Slashdot Mirror


AT&T Buying DirecTV for $48.5 Billion

AT&T is acquiring satellite TV provider DirecTV in a deal worth $48.5 billion. This will bring 20 million more U.S. television subscribers under AT&T's roof, making it the second biggest TV provider, behind Comcast. The deal is subject to regulatory approval, and to help that along, AT&T says it will sell its 8% stake in America Movil, which is a competitor to DirecTV in some areas. "By acquiring the country’s biggest satellite television operator, AT&T will help bolster its competitive position against Comcast. Though pay television is considered a mature market whose subscriber growth has slowed dramatically in recent years, the business nonetheless generates billions of dollars in cash. ... Part of the attraction may be DirecTV’s ample cash flow. While its business has shown little growth in recent years, it generated about $8 billion in earnings last year. Much of that will go toward future investments in growth, AT&T said, including bidding at least $9 billion for wireless network capacity that the government plans to auction off soon. By gaining satellite TV, AT&T may also be able to free up capacity on its existing broadband network."

40 of 173 comments (clear)

  1. This has to be a troll post by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    AT&T can't be allowed to get any bigger than it is now. They had to break it up once already.

    1. Re:This has to be a troll post by symbolset · · Score: 3, Interesting

      AT&T charges their broadband customers $30/month++ to opt out of traffic monitoring for ad targeting.

      --
      Help stamp out iliturcy.
    2. Re:This has to be a troll post by hackus · · Score: 4, Informative

      Possibly the worst news since the TimeWarner merger crapola.

      You think your DirectTV PVR can't download your movies now?

      Wait till they start using the CRUD that is AT&T's network.

      Absolutely unacceptable.

      The reason why they are doing the acquisition is because Uverse sucks to HIGH HEAVEN. It is even worse than DirectTV, if you can imagine that.

      --
      Got Geometrodynamics? Awe, too hard to figure out? Too bad.
    3. Re:This has to be a troll post by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 5, Informative

      AT&T can't be allowed to get any bigger than it is now. They had to break it up once already.

      The AT&T broken up in 1983 was a different company. The current company called AT&T used to be Southwestern Bell. It acquired the rights to the name "AT&T" in 2005.

       

    4. Re:This has to be a troll post by ArhcAngel · · Score: 5, Informative

      SBC (formerly known as Southwestern Bell Corporation) acquired the rights by buying the original AT&T in 2005 for 16 billion so it's still part of the same company. SBC had already swallowed up numerous other baby bells prior to acquiring AT&T.

      --
      "A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." - K
    5. Re:This has to be a troll post by SumDog · · Score: 2, Informative

      Yea I remember that segment when it originally aired:

      http://www.ebaumsworld.com/video/watch/955486/

    6. Re:This has to be a troll post by mordenkhai · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I have had the opposite experience. Had DirecTV for 2 years, took them months to figure out why the HD channels had issues. Finally after I missed the last minute of a series finale for a personal favorite show I called and finally got someone who asked me to check satellite #2 signal, I didn't know there was a Satellite #2. The guy said "Yeah it is the HD feed". Sure enough, the dish hadn't been installed correctly. They came out and fixed it, but it was too late. As soon as my contract was up I left and tried Uverse, been good. Did a stint with Comcast as they entered the area with XFinity, and had a 50% off deal. After that, I am back at Uverse with no plans to leave.

    7. Re:This has to be a troll post by Lumpy · · Score: 2

      Uverse sucks because AT&T has not had any engineers that know ANYTHING about Fiber or Internet for 2 decades.

      Uverse should have been 100% IP and they should have delivered 100Mbps to every home over fiber to the house and then a single CAT-5 into the home. Then their TV could have been IPTV on set top boxes and everything would have worked decently.

      But no, they wanted to use their special crap, that stayed as crap and actually got crappier.

      This is why I really hope a company that is semi competent starts pushing Fiber to homes like Google, and then violently massacres all the cable TV/ISP companies out there.

      I want an OK-Corral type of bloodbath with companies like Comcast filing for Chapter 11 protection.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    8. Re:This has to be a troll post by pnutjam · · Score: 2

      The whole point of uverse was to avoid dropping new line to every home in a block. You upgrade the nearest termination point to fibre and push everything through copper. Bonus, you don't have to allow anyone onto your new fiber connected site.

  2. Which was probably a patent, sigh. by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 5, Insightful

    They are the last real competitor to terrestrial cable tv. And the only one whose DVR was bright enough to back up 10s when you fastforwarded through a commercial and released when you saw the show start whizzin' by.

    --
    (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    1. Re:Which was probably a patent, sigh. by Mr+D+from+63 · · Score: 2

      They are the last real competitor to terrestrial cable tv.

