Scope (?):  All Topics
9 4 4
11 8 2
Hot or Not?

AT&T acquires DirecTV

submitted on May 18, 2014 by onkarkulkarni in "Member's Lounge"
In an unpreceented move, AT&T today agreed to buy DirecTV, the largest US Satelite TV company. The deal was settled for $48.5 billion.

The deal with Dallas,-based AT&T, which has some TV and broadband services, is the latest in a string of big takeovers the wireless operator has considered. Those include an abortive bid for T-Mobile USA in 2011, as well as a potential takeover of Vodafone Plc, which receded as a possibility after Comcast Corp surprised the industry this year with a $45 billion bid for Time Warner Cable Inc.

More here:

What do you think is going to be the future of TV and how is this going to impact, if any at all?

  • 197756
    Posted by HouTex on May 18, 2014 [reply] 0 0
    I think it's a quicker and cheaper way to expand their coverage so they can reach more remote areas and better compete with Verizon and cable. The technology to deliver 4K content is not in place yet, but movies filmed at such high resolution would no longer fit on a DVD. So I think the future for TV is streaming video, and they are also positioning themselves for that.

    In order to sell one of the few 4K TVs from Sony, they provide a home server loaded with content because no other source exists yet.
    • onkarkulkarni
      9 4 4
      11 8 2
      Posted by onkarkulkarni on May 18, 2014 [reply] 0 0
      I am still skeptical about this deal given that the satelite TV business is diminishing gradually from the homes and most families are either on cable or switching to on demand and wireless choices like Roku, Hulu Plus etc. Why would AT&T still pursue this acquisition is a little perplexing. They would certainly acquire the 15 million subscribers of DirecTV over the next 4 years which would turn into profitability though it still remains in question whether those DirecTV subscribers would like to switch to AT&T after this merger.
    • 197776
    • HouTex
      Posted by HouTex on May 19, 2014 [reply] 0 0
      I'm sure they realize that, so they must have other plans not yet revealed. You are focusing on the business of DirecTV as it was, and I believe AT&T bought them for the satellite transmission capability and not for their customer base. There are plenty of remote areas where neither cable nor AT&T can reach, and satellite is a possible way of expanding all their services. The impact goes beyond just TV, and they are gambling that this will give them a more competitive position against Verizon's better coverage. They can more quickly increase their coverage with this acquisition than building transmission towers and laying cable. We shall see, you still need the Internet connection for those options.
    • 197778
    • HouTex
      Posted by HouTex on May 19, 2014
      [reply] 1 0
      See also
      AT&T's proposed combination, which is subject to government review, could improve its Internet service by pushing its existing U-verse TV subscribers into video-over-satellite service, and thereby free up bandwidth on its telecommunications network.

      AT&T's U-verse is only offered in 22 states, while DirecTV is available nationwide.

Leave a Comment (members Sign in to comment)


E-Mail (will not be published)

2 x 3 = ?


'Mr Green''Neutral''Twisted''Arrow''Eek''Smile''Confused''Cool''Evil''Big Grin''Idea''Red Face'



Browse by tags