AT&T Buying DirecTV

[Chin Diesel]

For almost $50B.

Probably the most significant bit of real realignment news in regards to UConn in a few years. Not some back yard hayseed from Appalachia blogging out of his Auncle's basement.

It's acquisitions like this that get things moving.

 

[UConnDan97]

How do you think this will affect realignment? I'm seriously asking, because I'm not sure I see the angle. Unlike a specific network, DirecTV and AT&T are providing the distribution of ALL of the networks. But I'm not well versed in the telecom stuff, so maybe there's an obvious angle here that I'm not thinking about...

 

[Fishy]

This has the potential to massive amounts of absolutely nothing.

However, the massive amounts of nothing it will do pales in comparison to the positively colossal mountains of nothing that the Comcast purchase of Time Warner will do.

 

[noeynox]

I find it interesting in that At&t is I believe selling uverse this fall to someone. For a whole lot less like 2 billion cash or some crazy sheet I read. Why sell one service to buy another, though I will say DirectTV is the best provider I ever had as a sports fan. Now their customer service sucks balls but that is another story.

 

[CAHUSKY]

Why sell one service to buy another, .

Because one drives tremendous profits and positions you to dominate an industry and the other one sucks?

 

[huskyniner]

Does this mean I can now get NFL Sunday Ticket without buying a satellite dish? That's really all I care about.

 

[noeynox]

Because one drives tremendous profits and positions you to dominate an industry and the other one sucks?

I have UVerse. I have also had Dish, Comcast, and Cox. Besides DirectTV i feel uverse is the best.

Now I do get that Direct TV is in a lot more homes than UVerse and it is a lot less expensive to add future customers as well. Just seems like ATT is devaluing a great product they introduced/invented.

 

[minidarren]

I find it interesting in that At&t is I believe selling uverse this fall to someone. For a whole lot less like 2 billion cash or some crazy sheet I read. Why sell one service to buy another, though I will say DirectTV is the best provider I ever had as a sports fan. Now their customer service sucks balls but that is another story.

AT&T is only selling their Connecticut land line business and Uverse. The deal I believe was like 1.5b. Cable companies were some of the original developers of satellite TV years ago. Some of you may remember it as Primestar. The consortium of cable operators sold off Primestar to what is now DirectTV. The jockeying of television distributors is not necessarily about revenue but more about buying power.

During contract negotiations think of it as shipping at Costco vs Adams Supermarket. These negotiations occur between broadcasters and the company as well.

The Comcast and Time Warner deal had much more at stake. Why? Comcast owns NBC. Now they will be the largest cable provider by far with around 32m subscribers. If things go as the media is reporting, Comcast will divest 3m sub's to Charter who will jump Cox as the now number 2 provider at around 7m sub's. Cox is reported to not be involved in the deal, but right now who knows. It is also being reported that a new cable operator is going to be developed that is a joint effort between Charter and Comcast that will have in the area of 2m sub's. From what I have read it will be controlled by Charter but will have the majority owned by Comcast.

 

[minidarren]

I have UVerse. I have also had Dish, Comcast, and Cox. Besides DirectTV i feel uverse is the best.

Now I do get that Direct TV is in a lot more homes than UVerse and it is a lot less expensive to add future customers as well. Just seems like ATT is devaluing a great product they introduced/invented.

Uverse was light years behind the technology curve. While Verizon decided to build fiber to the home, AT&T decided to push fiber into their old twisted pair plant and form nodes. Their door to door sales people went out and told people about all the fiber they had out there, which is BS.

Fact of the matter is that the cable companies have been in the fiber game for a long long time. The phone companies are just catching up and have actually really stopped trying to go further as each had halted their build outs.

 

[noeynox]

Sounds like you know what your talking about. I like how clear UVerse is even without HD is. I like how they tier their channels to offer them to you. It did seem like their way of delivering services was a bit behind the times as it required a lot of man power to expand into new areas. Compared to just putting up a dish on your roof which a home owner could do themselves (I did it with DirectTV when it was relatively new).

I remember primestar, but did not know that was developed by the cable companies. Didn't primestar at one time own both DirectTV and Dish Network?

 

[minidarren]

Sounds like you know what your talking about. I like how clear UVerse is even without HD is. I like how they tier their channels to offer them to you. It did seem like their way of delivering services was a bit behind the times as it required a lot of man power to expand into new areas. Compared to just putting up a dish on your roof which a home owner could do themselves (I did it with DirectTV when it was relatively new).

I remember primestar, but did not know that was developed by the cable companies. Didn't primestar at one time own both DirectTV and Dish Network?

I believe DirectTV and Dish were startups after PrimeStar. PrimeStar was out dated and began to fall behind the technology curve.

 

[nelsonmuntz]

Uverse was light years behind the technology curve. While Verizon decided to build fiber to the home, AT&T decided to push fiber into their old twisted pair plant and form nodes. Their door to door sales people went out and told people about all the fiber they had out there, which is BS.

Fact of the matter is that the cable companies have been in the fiber game for a long long time. The phone companies are just catching up and have actually really stopped trying to go further as each had halted their build outs.

What is your source on that? I know there are a couple of gadfly's claiming that ATT is engaging in a massive scam to defraud consumers, but have you seen anyone credible make the claim that ATT's network is not primarily fiber based?

 

[kibblesnbits]

AT&T's uVerse network is a hybrid. It uses a "fiber-to-the-neighborhood" approach where the signals are transferred from fiber to traditional twisted pair copper cables for "the last mile" (actually more like the last 1/4 mile). That's why AT&T hung those big ugly boxes on telephone poles. That approach avoided the great expense of rewiring connections to every home and is a similar design to cable companies, which use coaxial cable for the last leg instead of twisted pair. FIOS was the first radical departure from that model because it "rewired" (actually "refibered") all the way to the home (AKA "fiber-to-the-home"). Unfortunately, FIOS proved too expensive to deploy except in relatively high density, relatively affluent areas so, like AT&T, Verizon has stopped making commitments for new roll-outs.

