Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'TiVo Coffee House - TiVo Discussion' started by Johncv, May 1, 2014.
Wow. Are those all separate physical plants, or do some share the same copper?
I think he said two of them were wireless, the rest all operated over the same wire.
Check out this article from USA TODAY:
AT&T buys DirecTV for nearly $50 billion
Funny how this merger no one seems to cry foul like they do with the Comcast/TWC deal.
U-verse and DTV are direct competitors.
Comcast and TWC are not.
No one finds this a little strange?
AT&T has zero presence in this region. (Not counting cellular.) I wonder what this will mean in the long term for me as a DirecTV customer.
I would guess they will attempt to partner where they don't have internet presence.
I am wondering if this means Uverse will be in a marketing sense since DTV might have stronger branding.
Wonderful. The new TV/internet service they offer can be called "U-DirT" to better reflect how they feel about their customers.
immagine the possibilies if att labs is able to harness the technology it would be able to expand u-verse on a wider scale.
Sent from my RM-917_nam_usa_214 using Tapatalk
The competitive situation for Comcast and TWC is different. It's not necessarily that Comcast/TWC eliminates a video competitor in the consumer market, it's that they would have an outsized number of subscribers. They could pick and choose winners based on channels they decide to carry or websites they decide to degrade the traffic for. If you want to reach a large number of internet users in the US, you'll have to do whatever Comcast wants you to do.
Plus, the elimination of competition between DirecTV and AT&T would occur in such a small relative area, it's not a major loss. Sure, AT&T "covers" 22 states with their wireline services, but U-Verse is only available in a small percentage of each of those states.
AT&T no longer owns Bell Labs.
But pretty much every U-verse area has DirecTV available. If AT&T were required to divest themselves of all U-Verse subs in order to merge, it would wipe out U-verse as a business.
I see the competition problem as being much more difficult for AT&T to overcome than it will be for Comcast.
One of the theories I've seen espoused is that AT&T will encourage satellite usage, thus freeing some video traffic from U-Verse. This doesn't make a lot of sense to me. The much more plausible theory is that AT&T wants access to DirecTV's cash stream for funding wireless expansion.
U-Verse and DirecTV compete directly here in CT (although AT&T is selling us off to Frontier). However, DirecTV is already reliant on U-Verse for internet, as all the other fast internet options are cable, and they charge more if you use another provider for your video.
U-Verse has extremely patchy availability, but where it is available, it's somehow catching on.
DirecTV isn't going to replace U-Verse, but the issue is, it removes at least a partial competitor from the market. It's a weird match, as U-Verse is a more value-oriented service, whereas DirecTV is a premium service. What I could see happening is some cross-programming deals, especially DirecTV programming coming to U-Verse, as U-Verse has virtually unlimited channel capacity (even though you only get 4 HD streams in the whole house and it slows the internet down).
AT&T's wireless expansion is on the downhill slope. The theory I've read is that AT&T wants DirecTV's cash stream to fund increased dividends to shareholders.
I've noticed this too. People seem to hate their cable company so much that they are desperate for any alternative, even an inferior one like U-verse.
I still think that once the merge is actually complete (couple years?) they'll start pushing video subscribers over to DirecTV and using their U-verse infrastructure strictly for internet. The combination of DSS for linear TV and U-verse for internet and VOD allows them to more directly compete with cable offerings. It's a little more hassle to set up, since it's basically two separate services, but bundle pricing and a single bill might make it enticing to some. Plus, as someone above mentioned, some people hate cable so much their willing to try any alternative.
But you don't have to pay $45 Billion to buy DirecTV to give people a single bill option or a bundling discount. If DirecTV and AT&T want to give people a discount for having both services, then they can just give people a discount.
I saw a report on the sale this morning on one of the news networks (I think it was CNN). The general consensus was that the sale basically benefited both companies and not so much the consumer. The only way I can see the consumer getting anything out of this arrangement is that DirecTV will now have the ability to bundle internet and phone service along with their satellite TV service.
Cooperation by companies like that is pretty rare and hard to maintain long term.
U-Verse is dead. AT&T stopped building it out years ago. Verizon has done the same with FIOS even though FIOS (unlike U-Verse) was a well-regarded and very in-demand service. Buying somebody like DTV is the only way they can expand their customer base since they've abandoned growing it by expanding their cable-tv subscriber base.
I can't see either delivering wireless home broadband via LTE-Advanced because they simply don't have the spectrum to deliver the necessary bandwidth. They hardly have enough to satisfy their mobile customers, and home use is probably an order of magnitude higher.
By having the ability to bundle linear TV, internet and phone and offer higher speeds by pushing video over to DSS they become more competitive with the cable company. That should benefit all consumers as it'll create more real competition with less compromises which should push prices down.