AT&T Buying DirecTV for $48.5 Billion 173
AT&T is acquiring satellite TV provider DirecTV in a deal worth $48.5 billion. This will bring 20 million more U.S. television subscribers under AT&T's roof, making it the second biggest TV provider, behind Comcast. The deal is subject to regulatory approval, and to help that along, AT&T says it will sell its 8% stake in America Movil, which is a competitor to DirecTV in some areas.
"By acquiring the country’s biggest satellite television operator, AT&T will help bolster its competitive position against Comcast. Though pay television is considered a mature market whose subscriber growth has slowed dramatically in recent years, the business nonetheless generates billions of dollars in cash. ... Part of the attraction may be DirecTV’s ample cash flow. While its business has shown little growth in recent years, it generated about $8 billion in earnings last year. Much of that will go toward future investments in growth, AT&T said, including bidding at least $9 billion for wireless network capacity that the government plans to auction off soon. By gaining satellite TV, AT&T may also be able to free up capacity on its existing broadband network."
This has to be a troll post (Score:5, Insightful)
AT&T can't be allowed to get any bigger than it is now. They had to break it up once already.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:This has to be a troll post (Score:4, Informative)
Possibly the worst news since the TimeWarner merger crapola.
You think your DirectTV PVR can't download your movies now?
Wait till they start using the CRUD that is AT&T's network.
Absolutely unacceptable.
The reason why they are doing the acquisition is because Uverse sucks to HIGH HEAVEN. It is even worse than DirectTV, if you can imagine that.
Re:This has to be a troll post (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Uverse sucks because AT&T has not had any engineers that know ANYTHING about Fiber or Internet for 2 decades.
Uverse should have been 100% IP and they should have delivered 100Mbps to every home over fiber to the house and then a single CAT-5 into the home. Then their TV could have been IPTV on set top boxes and everything would have worked decently.
But no, they wanted to use their special crap, that stayed as crap and actually got crappier.
This is why I really hope a company that is semi competent star
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:This has to be a troll post (Score:5, Informative)
AT&T can't be allowed to get any bigger than it is now. They had to break it up once already.
The AT&T broken up in 1983 was a different company. The current company called AT&T used to be Southwestern Bell. It acquired the rights to the name "AT&T" in 2005.
Actually... (Score:1)
It acquired AT&T's Cellular and Long Distance businesses as part of the deal, so really it was just reintegrating AT&T assets with SBC. Calling the new entity AT&T isn't entirely incorrect, since both were divisions of Ma Bell before the breakup.
Re:This has to be a troll post (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Remember in T2 when they shattered the liquid metal terminator and all the pieces slowly pooled back together?
AT&T has been doing that ever since the breakup.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Yea I remember that segment when it originally aired:
http://www.ebaumsworld.com/video/watch/955486/
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Net neutraliy, huh? (Score:1)
Now, take that AT&T from its shareholders and just liquidate it. Disgusting.
Which was probably a patent, sigh. (Score:5, Insightful)
They are the last real competitor to terrestrial cable tv. And the only one whose DVR was bright enough to back up 10s when you fastforwarded through a commercial and released when you saw the show start whizzin' by.
Re: (Score:3)
They are the last real competitor to terrestrial cable tv.
My thoughts as well. Not to mention they have inside track on NFL Sunday Ticket. Since AT&T has the wireless broadband infrastructure and also DSL, they are the only company that will be able to keep Comcast/TWC in check.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Since AT&T has the wireless broadband infrastructure and also DSL, they are the only company that will be able to keep Comcast/TWC in check.
+1 Funny.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
why do you think they want 101 over 99 and 103 or the other 2 slots?
Well. (Score:5, Insightful)
We know where all the money they should be using on upgrading their network is going.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
NYC the cheapest cable internet is 15/1 and time warner is upgrading the lowest tier to around 30/3 in a few months
same in other bigger suburbs and larger towns. you can get 20mbps internet for $50 a month
Re: Well. (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:1)
i rarely watch netflix so i don't really care about their self made problems
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Well. (Score:3)
Those huge unbalanced numbers like 15/1 tell the tale of utilization right there. The current ISPs are all leeches from the "Internet" they don't PUT CONTENT on the Internet, so nobody wants to pay for more lanes to the highway.
They also don't want upstream because people on their own network could out-host the regular Internet with services just between ISP subscribers... Like blackmarket prison goods!
Re: (Score:2)
So what can I get for a more reasonable price (say, $20/month)? The answer is sub-1Mbps DSL and usually nothing else.
Farmers grow your food (Score:3)
No reason why my bill should pay to run cable for people who live in the middle of no where
Because the people who grow the food you eat need a way to find the best market to sell the food that they grow.
Re: (Score:2)
Okay, so let them make that part of the "cost of doing business", like other just about every other business has to do. Farmers also have to have fuel to operate and haul equipment, seed, fertilizer/herbicide/pesticide, and product to and from "civilization", and they manage to do that just fine without my fuel getting taxed extra to pay for their fuel. I'd argue that fuel is a lot more important to the process than cheap high-speed Internet.
Re: (Score:2)
[Farmers] manage to [buy fuel for their equipment] just fine without my fuel getting taxed extra to pay for their fuel
Sorry, I had to stop chuckling. Have you ever heard of something called farm subsidies?
I'd argue that fuel is a lot more important to the process than cheap high-speed Internet.
Making it uncomfortable to be a farmer will force a lot of farm families out of farming, which could hurt a country's food security.
Re: (Score:2)
[Farmers] manage to [buy fuel for their equipment] just fine without my fuel getting taxed extra to pay for their fuel
Sorry, I had to stop chuckling. Have you ever heard of something called farm subsidies?
I'd argue that fuel is a lot more important to the process than cheap high-speed Internet.
Making it uncomfortable to be a farmer will force a lot of farm families out of farming, which could hurt a country's food security.
It's been uncomfortable to be a "farm family" for a long, long time now.
Unless you mean "farm family of companies' [TM].
Re: (Score:3)
and they manage to do that just fine without my fuel getting taxed extra to pay for their fuel.
Your fuel IS taxed, and their fuel is exempt from the taxes.
What do you think is happening?
You are paying higher fuel tax to displace the revenue not gained as a result of them not paying fuel taxes.
Srsly? (Score:5, Informative)
Okay, so let them make that part of the "cost of doing business", like other just about every other business has to do. Farmers also have to have fuel to operate and haul equipment, seed, fertilizer/herbicide/pesticide, and product to and from "civilization", and they manage to do that just fine without my fuel getting taxed extra to pay for their fuel. I'd argue that fuel is a lot more important to the process than cheap high-speed Internet.
Fuel Tax in the USA [wikipedia.org] /. which is pretty hard given all the competition but you have won the /. lottery this night my friend.
IRS definitions for non-taxable fuel uses [irs.gov] "On a farm for farming purposes"
You might want to do a little research BEFORE embarrassing yourself on
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Because the people who grow the food you eat need a way to find the best market to sell the food that they grow.
The cost of growing food should be incorporated into the price of the food, not into some separate subsidy or tax break.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
the people who grow the food you eat need a way to find the best market to sell the food that they grow.
Maybe I don't want them to find the best market. Maybe I'd rather they sell to the market I buy food from. They are the people who grow the food I eat after all.
$48.5 billion? (Score:5, Insightful)
If you spent HALF that on your network you'd crush your competition! What a crock of shit.
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
If you spent HALF that on your network you'd crush your competition! What a crock of shit.
Again with the "I know how to run a billion dollar business!" nonsense. You've no idea what you're talking about.
If they spent 24 billion on their network, what could they do at best? Their entire revenue from residential customers is $5.7 billion. http://about.att.com/story/att... [att.com]
even if they'd have to increase their customers by 500% just to get revenue close to that kind of money. That's not even including all the added cost to support it. Residential broadband is not profitable. No one wants to expand i
Re:$48.5 billion? (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
If they spent 24 billion on their network, what could they do at best? Their entire revenue from residential customers is $5.7 billion.
You mean their ANNUAL revenue right now from residential customers is $5.7 billion. If they spent 24 billion on upgrading and adding infrastructure their network, they would earn it within a few years, ignoring that their revenue will grow with a larger network.
Re: (Score:2)
No, their quarterly revenue is that.
In other words, reinvesting 24 billion in their network would be just about 100% of a year's revenue.
It would put their network in a leading position for growing their future revenue while creating additional revenue opportunities and hurting their would-be competitors, all without antagonizing their customers... which is what's called a smart investment.
Re: (Score:3)
If you think their CEO knows how to run a billion dollar business, then I chuckle at your naivety.
Re: (Score:2)
-some ATT stooge
Re:$48.5 billion? (Score:5, Insightful)
Also known as "we now own you, and in exchange your stockholders now hold a smaller portion of our stock instead!
Only 30% of the deal is in cash, making it 14.5 Billion changing hands. Still a big number, but not as bad as it sounds.
