SBC Considering Buying DirecTV 247
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.
News Corp. == Fox (Score:5, Informative)
Re:News Corp. == Fox (Score:2, Informative)
Re:News Corp. == Fox (Score:4, Informative)
Rupert, his children, ex-wives, and his current wife Wendi Deng (IIRC, a former newsreader for his Star TV channel in Hong Kong half his age) control somewhere between 30 and 60% of the News Corporation. Rupert is widely quoted as believing that it's impossible for an effective media empire to be run without one person or family having a controlling stake (the problems of Time Warner (which were around long before AOL bought them) and other media conglomerates bear this out). It's still somewhat up in the air who will succeed Rupert; the favorites are currently his two sons, Lachlan (who has not had colossal failures but may lack the attitude and risk-taking Rupert wants to see) and James (who has a checkered record of success, but seems to be more of a risk-taker) are the favorites, but his daughter is a possibility, as is his current wife (who is reportedly a major behind-the-scenes player in the operations of News Corp.).
Re:News Corp. == Fox (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Re:News Corp. == Fox (Score:2)
You nailed this one! Murdoch is after market share, and will support whatever political viewpoint gives it to him. But I doubt if he has any much allegiance to any country -- even Australia -- only to himself.
Re:News Corp. == Fox (Score:2)
It's interesting to note that, back in his (I think Cambridge, but he may have gone to Oxford) college days, he had a bust of Lenin in his room and he and his drinking buddies would salute it every night.
Re:News Corp. == Fox (Score:2)
Ted is currently negotiating with AOL Time Warner to buy back his sports teams and quite possibly CNN. Basically Ted realises that putting clueless Bimbos like Paula Zahn on the set is the way to make your ratings tank, not to rescue them. Every one of CNNs main advertising draws is a long timer from the Ted Turner era.
Ted also notes that the ratings for Fox's right wing pap only tell half the story. Advertising rates for Fox are less than half those of CNN. Basically the rednecks in the bible belt are not only too poor to benefit from the Bush tax cuts, they are too poor to buy enough stuff to interest advertisers.
Could be interesting if that deal takes place, Ted certainly has the passion that CNN has been lacking recently. Nobody wants to watch Connie Chung and Larry King doing week long reviews of the Jon Bennet Ramsey case, we all know who killed her and like the OJ case they ain't going to get punished for it.
It would be much more suprising if Ted bought DirectTV, that would require a heck of a lot more capital.
Re:Right wing pap? (Score:2)
Fox's idea of telling both sides is to tell you why the Republicans are right and then tell you why everyone else is wrong.
Whenever a left wing idea is raised on Fox the presenter immediately shouts it down or pour derision on it. Right wing loons like Ann Coulter are treated with absolute respect however.
The fact is that right wing idealogues are so intollerant of any other ideas that merely to hear a left wing view makes them get into a lather. Thats why they have to have their own parallel media where the range of views is Bill O'Riley to Rush Limbaugh and the standard of journalism is set by Matt Drudge.
Rupert understands that producing 'news' for such people is a lot cheaper that real journalism. One shouting head, no matter how well paid is a lot less expensive than a news staff.
Re:Right wing pap? (Score:2)
It is no secret that CNN has been moving rightward to try to stem the flow to Fox. However CNN is not prepared to become a full time Republican propaganda machine, it can see why the head of news should not be sending Karl Rove political advice on dealing with the media.
CNN has also backed off its rightward drift after they started to lose viewers to MSNBC as a result.
Another element in the mix is Al Gore's 'Republican Echo Chamber' speech where he showed that its not only the GOP who are prepared to work the refs. It is notable that since Trent Lott was dispatched as a result of that speech there have been absolutely no stories making it out into the mainstream media by way of Matt Drudge, the Washington Times and the Murdoch press. This is not for lack of trying, their current project is to smear Kerry in case he gets the Democratic nomination for President.
