AT&T agrees to buy Direct TV
http://news.yahoo.com/t-agrees-buy-direc...21893.html

Pac-12 Networks: DirectTV inches closer to reality, thanks to AT&T
http://blogs.mercurynews.com/collegespor...ks-to-att/

[from 2nd article]

Quote:Two things to keep in mind:

1. There is no guarantee that the deal will be approved.

Quote:2. There is no guarantee that DirecTV will carry the Pac-12 Networks the day/week/month/even year after AT&T takes control.

Quote:I asked an industry source what an AT&T-DirecTV deal would mean for the Pac12Nets and got this response:

“Depends on the deal but (it) sure helps the chances.”

Wilner is making this out to be more important than it really is -- which makes sense for him, because he needs something to fill his column space between now and the start of fall practice. He's already used this non-story to fill his column twice.

There's no AT&T/DirecTV deal at all unless the government lets it go through, which could take a year, and it's not even clear how hard AT&T and DirecTV will push the government for approval. They might be equally content if the feds approve their deal or if the feds block both this deal and the Comcast-TWC deal. AT&T owes DirecTV nothing if their deal gets blocked.

Might slow down DirecTV on other things. I figured LHN and SEC network would be on DirecTV in 2015 after the DirecTV/Disney contract expires (12/2014). But saw this piece that indicates they are working on getting both sooner:
http://www.houstonchronicle.com/sports/a...472855.php

(05-19-2014 10:22 AM)bullet Wrote:  Might slow down DirecTV on other things. I figured LHN and SEC network would be on DirecTV in 2015 after the DirecTV/Disney contract expires (12/2014). But saw this piece that indicates they are working on getting both sooner:
http://www.houstonchronicle.com/sports/a...472855.php

it could but I think given that Disney expires end of year and they know how important the SEC is to that- it's a no brainer to get it done sooner.

one thing interesting...
http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/eye-on-foot...day-ticket

sounds like the merger could be contingent on Directv retaining the NFL Sunday Ticket.

(05-19-2014 10:55 AM)stever20 Wrote:  one thing interesting...
http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/eye-on-foot...day-ticket

sounds like the merger could be contingent on Directv retaining the NFL Sunday Ticket.

So, if DTV loses Sunday Ticket, AT&T gets to see how many customers DTV loses, and then decide whether or not to pull the plug on the deal or renegotiate for a much lower price.

Smart move for AT&T, because there are many possibilities if DTV loses that exclusive: 1) Sunday Ticket becomes available to every cable/satellite company, i.e. no exclusive; 2) Sunday Ticket goes away entirely and no one has it; or 3) Sunday Ticket becomes exclusive to a carrier other than DTV, e.g. Dish.

my hunch is that Directv keeps the exclusive. They almost have to. If they lost that- they lose a ton of folks in short order.

(05-19-2014 11:20 AM)stever20 Wrote:  my hunch is that Directv keeps the exclusive. They almost have to. If they lost that- they lose a ton of folks in short order.

My hunch is that AT&T UVerse content and packages will mirror the more successful Direct TV except they will price UVerse "lower" to get you to sign up for AT&T internet, phone service, and now home security service.

(05-19-2014 10:17 AM)Wedge Wrote:  Wilner is making this out to be more important than it really is -- which makes sense for him, because he needs something to fill his column space between now and the start of fall practice. He's already used this non-story to fill his column twice.

There's no AT&T/DirecTV deal at all unless the government lets it go through, which could take a year, and it's not even clear how hard AT&T and DirecTV will push the government for approval. They might be equally content if the feds approve their deal or if the feds block both this deal and the Comcast-TWC deal. AT&T owes DirecTV nothing if their deal gets blocked.

I hope that both deals are blocked by the government.

I read where almost all media in the world is owned by something like six companies.

Why in the world would we as consumers want this much power/control concentrated in so few hands?

(05-19-2014 01:09 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

(05-19-2014 10:17 AM)Wedge Wrote:  Wilner is making this out to be more important than it really is -- which makes sense for him, because he needs something to fill his column space between now and the start of fall practice. He's already used this non-story to fill his column twice.

There's no AT&T/DirecTV deal at all unless the government lets it go through, which could take a year, and it's not even clear how hard AT&T and DirecTV will push the government for approval. They might be equally content if the feds approve their deal or if the feds block both this deal and the Comcast-TWC deal. AT&T owes DirecTV nothing if their deal gets blocked.

I hope that both deals are blocked by the government.

I read where almost all media in the world is owned by something like six companies.

Why in the world would we as consumers want this much power/control concentrated in so few hands?

