because it was not 100% owned by AT&T. Finally, a little while later the "new" AT&T (which was really just SBC) bought BellSouth and renamed everything to AT&T, including wireless, since it was now all 100% owned.



Diana C said:


> The most likely outcome is that the satellite service will become UVerse or the IP multicast video service will become DirecTV. It makes no sense to have two video services, owned by the same company and delivering nearly identical content to have two different names. UVerse today already refers to two different technologies, one fiber based, one DSL based, so adding a satellite based service is just another delivery medium.
> 
> Personally, I think DirecTV is TOO well known as a satellite service to use that name for fiber and DSL (and a future OTT service). So, if I had to bet, I'd say that DirecTV will get changed to UVerse. A customer will just subscribe to AT&T UVerse, and which medium it comes over will be determined by the location.


I don't know, most people don't really care if it's satellite or not. DirecTV has huge national presence as a TV brand, and U-Verse is extremely regional as a TV service. Plus, U-Verse refers to both TV and Internet. I could see them brand the TV service as DirecTV and use U-Verse for internet services (Unless they want everything under "one" brand then maybe they do use U-Verse for everything)



Diana C said:


> AT&T has already deployed a fixed LTE service (http://www.multichannel.com/news/technology/att-fixed-wireless-service-goes-nationwide/374744) that delivers between 5 and 12 Mbps. Verizon's XLTE uses a two AWS channels to deliver some amazing wireless speeds (I've gotten well over 40Mbps). Given the huge spectrum buy that AT&T and Verizon made in the most recent FCC auction round, they should be able to roll out their own wide channel solution, at least doubling those speeds.
> 
> So, LTE has some legs, but now that the FCC has defined Broadband as being 25 Mbps down and 3 Mbps up (it used to be 4 down, 1 up), only the upper end would have a chance to qualify.
> 
> ...


AT&T has promised a new fixed LTE service called Wireless Local Loop with minimum 10mbps speeds and "usage caps on par with our current DSL offerings" which is in the 300-500 GB/month range. It would use dedicated spectrum (10mhz per market) that isn't used for mobile users at all. Since it's fixed, they can aim directional antennas both at the tower and at the customer premise and get a ton of reuse out of that spectrum. This is their plan for getting service to non-U-verse wired locations in their wireline area so that they can shut down POTS but they've also promised to roll it out in all lower 48 states (though, not 100% coverage). Obviously satellite delivery for TV would be used for those customers who wanted TV service on top of it.

It's intriguing and sounds like a decent plan for rural customers, especially those right on the edge of coverage for U-Verse (like my parents who have 6mbps DSL and no cable option) but given AT&T's track record I'm skeptical until they come out with concrete plans.


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

JosephB said:


> When DirecTV is fully integrated, there won't be a difference. The idea is that what is today U-Verse will be functionally the same as DirecTV, just delivered over a different pipe. Most people won't know or care of how their TV is delivered, they buy based on cost and can they get their favorite channels. Don't think of it in terms of how folks on internet message boards dedicated to satellite TV think, because we're a tiny, tiny, TINY minority.
> 
> This is complicated. Old AT&T spun out AT&T Wireless as a separate company, so there were "two" AT&T's: the old legacy long distance AT&T (which owned some cable companies at that point) and the wireless AT&T. Cingular was a joint venture between SBC and BellSouth to get national coverage out of their wireless assets. Cingular bought AT&T Wireless and dropped the AT&T name. Then, a relatively short time later SBC bought the old long distance AT&T and renamed the combined company AT&T (the old AT&T having sold off their cable companies by now). Cingular kept using the Cingular name because it was not 100% owned by AT&T. Finally, a little while later the "new" AT&T (which was really just SBC) bought BellSouth and renamed everything to AT&T, including wireless, since it was now all 100% owned.
> 
> ...


Where did Att promise those claims?


----------



## JosephB (Nov 14, 2005)

damondlt said:


> Where did Att promise those claims?


In the initial application to the FCC for the DirecTV transaction.

They have since said in other FCC filings that this is also the technology they plan to use to decommission the old telephone network in areas that do not have U-Verse coverage.


