AT&T Should sell DIRECTV to DISH

[slice1900]

As many do on these forums, you're focusing on the technology. The case for a merger between DTV and DISH has nothing really to do with how compatible or not their systems are. Has everything to do with removing your only direct competitor (leaving millions of consumers with no other choice for pay TV -- except Orby, LOL) and with scaling up your (otherwise dwindling) subscriber base to better position you when it's time to renegotiate those carriage contracts. Sirius and XM didn't merge because they were perfect technology matches. They merged because they were direct competitors and the market just wasn't big enough for both of them. Rather than trying to see which would bleed out first, they just asked Uncle Sam if they couldn't team up.

We are MANY years away from satellite TV customers being only those who don't have other options. Directv is already the premium priced cable/satellite option, they don't have room to further increase its prices and Dish could increase their prices to match if they wanted without having a monopoly on satellite TV.

There may still be too many people who don't have other options for the FTC to approve a merger of the two. Satellite radio was totally different because traditional radio already reached everyone, satellite radio was more about choice of programming than being able to receive it at all.

 

[NashGuy]

We are MANY years away from satellite TV customers being only those who don't have other options. Directv is already the premium priced cable/satellite option, they don't have room to further increase its prices and Dish could increase their prices to match if they wanted without having a monopoly on satellite TV.

It's true that there is a (rapidly shrinking) group of consumers who stick with DTV or DISH rather than switch to cable, telco or streaming TV services that would give them an overall lower bill for TV + broadband. Some of those who stick with DTV or DISH (vs. cable/telco/streaming TV) are knowingly paying more for it but they're OK with that because they prefer satellite TV and see it as being superior to the alternatives. (Maybe they love the Hopper 3's crazy number of tuners and all its features, or they swear by DTV's HD and 4K picture quality, or they want DTV's NFL Sunday Ticket.) There are others on satellite TV who aren't aware of their cheaper alternatives or who are just very averse to change and stick with what they've always had. Whatever the case, DTV and DISH would view those subs as sticky "high-value" customers. No need to keep doling out credits and discounts to keep them around! They love us! (Or can't be bothered to leave us.)

Whether a combined DTV/DISH would raise their standard prices on such customers or simply stop doling out discounts to them, either way, the effect would be an increased ARPU. But the bigger impact would come from all those less loyal, more price-sensitive customers; getting rid of your only direct competitor stops them from bouncing back and forth between you every two years to keep scoring those new customer discounts. Sure, if the combined sat operator raised prices, that would cause yet more of those urban/suburban dwellers with other options to flee but I think AT&T (and maybe DISH too) is already resigned to that happening. Their goal would be to make up for it by making more per subscriber on those who stick around, which would obviously include those rural folks who had no other choice, other than Orby, which I noticed recently landed HBO and WarnerMedia's other cable channels.

If AT&T and DISH try to make this deal happen, look for them to point to tiny Orby as proof that they wouldn't be a monopoly satellite operator. Right now Orby charges $18 for HBO and $12 for Cinemax. (And, of course, DISH doesn't offer them at all.) Wouldn't surprise me if AT&T lowers their wholesale prices and lets Orby sell both combined for $16 soon, and give them away free for the first month or three.

 

[slice1900]

Whether a combined DTV/DISH would raise their standard prices on such customers or simply stop doling out discounts to them, either way, the effect would be an increased ARPU. But the bigger impact would come from all those less loyal, more price-sensitive customers; getting rid of your only direct competitor stops them from bouncing back and forth between you every two years to keep scoring those new customer discounts. Sure, if the combined sat operator raised prices, that would cause yet more of those urban/suburban dwellers with other options to flee but I think AT&T (and maybe DISH too) is already resigned to that happening. Their goal would be to make up for it by making more per subscriber on those who stick around, which would obviously include those rural folks who had no other choice, other than Orby, which I noticed recently landed HBO and WarnerMedia's other cable channels.

