Thread regarding AT&T layoffs

Would DTV have failed if ATT didn’t buy it?

I think DTV would’ve been OK without ATT. Now the company is failing and ATT can’t pay its equity partners for the acquisition. Bad decisions by T have and WILL cause 10s even possibly hundreds of thousands of people to lose their jobs. Any thoughts?

by
| 1567 views | | 19 replies (last May 12, 2020) | Reply
Post ID: @OP+14R3BWo2

19 replies (most recent on top)

DTV was designing and testing a hybrid OTT/IRD box. IPPV and on demand is already mostly streamed to the box over the internet to the IRD.

DTV leadership understood their market better and were quicker to get in front of churn issues, and those leaders were the first people pushed out the door by T.

DTV was going fine as a stand-alone company, they were up or even when most competitors were down, they were up more when everyone else was up. DTV had an active strategy in place to transition to OTT both to enable no line of sight customers but also to shift from a purely satellite delivery model. Customers trusted the DTV brand more than T brand and DTV was more likely to play ball with a customer negotiating for a better rate.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @4pur+14R3BWo2

All these comments about DTV failing even if ATT didn't buy them are very short-sited. There are many things they could have done as a stand alone company that we will never know. At a minimum they could have done multiple partnerships to accomplish what ATT attempted with DTV Now. As a long shot they could have done what SpaceX is doing with low orbit satellites for internet access that rivals current cable connections. If they could have pulled that off, they would have had high speed Internet and content distribution to every house in the country.

We will never know, but I don't think they would have stood still to die a slow death.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @3eqb+14R3BWo2

DBS like any old technologies would have become obsolete - it is a fact. I care about the hardworking people at DTV, but unfortunately, DTV was not going to be a growing business. AT&T made a huge mistake in acquiring a dying business at a premium (Stankey the genius mo–n made that decision). Probably the acquisition made the decline faster, but to think that DBS is the future of entertainment is to simply ignore the reality of the world we live in.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @3vpw+14R3BWo2

Bottom line is that the internet is k–ling all expensive TV. DirecTV, Dish, and all the other legacy Internet and TV providers are on borrowed time. ATT's purchase of DTV was for content only. And that is what has put them in the plunge faster. The companies are just on their way out and have been for years. Why spend $150 on TV when I can have Netflix and or another for less than $50? If people love the thought of having thousands of channels at their disposal. They probably are diabetic, fat, lazy and on welfare. That is too much to even phantom and takes an hour to go through the guide. People just have to understand technology has changed this landscape too. But man are there a lot of services available. Netflix, Hulu, YouTube TV just to name a few. Now as they fight for market space they are causing an escalation in price. So we will be paying more than the $20-$30 we thought a year ago. All TV will be back up around $100 in a few years. The population just can't live without TV.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @3lxz+14R3BWo2

Yep! However, they found a bunch of s—ers to buy it at a premium!!

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @2isj+14R3BWo2

Direct tv would die a slow death no matter what. Can’t blame everything on the T!!

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @2mul+14R3BWo2

No...DirecTV would've failed. AT&T was an expert on the Satellite TV business before they bought them so people at DirecTV were clueless how their industry worked. Time Warner would've failed too. AT&T was an expert of the TV programming and content business before they bought them so the people at Time Warner were clueless how their industry worked too. Plus AT&T was an expert in streaming TV before they got into the business and all of the myriad to streaming TV providers were clueless and doomed to fail. DirecTV Now, I mean, HBO Now, I mean AT&T Now to the rescue! There's only a few low IQ people in this world so that means everyone else will be moving to AT&T Now in droves. Sure. Yeah right. Wow...I almost passed out holding my breath...

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @1dbi+14R3BWo2

People are leaving traditional pay TV services (including satellite). Wouldn’t be any different with different ownership. Poorly timed acquisition by AT&T.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @1sux+14R3BWo2

DTv would be doing just fine. Att bought it to destroy the competition.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @1ngh+14R3BWo2

It’s outdated technology it would have failed anyway.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @1nau+14R3BWo2

The future does not belong to satellite TV.

Who owns what asset doesn't change a thing.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @1psy+14R3BWo2

AT&T TV is going to be great. So many people will get it, they will have hire tons of high paying workers.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @1jbt+14R3BWo2

Probably not, T never had a vision for DTV. By vision I mean a plan to grow, promote, improve and expand .

In fact it appears that T has no vision for acquisitions. That's why the acquired leadership are the first to go. The plan is to assimilate, break apart and use the acquired components if it makes sense if not a slow decay of whatever was acquired takes place.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @1ioy+14R3BWo2

They’d have been fine without ATT just as Dish is doing fine! The better question is how much better would be doing without us?

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @pth+14R3BWo2

They’d have been fine without ATT just as Dish is doing fine! The better question is how much better would be doing without us?

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @nyp+14R3BWo2

Directv would be just fine with 30 million subscribers and maybe a quarterly losses from time to time because just five years ago the churn wasn’t there like it is today.Take a look at Dish Network as they hold steady with 10 million subscribers and are making money! That’s the name of the game is making money so don’t think for a second that Att isn’t cashing in on Direct no matter what the numbers say.You are right about content because there is so many different ways that it brings in cash to Att,if his company would market and advertise Directv then there wouldn’t be much churn at all but they plan for Att tv streaming service which potentially will go global and that’s a smart move but remember that Directv opened the door!!Just my thoughts!

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @wiz+14R3BWo2

T gives away more than half of the actual net profit in dividends, think about that for a minute, .........
therefore it is not about TECHNOLOGY or Telecommunications, it is about institutional investors, such as g– Elliot

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @msl+14R3BWo2

In this site, you can only predict doom and gloom. Any hint of success is not allowed.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @rss+14R3BWo2

No!! The strategy and pricing would have been different! They would have done an alliance with a content provider.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @ztm+14R3BWo2

Post a reply

: