Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

ATT, DirecTV Mega-Merger May Go Through

Posted by timothy on from the so-long-as-the-destruction-is-creative dept.

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).

12 of 82 comments (clear)

  1. Has to be worse? by Yebyen · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.
    1. Re:Has to be worse? by DigiShaman · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Equally bad perhaps? Who cares, block it! The industry is already an oligopoly. Any merger of these companies is unwarranted.

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    2. Re:Has to be worse? by geekmux · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Who is this anonymous reader who confidently asserts that it's worse?

      How can it be worse? I call bullshit.

      What does it matter when at the end of the day a suitcase full of cash and a few dozen lobbyists will trump every single anti-monopoly law we have in existence.

      In the end, we will have but 3 or 4 main players offering up damn near every service you use in your life. And you're going to take it and like it, no matter how much it cost, because a suitcase full of cash and a few dozen lobbyists guaranteed you have no one else to turn to for those services.

      Now let's sit back and enjoy the corporate overlord show. After all, there's not a damn thing you can do to change it.

      Think you can? Now I'm the one calling bullshit.

    3. Re:Has to be worse? by squiggleslash · · Score: 4, Informative

      Well, I'll take a stab at it.

      TWC and Comcast were two companies that offered the same product in completely different markets. In terms of their affect on the market, they would have had more power over, say, publishers (ie the TV networks), but no more power over, say, home Internet/Cable/Telephone prices than they did before, as the amount of competition in each area would have been unchanged.

      The power over publishers may have been good or bad, depending on whether it's "We insist you unbundle ESPN and make it a la carte, or else nobody in half the country will be able to get it or the other networks you want bundled any more!" or "We insist that Comedy Central now be a TWComcast-only channel!" thing.

      DirecTV and AT&T however are two companies that offer overlapping products in overlapping markets. Therefore, if you already live in an area served by AT&T, you will get one less choice (and thus see less competition) for TV service (at minimum) than you did before. Meanwhile AT&T gets to also turn the screws on TV networks. And additionally AT&T gets less suitors for bundling Internet access with satellite service - namely Dish Network can no longer offer discounted broadband by reselling AT&T's.

      So yeah, it's worse.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    4. Re:Has to be worse? by Gr8Apes · · Score: 2

      What does it matter when at the end of the day a suitcase full of cash and a few dozen lobbyists will trump every single anti-monopoly law we have in existence.

      So Comcast is buying TWC?

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    5. Re:Has to be worse? by ciscoguy01 · · Score: 2

      Well, I'll take a stab at it.

      TWC and Comcast were two companies that offered the same product in completely different markets. In terms of their affect on the market, they would have had more power over, say, publishers (ie the TV networks), but no more power over, say, home Internet/Cable/Telephone prices than they did before, as the amount of competition in each area would have been unchanged.

      While your attempt was noble, this is completely wrong. Both are already monopolies in 90%+ of their market areas. But at least now people can complain that the "other one" is only charging xyz for service in the next town over. IF the merger had gone through the "new" company would just raise prices and lower service EVERYWHERE...

      You completely misunderstood, the parent was saying that Directv and ATT were competing, not TWC and Comcast. For consumers, TWC and Comcast do not compete. Whereas today, if AT&T Uverse TV rips you off you can dump them for DirecTV, who will then rip you off instead.
      If the merger goes through you won't be able to switch providers, or the ripoff will be computer coordinated to continue. They have rules and filters set up to do that.

      --
      .
    6. Re:Has to be worse? by Solandri · · Score: 2

      More to the point, some time back in the 1980s or 1990s, the cable companies and municipalities were sued over the government-granted monopolies they were getting for subscription TV service. They eventually prevailed in court with the argument that satellite TV companies like DirecTV and Dish provided sufficient competition that they weren't really a monopoly. i.e. Even if a city gave Comcast a local cable TV monopoly, anyone in the area could subscribe to DirecTV instead, so it wasn't really a TV service monopoly. This is why Comcast, TW, Verizon, AT&T, etc. are currently allowed to be given service monopolies by the local government.

      I really don't see how this merger can be approved. Either they'll have to risk giving up their local cable monopolies (which they'll never do willingly), or they're gonna have to prove Dish alone is a viable competitor. This is further complicated now that Internet service is a major component of their offerings. Satellite TV companies which offer Internet service typically use satellite for the downlink but DSL for the uplink. Which was OK when the DSL, cable, and satellite companies were all different. But with Verizon and AT&T effectively turning DSL and cable companies into the same thing, for Dish to provide Internet service they'd have to contract with AT&T, who is their competitor for TV service.

  2. Re:Crap, and Sling TV has only been out for months by Tauvix · · Score: 3, Informative

    SlingTV is offered by Dish, not DirecTV.

  3. Re:Comcast and Time Warner by oodaloop · · Score: 2

    AT&T's logo is the Death Star, fer cryin' out loud. Just because they're not as bad as Comcast, doesn't mean they're not terrible.

    --
    Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
  4. Worse? Probably not! by King_TJ · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

  5. Is this all about spectrum? by apcullen · · Score: 2

    Does Direct TV own some piece of the wireless spectrum that AT&T could make use of, or vice versa?

  6. A merger made in Gehenna by whizbang77045 · · Score: 3, Interesting
    Directv's internet is so bad, that I don't see how AT&T could make it worse. I wonder if they may not really be after a way to distribute content.

    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,