Both Directv and Dish have made announcements recently that they aren't extending discounts to keep "low value customers", they don't need to combine to quit offering discounts so liberally. They may suffer a lot of losses over the next couple years as the discount hunters get mad when they can't get a bunch of money off and leave, but things should eventually stabilize to the people who have no alternative but satellite, are willing to pay more to get stuff they want (16 tuner Hopper, NFLST etc.) or are just too lazy to look for alternatives when they are getting what they want from TV today.

I've never heard of Orby except here, so unless they do a much better job of promoting themselves I don't think either has to worry about them. If they do start taking customers from either then the solution isn't for Dish and Directv to become one company, it is for one of them to buy Orby and shut it down.

 

[NashGuy]

Both Directv and Dish have made announcements recently that they aren't extending discounts to keep "low value customers", they don't need to combine to quit offering discounts so liberally. They may suffer a lot of losses over the next couple years as the discount hunters get mad when they can't get a bunch of money off and leave, but things should eventually stabilize to the people who have no alternative but satellite, are willing to pay more to get stuff they want (16 tuner Hopper, NFLST etc.) or are just too lazy to look for alternatives when they are getting what they want from TV today.

I've never heard of Orby except here, so unless they do a much better job of promoting themselves I don't think either has to worry about them. If they do start taking customers from either then the solution isn't for Dish and Directv to become one company, it is for one of them to buy Orby and shut it down.

No, my point wasn't that they really have anything to *worry* about from Orby but rather that, should DTV and DISH seek to merge, they could tell the DOJ, "Hey, we won't have a total monopoly on DBS TV service! See, there's this other option called Orby. And we promise to make AT&T-owned cable channels available to Orby at a fair market price, even despite Orby's small subscriber base."

Aside from that, my larger point still stands that both DTV and DISH are bleeding subs from among that portion of the population who has other options. (This is why the net losses are so much worse for DBS TV than for cable and telco TV, because the former are switching to the latter, or to streaming.) I think they realize that that trend is going to continue and that, even more fundamentally, "TV" as everyday Americans think of it is evolving into something that only IP technology, not DBS, can support. So they know that their future lies with non-broadband subscribers (plus a few loyal customers, perhaps like you, who will stick around regardless of whether they merge and whether they increase their prices by 10%).

 

[VictoriaFTA]

BS!!!! We're within 15 miles of the capital of one of the largest states in the US and the best we get is 10 down and .6 up. That's just not us, that's everybody around here. For those who live right closer to the city and are fortunate to get an excellent wired connection the very fastest they can get is 100 down. And then there's a lot more people who get nothing at all except satellite of a bar or two of wireless from a far off cell tower.

Name of city?

Because I call B.S. on your calling of B.S.

Where do you live that mysteriously has no cable company?

The stats that say 80+% of the US has access to gig has been shown to be completely wrong. The ISPs self report and overstate their footprint. The FCC and congress are currently trying to figure out how to get real numbers.

Microsoft says its data shows FCC reports massively overstate broadband adoption – TechCrunch

Pretty much every cable company now has a 1 Gbps speed tier offered across their footprint.

When a cable company rolls out 1 gig service to a market they roll it to an entire market, not just cherry picked neighborhoods like a fiber provider does.

Cable companies offering a 1 gig speed tier represent the majority of 1 gig access in the U.S.

 

[JSheridan]

Name of city?

Because I call B.S. on your calling of B.S.

Where do you live that mysteriously has no cable company?



Pretty much every cable company now has a 1 Gbps speed tier offered across their footprint.

When a cable company rolls out 1 gig service to a market they roll it to an entire market, not just cherry picked neighborhoods like a fiber provider does.

Cable companies offering a 1 gig speed tier represent the majority of 1 gig access in the U.S.

We live in the country. There's no cable here at all, period. There's millions and millions of people just like us. If you really think everybody can get high speed internet you are very, very sadly mistaken.

 

[JSheridan]

Name of city?

Because I call B.S. on your calling of B.S.

Where do you live that mysteriously has no cable company?



Pretty much every cable company now has a 1 Gbps speed tier offered across their footprint.

