1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Welcome to the new DBSTalk community platform. We have recently migrated to a community platform called Xenfono and hope you will find this change to your liking. There are some differences, but for the most part, if you just post and read, that will all be the same. If you have questions, please post them in the Forum Support area. Thanks!

AT&T Agrees to Purchase DirecTV (Was: ATT looking to buy Direct TV)

Discussion in 'DIRECTV General Discussion' started by puri, Apr 30, 2014.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. May 16, 2014 #301 of 1411
    slice1900

    slice1900 Well-Known Member

    6,553
    604
    Feb 14, 2013
    Iowa
    Sure it is, it is more spectrum efficient (more bits per MHz) It is like cable switching from QAM64 to QAM256, or converting from MPEG2 to MPEG4. You make better use of the same resources.

    The big gain will be when they move to VoLTE, because the way voice is handled currently uses up a lot more spectrum than the amount of data being passed (modelling after circuit switched POTS calls, rather than VOIP packet switched calls) There are a ton of frequencies sitting idle most of the time to support peak calling volume, which will be available for data when not being used for voice.

    However, since voice traffic will have priority, peak calling volumes will be far far higher than before - fewer problems making/receiving calls in football stadiums or during emergencies (like after the Boston marathon bombing) All the bandwidth currently reserved for data will be available for calling - data traffic might slow to a crawl, but making calls is probably more important than someone posting Instagram pics.
     
  2. May 16, 2014 #302 of 1411
    Laxguy

    Laxguy Honi Soit Qui Mal Y Pense.

    15,153
    546
    Dec 2, 2010
    Winters,...
    Heh. Thanks for the expo..
     
  3. May 16, 2014 #303 of 1411
    inkahauts

    inkahauts DIRECTV A-Team

    21,519
    957
    Nov 13, 2006
    On what planet is that true? There is huge amount of area ATT will never be able to offer uverse tv to, but with the merger with Directv they would be able to offer tv to tens of millions (if not hundred million or more) of more people than they do now.
     
  4. May 16, 2014 #304 of 1411
    slice1900

    slice1900 Well-Known Member

    6,553
    604
    Feb 14, 2013
    Iowa
    Yes, they have a potential base of most of the country, but they have high penetration in some areas (like LA) and low penetration in others. Why is that? I think it is because of national pricing. Cable companies don't do national pricing. If two people who live in different parts of the country both subscribe to Comcast they probably don't pay the same, depending on their markets. One may have a couple competing cable companies plus a telco alternative like FIOS. Another may have just the one cable company in town, lots of trees everywhere making satellite a bad choice and no telco TV offering. Comcast is going to stick it to the guy with no alternative, but is forced to keep their prices competitive where they have to if they want to get customers.

    What if Directv priced that way? Maybe that's why there are so many subscribers in LA - if the cable companies charge more (due to cost of living, lack of competition, whatever) but other places where the cable prices are low maybe Directv has few subscribers since they're priced way out of line with cable TV.

    Directv has a fixed overhead for operating satellites which doesn't change whether they have 1 million or 100 million subscribers. Each subscriber has a fixed acquisition cost (installation, free Genie, etc.) which is pretty high (they state it is over $800) so in order to pay all those fixed costs the gross margin on the service needs to be pretty damn good. They have to pay for programming per subscriber (I assume?) and of course with more subscribers you need more CSRs etc. but those are probably pretty small compared to the monthly charges so additional customers are pretty profitable if they stick around beyond their two year commitment. So what if they lowered their prices 25% in some city where there's a lot of cable competition and pricing is low. Maybe today they have only 5% of the households in that city because their prices are out of line, but were able to jump that up to 15% with the price drop. Would that be worth it? Hell yeah, that would be hugely profitable!

    Directv could have done that themselves, and they haven't, but maybe if AT&T buys them and thinks more like a cable company than a satellite company, changes like that might happen. Whether that's good or not is another matter, but it would be interesting to see. It has always mystified me why Directv and Dish do national pricing, when many industries (think airlines) spend hundreds of millions on figuring out how to maximize revenue through extreme price discrimination. It is only recently they even bothered accounting for the different cost of sports in different areas.

