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.
Rupert Murdoch owns News Corp of which Fox (the network with the Simpsons) is a part. News Corp also owns many newspapers, the Fox News Channel, and lots of sports stuff. Just a heads up Hemos.
11 was a racehorse
12 was 12
1111 Race
12112
Doesn't matter to me. Until they let DirecTV show the Big 4 networks outside of just a few markets, it is just not worth it to switch from cable and lose The Simpsons (or, insert your favorite fox,cbs,nbc,abc show).
WideOpenWest is a good example of what a cable company can do when you get RID OF SBC-like overhead. Background: WOW bought the failed Ameritech cable unit from SBC some time ago - now they are profitable and offer rates half of the competitors.
Life is the leading cause of death in America.
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.
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.
I sure hope that Fox gets it, because I can't imagine the horror of News Corp running things.
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 :-(
Here in Indiana, we've gotten horrible service from SBC. Over the last 3 years I've probably had about a dozen service calls required for our phone service, all of which were due to their system (nothing wrong inside our house). Their technicians failed to show up when promised, and at one point we had no phone service for over a week (and no, there weren't any unusual circumstances like extensive storm damage in the area). Granted, a satellite system should be less service-intensive, but I'm a happy DirecTV customer who doesn't want to send another dime SBC's way!
Stop by my site where I write about ERP systems & more
I think Fox is owned by News Corp., so they wouldn't be "another suitor", and if I remember correctly, it was Echostar buying Directv, not the other way around.
posted via satellite
SBC wouldn't know how to treat a customer properly if their existance depended on it. Unfortunately they can pretty much do what they please, as they have near monoploy status now. I would hate to see Direct-TV fall to them.
As for me, I'm now in a baby-bell free zone, and love it.
The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers. Shakespeare, Henry VI, Part 2, Act 4, Scene 2
SBC = horrible. Horrible.
:(
Let's hope FOX is the winner. Yeah I might loose CNN or something, but if SBC gets my DirectTV I'll order Porn for the weekend and end up with soccer or something.
Grimwell - old, cranky, mean, obsessive
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.
...
Yeah, like letting me go to the bathroom during commercials!
slashdot: where everyone yells sarcastic metaphors to themselves to understand the issue
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?
Phone: SBC
Cell Phone: Cingular Wireless (SBC Owned)
Satellite Provider: SBC DirecTV
Internet Provider: SBC Yahoo! DSL
When SBC Gas & Electric and SBC Waste Removal become a reality, I'll just start signing my check over to them.
Public use of any portable music system is a virtually guaranteed indicator of sociopathic tendencies. -- Zoso
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.
First, to clarify the present situation: GE owns Hughes Electronics/DirecTV. It is not considered a "core asset", so they desperately want to get rid of it. First, Rupert Murdoch bid on DirecTV, and planned on spinning off all of his global satellite TV assets into a new company, Sky Global, upon completion of the sale. Then EchoStar, owners of Dish Network, made an unsolicited bid that was higher than Murdoch's, and he decided not to match it. Eventually, the EchoStar-DirecTV combination was rejected on monopoly grounds, because the government (rightly so) recognized that if satellite TV assets are privately owned, there needs to be more than one owner; ideally three or more, but even two is better than one.
The SBC deal brings up a new set of problems. There is no more fear about rural consumers losing the benefits of competition, because SBC does not currently own satellite assets. However, due to having a government-approved monopoly over local telephone service, SBC has a unique advantage in that it can never die; it has a core business that practically everyone living in its target market needs, and that no competitor is allowed to offer. Thus, it can leverage its telephone monopoly to offer satellite service at a loss if its needs to, until other competitors are driven out of the market, and then drive prices back up.
There's a larger problem here that needs to be addressed, that of natural monopolies. Some services, most notably utilities that involve physical wires or pipes (water, oil, TV, phone, internet), are such that it would be absurd for two companies to compete in an open market. There is absolutely no reason why we should spend limited resources on building two sets of water pipes, or two sets of cable wires. Also, some of these services, especially oil, electricity, and water, are essential to life (modern or otherwise).
It takes the most die-hard corporate libertarian to argue that someone should be allowed to profit off basic human needs. And they'd be wrong. Municipal power companies have been enormously successful, if for no other reason than they have no profit motive; they only need to provide people with a useful service. All natural monopolies should be redesigned on that model. Whether city, county, or even state-owned, I want to see some (relatively local) level of government controlling electricity, energy, water, and telecommunications distribution.
Corporations are accountable to their shareholders. Their sole motive is to make a profit. Government is accountable to the people. Its motive is to provide for all citizens' basic needs, and (in our case) to ensure that corporations do not abuse their power. Which one would you rather control your wires?
DirectTV seems to be a rock solid company, not sure about SBC's stability.
Obama = Socialism.
hahaha, that's funny. I wonder how many people said that about Enron back in 2000.
SBC advertises "infinite service" and I know what that means: ... rinse, repeat.
I've had to call SBC twice about billing problems of their own making. Both times Customer Service says "we can't help you" and transfers me to Collections and Credit who says "we can't help you" and transfers me to Customer Service
So can they give this infinite service for my TV dish too?
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.
Sunday ticket is the reason most people even have Directv. By the way, who doesn't have the option of Directv? Unless you have big trees in your yard or don't live in the US, you have the option.
"All part of the Satellite Home Viewers Protection Act... More like the Big 4 Network protection Act!" It has nothing to do with networks. It has everything to do with protecting local affiliates. This "protection" should not be allowed, anyway. It is like passing a law to get rid of USA Today newspaper boxes in town to protect the local newspaper.
GM has been looking to spin off DirecTV for years now. They want to pare down to a core business (cars), that's why they sold the satellite division of Hughes. They were at first reluctant to let go of the rest, though many of us (I'm a stockholder) think the division wouild do much better on its own. It's certainly not doing well with GM; the stock has fallen for 2-3 years now. GM has appeared indecisive -- a problem with big automobile companies and another reason to pare down.
... depending on whether one wants to stay with the company longterm. I hope they don't screw their subscriber base that has taken so long to build. Murdoch does have a rep for greed.
Bummer the Echostar thing didn't fly. I think that honestly would have been good for consumers. It was the rural customers without cable alternative that were the primary snag, though you'd think something could have been worked out. I don't like the idea of one company owning both cable and satellite businesses.
Some time ago, Rupert's News Corp wanted to buy GM (the whole thing!) as a way to get to DirecTV. The price wasn't right IIRC.
That doesn't mean any old buyer is a good idea
What did the article author mean by "government monopolies"? I missed the gov't element here.
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.
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.