Slashdot Mirror
SBC Considering Buying DirecTV
Guppy06 writes "Throwing their hats into a ring that includes News Corporation, Cablevision, and General Electric, this NYT article (yadda yadda yadda) reports that #2 Baby Bell SBC is interested in buying DirecTV. After federal and state anti-trust authorities shot down DirecTV's purchase of EchoStar recently, their purchase by a corporation that already has its own state-mandated telephone monopoly is... "interesting" to say the least. Those of us who dislike government monopolies are left hoping either News or GE wins this one (if a sale even takes place)." One of the other suitors for DirecTV has been Murdoch's Fox.
It's the only way phone companies can really strike out at cable companies. Makes it interesting though...what if they did broadband bonding where you could get data down both the sat and the DSL line? This could certainly make inroads in the rural customer segment.
Either way, both choices beat the crap out of option (C) which is Cablevision buying DirecTV. That would be like Oil companies buying the first cold fusion generator only to hold the patent and not allow anyone to use it.
Ok, that anology sucked a little, mod me down :-(
I mean, we all know that the phone companies are the devil, and the government sucks, but who ever heard of GE's attrocious business practices?
I've had SBC downgrade my phone service gradually over the years. Can't complain about it: this company is not reachable by telephone. Can't even drive to their office to complain too: know one allowed in.
Can't get a competing company. SBC takes my service fees and uses them to lobby against allowing companies like AT&T to complete.
The states that regulate utilities should at least require the phone company to answer their phones....
Just because SBC operates as a monopoly in many local phone markets does not make the entire firm a monopoly. If it acquired DirecTV it would defiantly have to be a competitive firm as it entered the Cable/Satellite market.
The real benefit I see to SBC in this is that they want to encourage people to have satellite tv since satellite TV subscribers usually have DSL and not cable modems. They may try and cut you some deal if you sign up for both, a "switch away from your cable company" kind of deal.
Another weird side not is that I've seen in Fort Worth where SBC provides "cable" service to apartment complexes but their "cable boxes" are really DirecTV receivers and they just have one dish for the entire complex (or area, I'm not sure) and split the signal from it up to all of the apartments.
...
People who live outside the US already know the joys of NewsCorp's monopoly on satellite broadcasting - they run the Sky satellite networks and in many markets (e.g. the UK), they are the only satellite provider.
Now, I have a deep and abiding dislike and mistrust for the News Corporation, so perhaps someone who actually lives somewhere under their monopoly can share their experiences?
-Isaac
I am not a lawyer, and this is not legal advice. For Entertainment Purposes Only.
Perhaps they want to use the DirectTV spectrum for things other then just TV service?
Great service, great support.
We've got a T1 and ISDN circuit from them
Their long distance service is horrendously expensive, so we only use them for the circuits.
McLeod USA used to re-sell the SBC service around here. With them getting in the way, it was horrible. But lately, SBC has been doing 'buy-backs' and we're getting better pricing that McLeod gave us (Which was much better than what SBC originally offered)
SBC around here used to be Ameritech, and Michigan Bell before that.
As it stands now, HDTV remains somewhat on the fringes of the television market, but with each new digital TV, this remains less and less true. And those subscribers that have DirecTV that upgrade their sets have few options:
1. they will need an IRD (DTV "box") upgrade that runs about $500. Plus they will usually need a new dish and someone to come out and re-aim it for them -- the football dishes are no charm to aim and get all of the DTV satellite constellation.
2. when they do upgrade their IRD they get three HD channels -- and no local stations. They can only get HBO, HD-Net and Discovery Channel in HD.
On the other hand, terrestrial based cable systems have made up a lot of ground. They offer most all of the old analog-based channels that once distinguished DTV, AND they also offer ABC, NBC, CBS, Fox, HBO, PBS in their HD offerings. Add to that a sub-TiVo POD, HBO on Demand.
That says to me that DTV faces a major competitive disadvantage in the future. The only way that they can add more capacity is to launch more distribution satellites, and until they do, they cannot begin to match the HD offering that Time Warner and others are offering today. As it is now, TW already has a better picture with less pixellation on ALL channels.
Whoever gets DTV had better be aware of this, or they will face a major uphill battle as the transformation of TV from analog to digital takes place.
Fox? Centrist?
Maybe if you are comparing them to Joseph Goebbels' Nazi propaganda machine.
Fox is Duh!bya's main cheerleader, and they love taking potshots at anyone even remotely left of him.
Fox, the media juggernaut (not merely the Fox News Channel, but taken together) is easily more rapacious and oozing with evil than any other media juggernaut. Why is the common Internet term for taking down a fan site called a "Foxing?" It's not called a Warnering or a Viacomming, it's called a Foxing.
And then there's the matter of Fox as a purveyor of bad taste. Joe Millionaire. Who Wants To Marry A Millionaire? Celebrity Boxing. Temptation Island. Married With Children...well, that was actually FUNNY, but that's beside the point. Fox is the worst offender in the "least common denominator" derby. I suppose that's to be expected from the company that owns the most "Sundays" (tabloid rags) in the UK and Australia, and runs the New York Post, a tabloid rag. I don't know if they own any of the nationally distributed tabloid rags in the US, but they certainly run the NY Post.
There are so many reasons to hate the News Corp/Fox octopus. Let's hope they don't get anywhere near DirecTV.
Unlike most networks, FOX owns most of the TV stations that are affiliated with them
This is because about ten years ago Rupert Murdoch decided he wanted Fox to be on VHF stations exclusively, and set about buying his way into them. I can see why - I can't pick up UHF stations for shit in my apartment. I get to watch new Simpsons episodes if and when they air, but the *former* Fox affiliate still gets to air the syndicated episodes. And getting cable only solves that particular problem. The whole Time-Warner/FoxSports.net fiasco means that I'd get about 10,000 different ESPN's, but I couldn't watch The Best Damn Sports Show Period at any price.
Don't weep for my plight; I do enough of that myself.
The only surefire protection against Microsoft infections is abstinence. - The Onion
I'm one of the "consumers" that ended up paying $4,500 for a SMART CARD PROGRAMMER. ($3500 to DirecTV's law firm, and $1000 to my lawyer.) I hired a lawyer because I AM NOT A THIEF, I'M A SECURITY PROFESSIONAL.
I bought a $35 device on a website for LEGIT purposes (smart card research for a major fortune 100 company) and I got SUED by DirecTV.
In the end, it turned out that paying the $3500 settlement would be cheaper and less risky than fighting it in court. You see, if I lose then I can lose my job and my security credentials, EVEN THOUGH I DID NOTHING WRONG. It's a civil case, not a criminal one, so things like "evidence" and "innocent until proven..." are meaningless. It's just simply a matter of how nasty a picture can their law firm paint of me? Can they make a bunch of non-tech old ladies think I'm a potential pirate?
I hope whoever buys DirecTV goes bankrupt. I will see them in the inner circle of hell. I wouldn't buy a product from any company affiliated with DirecTV if they were giving it away with free sex.
Now, I have a deep and abiding dislike and mistrust for the News Corporation, so perhaps someone who actually lives somewhere under their monopoly can share their experiences?
To be honest, I actually like Sky's (in the UK) output. Other than the occasional price hike my main grumble is when they display a red button in the top of the screen to remind you that they have an interactive service - which often has little to do with the programme being shown (on Sky One at least, some of the other broadcasters who use the red button do so only when there is interactive content associated with programme). I don't see a need for the red button (we never needed to be reminded that teletext was available and most of the 'interactive services' are little more than a pretty version of teletext) but there's no way of permantly shutting it off.
As for competetion it would be nice, but there was competetion on satellite a long time ago (BSB), but they failed. There was again some hope that digital terrestrial tv (DTT) would provide competetion, but the first lot who tried failed, and now DTT is seen as way for people who don't want sky or cable to get a few extra channels.
All in all, while I think sky could be better in some respects, it's still pretty good and it could have been worse (BSB could have won and due to the technology used, it probably wouldn't have more than 10 channels - even if they switched to digital they still would only have had 10 transponders to play with). Anyway, it's not like Sky have a government mandate to force people to buy a subscription even if they just want to watch free tv (unlike a certain other UK broadcaster).
Tk
At some point, somewhere, the entire internet will be found to be illegal.
"Corporations are accountable to their shareholders" That is only one third of the story, and as such is rather misleading. Corporations are accountable to their shareholders AND customers AND workers. Without all 3, the corporation will fail. "Government is accountable to the people." In theory, but since it has a monopoly on power, this just isn't the case most of the time. Instead, it ends up being like a corporation that isn't accountable to anyone.
However in other markets Rupert is pro whatever party is in power provided they are responsive to his commercial interests. Rupert backs Tony Blair in the UK despite the fact his Labour party still calls itself socialist and is well to the left of Ted Kenedy.
In China Rupert backs the communists. This is why you don't see much criticism of China in the US Murdoch press since Rupert does not want to offend his masters there.
Rupert does have some political convictions but they are all driven by his commercial interests. He is anti-union and anti any government attempts to enforce anti-trust regulations. This is why he is one of the few businessmen opposed to the Euro, he recognises Brussels as a threat to his empire.
So while Lott, Guiliani, Rove and co are trying to push DirectTV into his grasp they should be careful what they wish for. They would not be the first set of right wing ideologues Rupert has dispensed with. He dropped the British Tory party the minute it was clear they could not win the 1997 general election.
If Bush comes a cropper in Iraq with loony fundamentalists blowing stuff up left right and center in a war of attrition Rupert will have no qualms about dumping them. He would replace O'Riley and co with Noam Chomsky if he though that is the way the political winds are blowing.
Rupert is a grade one shit, he has absolutely no interest in the well being of any country other than his own which is not the UK, US or China, it is Australia, and don't believe that purchase of a US passport changes that.
Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
Well, from what I read over the weekend, it doesn't seem that SBC was all the eager to jump in and buy DTV. It was more a case of Murdoch being the only current serious suitor, and GM asked for some other companies to step in and create some competition in the bidding process, and hence increase the final sales price.