If you want to discuss bag holders that would be AT&T buying a satellite TV provider with flat lined subscriber growth at growth premiums when the business model is about to come under heavy pressure from increased IP TV in the near future.
You are the one that keeps bringing up Vodafone ignorant one.
Full net neutrality is a big battle but no matter the case you have a whole lot of fixed line telecoms getting the opportunity to become a TV delivery avenue at 20% of the cost of full fiber with G.fast technology. Cable and satellite are no longer the only game in town. Sure, DTV people moving to T fixed lines can be recaptured but that is only in PARTS of 22 states where T operates fixed line....and that is if other ISPs haven't crept into T's fixed line market like Grande Communications, Chattanooga's super-fast publicly owned Internet [place it in a search], Google among the thousand plus ISPs who are stealing the ISP position from AT&T. DTV customers will be walking in the balance of the parts of 22 states to IP TV not provided by AT&T.
Incorrect jwaltz. IP platform with sufficient bandwidth to the masses for streaming TV on the cheaper capex via G.fast. Once the masses have the IP pipe expanded enough to deliver seamless TV the web provides a pipe that allows for many, many new competing TV bundlers to deliver their product. Right now to be a pay TV bundler you generally have to own the pipe too....as in cable lines and satellites in orbit. Phone companies like T are fighting for the right to throttle/against net neutrality for this very reason. The new moat position is owning the ISP pipe while the TV bundle will have a crumbling barrier to entry. Phone and Cable can reposition as primary ISPs offering 1 gbps internet but how does DTV and Dish reposition with +100 mbps internet? They can't.
There will be satellite signals for many years to come just like AOL is still providing service to dial up customers in rural settings. The point is the existing business model comes under heavy pressure with new technology AND an influx of new pay web based TV bundlers pricing a like product at cheaper prices than satellite.
This isn't the VOD message board but I have repeatedly covered this debate. Lap Dog erased the post history and now posts the same garbage about VOD. This ID of his went quite and now he has resurrected it with the same line about VOD.
Do some DD and you will quickly realize Vodafone's 'Project Spring' coupled with fixed line purchases and builds moving VOD from a mobile provider to a top of the line triple play bundler will reduce churn......is positioning VOD to become the VZ equivalent and beyond. Includes 4G buildout to 92% coverage by March 2016 and becoming a full fiber ISP.
Pretty easy searches for DTV purchase price of stock and cash totaling $48B PLUS the 20B in debt to be assumed from DTV = 68B cost of taking on DTV.
$6B TMUS loss consists of $4B in market value of spectrum assets transferred and 2B in cash. T had it booked at $2B spectrum value but the market value was 4B causing discrepancy in how much AT&T paid to T-Mobile after the deal was blocked by regulators. Easy searches and I would provide links if Yahoo allowed.
NFL Sunday Ticket package at the heart of $48.5 billion AT&T, DirecTV merger pasted into a search discloses the 2 million subscriber or 10% of the 20MM.
LOL No it wouldn't have put it in jeopardy. VOD has disclosed cash flow will be pressured during the VERY HIGH capital investment phase during the next two years BUT there is more than sufficient ability to service the dividend. No immediate jeopardy and without argument a better long term purchase than a satellite TV dinosaur that will go the way of AOL.
Back to posting with Lap Dog after you erased the post history. LOL
??? You really don't understand what G.fast is do you? G.fast is a technology that allows for fiber and copper hybrid system which will provide 1 gbps bandwidth at 100m of last leg copper lines. This technology will accelerate the number of people in the U.S. and E.U. (likely Mexico too) that will have sufficient IP TV speeds because it can be deployed on the CHEAP, CHEAP, CHEAP compared to full fiber into the home. 20% of the cost of full fiber. With ultra high speed internet to the consumer they THEN have the ability to shop from ANYONE with a web based TV bundle which is already growing large. Right now most suburban folks have about three choices 1) the local cable monopoly 2)Dish 3)DTV and a few in select areas 4) those who have sufficient bandwidth from their ISP have not only a fourth choice such as T's U-verse TV, VZ FiOS, Google TV, Apple TV, Netflix, Amazon Prime, soon to be Dish web, etc, etc. but is most pointedly an endless streaming platform to go shopping for a pay TV bundler at the cheapest rate or simply ala carte for their specific needs.
