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

41–50 of 173 posts

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

#41

Post by eastdakota »

k-mcgrady wrote: post #2

There's no way this can pass, especially with the Comcast/Time Warner deal still in process. Maybe this will scare regulators into denying both deals.

Doubt there will be any regulatory grumbling since it actually increases competition in the "triple play" space (Internet+Television+Phone). My hunch is that AT&T waited until they thought the Comcast + Time Warner deal was a virtual certainty before pulling the trigger on this. Who this will put more of a squeeze on is content providers (e.g., Disney/ESPN) as they now have to deal with two juggernauts.

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

#42

Post by dshanahan »

jusben1369 wrote: post #31
krschultz wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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

or split a cable sub with someone and use it to log into live events. everyone wins!

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

#43

Post by sukuriant »

jkelsey wrote: post #40
sukuriant wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

When people say "free and open", that's context enough to know that they mean free as in freedom, not as in beer. Please stop using this silly red herring.

I honestly didn't perceive it as "free as in freedom" in the above context.

That said, roads aren't that, either. Try driving on one without a license, insurance, using them in ways that are disapproved of / disallowed (speeding heavily, drinking and driving, etc) to see. Alternatively, use the road to play a game of football. I don't really think they're "free as in freedom", either.

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

#45

Post by brewdad »

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.

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.

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

#46

Post by AnthonyMouse »

jusben1369 wrote: post #32
npinguy wrote: post #6

Use this as a perfect example to explain to people why Net Neutrality matters. "What incentive does AT&T have to bring you good streaming experience for Netflix, Hulu, or heck even Youtube when they'd much much MUCH rather you were buying DirecTV from them?"

Because I'll switch to Comcast or Verizon if I'm an ATT customer and their internet service is bad?

> Because I'll switch to Comcast or Verizon if I'm an ATT customer and their internet service is bad?

Because Comcast is known for the high quality of their internet service? They all have the same incentive to degrade streaming services that compete with their TV packages. You're assuming that they won't each behave the same way even though doing so is to their collective benefit.

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

#47

Post by drewr »

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.

This was the case for me historically as well, but I recently got an HD antenna to avoid paying the fee for digital and told them I didn't want the box. They somehow unbundled them and now I have a more expensive data plan for the same overall cost, and no TV listed anywhere on my bill. I have no idea if I'm practically any better off, but it's nice not feeling like I'm paying for something I'm not using.

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

#48

Post by raarts »

sukuriant wrote: post #34
raarts wrote: post #19

Think. How would the content providers - any of them, from Disney to Facebook - get their content at the consumer without the data-distributors, from Comcast to AT&T ? The saying is internet kills the middleman, but this is the real middleman that needs to be killed, and just as our roads are free and open to everyone, so should the digital roads be.

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?

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

#50

Post by tolmasky »

jusben1369 wrote: post #32
npinguy wrote: post #6

Use this as a perfect example to explain to people why Net Neutrality matters. "What incentive does AT&T have to bring you good streaming experience for Netflix, Hulu, or heck even Youtube when they'd much much MUCH rather you were buying DirecTV from them?"

Because I'll switch to Comcast or Verizon if I'm an ATT customer and their internet service is bad?

Even if this nightmare scenario plays out, I would gladly trade 5-10 years of bad service that would have VCs and entrepeuners scrambling to provide people what they actually want, and thus creating real new alternatives, as opposed to the Net Neutrality détente that keeps customers and providers antagonistic towards each other. Because thats really what the current plan is, to force ISPs to continue hating their customers and solely providing them with the current level of mediocre service by legislative force.
Post reply on HN