[yvonne]

According to the LA Times, AT&T and DirecTV are in preliminary talks for the telecom company to acquire the satellite broadcaster.

http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/env...2533.story

[yvonne]

According to the LA Times, AT&T and DirecTV are in preliminary talks for the telecom company to acquire the satellite broadcaster.

http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/env...2533.story

[Farm93]

AT&T has big deals with the Pac-12.  They not only have a U-verse deal but also have, and heavily promote, the WiFi contracts in the Pac-12 stadiums.  My guess would be that DirecTV would have the Pac-12 Networks before the football season AFTER the deal closes, so that would likely imply 2015 in the best case.

Sadly, preliminary discussions will probably mean that DirecTV will not want to sign their own deal with the Pac-12 networks during the process.

After a deal closes, I would suspect that U-verse and DirecTV will see price increases.  The public justification will likely be the costs of upgrading their  internet infrastructure to compete for entertainment streaming customers.  They will be able to try that price increase because of the consolidation that is taking place in the provider market right now.

[Farm93]

AT&T has big deals with the Pac-12.  They not only have a U-verse deal but also have, and heavily promote, the WiFi contracts in the Pac-12 stadiums.  My guess would be that DirecTV would have the Pac-12 Networks before the football season AFTER the deal closes, so that would likely imply 2015 in the best case.

Sadly, preliminary discussions will probably mean that DirecTV will not want to sign their own deal with the Pac-12 networks during the process.

After a deal closes, I would suspect that U-verse and DirecTV will see price increases.  The public justification will likely be the costs of upgrading their  internet infrastructure to compete for entertainment streaming customers.  They will be able to try that price increase because of the consolidation that is taking place in the provider market right now.

[crackpot]

And there goes the only halfway-decent customer service in the industry.

[crackpot]

And there goes the only halfway-decent customer service in the industry.

[BrevinsBest]

The bundling issue is interesting because I was able to bundle my AT&T cell phone, home phone and wifi with DirecTV. That was until I realized AT&T wifi is slower than dial-up. The bundling issue seemed odd to me since U-Verse competes with DirecTV.

[BrevinsBest]

The bundling issue is interesting because I was able to bundle my AT&T cell phone, home phone and wifi with DirecTV. That was until I realized AT&T wifi is slower than dial-up. The bundling issue seemed odd to me since U-Verse competes with DirecTV.

[Jskass]

I intentionally keep my cell phone on a separate carrier from my home phone for risk management reasons...there have been several times when my home phone (and TV and internet) went out of service but at least I was still able to use the cell phone.

[Jskass]

I intentionally keep my cell phone on a separate carrier from my home phone for risk management reasons...there have been several times when my home phone (and TV and internet) went out of service but at least I was still able to use the cell phone.

[BrevinsBest]

Bloomberg News is now reporting that this deal is in advanced stages and AT&T will be paying about $100/share for DirecTV. Please, oh please tell me that this means DirecTV will carry the Pac-12 Network.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-05-12...llion.html

[BrevinsBest]

Bloomberg News is now reporting that this deal is in advanced stages and AT&T will be paying about $100/share for DirecTV. Please, oh please tell me that this means DirecTV will carry the Pac-12 Network.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-05-12...llion.html

[stupac2]

What are the odds of this passing muster with the DOJ? Seems unlikely to me, though I guess we'll see with the Comcast/TW thing.

[stupac2]

What are the odds of this passing muster with the DOJ? Seems unlikely to me, though I guess we'll see with the Comcast/TW thing.

[washingtonismoney]

What are the odds of this passing muster with the DOJ? Seems unlikely to me, though I guess we'll see with the Comcast/TW thing.

Fine, probably? AT&T's a minor player in cable and internet delivery, so I don't think DirecTV would impinge on that too much. (But then, I'm far from being far from an expert, so.)

[washingtonismoney]

What are the odds of this passing muster with the DOJ? Seems unlikely to me, though I guess we'll see with the Comcast/TW thing.

Fine, probably? AT&T's a minor player in cable and internet delivery, so I don't think DirecTV would impinge on that too much. (But then, I'm far from being far from an expert, so.)

[Papa John]

Jon Wilner of the SJ Mercury News weighs in with his take here:

http://blogs.mercurynews.com/collegespor...ks-to-att/

There's a hopeful comment for Charter customers at the end of Wilner's post.

[Papa John]

Jon Wilner of the SJ Mercury News weighs in with his take here:

http://blogs.mercurynews.com/collegespor...ks-to-att/

There's a hopeful comment for Charter customers at the end of Wilner's post.

[washingtonismoney]

There will be people in the Justice Department who point out that in many places in the United States, this will reduce the alternatives to cable from three (Dish/DirecTV/AT&T) to two. That may not sound like much to you, but Justice once went after the breakfast-cereal industry on the grounds that behind all the zillions of brands stood just six major companies.

Speaking as someone who's pissed off FiOS service ends three or four blocks from my apartment, I perfectly appreciate their concern. (As I said earlier, far from being an expert.)

[washingtonismoney]

There will be people in the Justice Department who point out that in many places in the United States, this will reduce the alternatives to cable from three (Dish/DirecTV/AT&T) to two. That may not sound like much to you, but Justice once went after the breakfast-cereal industry on the grounds that behind all the zillions of brands stood just six major companies.

Speaking as someone who's pissed off FiOS service ends three or four blocks from my apartment, I perfectly appreciate their concern. (As I said earlier, far from being an expert.)

