Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

We are sorry to see you leave - Beta is different and we value the time you took to try it out. Before you decide to go, please take a look at some value-adds for Beta and learn more about it. Thank you for reading Slashdot, and for making the site better!

AT&T Buying DirecTV for $48.5 Billion

Soulskill posted about 6 months ago | from the go-big-or-go-home dept.

AT&T 173

AT&T is acquiring satellite TV provider DirecTV in a deal worth $48.5 billion. This will bring 20 million more U.S. television subscribers under AT&T's roof, making it the second biggest TV provider, behind Comcast. The deal is subject to regulatory approval, and to help that along, AT&T says it will sell its 8% stake in America Movil, which is a competitor to DirecTV in some areas. "By acquiring the country’s biggest satellite television operator, AT&T will help bolster its competitive position against Comcast. Though pay television is considered a mature market whose subscriber growth has slowed dramatically in recent years, the business nonetheless generates billions of dollars in cash. ... Part of the attraction may be DirecTV’s ample cash flow. While its business has shown little growth in recent years, it generated about $8 billion in earnings last year. Much of that will go toward future investments in growth, AT&T said, including bidding at least $9 billion for wireless network capacity that the government plans to auction off soon. By gaining satellite TV, AT&T may also be able to free up capacity on its existing broadband network."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

This has to be a troll post (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47034471)

AT&T can't be allowed to get any bigger than it is now. They had to break it up once already.

Re:This has to be a troll post (3, Interesting)

symbolset (646467) | about 6 months ago | (#47034907)

AT&T charges their broadband customers $30/month++ to opt out of traffic monitoring for ad targeting.

Re:This has to be a troll post (4, Informative)

hackus (159037) | about 6 months ago | (#47034925)

Possibly the worst news since the TimeWarner merger crapola.

You think your DirectTV PVR can't download your movies now?

Wait till they start using the CRUD that is AT&T's network.

Absolutely unacceptable.

The reason why they are doing the acquisition is because Uverse sucks to HIGH HEAVEN. It is even worse than DirectTV, if you can imagine that.

Re:This has to be a troll post (3, Interesting)

mordenkhai (1167617) | about 6 months ago | (#47036081)

I have had the opposite experience. Had DirecTV for 2 years, took them months to figure out why the HD channels had issues. Finally after I missed the last minute of a series finale for a personal favorite show I called and finally got someone who asked me to check satellite #2 signal, I didn't know there was a Satellite #2. The guy said "Yeah it is the HD feed". Sure enough, the dish hadn't been installed correctly. They came out and fixed it, but it was too late. As soon as my contract was up I left and tried Uverse, been good. Did a stint with Comcast as they entered the area with XFinity, and had a 50% off deal. After that, I am back at Uverse with no plans to leave.

Re:This has to be a troll post (5, Informative)

ShanghaiBill (739463) | about 6 months ago | (#47035083)

AT&T can't be allowed to get any bigger than it is now. They had to break it up once already.

The AT&T broken up in 1983 was a different company. The current company called AT&T used to be Southwestern Bell. It acquired the rights to the name "AT&T" in 2005.

 

Actually... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47035141)

It acquired AT&T's Cellular and Long Distance businesses as part of the deal, so really it was just reintegrating AT&T assets with SBC. Calling the new entity AT&T isn't entirely incorrect, since both were divisions of Ma Bell before the breakup.

Re:This has to be a troll post (5, Informative)

ArhcAngel (247594) | about 6 months ago | (#47035265)

SBC (formerly known as Southwestern Bell Corporation) acquired the rights by buying the original AT&T in 2005 for 16 billion [cnn.com] so it's still part of the same company. SBC had already swallowed up numerous other baby bells prior [wikipedia.org] to acquiring AT&T.

Re:This has to be a troll post (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47035389)

There was a segment on the colbert report showing all the pieces and parts. Its quite funny in a very sad way.

