AT&T - DISH talks getting hot.

I don't think that is true anymore. That was part of the deal with the FCC that allowed them to go back into having both local and long distance. In fact if you call to add certain services they are required to tell you that there are other companies that can also provide that service, then if requested they have to list them as well. If I remember correctly that is part of Section 272 of the Telcom Act.


AT&T recently received relief from 272 and EA scripting rules requiring them to offer you other LD carriers. However they still have to honor your request if you request a different LD company. Once 272 is officially gone you will see AT&T finally be able to act as one company. This is something they have not been doing. Each affiliate has been acting independently...
 
IF this happens, I just hope AT&T doesn't screw DISH up. It takes the local AT&T (BellSouth) union forever to do anything. Luckily I have Verizon for home phone service, but we use AT&T for data lines at work. We get a great deal, but you get what you pay for. Worst case, it will take them at least 18 months to really screw it up, and then I will be out of contract and can switch to something else. Verizon has a triple-play with D*, so I suppose I could do that.

I hope that they handle DISH the same way the have Cingular which, despite lots of bad press and on-line opinions, I find to be a generally good network with voice quality that is actually audible. I fear the day that they stop using GSM for the voice portion of mobile and switch to the horrible CDMA that Sprint and Verizon use since they will already be using CDMA for the data. I HATE talking to people using Verizon cell phones which the entire rest of my company does because they have a faster data network. EDGE is fast enough for anything I need to do on a cell phone, and people I call can actually understand what I am saying since I am not on an overloaded tower using a horrible audio codec designed for efficiency over call quality.

Ted
 
ATT buying Dish would give them access to all the Dish programming agreements. Since Dish has many more customers they would get bigger discounts on the programming. They could provide the Dish programming through U-Verse as they expand U-Verse and provide the Dish programming via satellite in areas they have not converted.
 
I suspect that's not the case. Contracts are typically written very explicitly and likely wouldn't allow agreements to carry over from one "service", Dish DBS service, to another completely different one, U-Verse.
 
Seems like a conflict of interest, U-Verse and satellite over the long term. I would expect one service to be shut down over the long term and the other to prevail. Dish is obviously in the better position now, but what happens when fiber optic is the standard across the country? And would AT&T put substantial investment into growing Dish to stay competitive with Directv if they are also developing their own fiber optic service? I don't know, doesn't sound like a good idea to me.
 
well, i recently switched my phone service from Comcrap to ATT, and they told me they could now take over my dish network billing, and convert me to U-verse if I wanted to get the maximum bundled savings..I didnt follow up on this, as I am STILL waiting for my Dish Rebates, but I thought it was interesting that they even said this to me..
 
Not a conflict at all between offering Dish and U-Verse.

Many people cannot get a dish(apartments, heavy trees, etc) or that do not want a dish on there roofs will be interested in a service liek U-verse, and both of the Dish and U-verse are competitors to Cable.

And in rural areas, getting fiber optic isnt a cost effective option
 
Last edited:
You could even say that Dish and Uverse could complement each other. I read that Craig Moffett is pooh-poohing this whole thing. I don't know what he's smoking.

Think of the strenghts and weaknesses of Cable based systems and satellite systems:

Cable characteristics (including Uvers and Fios)

1) Cable is easy to localize. Including VOD, Local access, etc.
2) It's easier to provide broadband over a cable because of the lack of latency
3) Cable is bandwidth constrained by the Cable itself. It is hard to expand the bandwith short of running more cable, which is HUGELY expensive

Satellite characteristics

1) Hard to localize. VOD is difficult, Local access nearly impossible.
2) Hard to provide broadband over satellite due to inherent latency
3) Want more Bandwidth? Launch another satellite and "Presto!"

So, what would ATT do with Dish? Provide a 1-box service (something like Dish Homezone) which would look something like this:

1) Connected to Satellite for National services
2) Connected to Uverse infrastructure for VOD, Local Access, Internet Access, IP phone, Local Channels (freeing up more satellite bandwidth)
3) All this would be transparent to the users, who would just see one "uberservice".

So in one box (probably manufactured by Echostar under long-term agreement) you would get ALL the benefits of CABLE as well as ALL the benefits of LOCAL DSL and all the benefits of Satellite.

If ATT pulls this off, this is the GAME CHANGER, ladies and gentlemen.

The ATT cable could provide much better bandwidth for data and phone because it would be freed from having to use bandwidth for TV. And it could provide more programming options because it would have virtually unlimited bandwidth.

