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. Jun 3, 2015 #1321 of 1411
    James Long

    James Long Ready for Uplink! Staff Member Super Moderator

    50,954
    2,285
    Apr 17, 2003
    Michiana
    Per the FCC - March 13th, 2015 (when the clock stopped at 170 days):
    "We take this opportunity to remind the public that the 180-day clock represents a good faith undertaking by the Commission to complete action on assignment and transfer of control applications within a certain timeframe and is a means to keep interested parties informed of the progress of those reviews. The clock carries with it no procedural or substantive rights or obligations but merely represents an informal benchmark by which to evaluate the Commission’s progress. Although the Commission seeks to meet the 180-day benchmark, the Commission retains the discretion to determine whether, in any particular review proceeding, events beyond the agency’s control, the need to obtain additional information, or the interests of sound analysis constitute sufficient grounds to stop the clock."

    I hope that the optimists that believe the deal could be closed "any day now" have a reason to believe that the FCC will restart the clock soon (other than the obvious "it has been two months ... they have to restart it some time").
     
  2. Jun 3, 2015 #1322 of 1411
    Tom Robertson

    Tom Robertson Lifetime Achiever DBSTalk Club

    21,331
    248
    Nov 15, 2005
    The FCC can, at anytime, start the clock and accept or deny it straight away. I wouldn't be surprised by such at this point.

    Now, as to do I sense this is coming soon? By human standards or by satellite company standards? :)

    I sense the whispers are coming to a resolution. Who blinks first? It could happen very quickly at this point. Or a stalemate could develop, and soon is measured by the time to design, build, and launch a satellite... :)

    Peace,
    Tom
     
  3. Jun 3, 2015 #1323 of 1411
    slice1900

    slice1900 Well-Known Member

    10,905
    1,607
    Feb 14, 2013
    Iowa
    Well there were rumors a couple months ago that the Comcast deal was about to be approved, so while most of us think the AT&T deal will go through we should take the word of supposed "insiders" quoted in the press with a grain of salt.
     
  4. Jun 4, 2015 #1324 of 1411
    Oli74

    Oli74 Member

    192
    8
    Nov 18, 2014
    Staten Island
  5. Jun 4, 2015 #1325 of 1411
    damondlt

    damondlt New Member

    5,455
    233
    Feb 27, 2006
    Newfoundland...
  6. Jun 4, 2015 #1326 of 1411
    slice1900

    slice1900 Well-Known Member

    10,905
    1,607
    Feb 14, 2013
    Iowa
    Dish is apparently talking to T-Mobile (again...didn't they discuss this a couple years ago?) I guess between the likely impending tie-up of Directv & AT&T, and Dish's need to start using the cellular licenses they own before the deadline, Dish needs a dance partner too.
     
  7. Jun 4, 2015 #1327 of 1411
    harsh

    harsh Beware the Attack Basset DBSTalk Club

    21,513
    239
    Jun 14, 2003
    Salem, OR
    From the perspective of regulators, the business case for this merger is probably better than that of AT&T and DIRECTV. They currently compete only for suburban (as opposed to rural) Internet which is something that the gubmint is pushing hard to find players for. It doesn't hurt that the combined US entities would remain an also-ran in terms of customer bases.
     
  8. Oli74

    Oli74 Member

    192
    8
    Nov 18, 2014
    Staten Island
  9. longrider

    longrider Well-Known Member

    4,181
    216
    Apr 21, 2007
    Elizabeth, CO
    My understanding is that covering those last markets was planned with the launch of DirecTV-14 which was set long before the merger was even dreamed of. Also I dont see what this has to do with the merger other than somebody taking advantage of a regulatory process to force something they want.
     
  10. harsh

    harsh Beware the Attack Basset DBSTalk Club

    21,513
    239
    Jun 14, 2003
    Salem, OR
    This is the only opportunity anyone will get to effect change. It is like changing TV providers: make sure you get everything you want up front because they won't be all that interested after you've accepted the deal.
     