Re:This has to be a troll post (2, Informative)

SumDog (466607) | about 6 months ago | (#47035801)

Yea I remember that segment when it originally aired:

http://www.ebaumsworld.com/video/watch/955486/

Re:This has to be a troll post (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47035519)

Yeah and sbc was one of the att babies that was split from the original company. Insert greek myth here.

Re:This has to be a troll post (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47035085)

AT&T acquiring DirecTV is worse than sending unlimited supplies of gasoline to hell.
I cut cable and Sat TV a few years ago and will never go back.
What I gained in return is having more money left over each month with no TV bill and rediscovered how fantastic books really are.

Re: This has to be a troll post (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47035953)

Amazon is making sure book makers go out of print too.

Re:This has to be a troll post (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47035291)

AT&T can't be allowed to get any bigger than it is now. They had to break it up once already.

That was the original name of the monopoly known as the The Phone Company before it was dismantled. One of the baby bells bought the original trademark from Ma Bell.

Re:This has to be a troll post (1)

Flashinfo (3659011) | about 6 months ago | (#47036445)

You are right. Bigs means monopoly, monopoly means higher prices and you have to pay big bucks to get the service. They shouldn't allow that. Flash (http://www.flashinfo.ma)

Net neutraliy, huh? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47034527)

Now, take that AT&T from its shareholders and just liquidate it. Disgusting.

They still don't support net neutrality... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47034539)

So ATT&T is pulling a Comcast and limiting our choices. Eff'em.

Re:They still don't support net neutrality... (-1, Flamebait)

Xicor (2738029) | about 6 months ago | (#47034677)

who gives a f*k? cable television is something noone cares about... and anyone who does is a dumbass... this is the age of the internet.

Re:They still don't support net neutrality... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47034755)

who gives a f*k? cable television is something noone cares about... and anyone who does is a dumbass... this is the age of the internet.

You will give a fuck when the only choice for video will be 240kbps youtube/netflix or AT&T 3D, high def. video from their own 'competing' service.

Or when voip is blocked with "random jitter" but their service is working at optimal 64kbps.

Sports (5, Insightful)

tepples (727027) | about 6 months ago | (#47034759)

cable television is something noone cares about [in] the age of the internet

That might be true once decades-long carriage contracts between the networks and the cable system operators expire and once decades-long contracts between the major professional and collegiate sport leagues and the networks expire. Until then, we're left with games that get blacked out online if shown on national or regional cable networks.

Re:Sports (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47034869)

And why do you presume they won't just extend those contracts?

Re:They still don't support net neutrality... (5, Informative)

Billly Gates (198444) | about 6 months ago | (#47034785)

who gives a f*k? cable television is something noone cares about... and anyone who does is a dumbass... this is the age of the internet.

Right and what if 4 years from now your internet connection must include TV and HBO at $200 a month or NO internet for you! (soup Nazi voice from Seinfeld)

Re:They still don't support net neutrality... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47035809)

Your already double paying for access to content, you paying Comcast for their service and then your paying them again if you use Netflix. I'm not buying into Netflix's accusations that they were more or less blackmailed into paying for faster speeds, the way I see it is they wanted an exclusive deal to cripple their competition, and their competition will also have to out the ass for the same deal, which of course means users will be forced to pay, and these deals remain 'disclosed' !

Then there's the other things I have heard and read about where either Concast is slowing down speeds in order to force these internet streaming services to pay for high speed, or that these services are crippling or causing traffic jams on a system that no company wants to upgrade. But yet without upgrades they continue to jack up their prices, and this problem is only getting worse.

Most on /. knew when these movie/TV streaming services became popular it was only a matter of time before it would end up like cable/satellite, I would actually agree with you, your going to be triple charged, your going to be paying the internet provider, the streaming service not only for the content but also to the providers for decent smooth bandwidth, charged when the providers start capping content down to average internet use, then charging you for every 10MB extra you use.