When a cable company rolls out 1 gig service to a market they roll it to an entire market, not just cherry picked neighborhoods like a fiber provider does.

Cable companies offering a 1 gig speed tier represent the majority of 1 gig access in the U.S.

And just FYI, the 'cable company' that services the towns and cities around here maxes out at 200 down which is only available in selected locations. The rest of their area ranges from max speeds of 20 down to 100 down. You really should do a little research before making such ridiculous statements.

And then there's another several million or more who have no interest in trying to watch TV from the internet with the lack of DVR service, inability to skip all commercials, inability to mirror to other TV's and on and on and on. We regularly install satellite TV in towns and cities that have high speed internet where the customers just want to watch TV.

 

[Tampa8]

Name of city?

Because I call B.S. on your calling of B.S.

Where do you live that mysteriously has no cable company?



Pretty much every cable company now has a 1 Gbps speed tier offered across their footprint.

When a cable company rolls out 1 gig service to a market they roll it to an entire market, not just cherry picked neighborhoods like a fiber provider does.

Cable companies offering a 1 gig speed tier represent the majority of 1 gig access in the U.S.

Are you saying there are not areas with no cable at all? There are areas of Ct with no cable, and here in Florida I often top out at 30MBPS downloads on an advertised "up to" 100

 

[NashGuy]

And just FYI, the 'cable company' that services the towns and cities around here maxes out at 200 down which is only available in selected locations. The rest of their area ranges from max speeds of 20 down to 100 down. You really should do a little research before making such ridiculous statements.

I kinda hate to say it but probably the best thing that could happen to the areas served by most of those little small-town cableco's across the country is to get gobbled up by Comcast. Lots of people love to hate them because they're "the big cable company" but honestly they're way ahead of all other US cablecos in upgrading their broadband network and in-home experience (except maybe Altice, which is converting from cable to all-fiber in their core area of greater NYC).

 

[VictoriaFTA]

And just FYI, the 'cable company' that services the towns and cities around here maxes out at 200 down which is only available in selected locations. The rest of their area ranges from max speeds of 20 down to 100 down. You really should do a little research before making such ridiculous statements.

This contradicts your last statement that everyone around you can only get 10 Mbps as their maximum speed.

Tell me what city you live in and I will do a "little research." It is impossible to confirm your claims when you continue being so vague as to your location. We all just have to take your word for it that you were competent enough to thoroughly research every provider in your area and their current speed offerings for your location.

You are not the first person I've encountered who confidently complained to me about how terrible their Internet options were. Then when they finally told me where they lived I looked it up and - surprise! They did have options after all but they didn't do their homework very well. Then they sheepishly admitted to me that they called up their provider and got on a better plan that they didn't know was available before I looked into it for them.

I learned a long time ago that you cannot just take people at face value when they claim they have no adequate Internet options available where they live. I wanna see the receipts. The only way to back up these claims is by having the name of the city they live in so that the relevant telecoms/fiber/cable/wireless providers for that market can be looked up to verify their claim.

And then there's another several million or more who have no interest in trying to watch TV from the internet with the lack of DVR service, inability to skip all commercials, inability to mirror to other TV's and on and on and on. We regularly install satellite TV in towns and cities that have high speed internet where the customers just want to watch TV.

Ahh, so there it is. The real reason. You're one of the folks who doesn't understand how Internet-based TV services work.

All of those things you listed as being "unable" to do with IPTV are false. You can do all of those things and more.

We live in the country. There's no cable here at all, period. There's millions and millions of people just like us. If you really think everybody can get high speed internet you are very, very sadly mistaken.

When did I say there weren't still a few million households left over that can't get better than potato Internet?

I said 95%+ of Americans can access an Internet connection with more than enough bandwidth for IP-based video services and I stand by this statement. The remaining few million households out in the boonies who want to pay for satellite-based television represent an insufficient customer pool to maintain two direct-to-consumer satellite companies.

