AT&T disappointed with offers for struggling DirecTV

[MitchDeerfield]

AT&T's attempt to unload DirecTV has been thrown into doubt, as the telecom giant has signaled it's unhappy with the offers it has received for the struggling satellite-TV service, The Post has learned.

Earlier this month, AT&T pushed back a deadline for final bids for DirecTV into January — and told prospective bidders it may cancel the auction altogether if it doesn't get better offers, according to sources close to the situation.

Indeed, AT&T's threat to cancel the auction appears to have surprised bidders.

This smart home fitness device helps keep your motivation up

Change the way you move with 500+ workouts.

nypost.com

 

[CSM]

I wonder at this point if AT&T should just keep DTV for 10 more years and just let it fade away when the last satellite runs out of fuel? DTV still makes money for AT&T. However, could the current DTV boxes last 10 years without DTV updating them? Would that get customers mad not seeing DTV have the latest boxes and that would make more customers leave DTV? Unless DTV is a distraction for them because they want to concentrate on Internet streaming and they don't want to take care of both?

 

[MitchDeerfield]

It could be just a negotiating ploy. The bidders sensed that AT&T was desperate to sell. Maybe this will let them squeeze a few billion more out of the deal. They are being badly outperformed by Dish recently, so something has to change.

Compared to last year, DirecTV's subscriber base has plummeted 19 percent versus a 3.8 percent drop at archrival Dish Network.

 

[Jimbo]

It could be just a negotiating ploy. The bidders sensed that AT&T was desperate to sell. Maybe this will let them squeeze a few billion more out of the deal. They are being badly outperformed by Dish recently, so something has to change.

DirecTV's subscriber base has plummeted 19 percent versus a 3.8 percent drop at archrival Dish Network.

Once again, what ATT doing vs DISH has no relevance.

They have never competed against one another numbers wise ...
Directv is a MUCH Larger company.

 

[MitchDeerfield]

Once again, what ATT doing vs DISH has no relevance.

They have never competed against one another numbers wise ...

Surely you jest.

PLEASE LOG IN TO GET RID OF THESE ADS!

 

[Jimbo]

Surely you jest.

Sure they are both Sat TV companies, but they run entirely different formats ...
They have No Need to sit down and compare numbers against one another.

Does Comcast sit down and wonder about Spectrums numbers with concern ? NO.

Same difference.
Not relevent.

 

[navychop]

Hardly. Many custies must choose between the two. For those who look at the options, it's not much of a contest.

 

[mikew]

Not even close. Spectrum and Charter rarely compete in the same cities. The customer's choice is usually cable (spectrum, charter, cox etc..) or DirecTV or Dish or a streaming service. DirecTV and Dish separate themselves on content and pricing, but they are DIRECT competitors.

Sure they are both Sat TV companies, but they run entirely different formats ...
They have No Need to sit down and compare numbers against one another.

Does Comcast sit down and wonder about Spectrums numbers with concern ? NO.

Same difference.
Not relevent.

 

[Jimbo]

Not even close. Spectrum and Charter rarely compete in the same cities. The customer's choice is usually cable (spectrum, charter, cox etc..) or DirecTV or Dish or a streaming service. DirecTV and Dish separate themselves on content and pricing, but they are DIRECT competitors.

I didn't specifically mean those Cable companies ...
Any two companies in the same market for TV for example, they look at thier numbers and try to improve, they don't look at what the other cable company is doing.

The larger companies cover multiple cities/ states don't care about what the other is doing because they are looking at the Big picture, not the Local picture.

D* doesn't care what Dish is doing because they are trying to get out of the business.
Dish doesn't care what D* is doing, they figure someone else will buy it and continue to kill it off, so no worry.

 

[ncted]

Once again, what ATT doing vs DISH has no relevance.

They have never competed against one another numbers wise ...
Directv is a MUCH Larger company.

Not sure what you mean by competing against each other numbers wise. They certainly compete for the same customers, just like AT&T and Verizon and T-Mobile do. There is a finite and shrinking satellite customer base, and DirecTV is losing customers at a far faster rate than Dish for whatever reason.

PLEASE LOG IN TO GET RID OF THESE ADS!