And I have no doubt the major cable channels/companies will start demanding they to receive fees for access to their content. All will lead to the very reason people started using internet streaming to begin with, it was cheap. As far as I'm concerned (who gives a f*k? cable television is something noone cares about... and anyone who does is a dumbass... this is the age of the internet) these people are fools. The internet is dying a slow death, theirs no competition among providers, you have countries censoring the internet, and are country (US) who have destroyed any chance of the internet remaining open and free. The "age of the internet" has already passed, maxed out, now corporate greed and citizens who don't care just as long as they can buy stuff or pay bills.

Re:They still don't support net neutrality... (1)

interkin3tic (1469267) | about 6 months ago | (#47035849)

If ISPs started forcing such deals on it and we failed to demand ISPs be deprivatized, then we'd kind of deserve to be screwed over like that.

Re:They still don't support net neutrality... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47035951)

If ISPs started forcing such deals on it and we failed to demand ISPs be deprivatized, then we'd kind of deserve to be screwed over like that.

They already are. You act we own the internet. We don't. AT&t does as they own the wires and will do everything possible to keep their business model with TV afloat. Netflix is a threat so they need to use the internet to stop it.

Stop voting for free market Republicans! That's a thought as they would view this as socialism to take internet backa

Re:They still don't support net neutrality... (1)

Luckyo (1726890) | about 6 months ago | (#47035155)

You got that backwards. They will be eff'n you.

Which was probably a patent, sigh. (5, Insightful)

Impy the Impiuos Imp (442658) | about 6 months ago | (#47034549)

They are the last real competitor to terrestrial cable tv. And the only one whose DVR was bright enough to back up 10s when you fastforwarded through a commercial and released when you saw the show start whizzin' by.

Re:Which was probably a patent, sigh. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47034621)

They are the last real competitor to terrestrial cable tv. And the only one whose DVR was bright enough to back up 10s when you fastforwarded through a commercial and released when you saw the show start whizzin' by.

youre such a great big stinking big-lipped blue-gummed fucking yard-ape gangsta wannabe jigaboo NIGGER i can't fucking beleive it. god damn affirmative action has really fucked up the gene pool.

Re:Which was probably a patent, sigh. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47035535)

Hilary, I thought I told you to go back to Arkansas. Stop posting your racist Democratic Party talking points on slashdot.

Re:Which was probably a patent, sigh. (2)

Mr D from 63 (3395377) | about 6 months ago | (#47034631)

They are the last real competitor to terrestrial cable tv.

My thoughts as well. Not to mention they have inside track on NFL Sunday Ticket. Since AT&T has the wireless broadband infrastructure and also DSL, they are the only company that will be able to keep Comcast/TWC in check.

Re:Which was probably a patent, sigh. (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47034711)

Since AT&T has the wireless broadband infrastructure and also DSL, they are the only company that will be able to keep Comcast/TWC in check.

+1 Funny.

Re:Which was probably a patent, sigh. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47034783)

It's probably more the 101 degree west satellite location.

Re:Which was probably a patent, sigh. (1)

koreanbabykilla (305807) | about 6 months ago | (#47035917)

why do you think they want 101 over 99 and 103 or the other 2 slots?

Re:Which was probably a patent, sigh. (2)

Chaos Incarnate (772793) | about 6 months ago | (#47034861)

Uhh... AT&T's DVR is equally as bright.

Well. (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47034559)

We know where all the money they should be using on upgrading their network is going.

Re: Well. (-1, Troll)

alen (225700) | about 6 months ago | (#47034661)

The internet is just fine if you live close to civilization. No reason why my bill should pay to run cable for people who live in the middle of no where

Re: Well. (2)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about 6 months ago | (#47034707)

What are your standards for 'just fine'? Sure, even DSL beats the atavistic barbarisms of the backwoods; but the majority of 'civilization' scrapes by on overpriced and underimpressive cable offerings, or incrementally superior and equally spendy FIOS, with just a few pockets of anything better than that, unless you live inside a colo or something.

