AT&T to select Dish or DirecTV

[Newshawk]

According to a Bloomberg News report I saw in today's Tulsa World, AT&T will make a decision by year's end whether to stay with E* and drop D* for its former BellSouth customers or drop E* and stay with D*.

Quote:
AT&T Inc. says that by year's end it will choose whether to keep EchoStar Communications Corp. or DirecTV Group Inc. as its satellite-television provider.

The company sells EchoStar's Dish Network service in 13 states -- including Oklahoma -- and offers DirecTV's plans in the nine states served by BellSouth Corp., which AT&T acquired last year.

The full story can be seen here: http://www.tulsaworld.com/business/article.aspx?articleID=070517_5_E4_spanc62814&breadcrumb=Tech

 

[boba]

Well SBC before they became at&t invested $500 million in DISH and they are in 13 states. I'll bet on DISH being the victorious satellite provider.

 

[navychop]

Or AT&T being the future owner of Dish.

 

[mdonnelly]

Whichever one at&t picks, Oklahoma won't be the deciding factor. The 13 SBC states include California, and the 9 BellSouth states include Florida.

 

[rad]

I'd bet on AT&T sticking with E* and dumping D* in the former BellSouth areas. I've worked for a company that bought out others and was bought out a couple times. In every case the company doing the buying terminated services that they purchased company was using and migrated them to the services that they were using.

 

[Greg Bimson]

Uh, you guys do realize at the same time there was the SBC-Echostar deal that there was also the BellSouth-DirecTV deal, and that the BellSouth deal is still working?

So the current AT&T, which is the conglomeration of the former SBC and BellSouth with the long-distance AT&T service, already has both companies under their thumb?

Whichever gives a better corporate deal wins...

 

[LOBO2999]

I hope its D , but I bet it wont be. I get $10 off my bill for having bellsouth , I bet that will be gone if they choice E

 

[tnale]

Louis Navieller, a stock market letter writer, feels that Dish will be bought by someone. He has speculated D* or possibly AT&T.

 

[Jhon69]

I remember when SBC combined with DISH that they stated those customers were
SBC customers.And when the time came their customers would be transitioned over to their own service when it became operational.

 

[cforrest]

From a marketing standpoint for AT&T, D* would be better. It would appeal to the sports people as well as the HD people, assuming D10 launches without a hitch. In the end, it will be who offers the best $$$ to AT&T. I'm sure they'll stick with E* since they've invested in the homezone receivers.

 

[Jimbo]

I have said all along that I think AT&T will buy D* instead of E*, mainly because D* has more going for themin the over all scheme of things. With D* currently placing new sats and expanding thier services.

I think a while back I was talking with someone then I mentioned that I expect them to buy D* by the end of next year (08)

This is just MY opinion, I have no info to lead one way or another, just a hunch.

Jimbo

 

[jpn]

I can't see a telco buying a sat provider. There isn't a good way for a telco to make money on the transaction.

The long-term goal of the telcos to deliver their own video conflicts with the goals of sat. Trying to roll-out a telephony-based video product would be in direct competition with sat -- themselves, if they bought E* or D*. They'd basically be forced to shut-down their sat provider or sell it. Selling it at that point would almost certainly be at a loss since they would have introduced more competition into the market. They wouldn't be able to just shut-down b/c the feds would piss all over them for cutting-off the rural viewers.

It just wouldn't make sense for AT&T to own a sat provider.

 

[rad]

JPN, the telco's are only wanting to be able to compete with cable to be able to provide 'Triple Play' services, and they need video for that. IMHO I don't think that they'd really care how they accomplished being able to provide video services. With all the issues and the steadly growing bill for AT&T's UVerse service they may just decide that it would be quicker to just by a DBS company and then they have coverage for their entire service area with the stroke of a pen.

 

[Jimbo]

JPN, the telco's are only wanting to be able to compete with cable to be able to provide 'Triple Play' services, and they need video for that. IMHO I don't think that they'd really care how they accomplished being able to provide video services. With all the issues and the steadly growing bill for AT&T's UVerse service they may just decide that it would be quicker to just by a DBS company and then they have coverage for their entire service area with the stroke of a pen.

Thanks Rad,
You took the words right off my fingertips !!!
My thoughts exactly.....

Jimbo

 

[Greg Bimson]

Just to give the example:

I have Verizon as my Baby Bell. And because FiOS has been rolled out in this area, I could literally have:

Verizon local phone
Verizon (MCI) long distance
Verizon FiOS Internet
Verizon FiOS TV

But think about options where the fiber-optic network has not been implemented:

AT&T local phone
AT&T long distance
AT&T DSL (if available)
no video service, unless provided by agreement w/ DBS company

And that is why it makes sense to purchase a video provider. It is not incumbent that AT&T finish U-verse quickly in order to get the base of their customers on their television platform, as they'd already have at least 13 million subscribers by purchasing a DBS company. Then there aren't all those upgrades associated with pushing TV through the fibre-optics, which also translates into a synergy.

 

[JosephB]

JPN, the telco's are only wanting to be able to compete with cable to be able to provide 'Triple Play' services, and they need video for that. IMHO I don't think that they'd really care how they accomplished being able to provide video services. With all the issues and the steadly growing bill for AT&T's UVerse service they may just decide that it would be quicker to just by a DBS company and then they have coverage for their entire service area with the stroke of a pen.

Actually buying a satellite company makes way more sense. Look at all the trouble Verizon is having with digging up neighborhoods, franchise issues, etc. AT&T is going to have some of the same problems. Also, AT&T has a much larger physical service area, whereas Verizon is more dense, so AT&T is going to have a lot of cable running long distances with no customers on it. With a satellite company they instantly free up megabits of bandwidth on their DSL lines to the home, which can be used for VOD, and *gasp* increased internet bandwidth for customers. I've always thought a point to point connection is such a waste for a broadcast medium like television. That's where satellite and cable have an advantage over the telcos.

In the short term, I would be willing to bet money that they stick with Dish since they have those 2wire boxes already developed, and those are a stepping stone in the rollout of Uverse. With those 2 wire boxes they can instantly roll out Uverse to all of their customer base and upgrade as they roll out their network.

 

[LMckin]

Also Directv still got 5 years contract with Bellsouth so i wonder if at&t will honor the other 4 years of the contract in witch Bellsouth Sign with Directv back in 2006.


http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-13941313_ITM

 

[Jimbo]

Maybe AT&T will buy one or the other and keep U-Verse ..... They have spent alot of money on it and is now starting to roll out of other cities, Detroit I think started yesterday.

Jimbo

 

[hdtvtechno]

http://www.marketwatch.com/News/Story/Story.aspx?guid={94408643-4F82-4E71-9400-517C0CBC523F}

 

[JosephB]

This is what I think will happen, after reading several stories about it and pondering on my own.. AT&T will pick Echostar, mainly because that is who SBC was partnered with, and AT&T is mostly old SBC management. Second, they've invested in the Homezone boxes with 2wire. To switch over to DirecTV would require 2wire to alter those boxes, and that is if DirecTV wanted to play ball with AT&T and 2wire on that. Third, when (not if) AT&T's current plans of copper to the home fail for U-Verse due to lack of bandwidth, Echostar is smaller than DirecTV and it would be easier to absorb them into AT&T and rebrand should they decide they need/want to purchase a satellite company. DirecTV has a much bigger and better brand and a large part of the purchase price of DirecTV would be it's marketing assets, which AT&T would toss anyway when they would inevitably rebrand the service to AT&T.