Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

AT&T to Buy DirecTV for $48.5 Billion

dealbook.nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 173 posts

Re: AT&T to Buy DirecTV for $48.5 Billion

#101

Post by keithg »

wkdown wrote: post #67
jusben1369 wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes! Cable = Sports. If they somehow decouple those two then I'm all Internet.

MLB At Bat NHL Gamecenter NBA League Pass NFL Sunday Ticket (currently DirecTV exclusive via contract) * I am assuming you are American and/or care only about the four major sports in the US. Not sure about futball, rugby, cricket, tennis, cycling, etc

As much as I want to believe in these kinds of live sports services, I'm always disappointing in the quality and/or reliability of the feed. Maybe it's my ISP, I don't know. But for me streaming seems to be a second class citizen compared to cable & satellite.

As for the merger, I hate it because I actually think DirecTV is a pretty good product - even though the price is a bit high. I don't think a merger will do anything but reduce the quality of service, increase the price or both!

Re: AT&T to Buy DirecTV for $48.5 Billion

#103

Post by saturdayplace »

Selfcommit wrote: post #77
Selfcommit wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'll speak for the late 20's Crowd (although I just turned 30..) No one in my age group, that I know, watches sports at home. If they do, they go to the bar to do it. ESports are MUCH more interesting for at-home watching.

I'm just curious if the downvote is because I'm 30 or because I spoke against sports?

The downvotes are unwarranted, but my guess is: it seems like you're claiming that no one in your cohort watches sports based on your anectdata. A claim which is likely out of touch with reality. I upvoted to hopefully even out your score.

Re: AT&T to Buy DirecTV for $48.5 Billion

#104

Post by joering2 »

ams6110 wrote: post #20
jds375 wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it's really shifting away from TV. As a college student, my friends and I have been completely satisfied with Netflix and the like. I can confidently say that there is nearly a 0% chance I'll be getting cable/directv/whatever when I can just get Netflix/Hulu/etc instead.

Don't most ISPs make it economically infeasible to get internet services without also getting cable TV? Comcast here bundles servies such that internet only is more expensive than internet + cable.

Here in Central Florida Brightouse is very strict and internet alone is more expensive than bundled. However, after only a month on $130 bundle with ATT, I've "threatened" them to switch into Brightouse (bluff), because I needed cheaper plan and they gave me a $45/month/no contract internet-only plan for 12Mb download.

Its possible that you would achieve the same with BH, but at least ATT hates when you mention competitors, and they make so much money that they would rather make less on you, than lose you big time, knowing once a customer is gone, his/her re-acquisition is very expensive. At least this is my experience. I had an impression that I could push it even harder and call again, complain and they would lower my bill even more before finally dropping me for good, but I am already satisfied with my plan.

Edit: tl;dr - always bluff with your cable provider that you drop them b/c they are expensive and see how far you can get. Most likely your $150 bill can be cut 50% and they still will make money.

Re: AT&T to Buy DirecTV for $48.5 Billion

#105

Post by logicallee »

trsohmers wrote: post #99
logicallee wrote: post #51

wow, I thought you meant "million"? You don't just buy a company for $48.5 billion, and have a tiny matter-of-fact headline like this. What's the last company that got bought for even $30 billion! This is a mind-boggling sum of money. Check out the largest mergers and acquisitions of all time: http://www.bloomberg.com/visual-data/best-and-worst/largest-... (Do bear in mind inflation - add 45% since 1998 according to…

There have been a lot more, even recent ones... http://www.businessinsider.com/16-biggest-acquisitions-of-al...

Thanks.

As you can see #16 as listed is in the ballpark and actually it says in your list's lead paragraph that #16, which is what prompted your list article, was for $45.2 billion. (So, less than this deal.) They get their ultimate figure by adding debt the acquirer takes on (as is typical). Including debt, our article actually says "Including the assumption of DirecTV’s debt, the deal is worth about $67.1 billion" so just a hair shy of #16 on your list if you include the debt.

Either way, this is an absolutely mind-blowing deal in nominal terms. (As are all sixteen on your list.) This is a huge amount of money by any standard on Earth.

Re: AT&T to Buy DirecTV for $48.5 Billion

#106

Post by jmccree »

Selfcommit wrote: post #77
Selfcommit wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'll speak for the late 20's Crowd (although I just turned 30..) No one in my age group, that I know, watches sports at home. If they do, they go to the bar to do it. ESports are MUCH more interesting for at-home watching.