Re: Well. (0)

alen (225700) | about 6 months ago | (#47034955)

NYC the cheapest cable internet is 15/1 and time warner is upgrading the lowest tier to around 30/3 in a few months
same in other bigger suburbs and larger towns. you can get 20mbps internet for $50 a month

Re: Well. (3, Informative)

ArhcAngel (247594) | about 6 months ago | (#47035305)

Which is all relatively pointless when their connection to the backbone [wikipedia.org] is fscked on purpose [level3.com] to keep your streaming choppy.

Re: Well. (0)

alen (225700) | about 6 months ago | (#47035377)

i rarely watch netflix so i don't really care about their self made problems

Re: Well. (1)

ArhcAngel (247594) | about 6 months ago | (#47035489)

I had no idea Brian L. Roberts had a /. account. Stick around you might actually learn something.

Re: Well. (2)

Mabhatter (126906) | about 6 months ago | (#47036021)

Those huge unbalanced numbers like 15/1 tell the tale of utilization right there. The current ISPs are all leeches from the "Internet" they don't PUT CONTENT on the Internet, so nobody wants to pay for more lanes to the highway.

They also don't want upstream because people on their own network could out-host the regular Internet with services just between ISP subscribers... Like blackmarket prison goods!

Farmers grow your food (2)

tepples (727027) | about 6 months ago | (#47034767)

No reason why my bill should pay to run cable for people who live in the middle of no where

Because the people who grow the food you eat need a way to find the best market to sell the food that they grow.

Re:Farmers grow your food (1)

Burdell (228580) | about 6 months ago | (#47034989)

Okay, so let them make that part of the "cost of doing business", like other just about every other business has to do. Farmers also have to have fuel to operate and haul equipment, seed, fertilizer/herbicide/pesticide, and product to and from "civilization", and they manage to do that just fine without my fuel getting taxed extra to pay for their fuel. I'd argue that fuel is a lot more important to the process than cheap high-speed Internet.

Re:Farmers grow your food (1)

tepples (727027) | about 6 months ago | (#47035109)

[Farmers] manage to [buy fuel for their equipment] just fine without my fuel getting taxed extra to pay for their fuel

Sorry, I had to stop chuckling. Have you ever heard of something called farm subsidies?

I'd argue that fuel is a lot more important to the process than cheap high-speed Internet.

Making it uncomfortable to be a farmer will force a lot of farm families out of farming, which could hurt a country's food security.

Re:Farmers grow your food (2)

mysidia (191772) | about 6 months ago | (#47035151)

and they manage to do that just fine without my fuel getting taxed extra to pay for their fuel.

Your fuel IS taxed, and their fuel is exempt from the taxes.

What do you think is happening?

You are paying higher fuel tax to displace the revenue not gained as a result of them not paying fuel taxes.

Srsly? (5, Informative)

ArhcAngel (247594) | about 6 months ago | (#47035337)

Okay, so let them make that part of the "cost of doing business", like other just about every other business has to do. Farmers also have to have fuel to operate and haul equipment, seed, fertilizer/herbicide/pesticide, and product to and from "civilization", and they manage to do that just fine without my fuel getting taxed extra to pay for their fuel. I'd argue that fuel is a lot more important to the process than cheap high-speed Internet.

Fuel Tax in the USA [wikipedia.org]
IRS definitions for non-taxable fuel uses [irs.gov] "On a farm for farming purposes"
You might want to do a little research BEFORE embarrassing yourself on /. which is pretty hard given all the competition but you have won the /. lottery this night my friend.

Re:Srsly? (1)

tquasar (1405457) | about 6 months ago | (#47036485)

Farm owners were early adopters of diesel fueled cars and trucks. Back when the engines rattled noisily and belched soot.

Re:Farmers grow your food (1)

ShanghaiBill (739463) | about 6 months ago | (#47035159)

Because the people who grow the food you eat need a way to find the best market to sell the food that they grow.

The cost of growing food should be incorporated into the price of the food, not into some separate subsidy or tax break.