    I'm sure some will say this would be a terrible idea, that customers will be pissed if they find out they're paying more than a guy in another city, or maybe even more than the guy across the street. But anytime you fly you can be pretty certain some people on that flight - maybe a lot of them - paid less for their ticket than you did. Maybe if Directv did this there would be some initial shock and outrage, but they'd get over it pretty quickly and it would just be something you were used to.
     
    1 person likes this.
  5. May 16, 2014 #305 of 1411
    unixguru

    unixguru Godfather

    787
    33
    Jul 9, 2007
    This deal has nothing to do with internet or phone and satellite. Even if they could put up a system with terabits/sec both up and down they still can't erase the laws of physics. TOF (time of flight). The sats are a long way away and it takes time for any signal to travel up and down - seconds. A phone call over geostationary sat would be like walkie talkie - "over". Internet satellite is available today and it is absolutely terrible; nobody uses it unless there is no other "broadband" available.

    Tv spectrum that is desirable is terrestrial (ground), not satellite. They can't use satellite spectrum for ground-based and vice versa.

    No fiber to homes? The same was said once about water, sewer, gas, power, telephone, cable. They will run fiber to homes eventually.
     
    1 person likes this.
  6. May 16, 2014 #306 of 1411
    harsh

    harsh Beware the Attack Basset

    21,192
    182
    Jun 14, 2003
    Salem, OR
    How many are going to be able to/want to install a dish to get their TV that haven't already?

    What happens to DIRECTV rates, already averaging above the $100 mark, when AT&T wants their cut? Do you honestly think that the insertion of AT&T at any level is going to make DIRECTV more attractive to uVerse or DIRECTV customers?

    To customers of their competitors?

    Of those who have expressed an opinion, the answer seems to be a resounding "no you didn't".
     
  7. May 16, 2014 #307 of 1411
  8. May 16, 2014 #308 of 1411
    wingrider01

    wingrider01 Hall Of Fame

    1,764
    2
    Sep 9, 2005
    they already are in some locations - they are spending a ton of money in certain rollout cities for giga-fiber to the dmark.
     
  9. May 16, 2014 #309 of 1411
    slice1900

    slice1900 Well-Known Member

    6,553
    604
    Feb 14, 2013
    Iowa
    AT&T would become the owner. They don't take a "cut", they take 100% of the profits that are currently either retained or used for buybacks. So there's no reason Directv rates should go up.

    You don't understand business very well if you think that a company that "needs" more profit to pay middlemen could just raise their rates. Go tell the owner of every business that's losing money that the solution is simple: charge more. They'll thank you for your keen business insight! :nono2:

    If rates go up, some customers leave. If you make more money with higher rates than you lose from customers that leave, then from a business standpoint it makes financial sense to raise your rates. If rates go down, you'll get more customers. If you make more money from the additional customers than you lose from lower rates, then it makes financial sense to lower your rates (which in a business that raises rates yearly might be a smaller/no increase rather than an actual cut) Every business hopes to find that point where their profit is maximized.

    Perhaps AT&T beancounters might have a different evaluation of whether Directv is above or below that profit maximizing point than Directv's beancounters do. If so, they might decide to raise or lower rates if/when they're in charge.
     
  10. May 16, 2014 #310 of 1411
    CraigerM

    CraigerM Member

    864
    19
    Apr 15, 2014
    St. Louis
  11. May 16, 2014 #311 of 1411
    slice1900

    slice1900 Well-Known Member

    6,553
    604
    Feb 14, 2013
    Iowa
    Eh, I discount the author as ignorant since he seems to think buying Directv will allow "use of satellites to bridge gaps in cellular networks". He clearly has no concept of the difference between GSO and LEO. I know phones keep getting bigger, but probably won't get big enough to stick a satellite dish on it, not to mention having to keep that dish pointed at the correct spot in the sky!

