# Merger Thoughts, a good read



## Scott Greczkowski (Mar 21, 2002)

Check this out. The folks over at Satellite Business News have wrote a really interesting article on their thoughts about the merger.

It is a very interesting read.

You will need Adobe Acrobat to read the article as this is a PDF file. The article in question begins on page two of the publication.

http://www.satbiznews.com/PubPer.pdf

Let us know YOUR thoughts on this!


----------



## AllieVi (Apr 10, 2002)

Thanks for the link, Scott,

I read the short  article and found myself in complete agreement. I’ve never supported the merger due to my belief that a DBS monopoly such as the one proposed is not ultimately good for consumers. As noted, few if any remedies will be available if (when?) Charlie doesn’t fulfill his grand promise of essentially being “everything to everybody.”


----------



## lee635 (Apr 17, 2002)

I don't understand the rural arguments. Rural folks have had nothing but staticey over the air forever, so any relief DBS can offer would be a plus. Especially for rural folks, everyone forgets c-band becasue BUD is struggling right now. But the reason BUD is struggling is that DBS offers cheap equipment, convenience and low prices. If DBS stops subsidizing receivers, or raises prices too much, then folks will go back to c-band. 

Many rural subs are like me, with a BUD in the back yard and a minidish on the roof. And they'll all dust off the old VC2+ and buy a $99 4DTV sidecar and be happy with distant locals and BUD subscriptions.


----------



## Guest (May 18, 2002)

Thanks to Greg Bimson at DBSForums for finding this article.


----------



## Scott Greczkowski (Mar 21, 2002)

If you look you will notice I posted it first. 
I posted it at 10:59am.

Greg posted it at 11:11am

So Greg should thank me. 

Nice try, buy try again.


----------



## Guest (May 18, 2002)

Scott,

Greg posted his on May *16th* at 11 AM.

At least give the person credit for digging up the news.


----------



## Scott Greczkowski (Mar 21, 2002)

Dang you got me on that one. 

*I will be the first to admit I am wrong. *

I didn't notice the date. Although I must admit I did not get the article url from Greg or DBSforums.

My appologies to Greg Brimson.


----------



## Nick (Apr 23, 2002)

Tell you boys what. I'll give you both credit if that's what it takes to get you to stuff it and go outside and play. If you're good, I'll get you both a cone when the little ice cream truck comes by... 


:smoking:


----------



## woodman (May 17, 2002)

was of "War & Peace" length!

After plowing through it all, the only conclusion that I can reach is that the author is a SHILL for the cable industry! The fact that he publishes a trade paper for another industry notwithstanding.

What a pile of *dinosaur dung* !!

The cableTV industry is the actual villain that needs to be slain at all costs, IMO. They have systematically raped and pillaged the American public for far too long and need to brought down by whatever means necessary. If and when it ever happens, I'll be breaking out the champagne and celebrating non-stop for 40 days and 40 nights!

AllieVi:
Although you and I live only 30 miles apart, we're evidently many times further apart in our opinions. You said that you agreed with what the article in question said? Do you actually believe the rhetoric about inevitible price increases for DBS? How absurd! Pricing will not go up, but will go down if and when the "merger" goes through, IMO. Charlie Ergen is one smart cookie of an entrepeneur, let me tell you.

I could take the entire article apart, limb from limb, and debate one point after another, but I haven't the time or the inclination to do so. But believe me when I tell you that the article is full of it in forty-eleven different ways. I've been involved in television since it started, and consider myself to be an "insider" - enough to see through a lot of bull**** that gets presented as facts, when in truth ... are anything but!


----------



## Scott Greczkowski (Mar 21, 2002)

Hi Woodman :hi:

I respect your point of view but I thought the article echoed a lot of the thoughts on the merger I had running around in my head.

I guess the ultimate problem with this merger is that Charlie can say hes going to do a lot of things (such as offer all 210 DMA's) but once the merger is approved Charlie can easily say he changed his mind due to the lack of technology or it costs to much. At this point there is really nothing anyone can do to Charlie, there is no one who will split them back up.

If you have been watching this entire locals on 61.5 and 148 debate you will see that the FCC says Charlie is in clear violation of the law, CHarlie basicly thumbed his nose at the FCC and told them that this was the way he was doing it. 

If he thinks he has this much power now, what will happen once he gets full control of both companies?


----------



## Karl Foster (Mar 23, 2002)

I have a problem with anyone who wants a monopoly. I know you will argue that the competition is with cable, not with each other (E* and D*). Since I have been a D* sub (Jan. 2001), D* has introduced two new PVRs, added channels, streamlined pricing, and now charge LESS than they did when I first sub'd. I believe this is to compete against E*, not cable. Perhaps I am wrong. 

What incentives will there be for the new mega-E* to improve hardware, programming, and keep prices reasonable? There will be no incentive whatsoever. 

As a D* sub, I am very leary to go from my RCA and Mitsubishi-brand receivers (two of them being dual-tuner PVRs) to proprietary hardware and PVRs that are full of bugs. 

If you can't tell, I am 100% opposed to the merger. Monopolistic practices are un-American, and anti-capitalistic.


----------



## AllieVi (Apr 10, 2002)

> _Originally posted by woodman _
> *AllieVi:
> Although you and I live only 30 miles apart, we're evidently many times further apart in our opinions. You said that you agreed with what the article in question said? Do you actually believe the rhetoric about inevitible price increases for DBS? How absurd! Pricing will not go up, but will go down if and when the "merger" goes through, IMO. Charlie Ergen is one smart cookie of an entrepeneur, let me tell you.*


Yes, I actually do believe prices would inevitably go up. I also believe that the incentive to innovate would be removed and we would then never know "what might have been" if two direct competitors existed.

It's similar to making the argument that we'd be better off if all the car manufacturers in the world combined into one big company. "Think of the efficiencies that could result." Then again, think of what incentive that big company would have to keep prices low or innovate. Competition is the best mechanism for improving our lot and I don't want to sacrafice its benefits. I'd like to see more competition, not less.

Charlie is a business man and he's not looking out for our welfare. He's trying to make as much money for his company's shareholders as possible (that's him, in large measure). I have no problem with that - just don't turn over the whole industry to him.


----------