Re:Countering left-wing pap (Score:2)
Strange how Mr Anonymous defends the republican echo chamber against the smear charge by repeating yet again a notorious GOP smear. As has been repeatedly demonstrated on slashdot, Gore never claimed to have invented the Internet. It was a GOP press release that made that claim by deliberately taking a quote out of context.
As for working for a campaign, it is strange how GOP Anonymous Cowards appear to try to shout down any disident views.
Re:Wolf Blitzer the Republican? (Score:2)
Correct but out of context, the true quote begins, 'in my time in Congress'. A congressional initiative is a funding initiative. The Internet was invented by Vint Cert, Tim Berners-Lee, myself et. al. The Internet was created through a government grant which Gore took the lead in getting funded. Gore's quote was deliberately and maliciously taken out of context by the GOP.
The very fact that you keep trying to peddle such smears shows how little confidence you have in both your arguments and the empty suit you call a President. It also shows how willing you are to deceive both yourselves and the voters.
Small wonder that so few other countries are willing to support the US in war with Iraq, the problem is that Bush simply has no credibility and that is the result of his own deceptions and evasions. In two years the failure in the Whitehouse has turned a historic budget surplus into a historic deficit, started a war but failed to finish it with the capture of either the Taleban or Al Qaeda leadership, lost a majority in the Senate through sheer incompetence and alienated every other major power with the sole exception of the UK. About the only campaign pledges he has kept are giving out huge tax 'cuts' for the hyper-rich which are not really cuts at all but transfers of the tax burden to future generations and not having any blow jobs in the oval office.
Re:Al Gore in context (Score:2)
And whose campaign pledge was all about taking responsibility? Yep the empty suit in the Whitehouse who has tried to evade responsibility at every turn.
Bush can't even keep his Harken oil lies straight. One minute its the SEC lost his filing, the next it is his lawyers to blame.
Perhaps those lawyers were also to blame for the gap in his military records when he went AWOL for 14 months?
It takes a very special type of coward to manage to both dodge the draft by getting Daddy to pull strings and then actually desert to boot.
Re:The empty suit (Score:2)
Yet another GOP fib, first off the President lost the popular vote, secondly he was the one who went to court to steal the election by stopping the votes being counted. The man is a fraud, deal with it.
As for the opinion polls the failure in the Whitehouse claims not to govern by, Clinton was actually more popular at this point in his term, despite the Lewinsky scandal. Bush I was phenominaly popular and look where it got him.
He's been quite forthcoming and honest about the Harkin thing, which is why it is ancient history, gone over and dismissed during the Texas years
He has refused to answer all questions on the Harken scandal. Every question has been referred back to the SEC 'investigation' run by his Dad's appointees.
And the reason we are going back to Harken is that Bush made his money at Harken through precisely the same fraudulent stock and accounting tricks used at Kenny-boy Lay's Enron.
Bush served his country during the Vietnam War. Like a huge number of people, he served stateside
His commanding officer states that he did not report for duty, there are no records of him serving anywhere else. That is called being AWOL.
One would think that the GOP would have at least given you instructions on how to sign up instead of having to be an AC all the time. As it is it looks like I might be having this argument with myself as a way of bringing to people's notice the corruption, cowardice and incompetence of the failure in the Whitehouse.
Why FOX owns everything (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
One request (Score:1)
Re:One request (Score:3, Funny)
Re:One request (Score:2)
Coming soon: SBC Yahoo! TiVo (Score:1)
Amazing (Score:1, Insightful)
Some people never learn.
Re:Amazing (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Amazing (Score:2, Insightful)
DirectTV seems to be a rock solid company, not sure about SBC's stability.
The more they lose, the more they make (Score:2)
If this is correct in this case, if they lose say 1 million, then they can charge higher rates and end up make an extra 100,000 in extra profits.
Re:Amazing (Score:3, Interesting)
FOX==News Corporation (Score:1)
As stated in the story...we already know that.
When will they get networks on DirecTV? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:When will they get networks on DirecTV? (Score:3, Informative)
What you don't get is your local TV station's programming. So you miss your local news, and things like local information on the Weather Channel, as well as independent stations in your area. That's a long way from saying you don't get the Simpsons.