As such, it actually comes out a touch cheaper than the cost that DirecTV spent on their satellites in the first place, and AT&T gets to exploit the 16% profit margin on DirecTV's lines of service.
Re:$48.5 billion? (Score:5, Insightful)
As such, it actually comes out a touch cheaper than the cost that DirecTV spent on their satellites in the first place, and AT&T gets to exploit the 16% profit margin on DirecTV's lines of service.
And, it basically kills off any chance for improvement of DirecTV technologies:
Basically, AT&T is going to cannibalize DirecTV by taking all the money from DirecTV to use on cell phone spectrum. So, no money for new satellites, improved encoding hardware, more servers for download of on demand, etc.
I've been a DirecTV subscriber since 1999, and if this merger goes through, I'll have to start looking for some other provider. It might even make me cut the cord.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What about Dish?
Re: (Score:2)
At least DirecTV investors will make money on the deal.
Not to mention all the regulators. You don't think this merger will be approved out of concern for the best interest of the American people, do you? I'd bet this on is worth $1M/year jobs for dozens of congressional staffers!
Re: (Score:2)
Nooooooooo!!! (Score:4, Insightful)
Nooooooooo!!!
Re: (Score:1)
AT&T has one of the worst costumer service records. Removing competition is about as likely to improve customer service as a poke in the eye with a hot stick.
I was getting worried (Score:5, Funny)
We have too low prices and too much speed. Think of the poor telecoms! They are just struggling to stay relevant and if only they owned all the last miles then how could they grab amazon and Netflix by the balls and tripple dip since they already charge both ways?
2 x 1 = 0 (Score:3)
Two companies I refused to do (any more) business with trying to become one company I won't do any business with.
How long til we end up with just ATT&T and Comcast as players?
Re: (Score:2)
The cynic in me (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
AT&T versus ... AT&T (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I worked for AT&T broadband back then, and their management actually had a clue. Comcast came in and started the downward spiral.
I remember sitting in on meetings talking about adding cameras to the cable boxes in order to count the number of people watching TV, at that time we already gathered information about what TV channels you were watching every 15 minutes, that data collection rate has increased in frequency I am sure.
I would not be surprised if the new boxes had a type of very low res FLIR cam
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They escaped it by having the mother ship not know what to do with it. the whole cable TV biz confounded the top management so they left it alone for the short time it was standing on it's own.
really big corporations have nooks and crannies where you can operate completely free of management and any obstruction. One of my friends went 3 years without ever knowing who his manager was, never had any calls to ask him to do anything ,etc... HR kept sending his paychecks. and he kept doing what he always d
Re: (Score:2)
Decreased Channel Cost for AT&T (Score:2)
Satellite and Cell Phone is Good Enough? (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I think this is actually the key thing in this discussion.
I left their DSL and phone for Comcast a couple of years ago and cannot be happier. My Internet with Comcast Absolutely Rocks, Uverse just cannot match the speeds I'm getting with cable.
They cannot compete with thin copper on internet speeds, so they are diversifying to video content.
I will never go back to them.
The problem:
Comcast, (who's service I Love right now) will most definitely take advantage of this in the future and find a way to screw me.
Re: (Score:2)
Verizon does this as well, we have huge cables that are underwater and they refuse to replace them if your DSL is slow or if you have noise on your phone line. I am hoping that when they do some street construction this summer in the area, that when I point out to the backhoe operator that the cable there for Verizon is why his internet is slow it will be accidentally ripped out to force them to fix it.
Although I am thinking of doing what a friend mentioned he used to do in NYC in the 80's to force the ph
The empire rises again (Score:2)
Re:The empire rises again (Score:5, Insightful)
Yup. That finger in our ass is the invisible hand of the Free Market. :D
Whenever someone tells me that the Free Market is better at regulating companies that government, I ask them to show me ONE example, since its so simple and easy. Just one. No, the gay hating wedding cake place doesn't count. Show me an example where a LARGE company EVER was punished by consumers for being assholes.
I still remember watching people roll into the ARCO (Part of B.P., it's right on the sign) gas station near my house right after the B.P. oil rig spill in the Gulf. There was a Shell right across the street. People just didn't care. It was 5cents cheaper a gallon. That's less than a buck savings on a regular gas tank, and the ignorant !@#$ers didn't even think about it. It still bothers me to this day.
