|reply to CXM_Splicer |
Re: pick sides?
AT&T's explanation for no uverseTV
said by CXM_Splicer:I am familiar with uverseTV and basically it sucks. I don't know if at&t gets something from reselling DTV but I suppose they do.
Obviously you haven't heard of AT&T selling DirecTV in places where they don't have uverseTV.
I would ask (being unfamiliar with uverseTV) if the DirecTV deal would prevent them (or discourage them) from rolling out uversetv in areas they don't have it now. Is there a technological reason why they would make the deal with DirecTV rather than expand uverse? Is AT&T getting something from DirecTV as part of the agreement not to expand uversetv?
Yes there are lots of technological reason why many people don't qualify for uverseTV, the most obvious is the distance limitation other reasons are VDSL being unstable among other things.
Well now they have a very good deal going on with the largest cable companies in the US (Comcast, TWC, Cox and Bright House Networks) and the funny thing is that for the first time Verizon will compete head to head against AT&T's uverse.
Verizon also had (still has?) a deal to resell DirecTV but that was before they offered FIOS (or any TV product). Even with that deal in place, they planned and deployed FIOS in many areas. To me, that does not seem anti-competitive. If there are areas that would have gotten FIOS and that was canceled because of a spectrum deal with their competitor, then Yes... to me, that is anti-competitive. There is no doubt what-so-ever that it is anti-consumer.
I don't see anything anti-competitive in this agreement.