      My thoughts as well. Not to mention they have inside track on NFL Sunday Ticket. Since AT&T has the wireless broadband infrastructure and also DSL, they are the only company that will be able to keep Comcast/TWC in check.

    2. Re:Which was probably a patent, sigh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Since AT&T has the wireless broadband infrastructure and also DSL, they are the only company that will be able to keep Comcast/TWC in check.

      +1 Funny.

    3. Re:Which was probably a patent, sigh. by Chaos+Incarnate · · Score: 2

      Uhh... AT&T's DVR is equally as bright.

      --
      Benford's Corollary to Clarke's Law: "Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced."
  3. Well. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    We know where all the money they should be using on upgrading their network is going.

    1. Re: Well. by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 2

      What are your standards for 'just fine'? Sure, even DSL beats the atavistic barbarisms of the backwoods; but the majority of 'civilization' scrapes by on overpriced and underimpressive cable offerings, or incrementally superior and equally spendy FIOS, with just a few pockets of anything better than that, unless you live inside a colo or something.

    2. Re: Well. by ArhcAngel · · Score: 3, Informative

      Which is all relatively pointless when their connection to the backbone is fscked on purpose to keep your streaming choppy.

      --
      "A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." - K
    3. Re: Well. by Mabhatter · · Score: 2

      Those huge unbalanced numbers like 15/1 tell the tale of utilization right there. The current ISPs are all leeches from the "Internet" they don't PUT CONTENT on the Internet, so nobody wants to pay for more lanes to the highway.

      They also don't want upstream because people on their own network could out-host the regular Internet with services just between ISP subscribers... Like blackmarket prison goods!

  4. $48.5 billion? by PPalmgren · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If you spent HALF that on your network you'd crush your competition! What a crock of shit.

    1. Re:$48.5 billion? by tysonedwards · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Not that it really matters, but the majority of the deal is in stock...
      Also known as "we now own you, and in exchange your stockholders now hold a smaller portion of our stock instead!

      Only 30% of the deal is in cash, making it 14.5 Billion changing hands. Still a big number, but not as bad as it sounds.

      As such, it actually comes out a touch cheaper than the cost that DirecTV spent on their satellites in the first place, and AT&T gets to exploit the 16% profit margin on DirecTV's lines of service.

      --
      Thirty four characters live here.
    2. Re:$48.5 billion? by Bengie · · Score: 4, Informative

      First off, that $5.7b is for the first quarter, you know, 3 months. Second, that only applies to the 11.3mil Uverse customers. How many industries can get $166/month average per customer?

    3. Re:$48.5 billion? by nabsltd · · Score: 4, Insightful

      As such, it actually comes out a touch cheaper than the cost that DirecTV spent on their satellites in the first place, and AT&T gets to exploit the 16% profit margin on DirecTV's lines of service.

      And, it basically kills off any chance for improvement of DirecTV technologies:

      While its business has shown little growth in recent years, it generated about $8 billion in earnings last year. Much of that will go toward future investments in growth, AT&T said, including bidding at least $9 billion for wireless network capacity that the government plans to auction off soon.

      Basically, AT&T is going to cannibalize DirecTV by taking all the money from DirecTV to use on cell phone spectrum. So, no money for new satellites, improved encoding hardware, more servers for download of on demand, etc.

      I've been a DirecTV subscriber since 1999, and if this merger goes through, I'll have to start looking for some other provider. It might even make me cut the cord.

    4. Re:$48.5 billion? by Lumpy · · Score: 2

      If you think their CEO knows how to run a billion dollar business, then I chuckle at your naivety.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
  5. Nooooooooo!!! by opkool · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Nooooooooo!!!

  6. Sports by tepples · · Score: 5, Insightful

    cable television is something noone cares about [in] the age of the internet

    That might be true once decades-long carriage contracts between the networks and the cable system operators expire and once decades-long contracts between the major professional and collegiate sport leagues and the networks expire. Until then, we're left with games that get blacked out online if shown on national or regional cable networks.

  7. I was getting worried by Billly+Gates · · Score: 4, Funny

    We have too low prices and too much speed. Think of the poor telecoms! They are just struggling to stay relevant and if only they owned all the last miles then how could they grab amazon and Netflix by the balls and tripple dip since they already charge both ways?

  8. Farmers grow your food by tepples · · Score: 2

    No reason why my bill should pay to run cable for people who live in the middle of no where

    Because the people who grow the food you eat need a way to find the best market to sell the food that they grow.

    1. Re:Farmers grow your food by mysidia · · Score: 2

      and they manage to do that just fine without my fuel getting taxed extra to pay for their fuel.

      Your fuel IS taxed, and their fuel is exempt from the taxes.

      What do you think is happening?