Re:Farmers grow your food (1)

ArhcAngel (247594) | about 6 months ago | (#47035345)

But then you couldn't afford to pay your cable bill every month and the cable lobby simply cannot have that!

Re:Farmers grow your food (1)

Culture20 (968837) | about 6 months ago | (#47035577)

the people who grow the food you eat need a way to find the best market to sell the food that they grow.

Maybe I don't want them to find the best market. Maybe I'd rather they sell to the market I buy food from. They are the people who grow the food I eat after all.

Re: Well. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47034863)

What if they use the satellite bandwidth for downstream and use their LTE spectrum for upstream?

$48.5 billion? (4, Insightful)

PPalmgren (1009823) | about 6 months ago | (#47034593)

If you spent HALF that on your network you'd crush your competition! What a crock of shit.

Re:$48.5 billion? (1, Insightful)

Charliemopps (1157495) | about 6 months ago | (#47034675)

If you spent HALF that on your network you'd crush your competition! What a crock of shit.

Again with the "I know how to run a billion dollar business!" nonsense. You've no idea what you're talking about.

If they spent 24 billion on their network, what could they do at best? Their entire revenue from residential customers is $5.7 billion. http://about.att.com/story/att... [att.com]
even if they'd have to increase their customers by 500% just to get revenue close to that kind of money. That's not even including all the added cost to support it. Residential broadband is not profitable. No one wants to expand it because it's just bad business sense. All the money is in services and commercial products. Residential networks are just a liability they have to take on to get first shot at the commercial customers.

The kind of money it would cost to improve our countries network to the standards you likely want would NEVER be profitable. Ever. They'd be bankrupt in a few years.

Re:$48.5 billion? (4, Informative)

Bengie (1121981) | about 6 months ago | (#47034821)

First off, that $5.7b is for the first quarter, you know, 3 months. Second, that only applies to the 11.3mil Uverse customers. How many industries can get $166/month average per customer?

Re:$48.5 billion? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47035071)

Obviously, you don't work for Google Fiber.

Re:$48.5 billion? (1)

mysidia (191772) | about 6 months ago | (#47035167)

If they spent 24 billion on their network, what could they do at best? Their entire revenue from residential customers is $5.7 billion.

You mean their ANNUAL revenue right now from residential customers is $5.7 billion. If they spent 24 billion on upgrading and adding infrastructure their network, they would earn it within a few years, ignoring that their revenue will grow with a larger network.

Re:$48.5 billion? (5, Insightful)

tysonedwards (969693) | about 6 months ago | (#47034689)

Not that it really matters, but the majority of the deal is in stock...
Also known as "we now own you, and in exchange your stockholders now hold a smaller portion of our stock instead!

Only 30% of the deal is in cash, making it 14.5 Billion changing hands. Still a big number, but not as bad as it sounds.

As such, it actually comes out a touch cheaper than the cost that DirecTV spent on their satellites in the first place, and AT&T gets to exploit the 16% profit margin on DirecTV's lines of service.

Re:$48.5 billion? (4, Insightful)

nabsltd (1313397) | about 6 months ago | (#47034827)

As such, it actually comes out a touch cheaper than the cost that DirecTV spent on their satellites in the first place, and AT&T gets to exploit the 16% profit margin on DirecTV's lines of service.

And, it basically kills off any chance for improvement of DirecTV technologies:

While its business has shown little growth in recent years, it generated about $8 billion in earnings last year. Much of that will go toward future investments in growth, AT&T said, including bidding at least $9 billion for wireless network capacity that the government plans to auction off soon.

Basically, AT&T is going to cannibalize DirecTV by taking all the money from DirecTV to use on cell phone spectrum. So, no money for new satellites, improved encoding hardware, more servers for download of on demand, etc.

I've been a DirecTV subscriber since 1999, and if this merger goes through, I'll have to start looking for some other provider. It might even make me cut the cord.

