The Merger Between AT&T and DirectV
The integration of the two American digital firms, AT&T and DirectV, is being discussed in the hearings of the American regulator, Federal Communications Commission. AT&T is a telecommunications firm, while DirectV is a satellite service provider. So, one can say that both are working in the field of communications. AT&T news reported that both interested parties have told the commission that their collaboration would not only target a larger number of customers, but also increase the competitiveness of the industry. This report indicates that the two companies aim to expand their target market.
The representatives of both corporate giants have also argued that the combination of the largest ‘American telecommunications organization’ and ‘satellite television provider’ would benefit the masses, as their prices would be lowered. Experts presented the view that the department of justice and the regulator would soon decide the prospects of the deal between the two companies.
The satellite service provider currently does not provide a high-speed internet service. The Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of AT&T has requested the authorization of the transaction, which suggests that the management of the firm wants a rapid action and desires to grow swiftly.
AT&T breaking news informed that one of the rivals of DirectV, Cox Communications Inc., has opposed the merger. The management of the opponent has stated that the collaboration would create problems for the wireless and satellite industry and pleaded for a restriction. The advocates of the policy group, Public Knowledge, have informed the American regulator that the commission should ensure that the deal does prove to be the basis for increase in prices for users.
Critics believe that the decision of the commission would affect the ways by which users find and pay for content available on tablets, mobile phones, and televisions. AT&T news today affirmed that governors of various different American states have supported the merger of the two communication firms. Government sources have revealed that the ‘state heads’ believe that the joint efforts of both would introduce higher quality broadband services to the rural areas of the USA.
It is most likely that the officials support would affect the decision of the regulator, which is expected to ‘revolutionize’ the American communications sector. It looks that the commission's decision is unable to satisfy all the interested parties. Now it is yet to be seen that to what extent the arguments of the proponents and opponents of the deal are able to affect the decision of the regulatory body.
Comments