 

[SubbaBub]

AT&T's uVerse network is a hybrid. It uses a "fiber-to-the-neighborhood" approach where the signals are transferred from fiber to traditional twisted pair copper cables for "the last mile" (actually more like the last 1/4 mile). That's why AT&T hung those big ugly boxes on telephone poles. That approach avoided the great expense of rewiring connections to every home and is a similar design to cable companies, which use coaxial cable for the last leg instead of twisted pair. FIOS was the first radical departure from that model because it "rewired" (actually "refibered") all the way to the home (AKA "fiber-to-the-home"). Unfortunately, FIOS proved too expensive to deploy except in relatively high density, relatively affluent areas so, like AT&T, Verizon has stopped making commitments for new roll-outs.

Unless you recently had fiber optic (really it's glass) fed into your home, this is the case for both cable and phone company service.

 

[itgoeslike]

AT&T's uVerse network is a hybrid. It uses a "fiber-to-the-neighborhood" approach where the signals are transferred from fiber to traditional twisted pair copper cables for "the last mile" (actually more like the last 1/4 mile). That's why AT&T hung those big ugly boxes on telephone poles. That approach avoided the great expense of rewiring connections to every home and is a similar design to cable companies, which use coaxial cable for the last leg instead of twisted pair. FIOS was the first radical departure from that model because it "rewired" (actually "refibered") all the way to the home (AKA "fiber-to-the-home"). Unfortunately, FIOS proved too expensive to deploy except in relatively high density, relatively affluent areas so, like AT&T, Verizon has stopped making commitments for new roll-outs.

What you said is correct, although Google has on-going fiber programs and AT&T "announced" that it will be looking at expand U-verse into a 100 metropolitan areas. I think FIOS, like many businesses, was slightly ahead of its time.

https://fiber.google.com/newcities/
http://about.att.com/story/att_eyes...alities_for_its_ultra_fast_fiber_network.html

 

[UConn Dan]

Just want to clarify that AT&T is only selling off its CT Uverse assets and the rights to other states where they currently don't operate. They will still own and operate Uverse elsewhere and expand nationally. It's not clear to me though if the new company will operate under the Uverse name and simply be a licensee or if they have the right to change name and service completely. I have read that the new company wanted to make the transition seamless to the customer keeping the same channel line up etc. But not sure to what extent. Out of all the services that I've had, Uverse has had the best line up, price, reliability and quality. I would hate for that to change.

 

[minidarren]

Just want to clarify that AT&T is only selling off its CT Uverse assets and the rights to other states where they currently don't operate. They will still own and operate Uverse elsewhere and expand nationally. It's not clear to me though if the new company will operate under the Uverse name and simply be a licensee or if they have the right to change name and service completely. I have read that the new company wanted to make the transition seamless to the customer keeping the same channel line up etc. But not sure to what extent. Out of all the services that I've had, Uverse has had the best line up, price, reliability and quality. I would hate for that to change.

It has all been sold off to Frontier Communications, at least in Connecticut. From what I can decipher is that it may still contain the Uverse name as the company has done the same with Verizon properties that they have purchased. They still brand the product in those areas as Fios. I would think they are going to do the same with Uverse. It sounds like have also entered into a deal with AT&T to licence the Uverse product. Got that from wikipedia, so take it for what its worth.

Think of all the things you are going to be able to do with those 12mbps download speeds!

http://www.frontierauthorizedoffers.com/fios

 

[minidarren]

What is your source on that? I know there are a couple of gadfly's claiming that ATT is engaging in a massive scam to defraud consumers, but have you seen anyone credible make the claim that ATT's network is not primarily fiber based?

I acknowledged that they have pushed fiber into their system to form nodes. Regardless of if it is a mile or a 1/4 mile, their signal reaching your home still relies on decades old twisted pair wire that has severe service limitations. Hence the reason why they are only able to offer speeds up to 18mbps down @ $45 per month. For $40 bucks a Comcast customer can get 25mbps down.

Cox Communications announced that they are intending to roll out Gigabit speeds to its residential customers this year. AT&T has as well, but only will be able to offer 300mbps and will later ramp up to 1gbps. This, from what I have read is a fiber to the premise offering and will not utilize the twisted pair network.

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2457436,00.asp

 

[noeynox]

What the hell would any normal person need such speeds? A few years back you only needed like 6mbps, for online gaming with no lag. Seriously can anyine explain the mpbs or are we paying for service speeds we dont need?

 

[UConnMike04]

I switched from Optimum to UVerse a month ago and couldn't be happier. Are there any plans of any changes to service/channels, etc? I'd hate for that to happen...

 

[minidarren]

What the hell would any normal person need such speeds? A few years back you only needed like 6mbps, for online gaming with no lag. Seriously can anyine explain the mpbs or are we paying for service speeds we dont need?

Honestly, who knows. I get around 30mbps down and like 6mbps up. I feel that is enough for me. I know people who have 150mbps down and they claim that the difference is night and day.

 

[noeynox]

Who knows is probably as good an answer as anyone could give. On a day to day basis we are fed such bs and wr eat it all up.

 

[minidarren]

Im sure that when we first all got dial up modems we thought we were the kings of the world.

 

[StevieDude]

Deal has an exit clause if they don't get NFL Ticket after deal expires next year

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-et-ct-directv-att-nfl-sunday-ticket-20140519-story.html