I'm just curious if the downvote is because I'm 30 or because I spoke against sports?

I upvoted you, but I'm guessing people are objecting to your attempting to "be a spokesperson for the late twenties crowd", when I think your case is exceptional. I'm mid-almost-late twenties and I've never heard of "watching e-sports" or twitch.com until this thread. I've seen speedruns of half-life on youtube and such, but I had no idea people actually seemingly stream live video game competitions. I have a wide circle of friends in their twenties and thirties, and I've never heard of e-sports.

I agree though, that live sports are mostly watched at bars by friends in my age range. I only have DirecTV because it's "free" (included in hoa fees), but I still almost never watch "live" tv. I just watch DVRed shows instead of on Hulu now. Sports, especially NFL, are still huge as I can see by my facebook feed during big games or the draft.

Heck, I didn't know what a touch down was a few years ago, but sports are so popular among mainstream (ie: non techies) I had to learn enough to pretend to be interested to fit in socially, and eventually I started actually enjoying watching and following the local teams. I suspect there may be a bit of an echo chamber in some communities that don't care about sports, but I'd wager the among the majority they are still very popular.

Re: AT&T to Buy DirecTV for $48.5 Billion

#108

Post by enjo »

dublinben wrote: post #36
jusben1369 wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes! Cable = Sports. If they somehow decouple those two then I'm all Internet.

Do you get ESPN3 through your ISP? It covers most sports both live and recorded, and doesn't require a cable subscription.

Are there ISP's streaming ESPN3 without a cable subscription containing ESPN? My local options both require you to subscribe to a TV package.

Re: AT&T to Buy DirecTV for $48.5 Billion

#109

Post by mrjatx »

whoopdedo wrote: post #92
mrjatx wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your first statement is absolutely ridiculous. Do you have data to back this up? I'm not in some "~esportz~" community - but I'm not in a sports community either, and you know what happens to my facebook when an athletic game is on? 20-30yo people talking about it in a massive flood. I have, as far as I know, never seen any of my friends (general Austinites of various walks of life) mention esports. If you're referri…

If 20-30 year olds aren't paying for television, is it because they don't want to or that they can't afford it? Narrow the criteria to people under-40 who own a house and I'd expect a much larger subscription rate.

The 20-30 group that is familiar and accustomed to streaming services, or even the basic Netflix delivery service (circa 1997) is not even remotely similar to the generation of kids born in the 70s. And the same goes with the 70s to the 50s. Who still has landlines? Those over the age of 45. (OLD graph but good info; http://ww3.hdnux.com/photos/07/74/73/2084546/7/628x471.jpg) They've spent most of their lives with land line phones being the most common means of long distance communication. It was considered essential. Cable is not considered essential to this up and coming generation (millenials) even more so than it was considered not essential to my generation.

Why are you assuming that you need to be 40 and a homeowner to be able to afford $35/mo cable? I'm 29 and have never once in my life paid for cable. I'm an engineer and own. I use Plex with Rokus and Chromecast. Prior to these devices I used Netflix mostly, they started streaming in 2007 but from 1997 to 2007 they still had a fairly decent delivery service.

Re: AT&T to Buy DirecTV for $48.5 Billion

#110

Post by nemothekid »

Selfcommit wrote: post #65
canvia wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Young people don't care about sports either. eSports like they have on Twitch.tv are more and more popular. A $35 leaf antenna from amazon gets you all the local HD channels for free.

I'll speak for the late 20's Crowd (although I just turned 30..) No one in my age group, that I know, watches sports at home. If they do, they go to the bar to do it. ESports are MUCH more interesting for at-home watching.

Consider this - does any individual esports team make anywhere near what Lebron James, individually makes, including his salary and all his various sponsorships?

Its easy to sit in your SV bubble and claim such a thing but live sports is huge. ESPN alone is considered to be the most expensive sports channel [1]. Lets be real, how many American children are aiming to be the next Lebron James vs Fatil1ty (how many young people know who Fat1lity is?)

Esports might be more interesting for you and your friends, but lets make sure that we aren't projecting our preferences on 300 million Americans.

[1]http://www.npr.org/2013/08/07/209820647/the-history-and-futu...

Post reply on HN