Satellite TV With UVERSE for backup (Score:2)
Satellite TV With UVERSE for backup due to rain fade even at a lower bit-rate will be so cool
Huh (Score:2)
FCC (Score:2)
FCC, please explain to us how this merger would benefit us consumers.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, you see, when I retire from the FCC, I will have a paid position at AT&D and as a consumer I will be able to have more choices. And my money trickles down to the rest of the country, growing the money supply for everyone. This is how capitalism works and I can't really see how blocking the merger would benefit anyone. It clearly wouldn't benefit me. -- Any FCC Commissioner
Please someone explain to me (Score:2)
How the fuck is that good for competition?
Seriously I was being sarcastic, but how the fuck was that allowed to pass with the FCC?
Re: (Score:2)
The FCC chairman is a bought and paid for industry insider. He is making sure he gets a very good bonus when he leaves his position and goes back to his job in the private sector.
Choice (Score:3)
Say goodbye to affordable internet and tv boys & girls....
double sheit (Score:2)
Nooooo (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You got that backwards. They will be eff'n you.
Re: (Score:1)
who gives a f*k? cable television is something noone cares about... and anyone who does is a dumbass... this is the age of the internet.
You will give a fuck when the only choice for video will be 240kbps youtube/netflix or AT&T 3D, high def. video from their own 'competing' service.
Or when voip is blocked with "random jitter" but their service is working at optimal 64kbps.
Sports (Score:5, Insightful)
cable television is something noone cares about [in] the age of the internet
That might be true once decades-long carriage contracts between the networks and the cable system operators expire and once decades-long contracts between the major professional and collegiate sport leagues and the networks expire. Until then, we're left with games that get blacked out online if shown on national or regional cable networks.
Re:They still don't support net neutrality... (Score:5, Informative)
who gives a f*k? cable television is something noone cares about... and anyone who does is a dumbass... this is the age of the internet.
Right and what if 4 years from now your internet connection must include TV and HBO at $200 a month or NO internet for you! (soup Nazi voice from Seinfeld)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Forget demand, you'll have to outbid them on the congressman auction. Good luck!
Re: (Score:2)
They would have to mess up spectacularly to get your average voter to care about it, but that's precisely what the example Billy came up with. I think people would be out
Re: (Score:3)
If the choice is Tweedledee and Tweedledum and both got a nice 'bonus' check, good luck.
You'll need double good luck to get the GOP to agree to nationalize anything.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well naturally. That's why they wait until elected to pull their about face on the issue.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
who gives a f*k? cable television is something noone cares about... and anyone who does is a dumbass... this is the age of the internet.
This, of course, is hyperbolic nonsense, as reflected by the numbers. As of 2012, the top ten cable tv providers in the US had a total of over 59 million subscribers. Perhaps someday no one will give a "f*k" about cable tv, but today is not that day.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
the people who buy it generally buy it because the bundle costs less with cable than it does without, or they are dumbasses who dont realize how to watch their shows online.
People who watch all of their shows online are a tiny fraction of viewers in total, and people who don't share your attitudes in this regard aren't "dumbasses"; they just have different preferences and priorities than you have.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: weekend announcement (Score:2)
That gives them 12 hours for the fires and pitchforks to die down... By morning.... ...look waffles!
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, the breakup of Bell did some amazing things for a while. All of the regulations made the phone companies play nice. Things were pretty sweet for a while. Then we took it for granted, started deregulating, and here we are again.
Common Carrier rules were pretty awesome when we had them. Back in the heady days of Dial Up, you could start an ISP pretty easily. The big telephone companies HAD to lease you connections at a decent price. Competition was there. ISPs competed on service. There were choic
Re: (Score:2)
Of course we know that too much competition is just CONFUSING to an average american. Thats why everything is bound to converge around two "choices" of everything. Demolicans or republicrats, Lockheed or Boeing, AT&T or Verizon, Intel or AMD ..
Its all free market, yes ?
Re:Maybe it's time to switch from the soapbox to.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Assholes always preaching the gun. Meanwhile less than half the population bothers to vote. Lets actually USE the ballot box before we switch to the ammo box, huh? I mean, I get the allure, but that sort of things has a really shitty history of actually working.
Hell, if we all organized and stopped buying NIKE products until they told congress to behave, then moved from company to company just NOT buying products, we'd get immediate action. We could NOT do things and if we did it in an organized fashion, shit would change.
Or you could try taking your AR-15 and going up against military hardware and training. Good Luck!
Re: (Score:2)
Well, that's just 2 years of subscription fees at $100/head, and there are lots of plans more expensive than that. In fact, it's just over 1.5x annual revenue, which isn't necessarily a bad deal for a mature industry with a large subscriber base and a rapidly increasing revenue. I mean, hey, you're competing with cable so it's more of a race to see who can raise rates the fastest, rather than find the bottom dollar service cost.