# EchoStar, DirecTV possible partners



## Chris Blount (Jun 22, 2001)

High-speed Internet, phone service eyed

March 16, 2006

EchoStar Communications' Chief Executive Charlie Ergen gave the strongest indication yet that the satellite-television provider would team with larger rival DirecTV to establish a broadband service.

DirecTV, whose controlling shareholder is Rupert Murdoch's News Corp., is working on technology that could allow it to offer services including phone and wireless high-speed Internet to homes and mobile devices. That would give satellite-TV providers a way to counter cable companies' bundle of video, high-speed Internet and phone service.

"If something developed where we could do something with DirecTV, we certainly are keen on that idea, if it makes sense," Ergen said in a Wednesday conference call to discuss the Douglas County-based company's earnings. But the avid poker player quickly added that "we're not going to place a big bet, (when) the odds just don't make sense to do it, just to satisfy somebody on Wall Street."

A partnership would allow EchoStar to split the "excessive" costs of building the network and help craft standards for the industry, Ergen said. But he dashed any expectations of an imminent deal when he said EchoStar doesn't have a time frame and it hasn't seen "a compelling system" that would work for the company.

Earlier this year, DirecTV outlined its plans and said it would be willing to partner with other companies, including EchoStar, which, at the time, remained mum on the possibility. If such a partnership were to occur, it would mark the first strategic alliance between the companies that sought to merge four years ago. Federal regulators rejected EchoStar's purchase of DirecTV, which was then owned by Hughes Electronics, citing antitrust concerns. Since then, the satellite industry gained a new competitor in the telephone industry, as AT&T and Verizon are investing billions to offer video services over their phone lines.

*More*


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

Personally... I would LOVE to be able to do this...

I hate having to drop $60 for comcrap broadband, and another $40 for SBC...

If I could finally take advanatage of bundling.... bring it on.


----------



## zer0cool (Nov 24, 2004)

Well, I used to have Telephone service, DSl, and Dish Network all bundled together through SBC, and it pretty much sucked. I always got new programming later than regular Dish customers, I never got the discount I was supposed to for signing new users up to Dish Network, and no special offers that came from Dish ever applied to me. I finally broke away from SBc when they told me I couldn't have a Vip-622 with an SBC account.


----------



## tsmacro (Apr 28, 2005)

I hope Charlie realizes he has a compelling reason to place a big bet on such a deal. Take it from someone who sells Dish, one of the questions we're always asked: "do you have internet?" And it's a deal breaker for a fair number if you don't. And I don't mean the deal they have with Earthlink now, by the time you get done explaining that most people are confused or they don't have a phone line for the DSL or whatever. They want simple, they just want to hear you say "yes you can add high speed internet for $xxxx to your package" and know that when the installer comes he'll be hooking up their tv and computer and they don't have to do anything else but pay the bill when it shows up.


----------



## unr1 (Jul 16, 2005)

what type of technology will be used for this satellite broadband?

because with even higher cable speeds and FIOS around, it should be able to compete. Also, good latency and pings are a must for many and hopefully this "planned" E* network can get the job done.


----------



## wcswett (Jan 7, 2003)

tsmacro said:


> I hope Charlie realizes he has a compelling reason to place a big bet on such a deal. Take it from someone who sells Dish, one of the questions we're always asked: "do you have internet?" And it's a deal breaker for a fair number if you don't. And I don't mean the deal they have with Earthlink now, by the time you get done explaining that most people are confused or they don't have a phone line for the DSL or whatever. They want simple, they just want to hear you say "yes you can add high speed internet for $xxxx to your package" and know that when the installer comes he'll be hooking up their tv and computer and they don't have to do anything else but pay the bill when it shows up.


All the deals I've seen for broadband Internet by satellite have really sucked. They all cost twice what standard DSL costs, if not three times, have lower bandwidth, high latency and service throttling for heavy users. Sure, get satellite broadband, but only if it's your only choice.

--- WCS


----------



## Larry Caldwell (Apr 4, 2005)

unr1 said:


> what type of technology will be used for this satellite broadband?
> 
> because with even higher cable speeds and FIOS around, it should be able to compete. Also, good latency and pings are a must for many and hopefully this "planned" E* network can get the job done.


You can't get low latency and pings with synchronous orbit satellites. The 88,000+ mile round trip at the speed of light adds a half a second to every handshake. Even going to streaming protocols just drops a bunch of handshakes. Your user still has to sit there for half a second waiting for a response to every mouse click. Communicating with another satellite user, say by video conferencing or i-phone, puts a full second delay in every transaction.

