etaadmin
join:2002-01-17
Dallas, TX
kudos:1 | reply to CXM_Splicer
Re: pick sides?
AT&T's explanation for no uverseTV |
said by CXM_Splicer: quote:
Obviously you haven't heard of AT&T selling DirecTV in places where they don't have uverseTV.
I would ask (being unfamiliar with uverseTV) if the DirecTV deal would prevent them (or discourage them) from rolling out uversetv in areas they don't have it now. Is there a technological reason why they would make the deal with DirecTV rather than expand uverse? Is AT&T getting something from DirecTV as part of the agreement not to expand uversetv? I am familiar with uverseTV and basically it sucks. I don't know if at&t gets something from reselling DTV but I suppose they do.
Yes there are lots of technological reason why many people don't qualify for uverseTV, the most obvious is the distance limitation other reasons are VDSL being unstable among other things.
Verizon also had (still has?) a deal to resell DirecTV but that was before they offered FIOS (or any TV product). Even with that deal in place, they planned and deployed FIOS in many areas. To me, that does not seem anti-competitive. If there are areas that would have gotten FIOS and that was canceled because of a spectrum deal with their competitor, then Yes... to me, that is anti-competitive. There is no doubt what-so-ever that it is anti-consumer.
I don't see anything anti-competitive in this agreement. |
