LOL As usual, you won't debate the fundamental or financial figure aspects of AT&T. I've never shorted a stock in my life and don't plan to any time soon. You avoid the topic making you totally irrelevant.
The only figure you've ever discussed is yield and that cover is becoming suspect the more debt T adds and capex it commits to going forward. That fiber build requirement isn't going to come cheap....just to open the gate to streaming competition....or keep the fiber data capped and essentially throw away the capacity and ++$18B in capex to protect the DTV monopoly.
Yep. The VOD deal will pay of the vast majority of the debt financing within five years.
The plans? eMBMS and VZ will keep 100% of the new profits instead of sharing 45% of the new money with VOD. VZ doing the expansion into NATIONAL pay TV offering using eMBMS will not only target the fixed line TV subscribers they are selling but also the clown's over at AT&T who are looking to buy a satellite TV company. DTV has a lot of debt with it and T will chew up pretty much all the FCF to service the new dividend expense and interest costs. VZ will be able to price more effectively its TV product than AT&T because of the big cost of DTV acquisition. Should be interesting.
VZ did not take over the rest of VOD. VZ took over the rest of VZ WIRELESS by buying out its former partner which was VOD. VZ doesn't own VOD. You are correct on the melting debt. Most of the purchase cost of the 45% share in the Wireless entity should be paid off within 5 years of the closing. Then cash flow is the big daddy king. VZ has a short debt structure for the buyout of its minority partner in VOD giving VZ huge flexibility if need be. AT&T on the other hand is struggling to cover its dividend expense with cash flow and is looking to buy DTV which is set to lose its market moat in pay TV bundling as bandwidth explodes over the next few years. U.S. is about to enter rerun of bandwidth explosion not seen since dial up was trumped by DSL. DSL about to get rolled by several technologies from G.fast (for old copper telcos), DOCSIS 3.1 (for cable), full fiber deploys, and millimeter wave using small cells (wireless providers). VZ much smarter building out its eMBMS platform the AT&T who is buying a market position in pay TV what will be heavily attacked as consumer choice explodes on the new bandwidth capabilities.
Stephenson needs to be replaced. Keep this squirrel at the helm and the model T is going to end up in the debt ditch of bankruptcy or sold out for pennies on the dollar like the former T was by SBC.
Yes, DTV can but they won't be able to use data caps then. DTV can do so but then so will Sony, Google, Netflix, DISH etc, etc. and every cable company across the U.S......will be able to offer over T's pipe if there are no data caps in place. T won't be able to cap others without capping themselves per the conditions of the approval. AT&T caught in a catch 22. Agree to build the fiber to buy DTV which opens the door to a lot of new competition that hasn't had the necessary bandwidth to enter the monopolistic TV bundler markets. In essence, AT&T has to build out a network that is capable of replacing more than the competition it is eliminating (in Uverse figures). It appears T can still use data caps but this renders the +$18B or more to build the FTTP a cost of purchasing DTV because T won't even be able to broadcast over broadband because it cannot escape the data cap per the FCC condition. FCC putting a significant additional charge on AT&T effective purchase price of DTV if T wants to shut down its streaming TV business even with all the fiber built.
NFL Sunday Ticket only holds 10% of DTV's current U.S. subscribers. Not a very strong loss leader when the other 90% of DTV's subscribers (and Uverse subscribers) will get the bandwidth necessary to shop elsewhere with fiber being deployed.
Soccer would be as bad or worse than NFL loss leader product. This is the U.S. market, not Mexico market for fiber. Do your homework on Sky Mexico and soccer rights. If you want to OWN a solid content producer then Univision should be the prime target for ANY pipe owner looking to steal quality content.
You call it disinfo but won't touch/dispute a single figure. You are basically summarizing the field is assuming Stephenson is an ignorant enough of a blind squirrel that he will swallow the large poison pill of required fiber build by the FCC. Fiber that will be capable of delivering streaming TV competition feeds and leaving the question to why T would provide the delivery pipe to the competition that would destroy the pay TV market barrier enjoyed by the two satellite TV companies (the very DTV they will buy) and a local cable provider.
I hit the mark ya silly klown. FCC giving AT&T a poison pill to swallow.
I could have deleted the post before you ever responded and reposted correctly, but I don't delete my post history or use multiple IDs like a Lap dog.