Also, a friend of mine who has had DirectTV in the past (I don't) told me that you can petition them to carry local channels in certain areas and that they'll usually do it if enough people are interested.
Re:When will they get networks on DirecTV? (Score:2)
It is extremely difficult to get distant locals over DirecTV, unless you've been grandfathered in, "move", or hack.
Re:When will they get networks on DirecTV? (Score:4, Informative)
This is also not necessarily true. I not only get my local channels, I get them as the same numbers that they'd be on from broadcast.
If you're in a sufficiently large market, you'll get your own local channels. Atlanta is a sufficiently major market for this, dunno how large an area has to be to be a "major market" but it's not just New York and LA. If you do get your own channels, you don't get the east-and-west-coast feeds.
If you don't get the local channels, you'll get a feed for each network, probably both an east coast and west coast version.
Either way, you get the Simpsons.
To bring this sort of back on topic: My take on the SBC or News Corp buyout is better SBC than News Corp. While SBC may suck in many ways, the idea of having the satellite company owned by the folks who generate some of the content sounds anti-competitive to me. In two years, I see myself saying, "Gee, I wonder why all the non-Fox channels went away..."
Re:When will they get networks on DirecTV? (Score:5, Informative)
And yes, if enough people in an area petition, they get moved up the list of where we go next...we've don't about the top 50 markets and want to try to do them roughly in order, but we have definitely skipped a few to move to areas with more subscribers/interest.
Re:When will they get networks on DirecTV? (Score:2)
I get my local networks on DishTV. The direct TV merger may have had some logic like extending local coverage without the need to put an extra bird up.
Of course we never watch local TV with the exception of PBS. And even that was better on the national feed which had no pledge breaks.
Re:It is as I said: NO NETWORKS (Score:2)
Local into local service is available in many areas for the country.
- You get your local channels (not national feeds)
- No waivers
- No antenna test
Now, there's still a large part of the country without LIL service. That's the real issue.
Not protecting Big 4 (Score:2, Insightful)
Won't work... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Won't work... (Score:4, Insightful)
If this happens, I predict DirecTV quality, value, and subscriber base will steadily decline until SBC finally dumps it at fire-sale pricing. SBC epitomizes all that is wrong with American corporations these days.
Hmmm...this would not surprise me. (Score:3, Interesting)
Interesting (Score:5, Funny)
I sure hope that Fox gets it, because I can't imagine the horror of News Corp running things.
Re:Interesting (Score:2, Informative)
I'm not sure what is better (or worse) (Score:3, Interesting)
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 :-(
Anybody but SBC! (Score:5, Informative)
SBC not reachable by phone (Score:3, Interesting)
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....
Re:SBC not reachable by phone (Score:2)
Re:SBC not reachable by phone (Score:2)
Re:SBC not reachable by phone (Score:4, Informative)
I like DirecTV. I hate SBC. Let's keep them seperate..
Re:Anybody but SBC! (Score:3, Funny)
GE is great (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:GE is great (Score:2, Funny)
Errata... (Score:3, Informative)
just what we don't need... (Score:5, Informative)
As for me, I'm now in a baby-bell free zone, and love it.
Re:just what we don't need... (Score:2)
Whoa. How did you manage that?
Re:just what we don't need... (Score:2)
This was before the Texas DNC list.
Re:just what we don't need... (Score:2)
Not one, but TWO cable compaines offering full phone/tv/internet, $99/month
I'm really glad of that because the local pots provider is Quest, who is quite capable of giving SBC a run for the incompetent customer service award.
Overbuilt cable is the solution to many of the problems that satellite can't fix. Its just the infrastructure buildout is usually cost prohibitive.
Re:just what we don't need... (Score:2)
Anyhow, yeah, cabling infrastructure is psychotically expensive. For a location like yours, satellite makes a hell of a lot of sense (even for internet access...as long as you don't play twitch games.
