# DTV/DISH merger



## TomCat (Aug 31, 2002)

The consensus is that its unlikely, but goofy over at DISH has approached DTV regarding this just the same.

What do we think of this? Is it a good idea? a bad idea? and why?

They use the same system for delivery, and it would be simple for them to also operate as separate companies but share satellites and uplink centers. Well, not that simple, they would have to have metadata for both services running on every channel, and there would be a lot of overnight conversions, but that would still probably save them a lot of dough. But that is not a full merger, more of a shared facilities agreement. That is much more likely than a merger, because they don't need approval for that. It might also free up enough sat space to allow them to move into VOD streaming in a big way, and all of that would keep them competitive with the internet and cord cutters.

But they still might go for the full merger. That the two companies are in competition has never seemed to scare them out of raising prices anyway.

One thing I can predict with surety, is that any benefits to them merging will never trickle down to the customer. All you have to so is look at the SiriusXM merger to see how that would go.

So I am on record here as it being NOT a good idea, and I am against it.

But I am curious to hear, with an open mind, why others might not agree.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

I don't see how they could have "metadata for both services running on every channel" because they use different modulation. Directv receivers can't receive Dish's modulation and vice versa. Perhaps that's something that could be handled purely via software update, I really couldn't say for sure, but my guess is no.

Even if each could receive the others' channels, the dishes of each don't point in the same place. It isn't helpful for Directv to add allow Dish customers to receive 99/101/103, nor is it terribly useful for Dish to allow Direct customers to receive 110/119 (since a minority of Directv customers have LNBs able to receive those)

There are benefits, but they'd be a decade away, and by taking one option away from every customer who has an option for satellite at all the combined company may end up keeping all the profit rather than passing on any of the savings. The benefits of the merger seem to mainly be limited to reducing the competition so people looking for a deal can't hop between the two every couple years.


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

I disagree that those benefits would be a decade away. I think they would never come. They would take a decade to implement, but in the intervening years, the new company would be so hampered by the cost of integrating two different systems that they would never truly "benefit."


----------



## Herdfan (Mar 18, 2006)

No, the one "merger" that would have made sense for both companies would have been to share locals. Create a joint venture and beam the locals from the 110 slot. Yes, new receivers would have been required, but I needed new receivers to get the locals anyway. They each would have lost a competitive advantage in the fringe markets (Dish had locals in my market 2 months before Christmas and 8 months before DirecTV), but that would have easily been offset by the need for both companies to launch multiple spot-beam satellites.


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

Even that might have been too costly. What does make sense, though, is forming a partnership to negotiate for locals, RSNs, etc. to crush the hold of greedy content providers.


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

For the above reasons, and especially that I believe that competition brings innovation and helps hold down price increases, I am firmly against a merger.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

Stuart Sweet said:


> Even that might have been too costly. What does make sense, though, is forming a partnership to negotiate for locals, RSNs, etc. to crush the hold of greedy content providers.


Directv has 20 million subscribers and Dish 14, so combined they'd have 34. Is that really giving them all that much better negotiation leverage? Certainly not enough to "crush" them... And what if, due to their different customer base/demographics, they assign different values to the locals or RSNs for a given DMA where one is stronger than the other? Directv has more to lose not renewing with YES, for instance, than Dish who is surely very weak with hardcore NYC area Yankees fans, so they'd be willing to pay more than Dish. Who settles such disagreements, does Directv rule because they're bigger, or does nothing get signed unless/until both agree?

For negotiations with Disney, FOX, HBO for obvious must have channels, sure it sounds like a great idea. But who says they'd be willing to talk to two separate companies partnering up hoping for better negotiation leverage? They're under no obligation to do so.

If you owned a business that sold unique products that there was no substitute for, and had two of your largest volume customers come to you saying "we are partnering up, so we'd like volume pricing based on our combined volume", would you do it? You'd still send bills to, work on technical issues with, ship to, etc. two separate entities, so the savings would all be on their end and coming out of your profits. They have no choice but to buy these products from you because they will lose many customers if they don't have them. You'd have to be crazy to let them do that!


----------



## dish556 (Feb 18, 2014)

I do think both company should Merge whyn't it will help Dish bring down the cost of Network high price of content and if comcast and time warner can do this whyn't DTV and Dish these network should work better with dish and DTV giving us better prices and not up prices us every chance they get. plus Mr.Ergen is already is part owner in DTV with Dishnet.

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052748703584804576143833056404482

http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2011/02/14/echostar-to-buy-hughes-communications-for-1-3-billion/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

dish556 said:


> I do think both company should Merge whyn't it will help Dish bring down the cost of Network high price of content and if comcast and time warner can do this whyn't DTV and Dish these network should work better with dish and DTV giving us better prices and not up prices us every chance they get. plus Mr.Ergen is already is part owner in DTV with Dishnet.
> 
> http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052748703584804576143833056404482
> 
> http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2011/02/14/echostar-to-buy-hughes-communications-for-1-3-billion/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0


Hughes Communications is no longer associated with DirecTV ... so no part ownership.
http://www.nasdaq.com/symbol/dtv/ownership-summary


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

Stuart Sweet said:


> Even that might have been too costly. What does make sense, though, is forming a partnership to negotiate for locals, RSNs, etc. to crush the hold of greedy content providers.


I don't think they could do that... legally... without being accused of collusion and price-fixing. This seems to be what got Apple into trouble over e-Books... trying to help coordinate different publishers and setting price-points.


----------