The technology is in place (the 622/722 can do this NOW, TODAY. To paraphrase Dr. Strangelove, "All that is necessary is the will (money) to do so."

I could go on about this but I have to go back to work.
 
yeah, its sort of funny how we spent billions of $$$$ to break up ATT 20 years ago, and now that are as big if not bigger than before..Way to go, Federal Government!
 
Seems like a conflict of interest, U-Verse and satellite over the long term. I would expect one service to be shut down over the long term and the other to prevail. Dish is obviously in the better position now, but what happens when fiber optic is the standard across the country? And would AT&T put substantial investment into growing Dish to stay competitive with Directv if they are also developing their own fiber optic service? I don't know, doesn't sound like a good idea to me.

I don't think it's a conflict of interest. If I'm not mistaken, you have to be within a certain distance of the CO to get U-verse. For customers that are too far away they could sell them Dish, which is what they're doing now anyway.
 
I don't think it's a conflict of interest. If I'm not mistaken, you have to be within a certain distance of the CO to get U-verse. For customers that are too far away they could sell them Dish, which is what they're doing now anyway.

FYI: DSL is distance limited from Central offices. U-Verse is not hosted out of the central office. Instead it is hosted after what they call F1 cable which is the copper that leaves the CO. It is fiber out directly to the F2 which is past the old in some cases 60+ year old cable into the newer stuff. Then they place a box called a VRAD which is a fiber optic box that converts the optical over to coaxial cable and is spliced directly into the copper F2 cable about 3000 or less feet from your house.

I would say in this case if you are close to the CO it would hurt you. Since you can already get DSL and most telco services I would assume you would be last on the list for U-Verse.

but just a guess.
 
I suspect that's not the case. Contracts are typically written very explicitly and likely wouldn't allow agreements to carry over from one "service", Dish DBS service, to another completely different one, U-Verse.

True... But having 15 million subscribers will help you in those contract talks NO?
 
yeah, its sort of funny how we spent billions of $$$$ to break up ATT 20 years ago, and now that are as big if not bigger than before..Way to go, Federal Government!

Because the government has no idea how to run a network. Just like AT&T does not know how to run a government. Leave them alone if people don't want AT&T then use someone else. But let the market decide that NOT the government!
 
Back then AT&T was the ONLY phone company in town, a true monopoly. The breakup spawned many smaller companies, lower phone bills and technological revolution.
 
I believe Dish could purchase TiVo by themselves today if those felt like it..... Why would they though ? You buy other companies to get their technology, which Dish probably doesn't really need. Many people consider Dish's DVRs to be pretty darn good or you buy them to pick out the good stuff, throw away the rest, and shut it down.

E* Should buy them to get rid of a nucience. That gnat Tivo is causing a lot of annoyance to Dish and to Dish customers.
 
Back then AT&T was the ONLY phone company in town, a true monopoly. The breakup spawned many smaller companies, lower phone bills and technological revolution.

No it spawned smaller companies that have since went bankrupt and screwed up equipment makers that used to innovate and now are cutting heads to pay for the bad loans the "smaller" companies made. it also spawned a less then reliable network that used to be reliable and is now a patch job at best.

Only thing it did to the bills was make it impossible to understand. As far as technological revolution before the break up AT&T invented such things as the laser/television/microwave/RF/coaxial cable/ the Transistor/ CPU .. Much of what we have today is nothing more then enhancement of those inventions. Name 1 technological revolution since 1984 that did not stem from our original research.... all the breakup did was allow everyone to quickly bring these such things to the market. Which is why nothing works! Before 1984 we would actually tested and made things market ready. when they came out THEY WORKED... and covered the entire network not just area by area. and if it broke someone came out and fixed no matter what the issue was.

So lets recap what did the government get for its billions?

Bankruptcies
less innovation
un happy customers
bad service
hatch job of networks
and less national security

What did they gain?
More tax revenue from those startups
more lobby dollars being spent in Washington
increase in tax rates to customers
larger FCC budget

MONEY WELL SPENT!
 
Because the government has no idea how to run a network. Just like AT&T does not know how to run a government. Leave them alone if people don't want AT&T then use someone else. But let the market decide that NOT the government!

Typical monopolist horseshit, here. How can the "market decide" if there are no choices, or only a choice between two companies? In that case, the "decision" is forced upon the consumer; he or shoe does nto actually have any choice in the matter. To paraphrase the civil rights activists - "no competition, no choice"!!!! :)))))
 
***

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 1, Members: 0, Guests: 1)

Who Read This Thread (Total Members: 1)