Well, that just about caps off my Monday as crap (Score:5, Funny)
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.
Re:Well, that just about caps off my Monday as cra (Score:2)
RE: the other AC
Insightful? Got no clue. I paid the people with mod points to bump me. Somehow I'm going to acheive perfect karma and then take Bill Gates on kung-fu style...
Why Sell ? (Score:1, Informative)
sucessful pioneers, do good things and
make money. Why sell out? The management
and engineers of Hughes should say "no"
to a sale. GM stock holders should vote
no also. Just say "NO!"
Re:Why Sell ? To make money. :) (Score:3, Informative)
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 [com.com] (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.
Re:Why Sell ? To make money. :) (Score:2)
Oddly, those are the customers who are most avidly bitching about the blockage of the merger -- if they had been allowed to merge then the resulting company would have enough bandwidth to add pretty much every local in the US -- thus serving the rural customers better (since right now only the top markets get locals). Most rural customers don't even have the right to receive the national feeds because their local OTA signal is good enough (and, honestly, it probably is... but most people don't want to deal with antennas and the muxing necessary to do it right).
Personally, I'm happy to see that they didn't merge, because I do believe we need competition in the sat. broadcast arena, particularly against the cable companies. Of course, I also don't want to see either News Corp or SBC buy DirecTV, since both have a very bad reputation for customer service and decent business tactics. I'm pretty certain that either one would run it into the ground.
Where will they get the money? (Score:1, Insightful)
Bell Canada already offer ExpressVu (Score:2)
Bell Canada is offering this service for years with ExpressVu. It is to be expected. The cable co. wants to enter the phone market (they are still far from achieving it) so the phone co want to enter the TV market.
These days, if a phone co want to get more money, they have no choice in exploring new markets. The land line phone market is already saturated and deregulation meant that they get less money than before.
Not necessarily a monopoly (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:Not necessarily a monopoly (Score:2)
Yeah, but why acquire a National level service for a regional market gain? It may do well to be taking on the cable companies in its region to offering home-'net services, but 1) home 'net services aren't terribly profitable (and will get worse as it will eventually overload the existing backbone connection and force expensive upgrades), and 2) it only covers what, one 4th of the nation? Excess attention to the one region will eventually turn the satellite service into a regional service and force the other 3/4ths of the country to switch to the competitor who's still thinking nationally.
two different services (Score:2)
News Corp wants to own satellite broadcasting... (Score:5, Interesting)
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
Re:News Corp wants to own satellite broadcasting.. (Score:3, Interesting)
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
Makes paying bills easier (Score:3, Funny)
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.
OT: SBC Yahoo! DSL (Score:2)
How was the changeover? I'm debating whether or not to go from straight SBC DSL to SBCYahoo!DSL. I guess I want to know whether it's worth it to do it now or wait until the email "Congratulations, you are now an SBC Yahoo! DSL customer"
I don't have a problem with SBC (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:I don't have a problem with SBC (Score:2)
DTV Will Need a Few New Satellites (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:DTV Will Need a Few New Satellites (Score:5, Informative)
2. DirecTV also offers Showtime in HD. You won't get your local stations in HD, but can continue to recieve the standard feed of your local stations. Also, several HD-capable DirecTV IRDs also include a built-in tuner for local OTA HD stations. Add a standard antenna, and you have local stations in HD.
None of the terrestrial cable systems that I am aware of are currently offering HD signals. AT&T [attbroadband.com] here won't even indicate when or if they will start carrying HD feeds.
DirecTV has to add additional satellites to add capacity. Local terrestial carriers have to upgrade their distribution networks to add more capacity. Where's the difference?
I can't comment on Time Warner's quality, but I can on AT&T in this area. AT&T cable has frequent dropouts on many digital channels, and horrible pixelation everywhere. Analog channels are fuzzy and ghosty. My DirecTV picture has never dropped out, even in the worst weather, and pixellation is minimal on everything I watch. AT&T can't compete on price, either. I have a comparable set of channels as my in-laws down the street, yet I pay about $15 less for my service than they do for theirs, even after including the charges I pay for additional recievers (2 at $5 each) - which they would also have to pay in order to recieve digital cable on more than one set (assuming they had more than one TV).