Re:$48.5 billion? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47035137)

Split ISPs from cable television. Watch AT&T tank. (It's inevitable that the internet will replace dedicated TV systems. It's just a matter of time.)

At least DirecTV investors will make money on the deal.

Re:$48.5 billion? (1)

lgw (121541) | about 6 months ago | (#47035275)

At least DirecTV investors will make money on the deal.

Not to mention all the regulators. You don't think this merger will be approved out of concern for the best interest of the American people, do you? I'd bet this on is worth $1M/year jobs for dozens of congressional staffers!

Re:$48.5 billion? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47035209)

go with att uvers

AT&T (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47034665)

Wait, DirectTV is worth 50 Billion so...

Where is competition? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47034669)

So the question is, where is competition anymore? You have Comcast wanting Time Warner, ATT now wanting DirectTV and what merger is next? Does any of this help the consumer? I doubt it very much, and in fact it looks like ATT is trying to garner more customers into its web of Internet, phone and now TV services.
Funny how the break up of Bell Telephone did nothing to put a end to big communication companies. What comes around goes around. I have always been stuck with one broadband provider. Absolutely no real competition. Yea, a couple Wireless ISP's and of course another giant in cellular broadband. But other then that you have DSL which is not even high speed in my book. Most consumers are stuck with their ISP and have little choice which means no competition.

Re:Where is competition? (1)

whistlingtony (691548) | about 6 months ago | (#47035873)

Actually, the breakup of Bell did some amazing things for a while. All of the regulations made the phone companies play nice. Things were pretty sweet for a while. Then we took it for granted, started deregulating, and here we are again.

Common Carrier rules were pretty awesome when we had them. Back in the heady days of Dial Up, you could start an ISP pretty easily. The big telephone companies HAD to lease you connections at a decent price. Competition was there. ISPs competed on service. There were choices. It was awesome.

Now we've lost that and Comcast is one of the most hated companies in America. Because Free Market!

Re:Where is competition? (1)

savuporo (658486) | about 6 months ago | (#47035977)

Of course we know that too much competition is just CONFUSING to an average american. Thats why everything is bound to converge around two "choices" of everything. Demolicans or republicrats, Lockheed or Boeing, AT&T or Verizon, Intel or AMD ..
Its all free market, yes ?

YEAH! (1)

david999 (941503) | about 6 months ago | (#47034671)

Yeah! Less choices and higher cost!

Ugh I am so tired of this (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47034683)

This cannot be allowed..
Actually the Comcast / Time Warner thing should be stopped too.

Its crazy these company's have billions of money laying around to buy competition but cannot upgrade their networks..

I remember them complaining back in day how it would cost millions to upgrade their network.. Partitioned congress to increase rates so they could afford to upgrade, then did not actually upgrade, instead they bought out other company's and forced mini monopolies around various locations. (like how I can get Comcast only at my old house in MI, yet Charter at new house in MI)

Yeh F this..

Re:Ugh I am so tired of this (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47034833)

Partitioned Congress? It is partitioned already, with these "red" and "blue" colors... but in reality, both are owned by the same people.

Or do you mean disk partitions? I would love to see GPT partitioning in Congress... I think they are still using MBR, and have yet to move to modern filesystems.

Maybe Congress should dispense of partitions altogether and go with ZFS or Storage Spaces?

Maybe it's time to switch from the soapbox to... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47035175)

The ammo box.

Show your congressional representatives what happens when they don't vote in the best interests of their constituents instead of their lobbyists.

If they think rule by fear is acceptable, let's take the rule of fear back to them.

Re:Maybe it's time to switch from the soapbox to.. (4, Insightful)

whistlingtony (691548) | about 6 months ago | (#47035887)

Assholes always preaching the gun. Meanwhile less than half the population bothers to vote. Lets actually USE the ballot box before we switch to the ammo box, huh? I mean, I get the allure, but that sort of things has a really shitty history of actually working.

Hell, if we all organized and stopped buying NIKE products until they told congress to behave, then moved from company to company just NOT buying products, we'd get immediate action. We could NOT do things and if we did it in an organized fashion, shit would change.

