Home  ›  News  ›

DirecTV Shareholders Approve AT&T Merger

Article Comments  

all discussions

show all 29 replies

this is beyond bad

Zpike

Sep 25, 2014, 10:53 AM
If this gets approval, there can be no doubt that the government has failed the American people.
...
The Victor

Sep 25, 2014, 11:02 AM
why is this so bad??
...
Zpike

Sep 25, 2014, 11:14 AM
For all the same reasons monopolies are bad. Economists have been writing about it for centuries. I invite you to pick up some literature on the dangers of monopolies and read it.
...
gfondeur

Sep 25, 2014, 11:50 AM
I'm against monopolies but I have to say that u-verse needs some more 🤣 🤣 🤣
...
kentchristopher

Sep 25, 2014, 12:24 PM
I hope you don't say that thinking that if AT&T and DirecTV merge, U-verse will somehow improve. AT&T makes billions in profits. They could improve U-verse any time they wanted. This is just AT&T trying to eliminate competition, just as they tried doing with T-Mobile (a deal which thankfully failed).
...
T Bone

Sep 25, 2014, 1:20 PM
Given that U-Verse is only available in 22 states and has fewer subscribers than companies like Shaw Communications, Mediacom and Virgin Media, it can hardly be said that it is big enough to be able to 'eliminate competition'

Please don't tell me that just because at&t is a really big company that therefore every service they offer has a huge market share....because that's not even close to true....

U-Verse is barely even 'in the game' so to speak as far as TV service is concerned.
...
B-Sides

Sep 26, 2014, 8:29 AM
You are 100% correct T!

We are using both at&t smartphones and recently signed up for their digital life service. I have been completely satisfied with not only their service but their customer service.

Unfortunately in our area we only have access to Insight for cable and internet and both Satellite providers. We signed up for Directv and Insight for internet and were very happy. We were burned by TW time after time and when we thought that they were in our rear view mirror they went ahead and purchased Insight. Right off the bat the customer service went down hill and our rates went up with no improvement in speed. I know that people probably have had the same problems with every carrier out there because nobody is perfect but at&...
(continues)
...
Zpike

Sep 26, 2014, 10:29 AM
AT&T already has the money to expand and improve Uverse if they want to. They don't have to buy a competitor in order to have a presence in the market.

The op wasn't saying that Uverse has a dominant presence in the market. But that if AT&T bought direct TV they would have a dominant presence, and that would eliminate competition in the market.
...
The Victor

Sep 25, 2014, 1:20 PM
ok but their tv service is decent at best, theres only certain places they can even offer it, and if they can better utilize directv why not, not all monopolies are bad
...
gloopey1

Sep 25, 2014, 9:39 PM
The Victor said:
ok but their tv service is decent at best, theres only certain places they can even offer it, and if they can better utilize directv why not, not all monopolies are bad

As long as I get the wheel barrow or top hat, I'm good!
...
Zpike

Sep 26, 2014, 10:33 AM
>> not all monopolies are bad

That's a lie. All monopolies ARE bad. That's why they're supposed to be illegal in this country. Geesh.
...
The Victor

Sep 26, 2014, 11:45 AM
not really because in certain cases having 1 company control it allows cost to be lower due to not having to build additional resources, so in all cases no they are not all bad, in certain cases yes theyre horrible but in this case i dont think it would be,
...
thebriang

Sep 26, 2014, 12:25 PM
Of course they are always bad, because that's exactly what happens when one company controls the entire market, that one company lowers costs to become as grossly profitable as possible and screws their customers because they have no competition.

Monopolies are Always bad... In all cases (unless you own the monopoly).
...
The Victor

Sep 26, 2014, 12:51 PM
if they lower the cost how is that screwing their customers
when theres a monopoly the government would step in and regulate prices that way its a fair price, and its really not even a monopoly because they dont control all of that service theres still competition
...
Zpike

Sep 26, 2014, 2:05 PM
You are obviously a confused socialist. Government price fixing schemes are just as bad as monopolies. Please go to Russia where people are still ignorant enough to think your economic ideas might work.
...
The Victor

Sep 29, 2014, 10:33 AM
not confused about anything, i just know when its good to have a monopoly of certain things and when its not, because there are times when its best

in most areas no it will not work, but there are services that need monopolies in order to keep prices low
...
Zpike

Oct 3, 2014, 1:41 PM
There has never been an instance of prices being higher with competition than they were with a monopoly. Keep dreaming.
...
Brad K

Sep 26, 2014, 4:16 PM
I don't think Monopolies alone are inherently bad. Sure it's not ideal but what about when TV broadcasting was brand new and only one company offered it because they were first to market? Should we not let new companies with new services be created because there would be no competition?

So the fear is that with no competition the service provider could raise prices and let their service go to crap and you have to pay it because there's no other option right? Wrong, cancel your account and don't be their customer anymore. If they are over charging for crap service not only will they be motivated to fix their service and pricing by customers leaving in droves but it will in fact open up opportunities for a competitor to come into the ...
(continues)
...
Zpike

Sep 29, 2014, 8:53 AM
>>I don't think Monopolies alone are inherently bad.