I'm a happy DirecTV subscriber. I don't yet have HD-DirecTV at home, mostly because I am unwilling to give up my TiVo. Now, if someone builds a box which integrates TiVo service, DirecTV standard and HD tuner, and a local OTA HD tuner, I'll buy it.
Re:DTV Will Need a Few New Satellites (Score:2)
Re:DTV Will Need a Few New Satellites (Score:2)
If they have the same feature set as the current line of TiVo DirecTV boxen, I really don't want to see the price tag on that beast. Remember that TiVo DirecTV receivers are two receivers in one (so you can watch one channel while recording another). Twin HDTV receivers would kick ass, but start out prohibitively expensive.
Re:DTV Will Need a Few New Satellites (Score:2)
When it comes to HD, Dish is the bigger player. They're offering more PPV's in HD and are currently offering CBS-HD to 17 markets. BTW, Fox has no HD offerings. They're 480p, which is SDTV.
Had the merger been allowed, both services would have been able to boost their HD offerings and local offerings, but people afraid of a monopoly simply because of the word refused to see the positives here. Sometimes it's better to have a monopoly when your only two players can't make significant upgrades without spending massive amounts of money.
The real reason the merger was stopped was to protect cable companies interests, just as the regulations regarding local channels are there for. You might ask yourself why you can subscribe to the Washington post anywhere in the US, but can't subscribe to the DC area ABC affiliate. It's because you have a cartel of cable companies trying to make sure they can keep taking your money, even though they can't provide uniform service to the majority of the US, something which DBS can easily do.
It's ridiculous that the E*/DTV merger was shot down, while mergers like AOL/TW are allowed. E*/DTV would have benifitted consumers more than any harm.
Re:DTV Will Need a Few New Satellites (Score:2)
Every DirecTV HD receiver I've seen yet (RCA, Panasonic and Hughes) also doubles as a UHF/VHF ATSC tuner as well (complete with guide information). The price tags are comparable to stand-alone ATSC tuners, so there's no real loss for the customer.
"Plus they will usually need a new dish and someone to come out and re-aim it for them"
Most new local broadcast markets need a newer dish anyway. The new local channel markets (such as New Orleans) are served by a different longitude than the basic DirecTV constellation. If I'm going to need to get a new dish anyway (assuming I want local programming), I may as well pay a few bucks more for a triple-LNB dish instead of the twin.
BTW, if you can find your way onto Slashdot, odds are you can figure out how to aim your own dish yourself (DirecWay two-way dishes excepted).
"when they do upgrade their IRD they get three HD channels -- and no local stations."
No, they get no local HD stations over the satellite feed (yet). You're still free to get a VHF/UHF antenna (no monthly fee there). And, as I mentioned, DirecTV HD receivers will decode those signals as well. Apparently, the Hughes box integrates broadcast guide information as well as DBS into a single seamless whole.
"On the other hand, terrestrial based cable systems have made up a lot of ground."
But they're up against the laws of physics. A cable can only carry so much information and, short up uprooting most of the existing coax network and outright replacing it (dark fiber, anyone?), they will have to cut some other (multiple) analog channels from the stream in order to carry a (single) HD transmission.
Satellite providers, on the other hand, have the solution of simply throwing up another satellite. And even replacing an existing sattellite is one heck of a smaller logistics headache than replacing miles of coax.
"As it is now, TW already has a better picture with less pixellation on ALL channels."
I seriously doubt your comment on picture quality and will need to see proof.
With that being said, however, DirecTV has the advantage of customer-owned equipment. It takes serious effort to buy your very own digital cable receiver (even more if you're looking to buy from someone other than the media provider). Along with the benefits of customer choice (yay capitalism), it's far cheaper in the long run for the average person to get DBS.