Are you saying there are not areas with no cable at all? There are areas of Ct with no cable, and here in Florida I often top out at 30MBPS downloads on an advertised "up to" 100

A 30 Mbps connection still has sufficient bandwidth to deliver a single Netflix 4K stream or 4-6 of their 1080p HD streams simultaneously.

 

[ncted]

Pretty much every cable company now has a 1 Gbps speed tier offered across their footprint.

When a cable company rolls out 1 gig service to a market they roll it to an entire market, not just cherry picked neighborhoods like a fiber provider does.

Cable companies offering a 1 gig speed tier represent the majority of 1 gig access in the U.S.

That is the point Microsoft and others are making. Cable companies say they offer gig (or even 25Mbps) to huge numbers of addresses when they don't. I am sure the majority of their potential customers have access to Gig, but they are claiming they have way more potential customers than they actually do, primarily it seems to keep other broadband companies from getting subsidies to serve unserved and underserved addresses in the incumbent cable companies' footprint. They are using self-reporting to maintain their monopoly.

 

[NYDutch]

If AT&T and DISH try to make this deal happen, look for them to point to tiny Orby as proof that they wouldn't be a monopoly satellite operator. Right now Orby charges $18 for HBO and $12 for Cinemax. (And, of course, DISH doesn't offer them at all.) Wouldn't surprise me if AT&T lowers their wholesale prices and lets Orby sell both combined for $16 soon, and give them away free for the first month or three.

Orby aside, the only area where a Dish/DTV merge could be considered a monopoly in my opinion, would be those few locations where there is no cable service and no at least minimal broadband Internet available for streaming. And since Hughes Gen5 satellite Internet claims speeds up to 25 Mbps, there are really very few places that have no streamable Internet service available. I seriously doubt any monopoly claims would stand up any more than they did for the Sirius/XM merge. Of course Gen5 isn't a good Internet answer for a lot of people for various reasons, but it is there.

 

[goaliebob99]

I would make the stipulation that if DirecTV and Dish was to merge they would have to give Orby 110&119 licenses from both companies.

Technology wise I dont think it would be hard for dish to adapt hoppers to DirecTV's signal. Im not sure if the hopper can do S2. Turbo 8psk or not.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[JSheridan]

This contradicts your last statement that everyone around you can only get 10 Mbps as their maximum speed.

Tell me what city you live in and I will do a "little research." It is impossible to confirm your claims when you continue being so vague as to your location. We all just have to take your word for it that you were competent enough to thoroughly research every provider in your area and their current speed offerings for your location.

You are not the first person I've encountered who confidently complained to me about how terrible their Internet options were. Then when they finally told me where they lived I looked it up and - surprise! They did have options after all but they didn't do their homework very well. Then they sheepishly admitted to me that they called up their provider and got on a better plan that they didn't know was available before I looked into it for them.

I learned a long time ago that you cannot just take people at face value when they claim they have no adequate Internet options available where they live. I wanna see the receipts. The only way to back up these claims is by having the name of the city they live in so that the relevant telecoms/fiber/cable/wireless providers for that market can be looked up to verify their claim.



Ahh, so there it is. The real reason. You're one of the folks who doesn't understand how Internet-based TV services work.

All of those things you listed as being "unable" to do with IPTV are false. You can do all of those things and more.



When did I say there weren't still a few million households left over that can't get better than potato Internet?

I said 95%+ of Americans can access an Internet connection with more than enough bandwidth for IP-based video services and I stand by this statement. The remaining few million households out in the boonies who want to pay for satellite-based television represent an insufficient customer pool to maintain two direct-to-consumer satellite companies.



A 30 Mbps connection still has sufficient bandwidth to deliver a single Netflix 4K stream or 4-6 of their 1080p HD streams simultaneously.

10Mbps is the max speed of the DSL we get around here, I didn't contradict anything.

As I said before we don't live in a city we live in the country like millions of other Americans.

I've been in the business of connectivity around here for over 30 years and I'm well aware of what's available and what's not. If you don't believe me then that's your problem because no matter how you try to spin it the facts are the facts. I have no desire for you to try and tell me about where I live and what's available. You're so misinformed that I'm not going to waste any more time responding to your total BS.

