dslreports logo
site
spacer

spacer
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


view:
topics flat nest 
Comments on news posted 2014-06-12 14:11:40: AT&T lobbyists and lawyers are hard at work trying to sell the government on their need to acquire DirecTV. ..

page: 1 · 2 · next


fiosultimate

join:2014-06-09
San Antonio, TX

Price

When was the last time your bill went down for the same services? Be real, they gotta make as much profit as they can get away with, otherwise I will short them


motoracer

join:2003-09-15
united state

Dumb?

Nobody is dumb enough to believe AT&T. They've never dropped their prices. The only people that would actually believe this are people that are getting paid off (and even then, they still wouldn't believe it).

whoyourdaddy

join:2013-02-20
Honey Brook, PA

funny

make our increase less sever lmao bunch a bull it still go up 5-10 bucks a year if more


Kuro

@75.151.50.x

Too big?

The reason that they are not big enough to compete should send warning lights that not only the Comcast/TW merger is a bad thing but also that Comcast needs to be broken up. Cant wait for the reasoning when a Comcast/AT&T merger gets announced.

biochemistry
Premium
join:2003-05-09
92361

Pricing out of business

The cable networks and providers are slowly pricing themselves out of business. Cord cutting is going to keep increasing. I could buy several DVDs/blurays a month and still end up ahead on cost savings. Netflix/Amazon Prime/Hulu/Roku is all you need.
--
isheavenforreal.com


tshirt
Premium
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA
kudos:5
Reviews:
·Comcast
reply to Kuro

Re: Too big?

said by Kuro :

The reason that they are not big enough to compete should send warning lights that not only the Comcast/TW merger

Yup, wouldn't want ISP's to be successful, profitable, or to stay in business! ? ?


Kuro

@75.151.50.x
If you have 40+ Billion to buy a competitor rather than upgrade and expand yourself and get that success and profit down the line rather than now then there is an issue with the way business is done.


maartena
Elmo
Premium
join:2002-05-10
Orange, CA
kudos:3

I don't like this....

AT&T buying DirecTV.
Comcast buying Time Warner Cable.
Sprint buying T-Mobile (after AT&T tried).

Pretty soon all the competition has been bought out.
--
"I reject your reality and substitute my own!"

elefante72

join:2010-12-03
East Amherst, NY
reply to fiosultimate

Re: Price

my cell phone bills have been going down every year and speed and quality increasing. Heck my parents only pay $27 all in for unlimited talk/text and 500 MB data. But that is MVNO--maybe we should bring that back for HSI...


imanogre

join:2005-11-29
Smyrna, GA

1 recommendation

reply to tshirt

Re: Too big?

So ATT is not successful, profitable or isn't going to stay in business without this merger? Ludicrous.

elefante72

join:2010-12-03
East Amherst, NY
Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
reply to maartena

Re: I don't like this....

DirecTV -> Dead without land-based P2P network and AT&T wanted NFL. Dish is next
Comcast/TWC - That is not good
Sprint/TMO - Dead alone, dying together...What do you do? Maybe actually a credible #3. Nextel killed Sprint really slow... DT lit the fuse and wothout AT&T dough TMO network would still really suck. Now it's great where it works and still sucks for the other 80% of the land...

elray

join:2000-12-16
Santa Monica, CA
Reviews:
·Time Warner Cable
·EarthLink
reply to biochemistry

Re: Pricing out of business

said by biochemistry:

The cable networks and providers are slowly pricing themselves out of business. Cord cutting is going to keep increasing.

No they aren't, and no, it isn't.
The average family household will pay whatever it costs for double- or triple-play services, so long as the content owners and networks restrict their access to traditional pay-tv providers.

I had this very conversation today with the broke sister, complaining about her bills - that she could completely do without phone, internet, and pay-tv, and I outlined it for her, as well as several compromise positions.

The bottom line? Lifetime Movie Network costs a minimum of $60-70/month (averaged), no matter how you slice it, and she, like virtually every Mom I know, won't give it up. As BiggA laments, cable's first amendment right means double- and triple-play doesn't cost much more than the LMN tier - so people shrug and pay.

said by biochemistry:

I could buy several DVDs/blurays a month and still end up ahead on cost savings. Netflix/Amazon Prime/Hulu/Roku is all you need.

Correction: you don't "need" any of those.

But for those who "want", in the aforementioned example, how do you serve up the same content that cable delivers, using Netflix/Amazon Prime/Hulu/Roku?

elray

join:2000-12-16
Santa Monica, CA
Reviews:
·Time Warner Cable
·EarthLink
reply to motoracer

Re: Dumb?

said by motoracer:

They've never dropped their prices. .

Absolute nonsense.