The point with G.fast technology coming into play is most of the U.S. population doesn't have a sufficient window #4 in which to go freely in search of the endless array of online pay TV bundlers. This new technology will allow CABLE and PHONE companies to bring 1 gbps at 20% of the cost. Google can be left in the dust by this technology as the cost to deploy being so much cheaper than GOOG can compete with on an upfront cost structure. T can defend its fixed line markets using G.fast but satellite companies will not be able to reposition as an ultra high speed ISP. The moat for being a TV bundler is already crashing with web based bundling but the vast majority of consumers don't have the proper bandwidth YET to use that platform. G.fast is a game changer as it will accelerate the deployment of ultra high speed internet.
??? IP is going to provide a whole lot of options in which to select a bundler. Millions want options beyond cable and satellite for their TV programming and that day will come as sufficient bandwidth is made available to consumers. The market moat is beginning a shift from TV bundler to ISPs who in turn will be offering low cost add on TV bundles.
At $68B it is far from a drop in the bucket. DTV will make the $6B lost in the TMUS bid look like a drop in the bucket. NFL Sunday Ticket holds only 10% of subscriber base. The other 90% have little reason to stay with satellite if offered a similar package at half the cost of DTV.
All over guess what? IP. IP TV is going to change the landscape and satellite business model will come under very heavy pressure.
They don't go 'around' content providers. IP allows for many, many more content BUNDLERS to enter the space. DTV is nothing more than a bundler which owns the pipes. With IP you don't have to be a pipe owner to enter the pay TV bundler market. This is what will level the playing field and why AT&T is fighting against net neutrality. New competition kills pricing margins.
Hard to believe you are paying $180 with no premium movie packages. Are you renting a lot of dirty movies for that big bill? Who in their right mind would pay that with several alternatives, namely satellite, which right now would be 40% cheaper? Really, with you pumping satellite then why are you still paying $180/month?
??? Just ventured over to S message board today and found this statement. I don't find anything in a quick search indicating such. Care to provide a news piece title here? Others here, is this guy 'fos'?
Nope. Number of subscribers has flat lined for satellite. Check gross revenue from U.S. market at 80% while Latin America is 20% of DTV revenue while accounting for half the head count. Adding low ARPU subscribers in Latin America isn't going to offset revenue loss from much higher ARPU defections occurring in the U.S. market as IP TV accelerates.
Scale that will come under heavy pressure as new players continue to enter the pay TV market with the onset of IP TV. Its the exact time you should be running from a pay TV bundling business model that is built on a competitive moat to entry which is about to evaporate.
I don't quote initial rate teasers and a realistic expectation most have a couple receivers in their home. What you are doing is misleading garbage and you are the spinner with basic intro service. I am quoting a comparable IP TV package to a similar satellite TV package. Go "Apple"s to apples or Google TV to Google TV and see where DTV lines up with like offering. The AVERAGE quoted in the Dish commercial for a DTV customer is north of a c-note but you want to throw out $40. LOL What a joker. The one "fos" here is you.
Jwaltz & Echo, This has been my point. Apples to apples programming you have $50 for a similar web based TV bundle vs. DTV charging $120 for a very similar package. IP TV kills pricing power because of pipe becoming available to new field of competitors. Fixed line providers fighting net neutrality tooth and nail because throttling is the last leg of quality differentiation for a good many pay TV bundler. Original programming like House of Cards (or in DTV's case NFL Sunday Ticket which holds 10% of its subscribers) offers only a limited differentiation among TV bundlers at that point. VZ looking to move into TV bundling over mobile just another competitor among many already moving into the market.
Fact: new dividend expense by T will eat nearly 80% of DTV's cash flow leaving little room for defense of any possible pay TV market pricing threats. That is a fact. A fact you fellows don't like to read about.
Yep. How much is ATT going to be paying in new dividends for the new stock that is going to be issued in the deal? Nearly 80% o the free cash flow will be paid in dividends. Pricing power set to crumble with IP TV coming in earnest with G.fast and it won't take long for DTV to turn into a negative cash flow acquisition.