Or you could try taking your AR-15 and going up against military hardware and training. Good Luck!

weekend announcement (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47034713)

anyone know why this is announced on a Sunday?

Re:weekend announcement (1)

NoNonAlphaCharsHere (2201864) | about 6 months ago | (#47034895)

So all the big inside players can get their stock orders lined up before the hoi polloi.

Re: weekend announcement (1)

Mabhatter (126906) | about 6 months ago | (#47035987)

That gives them 12 hours for the fires and pitchforks to die down... By morning.... ...look waffles!

Nooooooooo!!! (3, Insightful)

opkool (231966) | about 6 months ago | (#47034715)

Nooooooooo!!!

Re:Nooooooooo!!! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47034917)

Did you just find out your faggot boyfriend has AIDS?
 
Go suck another cock.

Re:Nooooooooo!!! (1)

Tablizer (95088) | about 6 months ago | (#47035551)

AT&T has one of the worst costumer service records. Removing competition is about as likely to improve customer service as a poke in the eye with a hot stick.

I was getting worried (4, Funny)

Billly Gates (198444) | about 6 months ago | (#47034765)

We have too low prices and too much speed. Think of the poor telecoms! They are just struggling to stay relevant and if only they owned all the last miles then how could they grab amazon and Netflix by the balls and tripple dip since they already charge both ways?

$2,400 per user? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47034837)

is that correct? how can they be worth that much?

So if i say start a new tv service and give every new user say a free big flat screen I can get millions of users and sell out to AT&T?

2 x 1 = 0 (2)

Rick Zeman (15628) | about 6 months ago | (#47034911)

Two companies I refused to do (any more) business with trying to become one company I won't do any business with.

How long til we end up with just ATT&T and Comcast as players?

Re:2 x 1 = 0 (1)

mordenkhai (1167617) | about 6 months ago | (#47036113)

Thursday... some time before noon.

The cynic in me (4, Interesting)

Jahoda (2715225) | about 6 months ago | (#47035025)

Cannot help but observe how convenient it will be for the American surveillance state when we have only two sources for delivery of media and internet to the home. But I'm sure this is just paranoid lunacy, right?

AT&T versus ... AT&T (2)

John.Banister (1291556) | about 6 months ago | (#47035061)

A little over 10 years ago, Comcast merged with AT&T Broadband, which was the USA's largest cable television operator at that time. Now it comes down to one AT&T operation versus another. If divestiture hadn't happened, they might still be a utility, which is probably why we had divestiture.

Decreased Channel Cost for AT&T (1)

ps_inkling (525251) | about 6 months ago | (#47035095)

Customer growth with UVERSE was not happening fast enough -- content distributors (Disney/ESPN, premium movie channels, Scripps Networks, etc.) charged AT&T more because they did not have the subscriber numbers to leverage lower channel costs. After the merger, I expect those contracts to be renegotiated for much lower costs per subscriber for AT&T. Not that the consumers will see any of those savings...

Satellite and Cell Phone is Good Enough? (2)

ps_inkling (525251) | about 6 months ago | (#47035131)

I am afraid that, by owning a satellite television provider and a satellite internet provider, AT&T will proclaim that they have fulfilled the "universal service" mandate and refuse to upgrade any more legacy copper wire plant. There have been rumors that AT&T will not run new copper lines to a home or business if they are covered by any cell phone tower or any competing phone provider (including VoIP from another provider); nor will they replace faulty or noisy existing copper lines, since you could get service from a competitor.

Re:Satellite and Cell Phone is Good Enough? (1)

l810c (551591) | about 6 months ago | (#47035607)

I think this is actually the key thing in this discussion.

I left their DSL and phone for Comcast a couple of years ago and cannot be happier. My Internet with Comcast Absolutely Rocks, Uverse just cannot match the speeds I'm getting with cable.

They cannot compete with thin copper on internet speeds, so they are diversifying to video content.