They only way they can get around that is to orbit a bunch of very high power satellites in low orbit, say 90 miles up, and dispense with the user dishes entirely. They would have to run it like a wireless network. Without dishes to amplify the signals, the power requirements would be enormous. The photovoltaic array would be big enough to see with binoculars. Low orbits also decay rapidly, so it would take a lot of fuel to keep the birds up there.

I understand why Charlie is waiting on this. It would be very expensive. Microsoft was looking at a service like this a few years ago, and decided they couldn't afford it.


----------



## Nick (Apr 23, 2002)

unr1 said:


> what type of technology will be used for this satellite broadband?...good latency (is) a must...and hopefully this "planned" E* network can get the job done.


Signal latency is a product of the unchangeable physics of communicating over the vast distances of
space. Geo-synchonous orbit altitudes are fixed and, short of the discovery of comm _'worm-hole_s', it
is unlikely that the inherent delay characteristics of latency will ever be lessened by future advances
in technology.


----------



## awp (Jun 1, 2004)

Geosynchronous orbit is 22,241 miles above the equator. that makes the round trip from earth in the neighborhood of 44,000 to 50,000 miles (give or take depending on where you are in the US) - not 88,000 miles.

Delay due to the speed of light is 250 milliseconds (1/4 second) In network speak this is called propagation delay. Now days, you have to also consider network delays (packet sample time, compression, encryption and layer 3 routing) which can add anywhere from 70 to 300 ms to round trip times as well.



Larry Caldwell said:


> You can't get low latency and pings with synchronous orbit satellites. The 88,000+ mile round trip at the speed of light adds a half a second to every handshake. Even going to streaming protocols just drops a bunch of handshakes. Your user still has to sit there for half a second waiting for a response to every mouse click. Communicating with another satellite user, say by video conferencing or i-phone, puts a full second delay in every transaction.
> 
> They only way they can get around that is to orbit a bunch of very high power satellites in low orbit, say 90 miles up, and dispense with the user dishes entirely. They would have to run it like a wireless network. Without dishes to amplify the signals, the power requirements would be enormous. The photovoltaic array would be big enough to see with binoculars. Low orbits also decay rapidly, so it would take a lot of fuel to keep the birds up there.
> 
> I understand why Charlie is waiting on this. It would be very expensive. Microsoft was looking at a service like this a few years ago, and decided they couldn't afford it.


----------



## GeorgeLV (Jan 1, 2006)

They're talking about partnering on WiMax not satellite internet. It a wireless terrestrial technology so if it works it shouldn't have the lantency and bandwidth problems of satellite internet.


----------



## UTFAN (Nov 12, 2005)

Chris Blount said:


> High-speed Internet, phone service eyed
> 
> March 16, 2006
> 
> ...


I have no doubt that Mr. Ergen and Mr. Murdoch have discussed this, more than once. So have the folks that work for them.

That said, it was a very general statement, more sponge than concrete.

We don't even know what latency means, although we know someone who is lactose intolerant.

We have Comcast for internet, it's a great service and we are not among the bundled masses because we get our programming from DISH and phone service from Verizon. Yes, we are outcasts, living a nomadic existance through muliple bills.

A one-stop source for everything would be cool, but it's far more important financially for the providers than the customers. At least at our house.

Hope they do it however!


----------



## Chris Freeland (Mar 24, 2002)

One more time, listen closely guys who seam to think this is some kind of internet broadband here, it is NOT. The joint venture we are talking about here is wireless broadband a.k.a Wi-Max, no latency here, it will be distributed via cell phone towers.


----------



## cboylan3 (Jan 26, 2004)

http://www.multichannel.com/article/CA6316422.html

here is another article that provides a little more info

But just as that statement may have held out hope that a partnership could be in the works, Ergen put on the brakes.

"We don't have a time frame for that," he said. "And we don't necessarily see a compelling system within terrestrial broadband today that makes sense for us. If something develops and we could do something with DirecTV, we certainly are keen on that idea if it makes sense. On the other hand, we're not going to try to draw to an inside straight."


----------



## David_Levin (Apr 22, 2002)

> Geosynchronous orbit is 22,241 miles above the equator. that makes the round trip from earth in the neighborhood of 44,000 to 50,000 miles (give or take depending on where you are in the US) - not 88,000 miles.


It's really two round trips when you consider you request, and their response. Hence the 88,000.



> "We're the only telecommunications merger that got turned down in the past 10 years, so I'm not the best guy to ask," he said.


Do I sense some bitterness here? Although the AT&T/Bell is a very different merger beast then D*/E*.

The DirectTV Spaceway birds where originally designed for Internet. The reconfigurable spots allow them to add/remove bandwidth as needed. If the new system is using these birds I can't imagine that DirectTV would share.

Sharing bandwith really makes more sense on the Video side. Could you imagine what they could do if both services had 2x what they have now....