On top of that, satellite is affected for a few minutes by serious rain. Cable is affected for a week or so by the idiot down the street with a shovel.
NFL Sunday Ticket (Score:1)
Re:NFL Sunday Ticket (Score:2, Informative)
Interesting.... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Interesting.... (Score:2)
I love it. Any open source advocates in island nations willing to set up a launch pad and fineagle the local government for space launch permits?
The X-Prize is a little overkill. You don't need a manned rocket to launch satellites. Hell, with the right math, you could probably get small payloads into LEO using solid fuel. Most communication satellites are in Geosyncronous orbit. It's always in the same spot, so you can point an antenna and know that bird will always be there.
Now, what if we used a cluster of small, cheap, low power satellites following each other in a somewhat predicable ring in LOE instead. IP traffic is packet based, we don't need a continuous signal. LOE also doesn't have the delay associated with bouncing a signal 60,000 miles, you are only shooting to, 100 miles.
With the right math, you can set up a tranciever that will lock onto the right point in the sky, detect when one of the node enters the communication window, and beam a request up. The node will look through the routing tables, figure out which node is the closest (toplogically) to the intended destintation, and have the signal sent around the ring. The ring will relay the message, and get the response back through the originating node, and failing that, queue it up in the next node that will be passing overhead.
LOE satelletes make it around the world in 90 minutes or so. So 45 satelites would ensure that one is directly overhead every 2 minutes. We will have to work the math out on how long the transmision window will be. (I.e. how long can you yat with the satellite at a time.)
Done right and mass produced, you design these things to run for a few months before lauching another bird to take its place.
A hell, let me just put up a crackpot website to describe the idea. I just dreamed it up over a cup of coffee.
DirectTV great up time / SBC = no up time (Score:3, Insightful)
Please, save us! They'd probably figure out a way to screw up directtv. Next thing you know we'd all have to point our dish's west because they screwed up an orbit.
Re:DirectTV great up time / SBC = no up time (Score:2)
Ok, here's one: One afternoon my DSL line had a dialtone. They decided the extra phone line running to my apartment wasn't in use, so the patched it into my neighbor's place. It took 2 weeks to get it all sorted out, partly because the DSL line was through Flashcom, who contracted with Covad who leased from Verizon the lines into my apartment. I swear Verizon service guys went out of their way to nick my wires. I would live in dread whenever I saw someone moving in or out of the building. Invariably my DSL line would be disconnected because of some "misunderstanding."
Correction: Echostar tried to by DirecTv (Score:3, Interesting)
As a past subscriber of both services, I have to say that DishNetwork has a much better channel lineup, especially things like The Research Chanel [researchchannel.org]. I was actually hoping that the merger would be allowed so I could have Tivo Service built into my DishNetwork receiver. No such luck.
Re:Correction: Echostar tried to by DirecTv (Score:2)
SBC already owns its own cable company (Score:1)
Current situation, and the future (Score:5, Insightful)
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?
Re:Current situation, and the future (Score:2, Informative)
Your first paragraph doesn't clarify anything. Hughes/DirecTV is owned by GM (General Motors) [hughes.com] not GE (General Electric).
As the story correctly states, GE is considering buying Hughes.
Re:Current situation, and the future (Score:3, Insightful)
However, my basic point remains. Why should it even be a remote possibility that SBC buys DirecTV? Government-granted monopolies over essential services are even easier to leverage than market-generated ones. If SBC buys DirecTV, Dish Network is over, and though prices might go down for a couple years, in the long run, satellite customers should prepare for a huge increase in prices.
Re:Current situation, and the future (Score:2, Informative)
Case in point: the local power company here maintains the lines and such, but lots of companies pump power into the grid from various points.
It almost works this way with DSL. You get an ATM connection into the cloud, then you have a PVC that takes you to the ISP's premises. The trouble is that the phone companies are running the competition out of business.
There's also the more complicated matter when you have ANOTHER cloud, and a separate set of ISPs that hook into that. That's the Covad situation, and even then they still run over the same copper wire plant owned by the telco.
