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. harsh

    harsh Beware the Attack Basset DBSTalk Club

    21,531
    240
    Jun 14, 2003
    Salem, OR
    While it was offered up to appease the broadcasters, apparently my recollection wasn't up-to-date and that element of STELA didn't make it. Senator Claire McCaskill of the Senate Commerce Committee was pushing for the requirement in the Fall of 2009 but House Communications Chair Rick Boucher thought it would stink the bill.

    According to a law digest, in order maintain their "qualified carrier" status, DIRECTV had "agreed to" servicing all 210 DMAs. In contrast, DISH was forced to actually do it to regain qualified carrier status that had been taken away.

    An article published yesterday on rbr.com indicates that DIRECTV agreed to 100% coverage quite a while ago [as part of the News Corp merger as it happens].

    The following letter was sent to the FCC in February 2008 by the NAB in order to light a fire under DIRECTV:

    http://www.nab.org/documents/newsRoom/pdfs/021908_Mago_DIRECTV.pdf

    Note that the DIRECTV merger with News Corp was not conditional on the assurances that DIRECTV had made (as stated in the letter) but DIRECTV had nonetheless made the committment in writing to the FCC.
     
  2. James Long

    James Long Ready for Uplink! Staff Member Super Moderator

    50,970
    2,292
    Apr 17, 2003
    Michiana
    Correct. There is no REQUIREMENT to offer locals in all markets.


    Your reading is incorrect. DirecTV never was a "qualified carrier" and has no need to become a "qualified carrier". That term applies only to a carrier who has lost permission to carry distants via court order.


    Access to that article is blocked ... but at best a "failure to keep a promise" not any violation of a requirement.

    The current efforts are to turn the "promise" into a requirement. Something that is best served by the marketplace - not by pressure from the NAB or broadcasters. One might as well have Pac-12 or Time Warner writing letters to get their channels forced onto DirecTV's system as part of the merger.

    If subscribers in the markets DirecTV does not provide locals want locals there are other providers. If that market pressure is not enough to get DirecTV to add locals after all of these years perhaps the need is not that strong.
     
  3. harsh

    harsh Beware the Attack Basset DBSTalk Club

    21,531
    240
    Jun 14, 2003
    Salem, OR
    I'm having no trouble accessing the article. Perhaps you could try a private browsing session.
     
  4. Tom Robertson

    Tom Robertson Lifetime Achiever DBSTalk Club

    21,331
    248
    Nov 15, 2005
    Article requires registration and login.

    Peace,
    Tom
     
  5. Laxguy

    Laxguy Honi Soit Qui Mal Y Pense.

    15,541
    617
    Dec 2, 2010
    Monterey...
    Please, gentlemen, don't confuse the issue with facts! A harsh analysis would indicate it won't stop the Attack Basset.....
     
    2 people like this.
  6. harsh

    harsh Beware the Attack Basset DBSTalk Club

    21,531
    240
    Jun 14, 2003
    Salem, OR
    I see that now when I do a private session. Apparently the site that referred me to it (Google) gave me a cookie.

    In any event, the NAB letter provides documentation for slice1900's question in post #1331 about the existence of the DIRECTV commitment to carrying 100% LIL by 2008.
     
  7. James Long

    James Long Ready for Uplink! Staff Member Super Moderator

    50,970
    2,292
    Apr 17, 2003
    Michiana
    And as already stated, and acknowledged by you, a "commitment" not a requirement. DirecTV has not violated any FCC rule, federal law or previous merger condition in this matter. Let it go and lets move on.
     
    1 person likes this.
  8. Tom Robertson

    Tom Robertson Lifetime Achiever DBSTalk Club

    21,331
    248
    Nov 15, 2005
    I wonder how much effect the problems of D-10 and D-11 had on DIRECTV's ability to meet their intended commitment. As D-14 and D-15 are fully deployed, perhaps they will have the capacity to finish the last stragglers.

    Peace,
    Tom
     
  9. harsh

    harsh Beware the Attack Basset DBSTalk Club

    21,531
    240
    Jun 14, 2003
    Salem, OR
    The issue may have been one of the DMA market boundaries changing and not being able to take full advantage of the Spaceways because they were needed to cover newly introduced (or identified) dedicated spot beam shortcomings.
     
