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

121–130 of 173 posts

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

#121

Post by dclowd9901 »

dsl wrote: post #120
periferral wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I disagree. If that happens, a new solution will emerge to replace the telecoms. To name a few, decentralized DNS, open wifi, google fiber etc.

The United States is too big (in terms of population density) for a replacement solution to gain traction outside major metros without massive government subsidies. It's cool to think as techies we could come up with some massive disruption technology, but short of a super blue sky type project, our best bet to leave a better internet to our children is to throw money into tech lobbying.

> The United States is too big (in terms of population density) for a replacement solution to gain traction outside major metros without massive government subsidies.

Thankfully most people live in major metro areas.

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

#124

Post by joe_the_user »

krschultz wrote: post #28
sillysaurus3 wrote: post #9

Do many young people watch TV anymore? It seems like netflix + youtube scratches that itch.

Sports. ESPN + NFL Redzone + TNT + Local channels in HD have no good alternative on the internet. If they did I wouldn't pay for TV.

Lol,

I don't "pay for TV", literally don't owe a TV, but surprise, surprise, someone charge me for it.

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

#126

Post by __david__ »

sillysaurus3 wrote: post #9

Do many young people watch TV anymore? It seems like netflix + youtube scratches that itch.

Do you mean live TV, or just having cable at all? I don't think I've watched live TV in 10 years.

I'm looking to cut my cord, but the problem is that nothing legit is as convenient as the cable+DVR setup. With those 2 things I have access to practically every TV show on the air (minus Netflix exclusive stuff).

To have access to that wide of a library without cable I need Netflix, Hulu, Amazon Prime, iTunes (and Pirate Bay for the stuff that's just impossible to get). There is not a single (non-computer) device that can play those all on my TV. So it's a bit of a hassle, screwing around to find what service on what device has what show and then remembering when the new ones come out.

Compare that to the stupid, but venerable, DVR where every show I want from whatever random channel just shows up when it comes out in one clean interface.

I want to kill it so bad but from a UX perspective, it's just so much better.

Really, the only thing that gets close to that experience at all is flexget[1] + a private torrent tracker. How sad is that? It really should be a huge kick in the nuts to all the legit streaming services, but I doubt that they even care... DRM just ruins everything. Sigh.

[1] https://github.com/Flexget/Flexget

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

#127

Post by dkulchenko »

NoPiece wrote: post #76
dkulchenko wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I live in Kirkland (a suburb of Seattle). Paying Comcast $50/month for "Blast Plus" which is 50 mbps + TV, while it's ~$69 for just 50mbps internet. Both are "promo rates" (aka call the retention dpt. once they run out and you'll get them for another year).

$69 for internet is the full price, not the promo teaser rate. The promo rate is $34 (see linked image). I don't know if you can get the promo rate if you aren't a new customer though. http://i.imgur.com/dPqlKR2.png

Welp, that's new since I signed up. Will be calling them tomorrow - thanks for pointing that out!

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

#128

Post by oblio »

dsl wrote: post #120
periferral wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I disagree. If that happens, a new solution will emerge to replace the telecoms. To name a few, decentralized DNS, open wifi, google fiber etc.

The United States is too big (in terms of population density) for a replacement solution to gain traction outside major metros without massive government subsidies. It's cool to think as techies we could come up with some massive disruption technology, but short of a super blue sky type project, our best bet to leave a better internet to our children is to throw money into tech lobbying.

Well, history repeats itself. See the mobile phones for cellular networks (aka GSM). Made initially by Motorola, the technology spread all over the world and the US networks were actually lagging behind everyone else for quite a while.

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

#129

Post by adventured »

georgemcbay wrote: post #73
suprgeek wrote: post #14

The race is officially on! Can the Telecoms retain their terrible monopolies by becoming streaming providers Faster than the Streaming providers (Netflix, Youtube, Amazon Prime et al) trying to become Content creators? AT&T is running out of customers to squeeze in the cell phone plans market. This is the next frontier for terrible service, exorbitant prices and regulated monopolies...

This race is rigged. Even if the streaming providers win the telecoms will just jack up the prices on their bandwidth when net neutrality is killed completely, which I don't think is an avoidable situation at this point.

They can and will jack up their prices regardless of net neutrality.

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

#130

Post by josephlord »

The graphs in the article are really good and clear, matched scale across the different graphs, enough years for context. I hadn't realised that US cable really was declining on such a scale rather than cable cutting being something more talked about than really happening.
Post reply on HN