Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Saturday August 29 2020, @11:41AM   Printer-friendly
from the only-lost-$500-million-per-month...for-60-consecutive-months dept.

After Buying DirecTV For $50 Billion In 2015, AT&T Now Seeks To Sell It For Under $20 Billion:

How do you destroy $30 billion in value in just five years? If you are AT&T, you buy DirecTV in 2015 for $50 billion and five years later you try to sell it - now renamed to AT&TTV - for less than $20 billion, a loss of 60% on the deal.

That, according to the Wall Street Journal is what AT&T hopes to do as it takes "a fresh look its DirecTV business" exploring a deal for a service wounded by cord-cutting. And by fresh look, the journal means sell.

When AT&T announced plans to acquire DirecTV in May 2014, the vision was to control some 26 million TV subscribers. However, the resulting slump in cable and satellite viewership due to the relentless encroachment of streaming services, the value of DirecTV has seen a sharp drop in recent years and the result is yet another catastrophic media deal. And since the pay-TV unit has shed 7 million U.S. video connections over the past two years, a deal could value the business below $20 billion, the WSJ sources said.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 4, Insightful) by bzipitidoo on Saturday August 29 2020, @12:32PM (6 children)

    by bzipitidoo (4388) on Saturday August 29 2020, @12:32PM (#1043716) Journal

    For years, AT&T has been late to the game and overpriced. Their DSL service of 15 years ago was crap, barely better than an old 56K modem. And for that, of course you had to have the old land line, at the high price they'd demanded for decades and were still demanding even as people were ditching landlines for cellphone service. AT&T was still cramming fees on landline service for such conveniences as touch tone. Yeah, want the convenience of the faster dialing that touch tone gives you as compared to pulse? That's an extra monthly fee. I rather suspect that at some point, touch tone became cheaper for them too, but they weren't about to change their prices to reflect that, oh no.

    I actually have a choice of ISPs, AT&T or Spectrum. For Internet only, Spectrum blows AT&T away. Spectrum is faster and cheaper. Spectrum is no bargain themselves, but AT&T won't even match that. There's also Dish, but they aren't competitive either.

    AT&T keeps pushing their bundles. Yeah, Internet for $40, no, $30 per month, if you bundle. To me, that's really just Internet for over $100 per month, because I don't care about their cable TV with all the channels, VoIP phone service, and whatever else is in the package.

    I really do not understand why everyone hasn't cut the cord. Can get a lot of the same stuff through an Internet connection. In the end, it's all data. To be sure, video is an awful lot of data, but the system can still handle it, there's no need for a separate system. Seems to me that the telecoms are trying to create and maintain an artificial distinction. Same story with text message. A text takes a fraction of the data of voice, but the pricing has been set up to milk the value of communication no matter the form, rather than reflect the vastly different costs of the different ways of communicating.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +2  
       Insightful=2, Total=2
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   4  
  • (Score: 2) by RS3 on Saturday August 29 2020, @02:17PM

    by RS3 (6367) on Saturday August 29 2020, @02:17PM (#1043734)

    I have (only) Verizon FIOS and Comcast available. They've both fairly recently offered Internet-only for about $40 / month. Verizon DSL was available, but they've abandoned their copper lines (primarily due to fairly famous union-busting). If you want "wireline" (landline) voice, you get FIOS + interface box that used to come with an 8-hour battery backup. They've recently ditched the battery, but there's still an empty compartment and connector for one.

    Weird fact: Verizon's FIOS interface box runs on 48VDC, which for those who don't know, is legacy copper open-circuit (on-hook) voltage, and also used in sound systems to send "phantom" power to microphones and other input interfaces.

  • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Saturday August 29 2020, @03:37PM

    by JoeMerchant (3937) on Saturday August 29 2020, @03:37PM (#1043754)

    Their DSL service of 20 years ago was the best game in town - until the cable companies quit resembling a circus clown car and started looking more like a clown juggling act.

    I do remember significantly better connectivity, even as a single user, compared with the 56K modem services.

    --
    🌻🌻 [google.com]
  • (Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Saturday August 29 2020, @04:48PM (2 children)

    by Grishnakh (2831) on Saturday August 29 2020, @04:48PM (#1043782)

    Seems to me that the telecoms are trying to create and maintain an artificial distinction.

    They do this because most people (esp. older ones) don't understand that it's all data, and see them as distinct, so the companies try to milk them using this ignorance.

    Same story with text message. A text takes a fraction of the data of voice, but the pricing has been set up to milk the value of communication no matter the form

    It used to be this way 10 years ago, but not any more. Any decent service plan these days has unlimited voice and text.

    Texting is still crap, though, and you should avoid it: it's a fundamentally unreliable service. There is no guarantee your message will arrive to the recipient, because this was never designed into the system. Sometimes your texts will go around SMS and use data channels, if you and the recipient are both on the same network or using the same texting app that detects this (Verizon's Message+ is like this). But this is why other messaging apps have risen up: they let you send and received text messages, but they have modern features like reliable delivery, read receipts, ability to send files or photos, etc. SMS texting only has those when someone does a hacky workaround. Also, texts are tied to your phone, rather than a central service, so if something happens to your phone, or you upgrade phones, generally your text messaging history vanishes. With a central service like FB Messenger, this doesn't happen: you log in and everything is there, which is also handy for being able to use your PC to use the service in addition to your phone. Seriously, SMS texting is just archaic and obsolete and should be retired.

    • (Score: 2) by NateMich on Sunday August 30 2020, @10:18AM (1 child)

      by NateMich (6662) on Sunday August 30 2020, @10:18AM (#1044127)

      Google Messages has already solved pretty much everything you're complaining about with SMS.

      • (Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Sunday August 30 2020, @01:39PM

        by Grishnakh (2831) on Sunday August 30 2020, @01:39PM (#1044165)

        I've never even heard of this app. I just looked it up on the play store and all the latest reviews are 1 star; it looks like they broke it somehow.

        Anyway, how would this solve anything? It sounds a lot like Apple's texting app: works great if the recipient is also using the same app, but otherwise it just defaults back to SMS. And since around half the country uses iPhones, that means you'll be using SMS with half your contacts.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 29 2020, @06:29PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 29 2020, @06:29PM (#1043859)

    "I really do not understand why everyone hasn't cut the cord."

    i only have cable and dsl as available internet providers. they both suck in various ways and are overpriced.