<http://schema.org/articleBody>
"If you live in a rural area, the best news about the proposed AT&amp;T/DirecTV merger was this paragraph in the press release:\nAT&amp;T will use the merger synergies to expand its plans to build and enhance high-speed broadband service to 15 million customer locations, mostly in rural areas where AT&amp;T does not provide high-speed broadband service today. \nThat plan, which AT&amp;T hopes to carry out within the next four years, will be a welcome development for DirecTV customers who rely on the satellite service for their broadband Internet. Despite recent improvements, satellite broadband still lags DSL and cable in quality and consistency. \nSee also: AT&amp;T to Acquire DirecTV for $48.5 Billion\nThings are better than they used to be. DirecTV now offers speeds in the 12 Mpbs range thanks to ViaSat, a satellite launched in October 2011 that promised to transform the quality of broadband satellite. \nIt did. Before ViaSat, the average speeds for satellite broadband were 4 Mbps upstream and 1 Mbps downstream, a rate so low that the FCC didn\u2019t include satellite in its most-recent Broadband Progress Report. Now, in addition to faster download speeds, uploads can run as high as 6 Mbps. \nUnfortunately, that performance is still a far cry from the competition. These days cable speeds can surpass 100 Mbps. In addition, the FCC report notes satellite service generally has a latency rate of over 100 milliseconds and may affect a user\u2019s ability to \u201Coriginate and receive high-quality voice, data, graphics, and video telecommunications using any technology.\u201D Latency can also make online games pretty much unplayable. \nIn addition, satellite broadband is plagued by the same issue that haunts DirecTV\u2019s TV business: You can lose service if there\u2019s a heavy storm. \nAnother issue with satellite is that reception still requires clunky hardware. In theory, you could receive your satellite service pretty much everywhere you went, but that meant dragging your dish around with you. A few years ago, DirecTV tried to address that with SatGo, a portable receiver/TV that weighed 25 lbs. and cost $1,300 in 2007. \nFortunately, there are relatively few places in the U.S. where you can\u2019t get DSL or cable broadband. As the FCC report noted, only 6% of the population has no access to either. However, in areas where broadband is available, 100 million Americans choose not to subscribe. \nIf you don\u2019t live in a rural area and are wondering what kind of deal you might get from AT&amp;T/DirecTV, you don\u2019t need to look far. The two companies have been offering bundles since 2009 in areas where AT&amp;T\u2019s U-Verse TV service is unavailable. \nSuch bundles start at $69.94 a month for home phone plus 3 Mbps Internet and DirecTV (with a two-year contract). That includes a $150 Reward Card for signing up online.\nWhat will happen when AT&amp;T can offer such bundles on a larger scale? If 15 million out of DirecTV's existing 20 million customers will now be able to get real broadband instead of DirecTV's pokey stand-in, the only reason to stick with satellite would be DirecTV's Sunday Ticket NFL package, which AT&amp;T would inherit as part of the acquisition, assuming DirecTV didn't fumble the deal. \nStripped of its NFL package and outmatched by AT&amp;T's broadband services in rural areas, it's hard to see what would be left of DirecTV and why anyone would continue to use it. \nHave something to add to this story? Share it in the comments."^^<http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#string>
<http://mashable.com/2014/05/19/atts-directv-deal-consumers/>