DirecTV sold by AT&T to private equity firm

[atreis]

The private equity firm is itself owned by AT&T. They essentially sold it to themselves. But this lets them wind it down without showing the loss on the AT&T balance sheet.

[docj]

Originally Posted by atreis

The private equity firm is itself owned by AT&T. They essentially sold it to themselves. But this lets them wind it down without showing the loss on the AT&T balance sheet.

Are you sure about that? I can't find any evidence of that. I agree that the "sale" gives AT&T money to pay down some of its debt and clean up its balance sheet.

https://www.tpg.com/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TPG_Capital

[Aquaadverse]

Originally Posted by Mark-

Changing the subject from Starlink hosting "all the TV you could possibly want" to cellular/Starlink selection.

I can think of several reasons to use StarLink while in a area with good cellular coverage.

I don't think Starlink is that streaming panacea that we're all hoping for. Even at full deployment you're looking at 500K simultaneous 100Meg connections. Even factoring in over subscription, network management and other measures will barely dent the 42 million currently with no internet access. It'll be interesting to see what the cost will be for mobile access after the beta is over. I think Starlink will make more sense for the stationary in-the-boonies than an LTE replacement for nomads.
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20...-telecom.shtml

[mike625]

Originally Posted by docj

I agree that the "sale" gives AT&T money to pay down some of its debt and clean up its balance sheet.

In one of the news articles I read - it said that this could make is easier for it to merge with Dish network or other options.

[Papa Foxtrot]

I've been wondering about the long term viability of satellite TV quite a bit lately. We bought our coach 6 years ago after I retired. It came with a Winegard manual dish common to turn of the century RVs. At the time, I figured to replace it with an FM antenna and control - I already have a Dish Receiver.

Then life threw me a curve ball and I needed to take time caring for my aging mother. While we still used the coach, it wasn't nearly as often as we would have otherwise. The OTA antenna served our needs.

Fast forward to 2021, I no longer have the responsibility of caring for Mom; but the future of satellite TV doesn't look so assured as it was 6 years ago. My wife is probably going to work a couple more years. For the last year, she's been working remote due to Covid and that seems likely to continue into the Summer. I'd like to travel some with her working remote from the coach, so wireless data seems more of a need than sat-TV.

Basically, looking at the state of the sat-TV business and streaming options available, I no longer really see the need for sat-TV in the coach. With DirecTV circling the drain and Dish likely not far behind, I just can't justify spending the money on new sat-TV equipment.

Am I wrong??

[PS56]

Originally Posted by CaptainJerry

AT&T sold off a 30% stake in DirecTV to private equity firm TPG it was announced today. AT&T will retain a 70% stake in the business and will be jointly run by the new partners in a new entity.

You that follow the industry, what do you think may be some of the new directions this new entity may take DirecTV?

I have stuck with them because of their grouping of their standard definition channels on one satellite so that I can continue to use my small dish automatic search rooftop dome and not have to buy a multi LNB dish for the roof. That option may go away if they drive subscribers to high def and take away options for standard def.

I have the basic package. It can only improve. It is 90% re-runs of stuff you have seen.

The cable/Direct industries greatest fear is al la cart option - pay an access fee and then pay only for the channels you want. Many of the channels would disappear without subscription revenue. Most of adrevenue has moved to the internet.

[igave]

We can guess till we’re green, I suppose, but I don’t see anything drastic immediately. I read all the posts about streaming but frankly we have not traveled anywhere where it worked well; although I know it has for some folks. We’ll keep going with our directv and traveler until we can’t and see what makes most sense then. I figure we’ve got at least a few years that way. The places we travel haven’t seen any great leaps in internet or cellular availability or performance the past couple years and I imagine the present regime’s focus on big cities probably isn’t going to change that much. So for us, we’ll wait and see and hope management hires someone who can fix their customer service shortfalls.

[Bill767]

Originally Posted by igave

We can guess till we’re green, I suppose, but I don’t see anything drastic immediately. I read all the posts about streaming but frankly we have not traveled anywhere where it worked well; although I know it has for some folks. We’ll keep going with our directv and traveler until we can’t and see what makes most sense then. I figure we’ve got at least a few years that way. The places we travel haven’t seen any great leaps in internet or cellular availability or performance the past couple years and I imagine the present regime’s focus on big cities probably isn’t going to change that much. So for us, we’ll wait and see and hope management hires someone who can fix their customer service shortfalls.

I couldn't agree more. We full time and travel almost continuously except for 4 months in Florida. It is rare we have the ability to stream with either campground wifi or our Verizon mifi. DirecTv with all its faults works for us, we watch our shows when we want with no ads, it is expensive, I guess so, but we'll stick with it for now.

[paul65k]

I see us continuing with Dish for a few more years anyhow.