....and a major capex requirement to extend full fiber as a condition for T to willingly go deeper into debt to purchase DTV. Not to mention competition eyeballin' wireless bandwidth delivery that will be much cheaper than full fiber to the premise.
What did I tell the mb klown? Poison pill presented by FCC. Is the blind squirrel at the helm going to swallow?
The quick and dirty stat I find is AT&T has about 16.5 million broadband connections.....while the FCC is requiring 12.5 million of AT&T customers to have full fiber to the premise for an effective three quarters of their existing connections. So much for AT&T using capex saving G.fast on their current FTTN infrastructure design if T swallows this DTV purchase poison pill requirement.
Maybe the klown can talk some actually figures for once....I doubt it. Instead he will run his yap about something else, maybe even try to bring up VOD on the AT&T mb.
They forced me off the old POTS by separating the phone and cable bill, jacked up the POTS bill huge over two year period, and priced their VOIP service for about a $20 add on. AT&T price structuring their way out of having to maintain POTS. Hard to pay nearly 4X the cost of VOIP for a back up land line phone. Smart move by T but a little greasy too.
Looks like the FCC might be putting you on a short list for FTTP instead of the final mile copper. A significant requirement that will boost final mile fiber in the U.S. by 40%. Meanwhile the likes of Google continues to explore cheaper final mile wireless broadband technology that would be vastly cheaper than fiber to the premise.
Good luck with that. AT&T has a large poison pill to swallow in the FTTP requirement. ....especially so given Title II + small cell tech + millimeter wave spectrum allocation for general use = cheaper capex wireless market competition coming for consumers while AT&T is forced to run much more expensive final mile fiber. Now the question is if Stephenson is ignorant enough to swallow FCC's conditions.
We have yet to see if the blind squirrel swallows the ++$18B poison pill. That may be a greatly conservative figure if T builds the fiber and doesn't data cap the pipe. They can build the 12.5 million new FTTPs and data cap themselves or open the spigot to streaming competition. Does Stephenson want to spend ++$18B for a pipe that won't even use themselves to buy an inferior satellite delivery network? .....and Title II still in play in the courts. Lots of new competition under Title II may go wireless final mile using the general use authorized millimeter spectrum while T is forced to complete the much more expensive final mile of full fiber to the premise under the FCC requirements.
Does the blind squirrel swallow the poison pill provisions and cement his place as this decades version of Gerald Levin? We will see.
I'm going to split the hairs here because there is a difference between Title II as a whole and Title II's net neutrality provisions. AT&T and the cartel, (er, um) I mean lobby, in general have less of an issue with net neutrality vs. "common carrier" designation that Title II bestows upon ISPs. If the existing ISP competition can't throttle what is running through the pipes that is one thing. The door for new ISPs to enter the market with a new set of delivery pipes is another issue. Existing ISPs can jack rates if their is no competing delivery pipe (even if the are forced to open the delivery spigot unabated to nonproprietary data). Title II common carrier designation for ISPs gives prospective ISP market entrants the same access to right-of-ways and easements as a utility i.e. fixed line Telco, power company, municipal water, sewer, etc. Without Title II's common utility designation It is a major mountain of red tape for a prospective new ISP to get through (20 states the cartel has successfully lobbied for a mountain range of red tape killing ISP competition). Title II's common carrier class levels the mountain of red tape. AT&T is okay with provision of net neutrality but is fighting like mad against the broad brush of Title II because it opens the cartel to new competition....aka Google.
Is your account tax sheltered? RDS-B divy is not taxed by UK and if you hold it in a tax deferred account in the U.S. .... A few variables you're not disclosing...makes me think this is Lap dog on a fishing expedition.
Negative. AT&T will have a huge $90B cost in its TV Bundle rights and a sub par network infrastructure to deliver MOBILE when compared to VZ. VZ launches its eMBMS over a better network with a VASTLY cheaper overhead (vs. DTV $90B price tag) and it will be the biggest beast. ....not to mention from Google to even little old Sprint that will be knocking at the door with small cell/millimeter wave deployments advanced by Title II bringing new video competition to the mobile market.
URL please. The klown can't see the forest through the trees who wrote the piece I can guarantee. Must be as blind as you.
My bed has another live person in it as opposed to the inflatable plastic in your bed.