Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Television Media The Almighty Buck

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.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

SBC Considering Buying DirecTV

Comments Filter:
  • News Corp. == Fox (Score:5, Informative)

    by k_187 ( 61692 ) on Monday February 10, 2003 @09:29AM (#5270223) Journal
    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.
    • Re:News Corp. == Fox (Score:2, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Murdoch doesn't own News Corp outright :P He is just the main man who started it all and has the biggest interest in the company... everyone however should be required to visit News Corp's website [newscorp.com] just to see how much they own us... :P I mean, just look at all the television stations they own! (Unlike most networks, FOX owns most of the TV stations that are affiliated with them)
      • Re:News Corp. == Fox (Score:4, Informative)

        by leviramsey ( 248057 ) on Monday February 10, 2003 @10:41AM (#5270717) Journal

        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)

          by Zeinfeld ( 263942 )
          rupert's political biases are trully staggering. Over here in the US everyone thinks he is a right wing nut because that is the group he supports with the New York Post, Fox News etc. with their ludicrous hard right biases.

          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.

          • 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.

            -Ed
          • 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.

      • 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.

  • Whatever you do, please allow illegal usage of your products available. Thanks!
  • Hey, if SBC will put another DirecTV satellite in the Northern sky, so I can actually GET direcTV, I'm down with it.
  • Amazing (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    It's amazing that a company like SBC would waste money on an investment like DirecTV. Surely they realise that it will be a losing proposition? If it happens expect to see a major write down from SBC in following 12 months.

    Some people never learn.
    • Re:Amazing (Score:3, Interesting)

      by fozzy(pro) ( 267441 )
      Perhaps they want to use the DirectTV spectrum for things other then just TV service?
    • Re:Amazing (Score:2, Insightful)

      by madshot ( 621087 )
      A whie back Dishnetwork and DirectTV tried to join forces, but monopoly commission of the US Government said "Nope, can't do that". Yet that same commissions said "Comcast, AT&T, go for it!" for broadband access.

      DirectTV seems to be a rock solid company, not sure about SBC's stability.

    • as a regulated utility, I believe that their profits are all so regulalted; 10% is typical.
      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)

      by M-G ( 44998 )
      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.
  • One of the other suitors for DirecTV has been Murdoch's Fox.

    As stated in the story...we already know that.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 10, 2003 @09:30AM (#5270234)
    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).
    • Ummm who modded this up? With DirectTV you do get the networks (often you get their broadcasts from both the east and west coasts, which is kind of cool if you miss something).

      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.
      • The only way you can get the east/west feeds from DirecTV is to receive waivers from your local affiliates granting you access. If you can pull in even a fuzzy signal over rabbit ears, you will almost certainly be denied, since your locals want you to look at the local ads.

        It is extremely difficult to get distant locals over DirecTV, unless you've been grandfathered in, "move", or hack.
      • by foxtrot ( 14140 ) on Monday February 10, 2003 @10:48AM (#5270770)
        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.

        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..."
      • I work at DirecTV. We really really want to carry local channels in every market, we just can't yet. Every damn day I work on some kind of upgrade aimed at carrying more locals.

        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.
      • 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.

        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.

  • Won't work... (Score:5, Informative)

    by swordboy ( 472941 ) on Monday February 10, 2003 @09:31AM (#5270238) Journal
    WideOpenWest [wideopenwest.com] 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.
    • Re:Won't work... (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Ldir ( 411548 ) on Monday February 10, 2003 @09:54AM (#5270402)
      I detest cable companies. We've had DirecTV since the first month it was rolled out nationally. SBC is one of the few companies that could make me go back to cable. Your average cable company is awful. SBC is worse.

      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.

  • by inteller ( 599544 ) on Monday February 10, 2003 @09:31AM (#5270240)
    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.
  • Interesting (Score:5, Funny)

    by MeanMF ( 631837 ) on Monday February 10, 2003 @09:32AM (#5270247) Homepage
    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.
  • by JSkills ( 69686 ) <.jskills. .at. .goofball.com.> on Monday February 10, 2003 @09:33AM (#5270250) Homepage Journal
    As a happy DirecTV customer, I'm not sure what's the better fate for the company - (A) being owned by Rupert Murdoch or (B) being owned by a phone company.

