Slashdot Mirror
ATT, DirecTV Mega-Merger May Go Through
An anonymous reader writes: Hot on the heels of Comcast's failed attempt to swallow up Time Warner Cable, AT&T's pursuit of satellite provider DirecTV is plowing forward. What would be the result of a wireline and cellular mega-monopoly buying one of only two subscription satellite TV providers? Has to be worse than a Comcast/TWC marriage ... at least there, the territories and services offered didn't overlap at all, but AT&T offers voice, data, and television in many markets already. Adding satellite would stifle competition for television services (and to a lesser extent, because satellite is only best suited for rural installations, data).
Who is this anonymous reader who confidently asserts that it's worse?
How can it be worse? I call bullshit.
Restating the obvious since nineteen aught five.
I think we all knew Comcast was going to try again for the TW merger or move on to something else, this is too much for one corporation to control.
In fact I think Comcast should be broken up by region and/or forced to upgrade their networks to at least South Korea levels.
"If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
as BugsCast. AT&T wouldn't be able to go to content providers and dictate terms.
It seems that every time something great comes along to stir the pot such as Replay TV, something happens to ruin the fun. I am sure ATT will kill that little JEM before the ink has dried on the contract.
"A 'person' is smart. 'People' are dumb, panicky animals and you know that."
Sling TV is a part of Dish Network not DirecTV. A merger with AT&T can only help DirecTV's technology since they haven't innovated shit ever (I liked AT&T U-Verse, though).
SlingTV is offered by Dish, not DirecTV.
Comcast was voted the Worst Company in America in 2014. Time Warner doesn't win that contest, but they're often a strong contender. ATT Uverse and DirecTV don't have that problem.
The thing with DirecTV is, they've never really been more than a minor player in the area of providing high speed internet service to customers.
(Heck, these are the guys who still needed you to plug each satellite receiver into a phone jack so it could phone home to let you purchase pay-per-view programming, YEARS after everyone was otherwise rid of their dial-up modems.)
I know for a long time, they were offering "TV and internet bundles" that simply partnered with AT&T to sell someone DSL service as the internet portion of the package.
Yes, they sell satellite based broadband internet to people today ... but again, it's really just a niche market. Satellite based internet has such high latency, it makes it useless for online gaming (at least in many situations), and it's still pretty expensive if you're going to transfer a lot of data each month. Just like satellite TV, it loses signal in bad weather too.
If AT&T buys them out, I can't really envision the negative impact? It sounds like you'd still get some sort of satellite television subscription while using the service, regardless of the company brand name on the system -- and AT&T would have no reason to cancel your ability to do satellite internet. (I think they have their own satellite offering right now? Or at least they did until recently. Maybe they'd transition you over to it?)
And for those concerned that this would make their satellite connections more expensive? Dish Network has always been a little cheaper than DirecTV and you'd still be able to cancel and go with them instead, anywhere in the country.
Does Direct TV own some piece of the wireless spectrum that AT&T could make use of, or vice versa?
"We don't care, we don't have to, we're the phone company" doesn't quite sum it up anymore... and well, "We don't care, we don't have to, we're the phone/satellite company." just doesn't have as nice a ring to it.
... and that was short lived, as they couldn't compete in the "internet" market ... and still can't where I live).
death-star or no, AT&T just doesn't have the same flavor of evil as TWC & Comcast. Least not in my experience anyway (now, I've never had them for anything other than landline
But regardless of what they are after, I don't believe we need any more mega-communications companies. Neither of these companies has any serious record of operating in the public interest, This is a marriage like the daughter of Dracula and the wolfman. Whatever is born of the union will howl at the moon, suck our blood with every bill, and snarl at us when we call the help line,
u-verse needs to move most TV subs to sat with u-verse being for people with no LOS / rain fade backup. And stop saving bandwidth to the home for TV only / let people go to fast path.
Also higher bit rates on tv for gig power areas.
Yeah. DirectTV is one of the crappiest companies in existence (or at least that I've ever encountered and I've worked for a few that were real havens of suck).
I had the displeasure of dealing with them a few years ago and was locked into a contract where I needed to continue to do so for a year. Their service, whether technical or billing was always terrible and not a single call with them went by without me shouting at them over the phone. Even the final call was a lot of shouting and I think I just ended up hanging up on them with some rude language.
I wouldn't be surprised if DirecTV actually somehow made AT&T worse.
We keep trying to fix the wrong problem.
Fix the last mile problem, and everything else goes away.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
Our family was considering DirectTV because AT&T plays billing games, and TWC has flaky quality. Now we are stuck again because they will be the same thing.
Table-ized A.I.