While I have no desire to ever do business with AT&T in any form, they do drop their prices all the time, if you bother to pay attention and do the math.


battleop

join:2005-09-28
00000

Killing off a U-Verse Competitor?

"Despite the fact that eliminating DirecTV would kill off an AT&T U-Verse competitor"

Is U-Verse really that much of a competitor to anyone?
--
I do not, have not, and will not work for AT&T/Comcast/Verizon/Charter or similar sized company.


fiosultimate

join:2014-06-09
San Antonio, TX
reply to elefante72

Re: Price

We are talking about tv services, right??


tshirt
Premium
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA
kudos:5
Reviews:
·Comcast

1 edit
reply to Kuro

Re: Too big?

Cable A isn't going to overbuild Cable B Cable A (Comcast in this case) is continuously upgrading and expand service offerings.
Since TWC offered itself up for sale, it is a way to expand territory out to the (previous) limit of 30 % of homes.
And Guess what, this is down the road for cable which has be working for more then 1/2 a century to get to this point.

Or perhaps you're saying " I shouldn't pay, charge the next generation" ?


tshirt
Premium
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA
kudos:5
Reviews:
·Comcast
reply to imanogre
said by imanogre:

So ATT is not successful, profitable or isn't going to stay in business without this merger? Ludicrous.

I didn't mention AT&T in MY post.

But perhaps you are unable to comprehend why these companies exist...their purpose is to make money by providing goods and services to those who choose to buy.
Buying another company when it helps fill a void in their product line is to further that purpose.


chip89
Premium
join:2012-07-05
Independence, OH
reply to maartena

Re: I don't like this....

I don't to. Maybe sprint will have T-mobile like siruis & XM does but I doubt they will.


Kuro

@75.151.50.x
reply to tshirt

Re: Too big?

No I will pay if need be. I just don't like the current status quo where you are stuck with one and only one cable provider because they bought out everyone else.


maartena
Elmo
Premium
join:2002-05-10
Orange, CA
kudos:3
reply to elefante72

Re: I don't like this....

said by elefante72:

Dish is next

I'm suspecting a new look at Verizon/Dish is already being speculated in the board rooms of both companies.....
--
"I reject your reality and substitute my own!"

etaadmin

join:2002-01-17
Dallas, TX
kudos:1

2 edits

1 recommendation

reply to battleop

Re: Killing off a U-Verse Competitor?

said by battleop:

Is U-Verse really that much of a competitor to anyone?

I see this as AT&T throwing the towel on uverse TV, they know they can't compete with mediocre (at best) picture quality and with ultraHD (4K) in our near future there is no way uverse TV (VDSL2) will be able to keep up with the rest of the industry.

If AT&T's intentions to deploy gigapower were real they wouldn't be interested in DirecTV, AT&T can funnel TV, internet and everything they want trough fiber. Since they are not serious about gigapower their solution for ultraHD is DirecTV this way they can 'liberate' uverse from the TV portion and offer the whole bandwidth for internet.

HiDesert

join:2008-08-17

1 edit
reply to elray

Re: Pricing out of business

said by elray:

said by biochemistry:

The cable networks and providers are slowly pricing themselves out of business. Cord cutting is going to keep increasing.

No they aren't, and no, it isn't.
The average family household will pay whatever it costs .

To say there are no thresholds? Don't believe that. Everyone has a limit on what they will pay. If cable continue the hikes past the rate of inflation, people will cut or drop services. At which point cable will freeze rates. The main problem is carriage extortion. Disney is the worst violator of that.

They charge what they can. I have a house in Fiji and satelite costs only 50 a month FJD or around 28 USD. I just saw the new Tom Cruise movie in 3D in Fiji for 6 FJD or 3.3 USD. Believe me, if enough cut the cord in the US, prices will drop, and fast. And they will still make money. When I'm in the states, I just use OTA. Not because I can't afford it, but I don't want to endorse a corrupt system of carriage extortion and hate companies like Disney that line congress's pockets to keep that system in place.


CaptainRR
Premium
join:2006-04-21
Blue Rock, OH
reply to maartena

Re: I don't like this....

Not to mention all of the spectrum Dish is holding I am sure Verizon would love that.


tshirt
Premium
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA
kudos:5
Reviews:
·Comcast
reply to Kuro

Re: Too big?

And before you had 2 cable providers?
Perhaps you had 2 wired phone companies?
2 fiber providers?

more than 1 of any group is rare because of the extreme cost, and the consolidation, happens for the same reasons, bigger IS more efficient. Bigger does mean more purchasing power for content and plant upgrades.
see, bigger made a lot of "bandwidth getting cheaper" possible which you love, but it also means pricing the less efficient providers out of the market and with them some specialty services you like too.