----------



## Larry Caldwell (Apr 4, 2005)

David_Levin said:


> It's really two round trips when you consider you request, and their response. Hence the 88,000.
> ...


Yes, the round trip I was referring to is from your computer to the ISP and back, not from Earth to satellite and back. 88,000+ miles by geosynchronous route.

For voice communication, you see the results all the time on network television, as the New York anchor ends up talking over the foreign correspondant because they both have been trained to avoid dead air at any cost.

If this is a terrestrial wireless system they are putting up, I just lost interest. There is no cell phone or broadcast TV at my house, which is why I'm a Dish subscriber in the first place.


----------



## Chris Freeland (Mar 24, 2002)

Larry Caldwell said:


> If this is a terrestrial wireless system they are putting up, I just lost interest. There is no cell phone or broadcast TV at my house, which is why I'm a Dish subscriber in the first place.


Yes this is a terrestrial wireless system that D* and E* are talking about doing, we have bean discussing the rumors of this for a couple of months now in other threads. The only thing new about this article in this thread is that Charlie acknowledges for the first time that this is a possibility in the future. The main purpose of this possible joint venture is so that D* and E* can do the same double and triple play bundle options that the cable tv and some phone company's(AT&T Light-speed and Verizon Fios) offer in most of the larger and medium size dms's. Unfortunately this may not be much help to you and others so far out in the boonies that you are out of reach of even cell phone service, however they are likely to use larger antenna's then what cell phone's use which may help some.


----------



## AllieVi (Apr 10, 2002)

I doubt a satellite (low or synchronous orbit) broadband system will be available at a price that attracts many customers.

The service would have to be similar to a normal telephone link. You may recall that Iridium tried to make money doing this (i.e., telephone service), but wound up in bankruptcy. The system is now profitable, but only because the many billions of dollars invested in development and equipment was eventually acquired by a group of investors for (IIRC) about $25 million.

At that investment level, the service can make money, but only by charging high user fees and limiting traffic. It's a valuable service to those who go to remote areas where no other communication options exist and cost is no object.

I'd like to see inexpensive and reliable satellite broadband, but it seems like a pipe dream.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

AllieVi said:


> I doubt a satellite (low or synchronous orbit) broadband system will be available at a price that attracts many customers.


Not yet. I wouldn't use one for heavy downloading (which reflects a lot of my internet use) but "Little LEO" and other satellite IP systems are very useful for low bandwidth data links such as for the transportation industry - and the cost isn't that bad considering some of the alternatives. (Although wireless phone IP and free Wi-Fi systems are going to cut into the competitiveness.)


----------



## Darkman (Apr 16, 2002)

EchoStar CEO: 'Compelling case' for DirecTV partnership

"EchoStar Communications's Chief Executive Charlie Ergen gave the strongest indication yet that the satellite-television broadcaster would consider teaming with larger rival DirecTV to create a wireless broadband network. 
"We continue to look at that and certainly believe you can make a compelling case that the satellite industry is probably better served looking at those kinds of partnerships," Ergen said during a conference call today to discuss earnings results. But he cautioned that "we don't have a time frame" and the company isn't going to join forces with DirecTV unless it offers huge advantages.

EchoStar, which operates the Dish Network, and DirecTV don't currently offer Internet service along with their video package, which puts them at a disadvantage compared to the bundles of phone, voice and Internet that rival cable and phone companies offer. EchoStar still posted strong subscriber gains in the quarter, adding 330,000 new customers."

--
Source: http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/tech/article/0,2777,DRMN_23910_4543679,00.html


----------



## JM Anthony (Nov 16, 2003)

I'm of the opinion that in the home entertainment/personal communication space, the days of one trick pony service providers are numbered, especially in dense urban areas. I'm looking for a supplier that has a great bundle of services and high quality customer support. I'm fed up with indifferent (at best) customer service.


----------



## DonLandis (Dec 17, 2003)

Wimax 802.16 (WiMax) is the answer and is being implemented now in phase 1. It is the answer to the next generation of mobile internet users. While today, wifi 802.11 standard is widely used inside of homes and businesses where you can trust the others that are connected behind your wifi router. Use of wifi (and wired ethernet) in public environment such as a hotel or internet cafe is extremely dangerous as there is no security behind the router. The 802.16 has some degree of security with encryption 3DES which makes it suitable for wide wireless mobile connectivity. 
Will the DBS providers use this? Maybe but then this would be a totally different level of technology as it does not rely on DBS technology. It would be like DBS forming an aliance to compete with cable by running their own cable. 