I hate DirecTV. I refuse to have any business with them. If at&t merges, I will take my business elsewhere...
Huh? Are you saying DirecTV will help AT&T or the other way around? DirecTV is the reason why cable and Dish subscribers have as many HD channels as they do. HD was going nowhere until DirecTV launched new satellites and made nearly every channel HD. After that, the other providers were forced to get off their asses and do something. They also have whole house DVR, stream to your smartphone etc.
I have a big problem with Comcast being a service provider and a content producer. I think that is the same power AT&T is seeking. For connectivity, We have some great less known options such as small fiber companies and WISPs (local, noncellular Wireless Internet Providers) that are giving us alternate options for getting connected to the net. This is because in the end, the smaller companies are more hands on and personal and versatile providing service than the big guys that only want a blanket business model. But all that competition is moot if all the programming that everyone wants is owned buy AT&T and Comcast and requires there connecting. How can a small company make any money by the time they pay for the privilege of offering content. That might be a big problem in the furute. Perhaps it already is, It is already obvious that IPTV services are not universally available yet. My only light of hope is that hey, if I can't get Discovery Channel, maybe enough other people can't as well, and a clone of that network will grow up and give more options.
In fact I think Comcast should be broken up by region and/or forced to upgrade their networks to at least South Korea levels.
That's fine if you agree to upgrade the urban population density to at least South Korea networks.
OOOPS!! I have embarrassed myself in front of the entire internet. Sorry
"A 'person' is smart. 'People' are dumb, panicky animals and you know that."
Such a deal would be bad for consumers, for certain. I suspect that AT&T may be trying to compete with cable companies by offering a TV service of its own through the satellite which would then bundle with AT&Ts landline services. Perhaps protections will be put in place to not have an adverse anticompetitive impact on Dish TV, and other landline providers.
Now I am speaking from a technical perspective here and idealistically rather than how the chips would fall considering many of the current tendancies of the business players involved, frm a technical perspective alone the satellite distribution being used for national channels and the landlines being used for internet and local channels could free up a large amount of bandwidth on landline system for use by the Internet access by removing the channels from landline and using satellite for that. On the other hand, having the 10 or so local channels on the landline and removing them from the satellite could free up more room on the satellite for more video programming. The result overall is more efficient use of the resources. Satellite is better for national mass distribution of programming while landline has strengths in distributing local channels and internet services.
Consider a coaxial system can deliver about 1 Ghz of bandwidth, much of that is used now for 6 Mhz video channels. Imagine if most the entire 1 ghz could be used for internet alone and satellite would be used for providing TV access. The increase in bandwidthe for internet services would be dramatic.
One could imagine where people could combine the satellite with landline internet service. Technically, this actually makes sense. One fact about video distribution is that its somewhat more efficient on bandwidth for consumers to record their shows on the DVR off the channels rather than stream them. When DVRing off the channels is more of a situation where everyone on the network gets the program from the same data stream, which uses a lot less bandwidth than 500 people getting the program via 500 seperate streams. Nonetheless, streaming is a big fad even though it doesnt make as much technical sense as DVRing as far as bandwidth consumption.
Many of the kids here may not realize that long before DVRs we had VCRs where you did record programs off the cable onto VHS tape, and then replay the VHS tape at a later time. It was even possible to keep a copy of the program forever. Unlike DVRs you couldnt run out of space because you could just buy more VHS tapes. And unlike streaming, even if you cancelled a service such as a premium channel, your access to the programming wouldnt disappear. In many ways due to the fact your VHS tapes could be played on any device (not locked to one DVR), had no DRM crap, and wouldnt disappear when you cancelled a service, were superior expept in picture quality. Newer is definitely not better!
I mean ATT buys DirecTV.... Comcast wants TWC. .. all these companies are not there to do business with customer but to grab as many as they can and then monopolized the market and rape the customer..
I think FCC or whoever should never approve any mergers in Comm industry.
American gov is so sick... small business never gets merger(helping hand) while large companies can gobble up anything they want and like...
I think american gov should open door to let foreign comm giants to come and do business. let see what happens to ATT and Comcast then..
I thought updates needed only a downlink. Why can't the device receive updates over the air? Likewise, I thought authorization to play a particular program on a particular device needed only a downlink. Why can't the device let the user order PPV by logging into a website using a computer?
( non ton-foil hat version ) AT&T is diversifying their profit engines. It is quite likely you'll see them sell off the wire line side of the company in the near future. The acquisition of Direct TV is most likely how they will offset any profit loss of said wire line sale. ( long term ) Though, in an era where record numbers of folks are cutting their ties to both Cable TV and satellite programming, I'm not sure if the outcome will remain positive for very long without some major changes in how the satellite service is offered.