Comcast and Time-Warner do not compete for consumers. Their merger means nothing to consumers except the possibility that Comcast would have sufficent leverage to hold down carriage fee increases.

ATT and Direct compete in virtually every market ATT UVerse is present.

Different ball of wax.

(05-19-2014 01:17 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(05-19-2014 01:09 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

(05-19-2014 10:17 AM)Wedge Wrote:  Wilner is making this out to be more important than it really is -- which makes sense for him, because he needs something to fill his column space between now and the start of fall practice. He's already used this non-story to fill his column twice.

There's no AT&T/DirecTV deal at all unless the government lets it go through, which could take a year, and it's not even clear how hard AT&T and DirecTV will push the government for approval. They might be equally content if the feds approve their deal or if the feds block both this deal and the Comcast-TWC deal. AT&T owes DirecTV nothing if their deal gets blocked.

I hope that both deals are blocked by the government.

I read where almost all media in the world is owned by something like six companies.

Why in the world would we as consumers want this much power/control concentrated in so few hands?

Comcast and Time-Warner do not compete for consumers. Their merger means nothing to consumers except the possibility that Comcast would have sufficent leverage to hold down carriage fee increases.

ATT and Direct compete in virtually every market ATT UVerse is present.

Different ball of wax.

I don't care if they compete or not. I want decentralization of businesses (and football conferences), not decreased numbers and more centralized control.

In the old days, AT&T didn't compete against itself for consumers but was broken up.

Time to do it again to a bunch of companies, in my opinion. Bust 'em up.....

(05-19-2014 01:17 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(05-19-2014 01:09 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

(05-19-2014 10:17 AM)Wedge Wrote:  Wilner is making this out to be more important than it really is -- which makes sense for him, because he needs something to fill his column space between now and the start of fall practice. He's already used this non-story to fill his column twice.

There's no AT&T/DirecTV deal at all unless the government lets it go through, which could take a year, and it's not even clear how hard AT&T and DirecTV will push the government for approval. They might be equally content if the feds approve their deal or if the feds block both this deal and the Comcast-TWC deal. AT&T owes DirecTV nothing if their deal gets blocked.

I hope that both deals are blocked by the government.

I read where almost all media in the world is owned by something like six companies.

Why in the world would we as consumers want this much power/control concentrated in so few hands?

Comcast and Time-Warner do not compete for consumers. Their merger means nothing to consumers except the possibility that Comcast would have sufficent leverage to hold down carriage fee increases.

ATT and Direct compete in virtually every market ATT UVerse is present.

Different ball of wax.

Where UVerse is offered, there are almost always several options. It would be difficult to make the case that cable/satellite choices would be choked off by an AT&T/DTV deal.

I have UVerse at home now, and I used to have DirecTV, and I could also have Comcast cable, or Dish, or Verizon Fios.

Is there anywhere in the U.S. where an AT&T/DTV deal would reduce the number of cable/satellite options to only two?

(05-19-2014 01:09 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

(05-19-2014 10:17 AM)Wedge Wrote:  Wilner is making this out to be more important than it really is -- which makes sense for him, because he needs something to fill his column space between now and the start of fall practice. He's already used this non-story to fill his column twice.

There's no AT&T/DirecTV deal at all unless the government lets it go through, which could take a year, and it's not even clear how hard AT&T and DirecTV will push the government for approval. They might be equally content if the feds approve their deal or if the feds block both this deal and the Comcast-TWC deal. AT&T owes DirecTV nothing if their deal gets blocked.

I hope that both deals are blocked by the government.

I read where almost all media in the world is owned by something like six companies.

Why in the world would we as consumers want this much power/control concentrated in so few hands?

The FCC doesn't block mergers anymore. I mean they were the ones that approved all the Baby Bells recombining in the first place.

(05-19-2014 02:09 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(05-19-2014 01:17 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(05-19-2014 01:09 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

(05-19-2014 10:17 AM)Wedge Wrote:  Wilner is making this out to be more important than it really is -- which makes sense for him, because he needs something to fill his column space between now and the start of fall practice. He's already used this non-story to fill his column twice.

There's no AT&T/DirecTV deal at all unless the government lets it go through, which could take a year, and it's not even clear how hard AT&T and DirecTV will push the government for approval. They might be equally content if the feds approve their deal or if the feds block both this deal and the Comcast-TWC deal. AT&T owes DirecTV nothing if their deal gets blocked.

I hope that both deals are blocked by the government.

I read where almost all media in the world is owned by something like six companies.