We have 2 S&B homes and the RV so here's how we breakdown;

First home: used as a vacation rental for 3-5 months a year. Our options for service at this home are Cable, streaming via landline internet, or satellite.....streaming for renters, especially older snowbirds is tough so we have Dish Hopper #1 here $125 a month here and funded by rental income.

Second Home: No access to landline cable so only Satellite or streaming. We do not have landline internet access only via Microwave based DSL (1-1.5Mb best case) or Mobley #1 with an external antenna which gets us 15 - 22Mb so streaming is an option but we have Hopper #2 which is a $17 a month add-on to Dish Bill and we get all programming from the subscription package - booked as RV#1 with Dish..... We stream a bit with Netflix/Amazon/Hulu but like the DVR capability of the Hopper

RV: We use the RV about ~100 days a year, we have Mobley#2 here with an external antenna and WiFi Ranger for distribution so again we could stream here but we do like to boondock in remote areas and 20 - 30% of the time this means no internet so we have Hopper#3 installed here with Winegard Trav'ler and also stream Netflix/Amazon/Hulu here as well for an additional $17 a month. We pay for the added convenience of a DVR to record when we are away and have certain things we like to watch at our convenience even in remote locations with no antenna or internet reception.

Future: We have already applied for Starlink accounts at house #1 and #2 so we'll see how that works out. I see us likely moving away from satellite-based TV at some point in the future. I concede Satellite-based TV is a dying technology but then again so are fossil fuel driven vehicles . I just wonder when that eventual end will be so in the meantime we'll continue to enjoy the way we utilize today's Satellite TV technology.......until we don't

[Hikerdogs]

Originally Posted by docj

With all due respect, this makes no sense. If you have internet access provided by satellite, why would you want a separate TV service also provided by satellite? Starlink will provide you all the TV you could possibly want.

In fact, your suggestion clearly illustrates why satellite TV has become a dying technology. It was essentially a pre-internet (1990's) technology for distribution of TV signals. With the wide-spread availability of relatively low-cost internet access, it's basis of existence no longer exists.

Satellite TV still has value in some locations. We originally got it for our motorhome. At the time you could purchase a dish and subscribe to either Dish or DirecTV. We tried Dish, but they put up so many obstacles it wasn't worth the effort. Instead we went with DirecTV.

A couple years later when everything went digital we added it to the family cottage. The limited range of the new over the air system made it impossible for us to get any reception in our remote area. There was no cell phone or internet service what so ever until about 5 years ago.

To this day it's still 3G and spotty at best. If you're lucky you might be able to receive a call but making one is nearly impossible. Internet service so poor about the only times it's available is before 6:00 am or after 10:00 pm. There is currently a project to upgrade and expand internet and cable TV service. It's been ongoing for the last 2 years and still isn't anywhere near finished.

As long as you live in or travel in areas with an abundance of cell towers or cable providers satellite TV or internet isn't necessary. Once you're off the beaten path these services are all but non existent.

If you look at coverage maps for most cell phone and cable companies there are big holes where there's no service. It's just too expensive to run cables or put up towers for the income that will be generated. These are the areas where satellite service provides dependable service at a reasonable cost.

[docj]

Originally Posted by Hikerdogs

If you look at coverage maps for most cell phone and cable companies there are big holes where there's no service. It's just too expensive to run cables or put up towers for the income that will be generated. These are the areas where satellite service provides dependable service at a reasonable cost.

With all due respect, you totally missed the point of my Starlink reference. Once mobile use is allowed there will no longer be "holes" in the network--it will be everywhere.

[jfessler]

We use Dish for TV Cell for data. The dish add on is much cheaper than the required data plan for streaming. There is and always will be holes in any satellite service as long as there are still trees. I've overnighted in parks where the only tree in the camp was between me and the satellite, I also usually get stopped at every traffic light.

[docj]

Originally Posted by jfessler

We use Dish for TV Cell for data. The dish add on is much cheaper than the required data plan for streaming. There is and always will be holes in any satellite service as long as there are still trees. I've overnighted in parks where the only tree in the camp was between me and the satellite, I also usually get stopped at every traffic light.

Pointing a Starlink dish isn't at all like pointing a satellite TV or satellite internet dish. There isn't a single place to point because the satellites move across the sky. There will be issues at heavily treed campgrounds such as Colter Bay in Grand Teton park, but there will be many places where it ought to work quite well.

[barmcd]

Originally Posted by docj

With all due respect, this makes no sense. If you have internet access provided by satellite, why would you want a separate TV service also provided by satellite? Starlink will provide you all the TV you could possibly want.

In fact, your suggestion clearly illustrates why satellite TV has become a dying technology. It was essentially a pre-internet (1990's) technology for distribution of TV signals. With the wide-spread availability of relatively low-cost internet access, it's basis of existence no longer exists.

You obviously don't live in a rural area. We live in the country and have internet through CenturyLink via old fashioned telephone wire. There are plenty of times when we can't stream TV from the internet because of incessant buffering. Until rural infrastructure improves, cutting the cord is just a pipe dream.