1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Rumor on the Street: Verizon to Make Bid for DirecTV

Discussion in 'DIRECTV General Discussion' started by Ken S, Sep 25, 2009.

  1. Sep 27, 2009 #61 of 108

    RAD Well-Known Member

    Aug 5, 2002
    I'm afraid that if AT&T got DirecTV that the purse stings will tighten up and they'll try to milk their infrastrusture as much as they can. IMHO forget a new sat being added after D12, new features will be few and far between. Look at their U-Verse product, throw together a Rube Goldberg solution that can't compete with cable, don't spend the dollars to do it right the first time to keep the stock holders happy so the exec's get their bonus at the end of the year.

    At least Verizon said we know running FTTP will cost a bunch of $'s up front but we're future proofing out network so we can provide tons of advance services due to tons of bandwidth being delivered to the home.
  2. Sep 27, 2009 #62 of 108

    rey_1178 New Member

    Dec 12, 2007
  3. Sep 27, 2009 #63 of 108
    Ken S

    Ken S RIP

    Feb 12, 2007
    What I meant is Verizon is focusing on the connection to the home...of course TV is a portion of that...more important though is the IP connection through which voice and content are going to be delivered. One of the companies may buy Dish...but that would really put the pressure on the other to buy DirecTV. Anyway, we'll just have to watch and see.
  4. Sep 27, 2009 #64 of 108

    jpl Hall Of Fame

    Jul 9, 2006
    Totally agree - we'll have to wait and see.
  5. Sep 27, 2009 #65 of 108

    VLaslow Active Member

    Aug 16, 2006
    My experience with Verizon has been VERY mixed. They control their wireless business by ensuring that you have to buy every little thing on their cell phones (I had to get a femtocell just to receive important phone calls when their cell signal went south after two good solid years), the quality of their connections for wireless is usually the best, the DSL service I had from them was horrid. It was down more than it was up, and I've had to use their landline service even though they were the most expensive service available. During recent fires and electrical issues, their landline was unavailable even though I plugged in a standard tone phone. No dial tone at all. So much for reliability of service during emergencies.

    I see them, as one person said, as glacial and old world; we own it and you will PAY for it; big time!

    Fortunately, I now have a way out of their phone service via VOIP, I'm so far up the "hill" that FIOS won't be here for years so DirecTV remains my solution of choice, and Time Warner is running a pretty good internet service.

    Actually, I don't trust any of the old line companies. I wish it were not so.
  6. Sep 28, 2009 #66 of 108
    Jeremy W

    Jeremy W Hall Of Fame

    Jun 19, 2006
    Yeah, but you did that because going with a company other than VZW was not a desirable option.
  7. Sep 28, 2009 #67 of 108

    SamC Hall Of Fame

    Jan 20, 2003
    Phone company history:

    This deals with what today they call "POTS" or "plain old telephone service" which is all there was in 1982. AT&T owned 25 or so "local companies" which generally were named "(state or region name) Bell" or "(state or region name) Telephone" such as New York Telephone, Southern Bell or Illinois Bell. These were broken up into 7 regional companies. NYNEX (NY and New England), Bell Atlantic (mid-Atlantic states), Bell South (south) Southwestern Bell (lower midwest and southwest), Ameritech (great lakes states), US West (the vast "rest of the country"), and Pacific Telsis (California and the very small part of Nevada that AT&T served).

    This dealt with about 80% of the country. The rest of the country was served by a plethora of other telephone companies, such as GTE, Contel, Centel, Alltel, and many others. There were also two companies named Bell that AT&T did not own. SNET, in CT, and Cincinnati Bell, in that metro region. AT&T was left with Western Electric, which made phones; Long Lines, which was the long distance company; and Bell Labs, which invented phones.

    GTE then bought Contel and Centel and then merged with NYNEX and Bell Atlantic to from Verizon, which serves the Atlantic seaboard states from Virginia to Maine, plus the random mix of places, mostly smaller towns but not always, around the country that were GTE, etc.

    Over the years, the rest of the Bell companies, including SNET, except US West, became merged and eventually bought the remnant AT&T, changing its name to AT&T.

    Then Verizon sold, or is selling off, the POTS business in ME, VT, NH, and WV, and all of the random GTE, etc, places, except for its businesses in the more urban part of CA.

    So today, in terms of POTS, you have Verizon in MA, RI, NY, PA, NJ, DE, DC, MD, VA and a part of CA. Then AT&T in FL, GA, SC, NC, KY, TN, AL, MS, LA, AR, OK, TX, KS, MO, OH, IN, IL, MI, WI, CT, CA, and NV. Then Qwest in all state in the Mountain time zone, plus IA, MN, NE, SD, ND, OR, and WA.

    See a map here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:RBOC_map.png

    This is the POTS for about 75% of the country. The rest are now independent companies such as Cincinnati Bell, Frontier, Century, Windstream, Fairpoint, Hawaiian, Embarq and three dozen others.

    Now to DirecTV: The deal here, IMHO, is that the the phone companies workers are very unionized and have very restrictive work rules and such. And, they have a, perhaps very legitimate, view that Verizon is selling off its POTS business, and the workers and pension liabilities that go with it, to smaller companies who may not be there. For two examples, GTE served Hawaii, which became Verizon. Verizon sold it off to a private company, which went broke almost immediately. In my state, Verizon wants to leave, selling out to Frontier. Frontier is 1/1000th the size on Verizon in total capital and the CWA is going nuts about it.

