# EchoStar, DirecTV Win Wireless Licenses



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

http://biz.yahoo.com/bizj/060809/1328572.html?.v=1



> EchoStar, DirecTV win wireless licenses
> Wednesday August 9, 4:39 pm ET
> 
> In a Federal Communications Commission (FCC) ongoing auction, the partnership between EchoStar Communications Corp. and DirecTV Group Inc., the top two satellite television providers in the nation, bid on 25 wireless licenses and won the bids for areas in the Mississippi Valley and central U.S.
> ...


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Here's a link to the auction in question, for those interested.
http://wireless.fcc.gov/auctions/default.htm?job=auction_summary&id=66

The blocks being bid on (and won) are near the PCS band (the yellow blocks on this chart). 1710-1755mhz paired with 2110-2155 in six blocks.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Joint ventures do not equate to mergers. More often than not, they don't even lead to cooperation between the involved parties.


----------



## Nick (Apr 23, 2002)

_"...doesn't play well with others"_

Yes, just look how well Charlie got along with little Billy Gates, or _anyone_ for that matter.


----------



## BobaBird (Mar 31, 2002)

Does the partnership have a name?


----------



## UHF (Jan 11, 2005)

Didn't Charlie already get burned in a joint venture with Rupert back in the early days of Dish Network?


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

BobaBird said:


> Does the partnership have a name?


_The two companies have teamed up under the name Wireless DBS LLC to bid on licenses together._

Interesting that "Dolan Family Holdings" is also on the bidders list.
(Dolan owns cablevision and Voom.)


----------



## SummitAdvantageRetailer (Feb 20, 2005)

Can we say "Wi-Fi access"?


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

SummitAdvantageRetailer said:


> Can we say "Wi-Fi access"?


Wouldn't it be cool if receivers could call in via "Wi-Fi" instead of phone lines?


----------



## radlynch (Jul 4, 2006)

It makes sense that they would merge. AT&T is merging with Bellsouth. AT&T sells Dish Network and Bellsouth sells DirecTV with there telephone packages.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

James Long said:


> Wouldn't it be cool if receivers could call in via "Wi-Fi" instead of phone lines?


It would be neat, but certainly no way to meet the goal of insuring that account stacking among neighbors wasn't going on. That is the point, isn't it?


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

DISHComm connections between the receivers will help that.
Report via WiFi what receivers can be seen via DISHComm.


----------



## derwin0 (Jan 31, 2005)

Won't stop a neighbor from just running his own lines from the switch.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Won't stop al quada from trying to figure out how to attack America (and the rest of the world) either. The only way to truly stop all signal theft is to turn off the satellites. If someone wants to steal signal enough to run a coax from the same switch they can run a phone line too.

BTW: DISHComm is power line based. Think X10.

Having another way for the receivers to "call in" is useful. Or E* could use that space for pocket video (similar to Verizon's VCast service and similar products). Or both. Bandwidth is good.


----------



## derwin0 (Jan 31, 2005)

Power line based? That really makes it easy for neighbors to share then. Since heighboring homes tend to share transformers in some areas.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

If you can get X10 to work reliably between neghboring houses. I've seen repeater modules that are needed to bridge between the 120v legs within a house. All sorts of things can interfere with these kind of signals ... I suppose when E* turns DISHComm on the forum will be filled with "DISHComm doesn't work" posts.

I doubt if immediate neighbors sharing a dish or power company transformer are the bulk of account stackers. If E* chooses to use this or other connectivity to allow their receivers to report in it will help with the "cell phone only" crowd. If they choose not to use new connectivity we are in the same place we are today -- connect phone lines or keep your receiver count down -- or talk to the audit team.

It is only one possible use of the spectrum - and a minor one at that. They may be looking at it for wireless internet or as I mentioned above, wireless pocket video. Plenty of options.

At the moment though it is bandwidth. A place where communications can happen. And an important space since the communication can be two way.


----------



## gbertler (Jan 20, 2005)

What they could possibly do is make it maditory to have the receivers on the same network to communicate with each other, if they have ethernet capablities. Even make it have to call out on the same IP address.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

gbertler said:


> What they could possibly do is make it maditory to have the receivers on the same network to communicate with each other, if they have ethernet capablities. Even make it have to call out on the same IP address.


That would require people to have a home network connected to DSL or a computer that would share it's dialout connection with the rest of the house. People complain enough about the phone line requirement (which would be met if a person's only internet was dialup - just connect the phone!). Now you're saying that customers without a phone are required to have DSL/high speed internet?

I'm almost sorry I brought it up since this thread about licenses has drifted far from the auction at hand into another E* Audit Team thread. E* is working on solutions for the 'I don't want phone lines all over my house' crowd (multiple tuner receivers and DISHComm). Perhaps if they had their own wireless network they could sell a "PPV pal" that would provide a connection back home for purchasing PPV or for other internet connected data. Or they could just branch out into pocket video/data devices.

It is good bandwidth ... equivilent to what Nextel was given by the government to get them away from the public service bands they interfere with or even bigger. As I've said before, they will find a use for it.


----------



## Jacob S (Apr 14, 2002)

So seeing that Dish Network and Directv are doing this as a joint venture, they would not need a merger in the future if they decide to broadcast the content as an IPTV service instead of doing it through the satellite. It will already be one company. As IPTV becomes popular they could swap out hardware to allow it to receive content from the joint venture.


----------



## Mike D-CO5 (Mar 12, 2003)

Jacob S said:


> So seeing that Dish Network and Directv are doing this as a joint venture, they would not need a merger in the future if they decide to broadcast the content as an IPTV service instead of doing it through the satellite. It will already be one company. As IPTV becomes popular they could swap out hardware to allow it to receive content from the joint venture.


I agree with you Jake , that sounds like a good option for both companies to me. If they could do the same sharing or forming of another third company 50/50 owned by both sat companies for the hd /sd locals , then both companies would benefit . These third party partnerships will give them the benefits of a merger while they remain independent entities. They don't need any government approval either when they do limited partnerships.


----------



## kenglish (Oct 2, 2004)

So, what would they possibly do with these channels?

And, won't that make them (terrestrial) "broadcasters"? That could make for some "pot calling the kettle black" problems  .


----------



## Geronimo (Mar 23, 2002)

Jacob S said:


> So seeing that Dish Network and Directv are doing this as a joint venture, they would not need a merger in the future if they decide to broadcast the content as an IPTV service instead of doing it through the satellite. It will already be one company. As IPTV becomes popular they could swap out hardware to allow it to receive content from the joint venture.


theya re not one company---actually there ae now three. DISH, DTV and the new joint venture.


----------



## Chris Freeland (Mar 24, 2002)

kenglish said:


> So, what would they possibly do with these channels?
> 
> .


Broadband Internet and VOD, to offer everything cable can, but without wires.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

> EchoStar, DirecTV win wireless licenses
> Wednesday August 9, 4:39 pm ET
> 
> In a Federal Communications Commission (FCC) ongoing auction, the partnership between EchoStar Communications Corp. and DirecTV Group Inc., the top two satellite television providers in the nation, bid on 25 wireless licenses and won the bids for areas in the Mississippi Valley and central U.S.


The auction is ongoing. At the moment "Wireless DBS LLC " is out of the bidding and has won no licenses. Looks like those were early round results and not final results.

Bottom line - they have won NO licenses in this auction.


----------



## bidger (Nov 19, 2005)

James Long said:


> Bottom line - they have won NO licenses in this auction.


And now, according to this ZDNet article, they've dropped out of the bidding.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Probably just hit their limit. T Mobile and Cellco (Verizon) are out for blood.
It was worth trying.


----------