  10. inkahauts

    inkahauts Well-Known Member

    25,061
    1,578
    Nov 13, 2006
    Considering we know that d10 had to turn off and not use its spots at all id bet that it is the reason myself. Otherwise they'd have had all three d10 d11 d12 doing locals (they could have modified d12 to work as d14 now is recall they did make changes to make it work with d10 conus). An entire sat not working is a pretty big deal.
     
  11. slice1900

    slice1900 Well-Known Member

    10,912
    1,609
    Feb 14, 2013
    Iowa
    Was D12 originally intended to utilize Ka hi for its spot beams and changed during construction once D10's issues were known? It wouldn't make much sense for it to be Ka lo which would overlap with D10's frequencies. If D10 was healthy and D12 was Ka hi, there would have been no need for D14 have spot beams and they would have covered all markets years ago. Or if it did it would have covered all remaining markets and they wouldn't need either Spaceway any longer.
     
  12. HoTat2

    HoTat2 Hall Of Fame

    8,021
    307
    Nov 16, 2005
    Los...
    No, D12 was originally intended to be an "on ground" spare to be "quickly" (relatively speaking) launched in case either D10 or D11 got in trouble, and was constructed with the same Ka-lo band payloads as D10 and 11 for both it's spotbeams and CONUS xpndrs.

    However, DIRECTV soon changed this plan of having such a valuable asset sitting dormant on the ground in storage this way waiting for something to possibly go wrong with D10 or 11, and decided to modify just it's CONUS payload to 16 xpndrs on the Ka-hi band and launch it to 103W.
     
  13. inkahauts

    inkahauts Well-Known Member

    25,061
    1,578
    Nov 13, 2006
    Yeah it was called an identical ground spare. I don't believe for one minute it was ever truly intended to be just that. And they altered its payload once they saw I path of how to use it with instead of as a replacement for its two sisters. There is a reason it wasn't launched immediately. And that was IMHO so its payload could be tweaked to work with instead of replace once it was decided it didn't need to replace.
     
    1 person likes this.
  14. DBSSTEPHEN

    DBSSTEPHEN Legend

    583
    19
    Oct 13, 2009
    SALEM,MISSOU...
    What actually happened to the D 13 satellite
     
  15. slice1900

    slice1900 Well-Known Member

    10,912
    1,609
    Feb 14, 2013
    Iowa
    Given the lead time for launch scheduling, a ground spare seems pretty pointless.
     
  16. slice1900

    slice1900 Well-Known Member

    10,912
    1,609
    Feb 14, 2013
    Iowa
    Apparently it was going to go to 110 but they canceled it. Not sure why they'd build a new satellite for a location with only three transponders, rather than use old ones moved from 101 or 119...

    They probably just put something in they would cancel so they wouldn't have a '13' ;)
     
  17. lucky13

    lucky13 Active Member

    2,057
    20
    Nov 27, 2006
    Maryland,...
    I resent that. ;)
     
    1 person likes this.
  18. Tom Robertson

    Tom Robertson Lifetime Achiever DBSTalk Club

    21,331
    248
    Nov 15, 2005
    I suspect much of what happened with D12 was to walk a fine line with investors, launch failure rates, and future-proofing with a lower cost.

    By building D12 but not scheduling a launch, Wall Street looked at a lower cost profile plus an insurance policy if there were a launch failure. Satellite insurance is very expensive--why not use it to build a satellite instead. :)

    Then, after the successful launches, DIRECTV could wait for the right financial point to launch D12. HD did well, DIRECTV did well, Wall street was satisfied with DIRECTV performance to allow the launch costs to make even more money via more HD.

    Plus I'm sure it didn't hurt when DIRECTV negotiated a 3 satellite construction contract. (Too bad, D10 and D11 had problems. Boeing is probably still kicking themselves...)

    Peace,
    Tom
     
  19. slice1900

    slice1900 Well-Known Member

    10,912
    1,609
    Feb 14, 2013
    Iowa
    I'm aware of the multiple issues D10 has had, but hadn't ever heard about issues with D11. What were they?
     
  20. inkahauts

    inkahauts Well-Known Member

    25,061
    1,578
    Nov 13, 2006
    Yep makes sense. Also fits why they waited to really finalize the payload specs I think.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

spam firewall

Advertisements