    2 people like this.
  11. slice1900

    slice1900 Well-Known Member

    10,905
    1,607
    Feb 14, 2013
    Iowa
    While I agree this should be simple to do in the next few months, I'm curious that the article said Directv had committed to doing this by 2008. Anyone have further details?

    The problem with these sorts of conditions, like Verizon's commitment to provide fiber internet to everyone in NYC in exchange for a $2/month fee on every subscriber in the city, is that there are never any penalties specified for failure to meet the commitment. If they were forced to refund all those fees for failure to deliver, they'd probably find they were able to do it after all.

    I guess the problem is that these conditions are generally not coming from the FCC, but from outside groups/companies. The FCC doesn't care if one provider fails to offer all locals or fails to provide fiber to every NYC household, but if they're going to add these conditions they need some sort of stick that insures compliance or a predefined penalty for non-compliance.
     
    1 person likes this.
  12. 242424

    242424 AllStar

    411
    69
    Mar 22, 2012
  13. HoTat2

    HoTat2 Hall Of Fame

    8,021
    307
    Nov 16, 2005
    Los...
    What gets me is that the way these broadcasters talk here is a clear admission that they need MVPDs like DIRECTV to help get their signal out more than DIRECTV needs them. Yet they hypocritically act like it's the other way around and insist DIRECTV and others pay them ever inceasing retransmission fees to carry their signals.

    Sent from my SGH-M819N using Tapatalk
     
  14. inkahauts

    inkahauts Well-Known Member

    25,060
    1,577
    Nov 13, 2006
    It's not good period. They should never be forced.

    And truly in the end I think it's dumb anyway. I believe they are all coming soon so it's a mute point.
     
  15. 242424

    242424 AllStar

    411
    69
    Mar 22, 2012
    So I assume you have locals and aren't being bent over paying for distant networks?
     
  16. harsh

    harsh Beware the Attack Basset DBSTalk Club

    21,513
    239
    Jun 14, 2003
    Salem, OR
    I'm recalling that a 100% LIL coverage requirement was part of STELA (2010, or maybe SHVERA in 2004) and not something DIRECTV expressly committed to doing. The FCC formally certified DISH's compliance in 2010.
     
  17. James Long

    James Long Ready for Uplink! Staff Member Super Moderator

    50,954
    2,285
    Apr 17, 2003
    Michiana
    The 100% coverage requirement was something special that only applied to DISH.
    It was written into the law by Congress to allow DISH out of their permanent ban on providing distant networks.
    After being certified, DISH was allowed to provide distants to the extent permitted by law.
    (DISH provides distants of their choice in short markets as part of their regular packages with locals.)

    The coverage requirement does not apply to DirecTV. They did not lose their ability to carry distants under the original laws.
     
  18. Drucifer

    Drucifer Well-Known Member

    9,492
    248
    Feb 12, 2009
    NY Hudson...
    I hate these transition periods in takeovers. It seems like getting anything from the company getting taken over is nearly impossible.
     
  19. inkahauts

    inkahauts Well-Known Member

    25,060
    1,577
    Nov 13, 2006
    Doesn't matter. When you try and force a company to provide services they always cost more and you get less than if you let the marketplace deal with it.

    I think it's bad they don't have every DMA covered yet... But I think this year it will end.

    And I never think one company can or should be bale to force another to do them a favor in business just because. Especially when you know they want to use it as leverage in negotiating a price for their channels. That would make the rates being asked for in those markets go even higher when DIRECTV starts negotiating. In fact i can see it delaying the big networks getting picked up while all the little ones get turned on. To me
    It's a negotiating ploy plain and simple and that should never be built into a condition the government set for a merger.

    Especially since it won't actually do anything anyway.



    And my rates are sky high already in part because of my locals.
     
  20. 242424

    242424 AllStar

    411
    69
    Mar 22, 2012
    So that's a yes....
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

spam firewall

Advertisements