Why in the world would we as consumers want this much power/control concentrated in so few hands?

Comcast and Time-Warner do not compete for consumers. Their merger means nothing to consumers except the possibility that Comcast would have sufficent leverage to hold down carriage fee increases.

ATT and Direct compete in virtually every market ATT UVerse is present.

Different ball of wax.

Where UVerse is offered, there are almost always several options. It would be difficult to make the case that cable/satellite choices would be choked off by an AT&T/DTV deal.

I have UVerse at home now, and I used to have DirecTV, and I could also have Comcast cable, or Dish, or Verizon Fios.

Is there anywhere in the U.S. where an AT&T/DTV deal would reduce the number of cable/satellite options to only two?

I actually have UVerse and Direct and I could have Comcast or Dish as well.

ATT is clearly playing a marketshare game but they've not had a great deal of luck gaining consumers because there is a lot of inertia in the marketplace.

(05-19-2014 02:21 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(05-19-2014 01:09 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

(05-19-2014 10:17 AM)Wedge Wrote:  Wilner is making this out to be more important than it really is -- which makes sense for him, because he needs something to fill his column space between now and the start of fall practice. He's already used this non-story to fill his column twice.

There's no AT&T/DirecTV deal at all unless the government lets it go through, which could take a year, and it's not even clear how hard AT&T and DirecTV will push the government for approval. They might be equally content if the feds approve their deal or if the feds block both this deal and the Comcast-TWC deal. AT&T owes DirecTV nothing if their deal gets blocked.

I hope that both deals are blocked by the government.

I read where almost all media in the world is owned by something like six companies.

Why in the world would we as consumers want this much power/control concentrated in so few hands?

The FCC doesn't block mergers anymore. I mean they were the ones that approved all the Baby Bells recombining in the first place.

Yeah, I know. Too damn bad.

Entergy has been recently told by the Justice Department to divest some electrical transmission lines/grid voluntarily or face anti-trust action in a class action case my Firm is involved in.

Maybe, the tide is turning somewhat because of the business trend of mega mergers. One can hope..

(05-19-2014 03:16 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

(05-19-2014 02:21 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(05-19-2014 01:09 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

(05-19-2014 10:17 AM)Wedge Wrote:  Wilner is making this out to be more important than it really is -- which makes sense for him, because he needs something to fill his column space between now and the start of fall practice. He's already used this non-story to fill his column twice.

There's no AT&T/DirecTV deal at all unless the government lets it go through, which could take a year, and it's not even clear how hard AT&T and DirecTV will push the government for approval. They might be equally content if the feds approve their deal or if the feds block both this deal and the Comcast-TWC deal. AT&T owes DirecTV nothing if their deal gets blocked.

I hope that both deals are blocked by the government.

I read where almost all media in the world is owned by something like six companies.

Why in the world would we as consumers want this much power/control concentrated in so few hands?

The FCC doesn't block mergers anymore. I mean they were the ones that approved all the Baby Bells recombining in the first place.

Yeah, I know. Too damn bad.

Entergy has been recently told by the Justice Department to divest some electrical transmission lines/grid voluntarily or face anti-trust action in a class action case my Firm is involved in.

Maybe, the tide is turning somewhat because of the business trend of mega mergers. One can hope..

I'll see your Entergy divestment and raise you the Progress/Duke Energy merger.

(05-19-2014 03:16 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

(05-19-2014 02:21 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(05-19-2014 01:09 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

(05-19-2014 10:17 AM)Wedge Wrote:  Wilner is making this out to be more important than it really is -- which makes sense for him, because he needs something to fill his column space between now and the start of fall practice. He's already used this non-story to fill his column twice.

There's no AT&T/DirecTV deal at all unless the government lets it go through, which could take a year, and it's not even clear how hard AT&T and DirecTV will push the government for approval. They might be equally content if the feds approve their deal or if the feds block both this deal and the Comcast-TWC deal. AT&T owes DirecTV nothing if their deal gets blocked.

I hope that both deals are blocked by the government.

I read where almost all media in the world is owned by something like six companies.

Why in the world would we as consumers want this much power/control concentrated in so few hands?

The FCC doesn't block mergers anymore. I mean they were the ones that approved all the Baby Bells recombining in the first place.

Yeah, I know. Too damn bad.

Entergy has been recently told by the Justice Department to divest some electrical transmission lines/grid voluntarily or face anti-trust action in a class action case my Firm is involved in.

Maybe, the tide is turning somewhat because of the business trend of mega mergers. One can hope..

Its just that the Obama administration is much more aggressive than any administration since at least the Carter administration.