Yes, they are,

>>what about when TV broadcasting was brand new and only one company offered it because they were first to market? Should we not let new companies with new services be created because there would be no competition?

No one said new industries were a problem. New industry is always good. But to allow one company to dominate that industry is bad. As long as other companies are free to start up and compete in that industry we can avoid that problem.

>>So the fear is that with no competition the service provider could raise prices and let their service go to crap and you have to pay it because there's no other option right?

That's not some unfounded irrational fea...
(continues)
...
Brad K

Sep 29, 2014, 9:18 AM
>>No one said new industries were a problem. New industry is always good. But to allow one company to dominate that industry is bad. As long as other companies are free to start up and compete in that industry we can avoid that problem.

This is exactly what I am trying to argue. That the problem isn't with the monopoly, it's with how difficult it is for a competitor to jump into the market. Instead of focusing energy on destroying monopolies we need to focus on making it easier for competitors to get in and the monopoly will destroy itself.

I just don't like this narrative that all companies are inherently evil and as soon as they have a chance to screw you over they all will. That's just not the case, the vast majority of business ...
(continues)
...
Zpike

Sep 30, 2014, 5:04 PM
>>This is exactly what I am trying to argue. That the problem isn't with the monopoly

But it is. The idea of a monopoly is evil in and of itself. Even well meaning businesses will fall into the pit falls of a monopoly if they are allowed to have one.

>> it's with how difficult it is for a competitor to jump into the market.

Yes, because monopolies are inherently bad and they need competitors so that they are not monopolies.

>>Instead of focusing energy on destroying monopolies we need to focus on making it easier for competitors to get in and the monopoly will destroy itself.

That's a little backwards. Monopolies make it extremely difficult for new competitors to break into the market. Bust up the monopolies and the barriers ...
(continues)
...
The Victor

Sep 29, 2014, 10:31 AM
bu oince again just because at&t may be involved in different services that does not in anyway make them a monopoly because of course they do not have complete control of the market and they never will, with the way everythings controlled, it will never happen, government will never let it
...
T Bone

Sep 25, 2014, 1:16 PM
at&t U-verse isn't even available in like 80% of the country, and barely has any subscribers in the areas it does offer service....it is hardly a 'monopoly'......it is smaller than TIme Warner Cable (13 million subscribers), and it is roughly the same size as Charter Communications....in no universe does a U-Verse/Direct TV merger create a monopoly....U-Verse is barely even 'in the game' so to speak...it's a nothing compared to be truly BIG media companies.

Combined, U-Verse and Direct TV would still be smaller than Comcast and roughly about the same size as Time Warner Cable
...
kentchristopher

Sep 25, 2014, 1:52 PM
No cable / hardline telecom company has a nationwide presence, and it's this way by regulation: to avoid monopolies like what existed up until 1982 with AT&T.

We avoid monopolies by having choice, which creates competition. Sprint sucks? Try Verizon, T-Mobile, AT&T or another regional carrier.

When it comes to TV, any given location in the country generally has one cable provider (i.e. Comcast) and one telecom (i.e. AT&T). Each have basically been allowed to be regional monopolies (although this has changed a bit with other companies now able to, for example, lease AT&T's lines and sell DSL service). DirecTV and Dish provide alternatives throughout the country, which keeps both the cable and telecom providers in check through competi...
(continues)
...
PhoneMan23

Sep 25, 2014, 6:18 PM
kentchristopher that is by far one of the better and informed responses I have ever read on this site for nearly 5+ years. Well put.
...
kentchristopher

Sep 26, 2014, 3:53 AM
Thanks, PhoneMan. Nice to know someone appreciates the effort.
...
The Victor

Sep 26, 2014, 10:20 AM
how is it gettting rid of a competitor whent the 2 are alerady working together and have been for awhile

if they were buying dish it would be but theyre not, theyre merging with a partner
...
Zpike

Sep 26, 2014, 10:32 AM
>>if they were buying dish it would be but theyre not, theyre merging with a partner

You do realize that a merger is the same thing as buying a company right?
...
The Victor

Sep 26, 2014, 11:47 AM
yes i do know theyre the same thing my point is that they a buying a company they already work hand to hand with, not someone thats stealing theyre customers, those who are not able to get uverse tv in most cases get Directv because as of right now they are partners with AT&T so its not really eliminating competition
...
Zpike

Sep 26, 2014, 2:08 PM
I'm sorry. But you are either doing this on purpose or you're completely clueless about economics. You don't even have the fundamental understanding of economics that would be requisite for me to explain what's wrong with what you just said. Bust suffice it to say that every sentence of yours is completely false. Other than that, I am done discussing economics with you.
...

This forum is closed.

Please log in to report a message to the moderator.

This forum is closed.


all discussions

Subscribe to Phone Scoop News with RSS Follow @phonescoop on Threads Follow @phonescoop on Mastodon Phone Scoop on Facebook Follow on Instagram

 

Playwire

All content Copyright 2001-2024 Phone Factor, LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Content on this site may not be copied or republished without formal permission.