Live data from Hacker News

AT&T to Buy DirecTV for $48.5 Billion

dealbook.nytimes.com

151–160 of 173 posts

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

#151
post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Most sports? Hardly. Sure you can, in theory, watch American Football, Rest of the World Football, basketball, and baseball on ESPN3, but if you want to see these sports played by teams that matter then you need regular ESPN or a cable subscription to view them. All the games that matter were removed from the ESPN3 lineup at least a couple of years ago.

It shows pretty much all college sports (at least, all of what's broadcasted on cable anyways -- and then some). Sometimes there's a blackout on a game, which is annoying, though....

It's just not that great for professional leagues.

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

#152
post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Roads aren't free, we pay for them in taxes and tolls.

OF course they are not really 'free', but does Amazon pay toll to get things delivered to you? Do government bodies who maintain the roads, tax large suppliers to make use of them?

The answer to your question is yes. The bulk of highway construction is funded via a gas tax. The more you use the roads the more you pay for them.

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

#153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cable = Sports is why I am not watching ANY sports other than little snippets I can grab on youtube or mlb.com. Seriously. Have not watched a full game (definitely not MLB, NFL, NBA) of anything in a LONG time. And none in family (yes little kids too) are watching much sports on TV either. Definitely not enough to grow up to be a fan of a particular pro sports league or a team, other than soccer via AYSO. IMHO pro sp…

What's funny is I would sign up for MLB.com in an instant if I could watch the local game but they block that so I'm out.

I don't have cable anymore, but watch most of the games with a buddies Comcast log in on my iPad.

Which is the most infuriating part... I have NBA League Pass, live in a separate TV market (same state) from my preferred team, but still a large percentage of games are blacked out.

If someone (Apple/ Amazon/ startupX) figures out how to get great live sports content on demand to consumers, they will have an amazing company.

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

#154
post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can I ask where you live, and how much you pay? In the bay area internet only is marginally cheaper than any bundle. $99 for TV + 25mbps and between $66 for just the 25mbps. Teaser rates are $59 for the bundle, $29 for internet.

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).

Kirkland resident here, too. Have you looked into Frontier FiOS? We pay $40/month for Internet, non-promo and no TV. (I don't think they've laid fiber optic to every neighborhood in the city yet.)

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

#155
post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Regardless of technology who is going to build it? Techies? A large portion of the high speed internet we have today was done with private investment, the same goes for all that cell power out there. The government hasn't spent nearly as much on infrastructure as private business yet far too many think that the same government who cannot maintain highways and bridges sufficiently would be best to handle the internet?…

Actually the US government spent quite a lot on the infrastructure. Around '97, I moved from Sweden to the US, after running an ISP there since '93. Since it was an obvious concern I checked and the US was pumping in slightly more per capita, while being ~40% more population dense. So no problem (I thought) - if anything speed and availability will rocket up faster here. However, back there the government kept control of the lines (not entirely unlike US telecom). Net neutrality was kind of a given - obviously the government can't (at least without massive legal changes) give preferential speed to some peoples information directly (i.e. blatant censorship - if you're a private enterprise you can limit stuff like that, not so much if you're the govt). Back home things rolled along swimmingly, the same crew I ran with back then are still online, some of them whining that they haven't pulled gigabit fiber into their areas and have to settle for 100 megabit symmetric. Even before the millennium 10 Mbit symmetric fiber was becoming pretty normal all the way into residences. No one really pulled copper wire for comm anymore really, if a new line went in, fiber. Need to redraw power lines? Throw in fiber. Water? Fiber. Just dug up a sewer line? Throw down some fiber, you never know..

Here? I can get 20 Mbit (5 down) in a fairly large town. Some cities have more, but I've seen none where 50 or 100 Mbit symmetric is considered the sort of "lowest tier" broadband (kind of like "at least it's not dialup"). For only 2-3x the price. Why? Because no one with the peoples actual interest kept the reins, they just handed shit over to the six majors and told them to get building. Why would they, when they're already competing against no one but themselves? Cuts into profit, stuff like that.. So you get to pay more in tax dollars for it, more for the service itself and it's way slower. The same seems to be true for korea (et al, the other fast nations), they're not spending more, they're just negotiating harder with those contracted to build it. Now, Sweden is talking about selling it off (since the whole place is shifting right). Predictably, prices are going up and speed increase is stagnating. Idiots, all of them. The free market rocks for optimizing low entry threshold fields and optimizing already existing solutions. It's horrible at things that are mostly infrastructure based, with high cost of entry and nearly all costs being in fixed infrastructure improvement chunks. Highways, telecom, power, water, etc all work the same - if you want to run them free market style, prepare to suffer until you decide to simply join forces and run it jointly without a profit goal bidding it out in small enough chunks to make actual competition possible.