The real issue here is for people to realize that just because one provider specializing in closed circuit TV can also easily offer internet and phone service, the Telephone company can offer internet and TV service, Your satellite company is best at offering you TV service and the other services are less robust. If one wants the best service from each of the technologies, go with each of the core providers-

Get your TV in remote locations from DBS, Get your city wide TV from cable, get your internet service from AT&T aka T-1 or T-3. Get your phone from the phone company. Not doing this is just a compromise. Personally, I have no interest in getting internet service from DBS unless they can offer competing service with the current best in this area which is Comcast. It is the fastest, lowest cost, and most reliable by several orders of magnetude in all areas. Cable TV is still not as reliable as DBS and phone service by cable really sucks. VOIP is good but still is what most consider experimental.


----------



## stonecold (Feb 20, 2004)

DonLandis said:


> Wimax 802.16 (WiMax) is the answer and is being implemented now in phase 1. It is the answer to the next generation of mobile internet users. While today, wifi 802.11 standard is widely used inside of homes and businesses where you can trust the others that are connected behind your wifi router. Use of wifi (and wired ethernet) in public environment such as a hotel or internet cafe is extremely dangerous as there is no security behind the router. The 802.16 has some degree of security with encryption 3DES which makes it suitable for wide wireless mobile connectivity.
> Will the DBS providers use this? Maybe but then this would be a totally different level of technology as it does not rely on DBS technology. It would be like DBS forming an aliance to compete with cable by running their own cable.
> 
> The real issue here is for people to realize that just because one provider specializing in closed circuit TV can also easily offer internet and phone service, the Telephone company can offer internet and TV service, Your satellite company is best at offering you TV service and the other services are less robust. If one wants the best service from each of the technologies, go with each of the core providers-
> ...


Here is what you are missing.

Dish has a a DS3 here in the tampa area just to send tampa locals back to dish. Not all markets are steup that way but most of the larger markets are where the locals are delivered to dish via fiber back bones. So really if they have a wimax system that feed into additional ds3 lines they could buy it really not running cable to fight the cable company as most of it already there.


----------



## rvd420 (Mar 10, 2003)

David_Levin said:


> It's really two round trips when you consider you request, and their response. Hence the 88,000.
> 
> Do I sense some bitterness here? Although the AT&T/Bell is a very different merger beast then D*/E*.
> 
> ...


The reason the Spaceway birds are being used for TV is in testing the results were less than impressive for internet use.

KA band is more susceptible to rain fade than KU or DBS.


----------



## Paul Secic (Dec 16, 2003)

rvd420 said:


> The reason the Spaceway birds are being used for TV is in testing the results were less than impressive for internet use.
> 
> KA band is more susceptible to rain fade than KU or DBS.


If this service gets up, it will be 6 to 9 years away and would cost as mush as E's old service. I'll stick with Comcast if they don't raise prices. I'm paying $60 a month because I don't have cable TV. I'm close to going with AT&T. You can't beat $17.99 a month for 7.MPs.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

rvd420 said:


> The reason the Spaceway birds are being used for TV is in testing the results were less than impressive for internet use.


Other sources suggest that it was more of a shift in interest that prompted the refit. DirecTV must have seen the writing on the wall with respect to the relative marketability of HD television to millions of viewers versus laggy Internet service to thousands. It is painfully obvious the ever slipping DirecTV 10 & 11 satellite deployment schedule wasn't going to keep them competitive in high definition programming (not that they are now).

There are lots of individuals and businesses that are currently using satellite delivered Internet but it isn't as great as had been forecast. Also, the concepts of Low Earth Orbit (LEO) satellite Internet and terrestrial technologies seem much more compelling in a world edging towards telecommuting via VPN.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Paul Secic said:


> If this service gets up, it will be 6 to 9 years away and would cost as mush as E's old service.


The service (and services like it) has been up and running for quite some time now. The marketability is still a big question mark. The E service that you refer to was not E, but a partnership with Starband. Starband is still around but is feeling the squeeze from Wild Blue.


> I'll stick with Comcast if they don't raise prices.


Where I live, Comcast raises rates at least twice a year.


> I'm paying $60 a month because I don't have cable TV.


For a couple dollars more, you could get 30 channels.


> I'm close to going with AT&T. You can't beat $17.99 a month for 7.MPs.


You can't beat the promotional price, but watch out for the regular price which is upwards of three times as much per month. I find it curious that AT&T doesn't say what the standard rate is.


----------



## Chris Freeland (Mar 24, 2002)

Paul Secic said:


> If this service gets up, it will be 6 to 9 years away and would cost as mush as E's old service. I'll stick with Comcast if they don't raise prices. I'm paying $60 a month because I don't have cable TV. I'm close to going with AT&T. You can't beat $17.99 a month for 7.MPs.


In my area it is actually cheaper to get Comcast internet and basic cable (12 channels) then getting internet without any cable.


----------