I will never go back to them.

The problem:
Comcast, (who's service I Love right now) will most definitely take advantage of this in the future and find a way to screw me. And I will have no true alternative.

www.xxxfsch.com (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47035221)

http://www.xxxfsch.com

The empire rises again (1)

Dega704 (1454673) | about 6 months ago | (#47035251)

Is this the "competition" that is supposed to "self regulate" the internet providers once net neutrality is dead?

Re:The empire rises again (4, Insightful)

whistlingtony (691548) | about 6 months ago | (#47035911)

Yup. That finger in our ass is the invisible hand of the Free Market. :D

Whenever someone tells me that the Free Market is better at regulating companies that government, I ask them to show me ONE example, since its so simple and easy. Just one. No, the gay hating wedding cake place doesn't count. Show me an example where a LARGE company EVER was punished by consumers for being assholes.

I still remember watching people roll into the ARCO (Part of B.P., it's right on the sign) gas station near my house right after the B.P. oil rig spill in the Gulf. There was a Shell right across the street. People just didn't care. It was 5cents cheaper a gallon. That's less than a buck savings on a regular gas tank, and the ignorant !@#$ers didn't even think about it. It still bothers me to this day.

a hell of a lot more than 20 million subscribers (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47035257)

directv also happens to be the programming distributor upstream for many, many cable systems; as well as private distribution systems in apartments, condos, hotels, school/dorms, and other places.

i dont see how this could possibly be approved.. seeing how there is too much overlap of markets using different technologies..

its been disallowed before, it'd better be disallowed again even though the industry's buddies control the fcc.

Satellite TV With UVERSE for backup (1)

Joe_Dragon (2206452) | about 6 months ago | (#47035271)

Satellite TV With UVERSE for backup due to rain fade even at a lower bit-rate will be so cool

Huh (1)

Greyfox (87712) | about 6 months ago | (#47035465)

You could probably buy a country with that much money. Like, if you offered Castro a large briefcase full of $48 billion, I think he'd probably go for it. Just saying, you can buy a shitty satellite TV company or Cuba. One of them, you can start assembling an army and working toward world domination. One you can beam reruns of "Friends" to customers you hate.

Death Star Rises Again - Rebel Union Crushed (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47035493)

This is really about crushing their Union, and offloading their central offices that are needed to copper service. ATT is going mostly with contractors now.

FCC (1)

BradMajors (995624) | about 6 months ago | (#47035569)

FCC, please explain to us how this merger would benefit us consumers.

Too big to [fill in the blank] (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47035611)

America used to enforce antitrust laws.

AT&T blojo$$ing the media (1)

noshellswill (598066) | about 6 months ago | (#47035615)

Just say NO. REmind them of their  singular task as legacy electromagnetic plumbers ... any other   AT&T monopoly media ansatz should be slapped down, slapped down painfully and slapped down hard. 

Please someone explain to me (1)

Hamsterdan (815291) | about 6 months ago | (#47035867)

How the fuck is that good for competition?

Seriously I was being sarcastic, but how the fuck was that allowed to pass with the FCC?

Choice (2)

Hamsterdan (815291) | about 6 months ago | (#47035899)

Say goodbye to affordable internet and tv boys & girls....

Which mega corp should win? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47035969)

I vote for Octan to step in and buy all these guys up. Wayland or Lexcorp would be good too. Let's go for real villains and not just petty thugs after money. We have only got the evil corporations we need, not the evil corporations we deserve.

Let's go for Illuminati and Lizardmen vs Masons and Knights Templar!

Hooray for cable TV? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47036025)

Well, Charter's been trying to find a way to get me back after I switched to DirecTV.... this might do it. If AT&T tries to merge things so DirecTV and UVerse share the same features, I'll be happy to get something else.

Business Strategy (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47036195)

Let's just borrow all the money, buy up all the competition and then people will be forced to pay us - so we can then pay off our loan.

Ta da

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?