    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)

    by TopShelf ( 92521 ) on Monday February 10, 2003 @09:34AM (#5270255) Homepage Journal
    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!
    • by Anonymous Coward
      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....
    • that is odd....here in Michigan where our Atorney General (now govener) had some balls, she sued SBC for bad service and now we get GREAT service....get an AG with some nuts man.
  • GE is great (Score:1, Interesting)

    I mean, we all know that the phone companies are the devil, and the government sucks, but who ever heard of GE's attrocious business practices?
  • Errata... (Score:3, Informative)

    by WM_NCDESTROY ( 451999 ) on Monday February 10, 2003 @09:34AM (#5270261)
    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.
  • by sik puppy ( 136743 ) on Monday February 10, 2003 @09:35AM (#5270262)
    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.

    • As for me, I'm now in a baby-bell free zone, and love it.

      Whoa. How did you manage that?
  • by CTD ( 615278 ) on Monday February 10, 2003 @09:35AM (#5270266) Homepage
    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. :(
    • Yeah, lose. Sorry. My wife is an English professor no less. I'm too busy making children to ask her to read over my /. posts though, so you'll have to forgive my poor typing.

      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)

    by Anonymous Coward
    DirecTV is a great business. They are
    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!"
    • 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.

      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 ... 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.

      What did the article author mean by "government monopolies"? I missed the gov't element here.
      • 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

        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.
  • by Anonymous Coward
    Oh wait, they just layed off 2000 people! That should do it, and still leave enough for nice bonuses for the top dogs at SBC. And they need those bonuses becuase its getting pretty tough living on a measley $18M a year. And now they want to deregulate digital lines in Texas so that all the surviving competition can be wiped out.

  • This is surprising that the Canada is way beyong the state in having phone company offering digital satelite TV.

    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.

  • by 706GL ( 172709 ) on Monday February 10, 2003 @09:42AM (#5270316) Homepage Journal
    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.
    • 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.

      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.

    • the switch away from your cable company deal isnt as appealing as it might seem. I have comcast cable in my area, and it sucks. Thats why we switched to DirecTv years ago, and are quite happy. However, for internet, we have comcast cable internet, and it works quite well. As bad as Comcast may be, its cable internet is far better than the DSL around here. Guess who's dsl that is? Yep, SBC.
  • by isaac ( 2852 ) on Monday February 10, 2003 @09:47AM (#5270347)
    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

    • 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
  • by Slightly Askew ( 638918 ) on Monday February 10, 2003 @09:54AM (#5270397) Journal

    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.

    • Internet Provider: SBC Yahoo! DSL

      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"

  • by vasqzr ( 619165 ) <vasqzr@@@netscape...net> on Monday February 10, 2003 @09:55AM (#5270408)

    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.
  • by ausoleil ( 322752 ) on Monday February 10, 2003 @09:56AM (#5270413) Homepage
    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.
    • by jeaton ( 44965 ) on Monday February 10, 2003 @10:40AM (#5270705)
      1. You do need a new IRD and a triple-LNB dish, but aiming the dish isn't considerably harder than aiming the standard dish.

      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.
      • Time Warner is offering HDTV service in quite a few markets. My local TW (Columbus) offers HBO-HD, SHO-HD, and the local NBC, CBS, WB affiliates in HD (local ABC and FOX affiliate is dragging their feet on HD feeds). TW uses the Scientific Atlantic 3100HD STB. Overall TW's offerings worked just as well as my current Hughes E86 OTA/DirecTV setup and is a much cheaper option for Joe 6-pack to get into the HDTV game.
    • And this is why the merger between Echostar and DirecTV would have been a good thing. It would have meant more transponders, and very likely more HD channels.

      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.
    • "they will need an IRD (DTV "box") upgrade that runs about $500."