    Now how do you merge an company like DirecTV with something like Verizon or AT&T? I just do not see it. If you operated DirecTV on a union basis, it would go broke, and the CWA is never going to let either phone company own a union free business.
  8. Sep 28, 2009 #68 of 108

    Upstream Hall Of Fame

    Jul 4, 2006
    And that is why DirecTV is a poor fit for Verizon or AT&T.

    The focus is on the connection to the home to deliver internet, video, etc.

    DirecTV does not have a connection to the home.

    The only advantage that DirecTV would offer Verizon is volume to help negotiate video carriage contracts. But that is a short-term benefit until Verizon expands their network. Smaller cable companies could also offer negotiation volume (to a lesser degree), but they offer the connectivity to provide internet.
  9. Sep 28, 2009 #69 of 108
    Stuart Sweet

    Stuart Sweet The Shadow Knows!

    Jun 18, 2006
    I don't know if it's a good fit. This is what I do know: A lot of people put weight on who the majority stockholder is. They say, Murdoch did this, now Malone is doing that. DIRECTV is an independent company and while I am certainly not privy to every little bit of what goes on there, no one has ever said that any decision was made because Mr. Malone or Liberty Media dictated it. Quite the opposite, in fact: sometimes decisions are made that would seem to go against corporate synergy.

    If verizon buys DIRECTV, they could keep their competitors from bundling DIRECTV, they could bundle FIOS Internet with DIRECTV television for a great on-demand experience (like what I have now) or they could do nothing.
  10. Sep 28, 2009 #70 of 108

    ivoaraujo Legend

    Aug 27, 2007
    What are the advantages and/or disadvantages of ATT or Verizon purchasing Directv?

    I see it is already answered
  11. Sep 28, 2009 #71 of 108

    dmurphy Active Member

    Sep 28, 2006
    Look up "Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless" and tell me what you think then.

    With the exception of about 50 employees in New York - that came out of the old NYNEX - Verizon Wireless is completely union-free.

    ... for those unfamiliar with the Verizon family; Verizon Wireless is a completely separate entity from Verizon Communications. Verizon Communications owns 55% of Verizon Wireless (Vodafone owns the other 45%), but they are operated as completely separate entities.
  12. Sep 28, 2009 #72 of 108

    hdtvfan0001 Well-Known Member

    Jul 28, 2004
    Based on some information that was shared from a senior Verizon contact..this is pretty hush hugh inside their organization.

    The monetary considerations of any such deal - if they ever are going to happen at all - are extremely significant....making the chances 50/50 at best.

    While these rumors are floating around for Verizon and AT&T...these are investor rumors, not business operational rumors....meaning they may make stockholder sense, but not necessarily business sense.

    Stay tuned.
  13. Sep 28, 2009 #73 of 108

    VLaslow Active Member

    Aug 16, 2006
    Exactly! But, that didn't make me happy, either.
  14. Sep 28, 2009 #74 of 108

    Upstream Hall Of Fame

    Jul 4, 2006

    If Verizon is hooked up to provide Fios internet to a home, what is the advantage of offering DirecTV? They could just provide Fios television over the same connection that provides Fios internet.
  15. Sep 28, 2009 #75 of 108
    Doug Brott

    Doug Brott Lifetime Achiever DBSTalk Club

    Jul 12, 2006
    Los Angeles
    :scratchin .. how do you define "drop in quality?" I think the product itself is better than ever.
  16. Sep 28, 2009 #76 of 108
    Ken S

    Ken S RIP

    Feb 12, 2007
    Your senior contact better be very careful as spreading any kind of inside information could be a very serious violation of law. A smart senior Verizon contact would know not to do that.
  17. Sep 28, 2009 #77 of 108

    jpl Hall Of Fame

    Jul 9, 2006
    While spreading inside information can (and should) get you fired, unless you benefit directly from spreading said rumors, I don't believe there's a violation of the law. For example, let's say a company is about to disclose some news that will absolutely kill the stock. I'm an insider and I don't want to get hammered with that, so I want to off-load my stock. I put out some rumor that makes the company look alot different than it actually is, financially speaking. The stock goes up... I sell... take a nice profit... and the stock then tanks when the real news hits. That's an example of insider trading.

    Unless you're releasing information that you or your family will directly benefit from, as a result of that clandestine release of info, you're really not engaging in insider trading. Not saying that it's ok to do that... it's not... just that it's probably not illegal.
  18. Sep 28, 2009 #78 of 108

    Steve Well-Known Member

    Aug 22, 2006
    Depending on how high up the person is, may not be illegal, but still could be grounds for losing one's job, depending on corporate policy.

    EDIT: Didn't see jpl's post. Sounds like we agree.
  19. Sep 28, 2009 #79 of 108

    RCY Godfather

    Nov 16, 2005
    I hope it stays a rumor. To me, less competition is bad.
  20. Sep 28, 2009 #80 of 108

    wingrider01 Hall Of Fame

    Sep 9, 2005
    Wonder what the FCC will say about this

    If VVerizon gets Directv, Directv will lose a longtime customer here would rather stick myself in sensitive spots with a ice pick they deal with those jerks for anything

Share This Page