It may take a "final overbuild" in some areas to get free of the telco monopolies. You put in the second system, then let everyone connect in and sell services across it. Let the market take care of the rest.
Re:Current situation, and the future (Score:2)
If the government controls basic infrastructure, they will tax it, because it costs lots of money to run, and they need taxes to cover the expense. So what you're really saying is that it's OK for someone to profit off of basic human needs, as long as it's the government and not a corporation?
By the way, basic macroeconomics theory says that the government gets the most revenue from taxing a good for which there is highly inelastic demand (all of the basic human needs: food, clothing, shelter, air). I'm not a die-hard corporate Libertarian, I think you meant to insult Objectivists [aynrand.org].
Re:Corporate libertarians? (Score:2)
True, privately run roads might be better, but can you imagine how much the tols would be? And people scream about gas taxes now!
Pollution/environment?
Oh, yes, Before the government got involved, industry was just clamoring to fix the enviromental harm they've caused over the last two hundred years.
Post offices vs. the private Federal Express...
Hmmm... I can send a letter in two-three days for $3.85, picked up with your mail, delivered to any address in the US, or Fedex in two days for >$10.00 (depending on distance), but you have to drop it off & delivery to a residential address is extra. Sure, one is guaranteed, the other isn't, but for 99% of deliveries, do you really need a time guarantee? And before you say "but the post office loses (or damages) packages", ship packages daily as part of a previous job. We shipped probably 1000 packages during the time that I was there & never once had one lost or damaged (though we packed everything to prevent damage). Admittedly, that's not a huge sample, but it's big enough.
And, while I have less experience with Fedex, try comparing the service from the Post Office with that of Airborne Express (an equally valid comparison by your standard). I'll take the post office any day.
the examples could go on for hours.
And so could my responses. But since you're clearly an idiot, let's just drop it here, ok?
Re:Current situation, and the future (Score:2)
If they need more bandwidth they can simply eliminate or reduce the buzillion home shopping and Pay Per View channels they ram down every customer's throat whether they ask for it or not. It's like SPAM in my program guide.
Re:Current situation, and the future (Score:2)
The merger could have resolved this issue in that they could have stuck with the DirecTV equipment and their manufacturing partners. In fact, it would have made financial sense to do it that way since the installed base of DirecTV customers is higher than the E* customer base.
Oh No! (Score:2, Funny)
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?
one correction (Score:2)
I believe it was the other way around, EchoStar tried to purchase DTV. Small detail, yes, but worth pointing out.
puck
when will they learn? (Score:2)
Re:when will they learn? (Score:2)
Of course, those restructuring charges include golf club memberships, new company jets, and the bleeding red ink from you other divisions not withstanding.
Disaster for DTV users (Score:2)
SBC is one of the worst.
I actually had SBC doing customer service for DTV (complicated arrangement reselling video service to my apartment building, and renting on-site service from Pac Bell, of all things).
I would call SBC only during bankers' hours, get nobody who knew how DTV worked, take days trying to get an answer, and not even pay my bill with a credit card. I could call DTV, not mention SBC, and get things done in seconds, 24/7.
They are polar opposites in terms of customer service, and clearly it's because one values it and the other considers it a costly disease.
I was considering getting DTV at my house, but now I will hold off until I find out if this deal goes through, because DTV with SBC on it is utterly not worth the money.
So at some point do I get $200... (Score:2)
Crimy, they could at least throw us a bone with some Chance or Community Chest cards.
Re:Frivolous Lawsuits (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Re:oh great (Score:2)
Maybe it will slightly counter the leftist bias from ABC, NBC, CBS, AP, Reuters, and the other media outlets create 95% of all the news stories out there and yet fail to represent their viewers.
What Liberal Media? [thenation.com]. Please mod parent -1 Troll.
Re:What liberal media? (Score:2)
"The Nation" is an extreme left publication (one of those that actually lamented when the Soviet Union fell!).
No, the Nation did not lament when the SU fell.