    You need something like what Teledesic and Iridium tried to do for what he's talking about.

    I do find it interesting how many theories there are. Normally it is pretty obvious what is behind a company's acquisition strategy, but this time it is a more of a mystery. I wonder if AT&T will announce the reasons after the purchase is approved (assumed the deal gets done and the FCC approves it) or on the following earnings call, or keep it close to the vest for a while to keep the competition in the dark?
     
  12. May 17, 2014 #312 of 1411
    Rob

    Rob Icon

    591
    8
    Apr 22, 2002
    http://www.buzzfeed.com/passantino/att-set-to-announce-directv-acquisition-sunday

     
  13. May 17, 2014 #313 of 1411
    JosephB

    JosephB Icon

    1,300
    36
    Nov 14, 2005
    Birmingham, AL
    They would say what their rationale is when the deal is announced. They'll probably talk about synergies and taking costs out and blah blah, but it's really all about getting access to DirecTV's money printer. DirecTV generates something like $2 billion in free cash flow every year, and that is money that AT&T can use to pay dividends, buy wireless spectrum, or buy other companies. I'm sure they will take out duplication where it makes sense (customer service, installation network, and there is some chance that they will offer DirecTV in lieu of IPTV over U-Verse so that you can get a higher U-Verse internet tier, but I don't know if they will completely abandon U-Verse TV (they likely have a lot of customers in MDUs and other situations where a dish is not feasible), and this is most likely just a financial engineering ploy, intertwined with a TV consolidation storyline.
     
  14. May 17, 2014 #314 of 1411
    CraigerM

    CraigerM Member

    864
    19
    Apr 15, 2014
    St. Louis
    Just thought of something, I wonder how many UVerse TV would leave if they kept DTV and got rid of UVerse TV because they would find out now they have a $25 Advanced Receiver Fee when the HD DVR was included for free with UVerse TV?
     
  15. May 17, 2014 #315 of 1411
    sigma1914

    sigma1914 DIRECTV A-Team DBSTalk Club

    14,573
    369
    Sep 5, 2006
    Allen, TX
    It's not included with Uverse. HD is only included into the highest tier called U450. Total home DVR fee is $15 with the Basic tier and free in the others.


    http://s16.postimg.org/z4smrtu05/image.png
     
  16. May 17, 2014 #316 of 1411
    CraigerM

    CraigerM Member

    864
    19
    Apr 15, 2014
    St. Louis
    On the ad it says get a free DVR for life.
     
  17. May 17, 2014 #317 of 1411
    Athlon646464

    Athlon646464 Gold Members DBSTalk Gold Club

    3,045
    66
    Feb 23, 2007
    Uxbridge, MA
    IMHO, I don't think we'll (current subs) see anything different for quite some time (year or two or three). The first year will be all about getting the deal approved in Washington. Years two & three will see 95% business as usual.

    Then, as AT&T usually does given their history, will sell D* at a discount sometime after that (in four or five years). Who knows, Mr. White could even buy it back then. :hurah:

    And who knows what sort of content delivery systems we'll be using in five years. Should be very interesting. Just my 2 cents...

    [​IMG][​IMG]
    [​IMG]
     
    2 people like this.
  18. May 17, 2014 #318 of 1411
    Paul Secic

    Paul Secic Hall Of Fame

    6,226
    23
    Dec 16, 2003
    Uverse's boxes are junk.
     
  19. May 17, 2014 #319 of 1411
    CraigerM

    CraigerM Member

    864
    19
    Apr 15, 2014
    St. Louis
    How are they junk? I know they don't have tuners in them since they connect to their RG.
     
  20. May 17, 2014 #320 of 1411
    sigma1914

    sigma1914 DIRECTV A-Team DBSTalk Club

    14,573
    369
    Sep 5, 2006
    Allen, TX
    They're slow with bad software design. Navigation is cumbersome.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page