      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.
  • Could this finally open up NFL Sunday Ticket? The NFL recently re-upped its contract with Direct TV to offer its subscription-based NFL games package exclusively to Direct TV viewers. There is something fishy about this arrangement as it is very clear that Sunday Ticket would be many times more profitable if it were open to other cable systems instead of the 10% or so of NFL fans that even have the option of Direct TV. I'll bet Fox would have something to say about it.
    • Re:NFL Sunday Ticket (Score:2, Informative)

      by cflorio ( 604840 )
      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.
  • Interesting.... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by SkewlD00d ( 314017 ) on Monday February 10, 2003 @09:58AM (#5270428)
    Is it a coincidence then that DirecTV's DSL unit shutdown? Maybe they don't want to compete w/ SBC Yahoo!(s). If SBC buys DirecTV, it'll probably turn into another cable company because SBC is a bunch of morons. Then, Comcast will buy it and own everything media pipe. Maybe someone from the X-Prize contest would be kind enough to launch us up some open-source satellites?
    • What an Evil plan.

      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.

  • by madshot ( 621087 ) on Monday February 10, 2003 @09:59AM (#5270437) Homepage Journal
    Not sure about the rest of you, but as a network administrator of a company that has 30+ locations throughout the US, the only ISP i have problems with on a weekly basis is SBC. Their connections in the LA area constantly go down. Last week they lost a redback, the week before they didn't know how to route TCP/IP, and before that they told us our network was up and running, sent out a tech, and found out it was really down.

    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.

    • Remind me to share my Verizon horror stories with you some time.

      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."

  • by Shin Dig ( 27213 ) on Monday February 10, 2003 @10:00AM (#5270438) Homepage
    The synopsis states that DirecTv tried to buy DishNetwork, which isn't true. Echostar (the owner of DishNetwor) tried to buy DirecTv. Although DirecTv has more consumer subscribers than DishNetwork, Echostar has more satelite capacity, and does other corporate deals.


    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.

  • it is the owner of Wide Open West.....I doubt there is any way the FTC willlet SBC buy Direct TV.
  • by psicE ( 126646 ) on Monday February 10, 2003 @10:01AM (#5270450) Homepage
    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?
    • 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.

    • Okay, I'm an idiot - GM indeed owns Hughes. Duh. *slaps head*

      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.
    • by Anonymous Coward
      You're essentially advocating a "cloud" model, with various municipal entities maintaining the infrastructure in between.

      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.
    • 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. [snip] I want to see some (relatively local) level of government controlling electricity, energy, water, and telecommunications distribution.

      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].

  • Oh No! (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    SBC advertises "infinite service" and I know what that means:
    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 ... rinse, repeat.

    So can they give this infinite service for my TV dish too?
  • 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....

    I believe it was the other way around, EchoStar tried to purchase DTV. Small detail, yes, but worth pointing out.

    puck
  • When will telcos learn that branching out into other areas and buy buy buying isn't going to get them anywhere? They buy into things, they lose money and sell them off, they buy into things, they lose money and sell them off... unless there's some backroom accounting which justifies this crap, it seem pretty dumb, even to non-MBAs. SBC should perhaps take care of what they've already got before getting themselves into more complicated tasks (this comes to mind: the month it took SBC/PacBell to try to connect the phone line in my old apartment - in the middle of San Francisco - which they could never get to work, which pushed me into telling them to stick it up their arses and resorting to the use of a cell phone full-time)
    • Actually there are all sorts of games you can play with accounting when you acquire another company. You can tell investors that, well, you WOULD have made a profit if it wasn't for the restructuring charges incurred because we bought another company.

      Of course, those restructuring charges include golf club memberships, new company jets, and the bleeding red ink from you other divisions not withstanding.

  • DTV is one of the best utilities.

    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.
  • ... for passing go.

    Crimy, they could at least throw us a bone with some Chance or Community Chest cards.

"How to make a million dollars: First, get a million dollars." -- Steve Martin

Working...