----------



## CraigerM (Apr 15, 2014)

JosephB said:


> When DirecTV is fully integrated, there won't be a difference. The idea is that what is today U-Verse will be functionally the same as DirecTV, just delivered over a different pipe. Most people won't know or care of how their TV is delivered, they buy based on cost and can they get their favorite channels. Don't think of it in terms of how folks on internet message boards dedicated to satellite TV think, because we're a tiny, tiny, TINY minority.
> 
> This is complicated. Old AT&T spun out AT&T Wireless as a separate company, so there were "two" AT&T's: the old legacy long distance AT&T (which owned some cable companies at that point) and the wireless AT&T. Cingular was a joint venture between SBC and BellSouth to get national coverage out of their wireless assets. Cingular bought AT&T Wireless and dropped the AT&T name. Then, a relatively short time later SBC bought the old long distance AT&T and renamed the combined company AT&T (the old AT&T having sold off their cable companies by now). Cingular kept using the Cingular name because it was not 100% owned by AT&T. Finally, a little while later the "new" AT&T (which was really just SBC) bought BellSouth and renamed everything to AT&T, including wireless, since it was now all 100% owned.
> 
> ...


You are forgetting about HD streaming vs Tuners. For some customers HD streaming wont work. Plus I think people will care about the HD quality. Satellite will give better HD quality than copper lines.


----------



## JosephB (Nov 14, 2005)

CraigerM said:


> You are forgetting about HD streaming vs Tuners. For some customers HD streaming wont work. Plus I think people will care about the HD quality. Satellite will give better HD quality than copper lines.


That doesn't have anything to do with anything being discussed. For the minority of people who care about that kind of stuff, they can just specify satellite delivery. The brand name used doesn't affect that. They'll use the same brand for all of their TV services.


----------



## CraigerM (Apr 15, 2014)

JosephB said:


> That doesn't have anything to do with anything being discussed. For the minority of people who care about that kind of stuff, they can just specify satellite delivery. The brand name used doesn't affect that. They'll use the same brand for all of their TV services.


Sorry, I thought you were saying they would just have one delivery method. I agree one brand name for however a customer wants it. Will they still use one guide and the same channels for all their TV services?


----------



## JosephB (Nov 14, 2005)

CraigerM said:


> Sorry, I thought you were saying they would just have one delivery method. I agree one brand name for however a customer wants it. Will they still use one guide and the same channels for all their TV services?


They have already publicly said that they want to standardize on the DirecTV hardware and software platform for both IP and satellite delivery, and just about the entire economic rationale behind the merger is so that the DirecTV contracts with content providers then become the contracts for U-Verse, so channel availability should be the same.


----------



## CraigerM (Apr 15, 2014)

JosephB said:


> They have already publicly said that they want to standardize on the DirecTV hardware and software platform for both IP and satellite delivery, and just about the entire economic rationale behind the merger is so that the DirecTV contracts with content providers then become the contracts for U-Verse, so channel availability should be the same.


Interesting, I knew that they wanted to use the DTV hardware but I didn't see it in the FCC filling about them using the hardware for both IP and Satellite delivery.


----------



## JosephB (Nov 14, 2005)

CraigerM said:


> Interesting, I knew that they wanted to use the DTV hardware but I didn't see it in the FCC filling about them using the hardware for both IP and Satellite delivery.


I think that was just said in the media, not an FCC filing. I've heard it multiple times though, once from Randall Stephenson on TV himself. It makes sense, DirecTV owns the software and hardware development of their platform. U-Verse uses an outsourced 3rd party solution (Ericsson, formerly Microsoft, Mediaroom) and they just have to buy it off the shelf essentially plus Ericsson is completely overhauling it. Makes sense to standardize on one platform (of which DirecTV is already capable of IP distribution, it's used in condo/apartment complexes for example) and to pick the one you have 100% control over.


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

JosephB said:


> In the initial application to the FCC for the DirecTV transaction.
> 
> They have since said in other FCC filings that this is also the technology they plan to use to decommission the old telephone network in areas that do not have U-Verse coverage.


Where can I find those reports, On Directv.com press releases, or Att.com?
Because according to this, I don't see mention of your claims at all.
http://www.lightwaveonline.com/articles/2014/11/project-vip-capex-has-peaked-says-att.html


----------



## JosephB (Nov 14, 2005)

damondlt said:


> Where can I find those reports, On Directv.com press releases, or Att.com?
> Because according to this, I don't see mention of your claims at all.
> http://www.lightwaveonline.com/articles/2014/11/project-vip-capex-has-peaked-says-att.html


It's available at the FCC's website.

Also, it is alluded to in the link you posted: "The company repeated, however, that it still expects to enhance and expand its U.S. broadband access network to 15 million customer locations, primarily in rural areas, if and when its proposed acquisition of DIRECTV closes."

That is the Wireless Local Loop that they're talking about. Also, Project VIP is different than their project to turn off the old TDM switched circuit phone network. Project VIP was essentially their U-Verse rollout plan. And that article is correct, if you don't have U-Verse now, it's unlikely that you'll ever get U-Verse at this point.


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

If they can follow through with a plan like that, then that's great, but I don't see the method they use now as a good solution. 
But I bet that is what they "really" plan on doing.
But we'll see.


----------