Consumers had the choice to continue to shop at a small butcher, and then a bakery, and then a dairy and a farm stand/produce market.
instead they chose supermarkets for convince and price, and when supermarkets weren't one stop enough more efficient models (Costco, Sam's club, etc.) took so much money out of the market that supermarkets had to follow and are now consolidating rapidly. If consumers as a group want higher levels of service they'll pay more for it like trader joe's, whole foods etc. and if the group supporting those stores shrinks prices will go up or the brands/service level will disappear/be absorbed in to the big/ impersonal.
When people choose to shop with their wallet they need to remember to feed the ones they want to thrive, not just remove the payment/profit from the market.


tabernak

join:2013-08-10
Reviews:
·AT&T U-Verse
·AT&T DSL Service
reply to biochemistry

Re: Pricing out of business

Cable networks aren't pricing themselves out of business simply because they're typically providing the other pipe for your internet that you'd be going to. Really the only ones at risk of internet based content are the satellite companies, but they'll have rural customers needing their services for decades still.

tabernak

join:2013-08-10
Reviews:
·AT&T U-Verse
·AT&T DSL Service

What's it matter anyway?

Directv and Dish Network have about the same prices anyway, as does U-verse and cable where I've lived the last few years. I don't see this being beneficial for anybody but At&t, however I don't see it being detrimental to DirecTV users or competition either. I just don't see this changing the dynamics of the competition other than At&t can flex as much muscle at the content providers as the bigger cable companies. There's an off chance U-verse and DirecTV customers will even see a few minor benefits.

biochemistry
Premium
join:2003-05-09
92361
reply to tabernak

Re: Pricing out of business

By cable networks I meant ESPN and the like. Their price hikes make Comcast and the like jack their rates up.

A smartalec had to correct my use of the word "need". Of course people don't even need electricity. However you could subscribe to the services I mentioned and supplement with DVD purchases for the shows and movies not available and still save money. The only wildcard left remaining is live sports a few of which can still be seen ota.

As for Comcast and their ilk, quite a few keep their TV service only because it is cheaper than having standalone internet. If regulations ever change that, we will see a lot of sweating from TV execs.
--
isheavenforreal.com


IPPlanMan
Holy Cable Modem Batman

join:2000-09-20
Washington, DC
kudos:1

Nothing...

Nothing AT&T has ever done is designed to save you money. Period.

tabernak

join:2013-08-10
Reviews:
·AT&T U-Verse
·AT&T DSL Service
reply to etaadmin

Re: Killing off a U-Verse Competitor?

Good point, U-verse TV never appealed to me as I'm maxed out at 18 Mbps, so much TV viewing or DVRing would eat into my bandwidth regularly. I'm a cord cutter, but I'd consider satellite before U-verse tv.

An honest gigapower deployment would still be very limited in their footprint for many years to come. Even if vectoring and new profiles double or quadruple current speeds for the rest, that's going to be limiting to most for 4k and even multiple HD streams.


HexMen

join:2014-06-12
Reviews:
·AT&T U-Verse
reply to tshirt

Re: Too big?

said by tshirt:

bigger IS more efficient

mmm .. I don't generally agree with that part. Bigger necessitates additional -- usually expensive -- process and procedures, which in turn can bring efficiency. But overall, the bigger they get over time, and how well that growth is managed, and to what level different groups coordinate and consolidate, or even stand independent (usually for financial accountability), all impacts the efficiency. Million+ salaries are paid to the people with the skillset to be able to successfully oversee growth at this level. Why? .. because big = inefficiency, but much of the cost associated with that can be balanced and mitigated if done correctly.

The bottom line for the big companies is ROI (return on investment). The more they are willing to invest in solid process and procedures, the more efficient the company "can" (not will) operate. Most companies will set a threshold for their ROI, limited by diminishing returns, or the point in which throwing more money at problems isn't really going to improve much.

So back to main topic thoughts. Most of these decisions, strategies, and released media information are directly tied to Stockholders and quarter over quarter profitability.

Regardless of what anyone says, be assured that the push for "what makes them the most money", in both the short and long term projections, is what they will be saying "must be done". But don't think for a second that a fortune 100 company doesn't have plans "B" and "C" ready to go if it can't be done or gets blocked.

Failure may result in the need for cuts and restructuring until another suitable candidate is found.. or they go in a different direction. The Telecom Giant won't truly be in danger though until the major share holders decide the ROI is too far in the red, and start selling off major chunks of shares and bailing. THAT's the sign that "a pending deal" could make or break a company. So if a selloff and owner migration happens after a failure... we'll know they were telling the truth.. everything else is just gravy.