[Mick]

There will be people in the Justice Department who point out that in many places in the United States, this will reduce the alternatives to cable from three (Dish/DirecTV/AT&T) to two. That may not sound like much to you, but Justice once went after the breakfast-cereal industry on the grounds that behind all the zillions of brands stood just six major companies.

I went to Chili's for dinner.  Thirty years ago, my wife and I used to go to Chili's in Cupertino, across the street from Vallco.  Truly incredible fries, great food and across-the-board comely waitresses.  Hour-long waits, minimum, even on Tuesday nights.

Then Brinker bought Chili's.  And the race for profits was on.  And the descent was rapid.  Everything became anywhere from a little to a lot worse.  Fries, meh.  Chips and "salsa"...I don't know what you call the watery stuff that left a thin film on the chip, but I wouldn't call it "salsa."  The alcohol-free margarita seemed like whipped air more than anything else.  And the "fajita" nachos was some kind of inedible ground mystery meat.

True story: four years ago, my family of four were at a sports event, went to a Chili's afterward.  Waitress got all four of our orders wrong, and then when they redid them, two were still materially incorrect.  We declined the dinner, I paid the bill, tipped adequately, thanked them and drove down the street to IN-N-Out where we got a very satisfying meal in 10 minutes for 1/3 the price. 

I sent copies of both receipts along with a history of the incidents to the owner of In-N-Out and the CEO of Brinker. Both got back to me with free food coupons and a letter of thanks (in the case of In-N-Out) and a letter of apology (in the case of Chili's).

[Mick]

There will be people in the Justice Department who point out that in many places in the United States, this will reduce the alternatives to cable from three (Dish/DirecTV/AT&T) to two. That may not sound like much to you, but Justice once went after the breakfast-cereal industry on the grounds that behind all the zillions of brands stood just six major companies.

I went to Chili's for dinner.  Thirty years ago, my wife and I used to go to Chili's in Cupertino, across the street from Vallco.  Truly incredible fries, great food and across-the-board comely waitresses.  Hour-long waits, minimum, even on Tuesday nights.

Then Brinker bought Chili's.  And the race for profits was on.  And the descent was rapid.  Everything became anywhere from a little to a lot worse.  Fries, meh.  Chips and "salsa"...I don't know what you call the watery stuff that left a thin film on the chip, but I wouldn't call it "salsa."  The alcohol-free margarita seemed like whipped air more than anything else.  And the "fajita" nachos was some kind of inedible ground mystery meat.

True story: four years ago, my family of four were at a sports event, went to a Chili's afterward.  Waitress got all four of our orders wrong, and then when they redid them, two were still materially incorrect.  We declined the dinner, I paid the bill, tipped adequately, thanked them and drove down the street to IN-N-Out where we got a very satisfying meal in 10 minutes for 1/3 the price. 

I sent copies of both receipts along with a history of the incidents to the owner of In-N-Out and the CEO of Brinker. Both got back to me with free food coupons and a letter of thanks (in the case of In-N-Out) and a letter of apology (in the case of Chili's).

[yvonne]

It looks like it's going to be announced tomorrow.
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2014-05...-by-monday

[yvonne]

It looks like it's going to be announced tomorrow.
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2014-05...-by-monday

[washingtonismoney]

Stories today say AT&T has the right to call this deal off if DirecTV isn't able to renew its exclusive deal for the NFL Sunday Ticket package.

I don't understand making this clause public, as now the NFL has every incentive to drive up the price.

[washingtonismoney]

Stories today say AT&T has the right to call this deal off if DirecTV isn't able to renew its exclusive deal for the NFL Sunday Ticket package.

I don't understand making this clause public, as now the NFL has every incentive to drive up the price.

[stupac2]

I don't understand making this clause public, as now the NFL has every incentive to drive up the price.

I read that there's other language following the part about renewing Sunday Ticket, but it wasn't available. The source I saw was saying that it was literally an incomplete sentence, being cut off after a "but". So who knows, maybe it says "but if the NFL are jerks are try to drive up the price then the deal is still good."

[stupac2]

I don't understand making this clause public, as now the NFL has every incentive to drive up the price.

I read that there's other language following the part about renewing Sunday Ticket, but it wasn't available. The source I saw was saying that it was literally an incomplete sentence, being cut off after a "but". So who knows, maybe it says "but if the NFL are jerks are try to drive up the price then the deal is still good."

[Farm93]

They have to disclose this merger risk because it is material to the announced deal.  It is terrible for bargaining, but certainly needed to avoid some of the shareholder lawsuits.

As I read about the deal the clause seems to be that DirecTV must try to keep the NFL deal in their package. I believe the basic idea was that if the NFL demands are ridiculous then the deal can still close as long as DirecTV tried to get a fair extension to their current NFL deal.

However, the real impact of this whole NFL clause is that DirecTV will certainly not waste time chasing down small potatoes like the Pac-12 network since acquiring a new channel with a theoretical ability to lure a few new customers is not going to improve DirecTV shareholder value at this point.

[Farm93]

They have to disclose this merger risk because it is material to the announced deal.  It is terrible for bargaining, but certainly needed to avoid some of the shareholder lawsuits.

As I read about the deal the clause seems to be that DirecTV must try to keep the NFL deal in their package. I believe the basic idea was that if the NFL demands are ridiculous then the deal can still close as long as DirecTV tried to get a fair extension to their current NFL deal.

However, the real impact of this whole NFL clause is that DirecTV will certainly not waste time chasing down small potatoes like the Pac-12 network since acquiring a new channel with a theoretical ability to lure a few new customers is not going to improve DirecTV shareholder value at this point.