 

[JSheridan]

I kinda hate to say it but probably the best thing that could happen to the areas served by most of those little small-town cableco's across the country is to get gobbled up by Comcast. Lots of people love to hate them because they're "the big cable company" but honestly they're way ahead of all other US cablecos in upgrading their broadband network and in-home experience (except maybe Altice, which is converting from cable to all-fiber in their core area of greater NYC).

Our local cable company still uses coax from the 80's and 90's for a lot of it's plant. They are running fiber in the populated areas but in the country it's either old tech or nothing at all like where we are.

 

[JSheridan]

Orby aside, the only area where a Dish/DTV merge could be considered a monopoly in my opinion, would be those few locations where there is no cable service and no at least minimal broadband Internet available for streaming. And since Hughes Gen5 satellite Internet claims speeds up to 25 Mbps, there are really very few places that have no streamable Internet service available. I seriously doubt any monopoly claims would stand up any more than they did for the Sirius/XM merge. Of course Gen5 isn't a good Internet answer for a lot of people for various reasons, but it is there.

You can stream about 10 hours of HD TV per month on the basic Gen 5 plan.

 

[NYDutch]

You can stream about 10 hours of HD TV per month on the basic Gen 5 plan.

Yep, as I said, Gen5 isn't a good answer for a lot of folks, but it does bring minimal broadband to pretty much anyone. With limits both data and budget wise of course. But it could still be used to support a "no monopoly" claim to the DOJ and FCC if needed.

 

[JSheridan]

Yep, as I said, Gen5 isn't a good answer for a lot of folks, but it does bring minimal broadband to pretty much anyone. With limits both data and budget wise of course. But it could still be used to support a "no monopoly" claim to the DOJ and FCC if needed.

Hopefully the DOJ and FCC aren't that uninformed that they think they can watch TV using only satellite internet and they would see thru that claim.

 

[JSheridan]

This contradicts your last statement that everyone around you can only get 10 Mbps as their maximum speed.

Tell me what city you live in and I will do a "little research." It is impossible to confirm your claims when you continue being so vague as to your location. We all just have to take your word for it that you were competent enough to thoroughly research every provider in your area and their current speed offerings for your location.

You are not the first person I've encountered who confidently complained to me about how terrible their Internet options were. Then when they finally told me where they lived I looked it up and - surprise! They did have options after all but they didn't do their homework very well. Then they sheepishly admitted to me that they called up their provider and got on a better plan that they didn't know was available before I looked into it for them.

I learned a long time ago that you cannot just take people at face value when they claim they have no adequate Internet options available where they live. I wanna see the receipts. The only way to back up these claims is by having the name of the city they live in so that the relevant telecoms/fiber/cable/wireless providers for that market can be looked up to verify their claim.



Ahh, so there it is. The real reason. You're one of the folks who doesn't understand how Internet-based TV services work.

All of those things you listed as being "unable" to do with IPTV are false. You can do all of those things and more.



When did I say there weren't still a few million households left over that can't get better than potato Internet?

I said 95%+ of Americans can access an Internet connection with more than enough bandwidth for IP-based video services and I stand by this statement. The remaining few million households out in the boonies who want to pay for satellite-based television represent an insufficient customer pool to maintain two direct-to-consumer satellite companies.



A 30 Mbps connection still has sufficient bandwidth to deliver a single Netflix 4K stream or 4-6 of their 1080p HD streams simultaneously.

One more thing before i say Good bye. Your avatar isn't very impressive. Here's a pic of some of the dishes in my back yard. There's five more dishes on the other end of the house. Good bye.

 

[NYDutch]

Hopefully the DOJ and FCC aren't that uninformed that they think they can watch TV using only satellite internet and they would see thru that claim.

Well, I see there are folks that claim they stream at the lowest resolution even when they've hat their full speed data limit and drop to FAP speeds. You and I likely wouldn't like it, but it does appear to be doable.

Solved: Upgrade to Gen5, can you stream Netflix? - HughesNet Community - 78915