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

#156
Net Neutrality is a ruse: providers "promise" to maintain an SLA against their competitors when they still own the last mile, and the service, and the core network. In practice, SLAs are weak sauce.

The more viable competitive model to me would be to a mandatory Open Access Network.

http://www.opennetworkforum.org/what-is-an-open-network

1. Spinoff of existing Big telcos own the core physical fibre or RF infrastructure

2. Various network providers own and operate active equipment & billing on the network - no one owns the last mile

3. Various service providers provide content & applications on the network.

4. No company performing one role can compete in another role, so as to avoid monopoly

This of course will never happen in the USA because the inmates are running the asylum.

So we'll have to rely on countries like Sweden to prove it out:

https://www.acreo.se/sites/default/files/pub/acreo.se/EXPERT...

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

#157

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 downvoted you not for the opinion (which I do happen to disagree with) but because you're making the mistake of taking your own anecdote and assuming it implies everyone is like you.

Among me and my friends, nobody likes rap music, ice hockey or nightclubs, doesn't those 3 things aren't incredibly popular among many people.

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

#158
post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

If net neutrality is gone for good, the telecoms don't even have to bother entering the streaming business. They just have to look at Netflix's profits each year and charge (profits-$1) the next year, letting Netflix stay barely in business and capturing the surplus.

Netflix is not a replacement for a traditional pay-TV video service, nor will it be. It's really more of a premium channel like HBO or Showtime -- both of which already offer streaming for a similar price as Netflix. I see the industry going one of two ways:

1) Cable TV over Internet -- in this scenario your cable subscription just becomes an app that runs on a wide variety of devices. Watch live TV, DVR, on-demand, etc. with a user interface that is somewhat reminiscent of what exists today. Channels will continue to be bundled and distributed through cable providers (though I expect non-infrastructure owning companies will also be spun off or started up). This scenario is most likely as it is least disruptive to the financial structure that's been set up on the content creation side (also all the big cable/telco companies are building this already).

2) Dissolution of the "big bundle" -- in this scenario, the content owners just decide to skip the middleman and become more like Netflix themselves. For example, Disney decides to just offer their own subscription service for $12/mo which gets you ABC, ESPN and the other Disney channels. Bundling would still happen here, just on a smaller scale. This fundamentally changes the business model though, and it will take a long time for content owners to develop the appetite and model to assume the risk of running a consumer-facing service.

Until the last 2 years or so, the content owners have also been licensing content to Netflix at low prices -- nobody else was interested in their library content so it was a way to monetize the long tail. But now that Netflix has established that consumers are willing to pay for the content, the content owners are raising prices significantly because the content they own had more value than they initially thought. The existential threat to Netflix is not rising distribution fees, it's rising content licensing fees.

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

#159
post #98
post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What I do is call them and outright refuse to pay more for just internet. I tell them to lower my bill to below that each year my "promotion" expires. They forward me to the "Loyalty" department and somehow find a new promotion for me each time. Fuckers.

> Fuckers. Interesting, do you have another provider in the area? I think a lot of the negotiating power comes from the ability to threaten to switch to . If they know there is nobody else (and in many places in US there isn't), they can often say "yeah sorry to see you leave", knowing that you can't really go anywhere. I have for example been oscillating between two local providers. Both have equipment on "premises"…

I used to get the promotional rates re-applied every year. Now they just flat out refuse. So I cancelled my cable to call their bluff but I had to keep the internet because I have no other option. Never got a call from customer retention. So now I pay the same amount for comcast internet + directv but I refuse to switch back to comcast just because.

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

#160
post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If net neutrality is gone for good, the telecoms don't even have to bother entering the streaming business. They just have to look at Netflix's profits each year and charge (profits-$1) the next year, letting Netflix stay barely in business and capturing the surplus.

Netflix is not a replacement for a traditional pay-TV video service, nor will it be. It's really more of a premium channel like HBO or Showtime -- both of which already offer streaming for a similar price as Netflix. I see the industry going one of two ways: 1) Cable TV over Internet -- in this scenario your cable subscription just becomes an app that runs on a wide variety of devices. Watch live TV, DVR, on-demand,…

I am not disagreeing with you in general, but for me Netflix really could be a replacement for traditional channels. Not too OT: I am visiting my Dad and yesterday morning we saw the new Godzilla movie in IMAX 3D and later last night watched Hitchcock's "Dial M for Murder" which was such a better experience than Godzilla. Old movie/TV technology done artfully beats less artful tech. Netflix can deliver old and some new content cheaply and on my time schedule.
Post reply on HN