 

[robjlevin]

That article is almost three months old. With things moving as quickly as they do in this industry, I'd wait before making any judgements on what's going to happen.

 

[MitchDeerfield]

That article is almost three months old. With things moving as quickly as they do in this industry, I'd wait before making any judgements on what's going to happen.

It was published last night.

 

[Radioguy41]

I still don't get it. Who in their right mind would want to pay out billions to buy less than a controlling interest in a failing company being run by incompetent management?

 

[MitchDeerfield]

I still don't get it. Who in their right mind would want to pay out billions to buy less than a controlling interest in a failing company being run by incompetent management?

AT&T will keep 51% ownership but they will allow the minority owner to manage the company. The reasoning is that anyone could do a better job managing DirecTV and besides they might get the company at a fire sale price.

 

[Juan]

Once again, what ATT doing vs DISH has no relevance.

They have never competed against one another numbers wise ...
Directv is a MUCH Larger company.

Thats not true...back in the mid 2000s...directv was still split into "parts" where I think it was pegasus that owned a few transponders..dish almost caught them at 14 million

PLEASE LOG IN TO GET RID OF THESE ADS!

 

[Juan]

AT&T will keep 51% ownership but they will allow the minority owner to manage the company. The reasoning is that anyone could do a better job managing DirecTV and besides they might get the company at a fire sale price.

You can't really say that until the deal is struck...I will give you hint...they will own much more than 51%

 

[Inclined Orbit]

Once again, what ATT doing vs DISH has no relevance.

They have never competed against one another numbers wise ...
Directv is a MUCH Larger company.

Comparing the two are as relevant as it gets. When I worked for DirecTV they were always looking at the subscriber numbers, the gains and the churn for each company. If they had any gain in customers we wanted to know why. If our churn increased and theirs didn't we researched why. I'm sure by the late 90s they had many things figured out for seasonal churn, promotional spikes, bad customer service experiences, etc.

DirecTV was a larger company than Dish with an incredible research and development team, some borrowed from the old Hughes Aircraft aerospace side. The early days of DIrecTV under Eddy Hartenstein were glorious and we had a money didn't matter type of attitude and had the best of everything you could ever need to do your job. Charlie seemed to run his company on a shoe string budget and skimp on a lot of things. You have to give Charlie credit for the stiff competition considering his penny pinching ways.

 

[evenout]

I wonder at this point if AT&T should just keep DTV for 10 more years and just let it fade away when the last satellite runs out of fuel? DTV still makes money for AT&T. However, could the current DTV boxes last 10 years without DTV updating them? Would that get customers mad not seeing DTV have the latest boxes and that would make more customers leave DTV? Unless DTV is a distraction for them because they want to concentrate on Internet streaming and they don't want to take care of both?

If I were them, this is probably what I'd do.

DirecTV (and Dish) currently have a duopoly on a certain segment of the population... those that don't have access to cable or high speed Internet. If you live in the middle of no where and want ESPN, then you either pay DirecTV (or Dish) their $200/mo to get it - that's you're only option.

Now... if something like Starlink really takes off or advances in cellular technologies and fixed wireless Internet that otherwise spreads capless (or at least a respectable monthly data cap) Internet to these areas that cannot get Internet, that might change things.

But as far as injecting R&D money into DirecTV - I wouldn't. If the boxes get out of date... what are these customers that can't get anything else going to do?

 

[Yespage]

I wonder at this point if AT&T should just keep DTV for 10 more years and just let it fade away when the last satellite runs out of fuel? DTV still makes money for AT&T.

The trouble is, when you are a conglomerate, DTV isn't a satellite company that provides niche access to entertainment for millions of people, including those underserved by cable in the US. DTV is a single line in a spreadsheet... and that line is supposed to show growth and/or a certain percent profit.

AT&T picked a pretty bad time to get into Sat TV (that'd been like Dish buying Blockbuster to get into home rentals). Growth is non-existent and sports is likely making them extraordinarily expensive in a time when younger people are not getting into the Cable/Sat TV market.

 

[comfortably_numb]

Surprise, surprise, ATT runs DTV into the ground and then they're shocked when nobody wants to pay top price for their hot garbage.

PLEASE LOG IN TO GET RID OF THESE ADS!