      You are paying higher fuel tax to displace the revenue not gained as a result of them not paying fuel taxes.

  9. Re:They still don't support net neutrality... by Billly+Gates · · Score: 5, Informative

    who gives a f*k? cable television is something noone cares about... and anyone who does is a dumbass... this is the age of the internet.

    Right and what if 4 years from now your internet connection must include TV and HBO at $200 a month or NO internet for you! (soup Nazi voice from Seinfeld)

  10. 2 x 1 = 0 by Rick+Zeman · · Score: 2

    Two companies I refused to do (any more) business with trying to become one company I won't do any business with.

    How long til we end up with just ATT&T and Comcast as players?

  11. The cynic in me by Jahoda · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Cannot help but observe how convenient it will be for the American surveillance state when we have only two sources for delivery of media and internet to the home. But I'm sure this is just paranoid lunacy, right?

    1. Re:The cynic in me by tquasar · · Score: 2

      The NSA and, um what's the other one...?

  12. AT&T versus ... AT&T by John.Banister · · Score: 2

    A little over 10 years ago, Comcast merged with AT&T Broadband, which was the USA's largest cable television operator at that time. Now it comes down to one AT&T operation versus another. If divestiture hadn't happened, they might still be a utility, which is probably why we had divestiture.

  13. Satellite and Cell Phone is Good Enough? by ps_inkling · · Score: 2

    I am afraid that, by owning a satellite television provider and a satellite internet provider, AT&T will proclaim that they have fulfilled the "universal service" mandate and refuse to upgrade any more legacy copper wire plant. There have been rumors that AT&T will not run new copper lines to a home or business if they are covered by any cell phone tower or any competing phone provider (including VoIP from another provider); nor will they replace faulty or noisy existing copper lines, since you could get service from a competitor.

  14. Srsly? by ArhcAngel · · Score: 5, Informative

    Okay, so let them make that part of the "cost of doing business", like other just about every other business has to do. Farmers also have to have fuel to operate and haul equipment, seed, fertilizer/herbicide/pesticide, and product to and from "civilization", and they manage to do that just fine without my fuel getting taxed extra to pay for their fuel. I'd argue that fuel is a lot more important to the process than cheap high-speed Internet.

    Fuel Tax in the USA
    IRS definitions for non-taxable fuel uses "On a farm for farming purposes"
    You might want to do a little research BEFORE embarrassing yourself on /. which is pretty hard given all the competition but you have won the /. lottery this night my friend.

    --
    "A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." - K
  15. Re:Maybe it's time to switch from the soapbox to.. by whistlingtony · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Assholes always preaching the gun. Meanwhile less than half the population bothers to vote. Lets actually USE the ballot box before we switch to the ammo box, huh? I mean, I get the allure, but that sort of things has a really shitty history of actually working.

    Hell, if we all organized and stopped buying NIKE products until they told congress to behave, then moved from company to company just NOT buying products, we'd get immediate action. We could NOT do things and if we did it in an organized fashion, shit would change.

    Or you could try taking your AR-15 and going up against military hardware and training. Good Luck!

  16. Choice by Hamsterdan · · Score: 2

    Say goodbye to affordable internet and tv boys & girls....

    --
    I've got better things to do tonight than die.
  17. Re:The empire rises again by whistlingtony · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Yup. That finger in our ass is the invisible hand of the Free Market. :D

    Whenever someone tells me that the Free Market is better at regulating companies that government, I ask them to show me ONE example, since its so simple and easy. Just one. No, the gay hating wedding cake place doesn't count. Show me an example where a LARGE company EVER was punished by consumers for being assholes.

    I still remember watching people roll into the ARCO (Part of B.P., it's right on the sign) gas station near my house right after the B.P. oil rig spill in the Gulf. There was a Shell right across the street. People just didn't care. It was 5cents cheaper a gallon. That's less than a buck savings on a regular gas tank, and the ignorant !@#$ers didn't even think about it. It still bothers me to this day.

  18. Re:They still don't support net neutrality... by sjames · · Score: 2

    Forget demand, you'll have to outbid them on the congressman auction. Good luck!

  19. Re:They still don't support net neutrality... by tsqr · · Score: 2

    the people who buy it generally buy it because the bundle costs less with cable than it does without, or they are dumbasses who dont realize how to watch their shows online.

    People who watch all of their shows online are a tiny fraction of viewers in total, and people who don't share your attitudes in this regard aren't "dumbasses"; they just have different preferences and priorities than you have.

  20. Re:They still don't support net neutrality... by sjames · · Score: 2

    If the choice is Tweedledee and Tweedledum and both got a nice 'bonus' check, good luck.

    You'll need double good luck to get the GOP to agree to nationalize anything.