# NY Post: DirecTV and Dish in merger talks once again despite past antitrust concerns



## glrush (Jun 29, 2002)

Here we go again.....

DirecTV, Dish in merger talks again despite past antitrust concerns (nypost.com)


----------



## Mike1096 (Jan 20, 2018)

glrush said:


> Here we go again.....
> 
> DirecTV, Dish in merger talks again despite past antitrust concerns (nypost.com)


Yuck. Hello streaming. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## codespy (Mar 30, 2006)

_'Dish, meanwhile, has committed to build out a 5G network that will serve 20 percent of the US by this summer and 70 percent of the US by summer of 2023'._

I just approved the zoning compliance and issued a building permit last week to an agent for Dish Network, on a 5G antenna installation. The antennas will be installed on a newer cell tower built last year in my inspection area. (SE Wisconsin- halfway between Milwaukee and Madison). Verizon is currently the only other tenant, on the newer monopole. Installation has not started yet.


----------



## MysteryMan (May 17, 2010)

"Once more unto the breach..."


----------



## AZ. (Mar 27, 2011)

It only makes sense, soon there will be like 10 corporations that own everything! This isnt new, but now no one stops these mega mergers like they did 60 to 70 years ago.

Look at the entertainment,TV/Radio mess they created and allowed!

And no, you not going to save money, you wont have anywhere to turn to get what you want!


----------



## glrush (Jun 29, 2002)

*DISH: Directv Merger Rumors Supported By Potentially Significant Internal Move*


DISH Stock: Directv Merger Rumors Supported By Internal Move | Seeking Alpha


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

I didn't have DTV/Dish on my merger bingo card until 2023, after DTV's NFL Sunday Ticket exclusive was done, and a couple years after the DTV partial spin-off with TPG was announced. Boy, those guys are wanting to exit that deal fast.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

glrush said:


> *DISH: Directv Merger Rumors Supported By Potentially Significant Internal Move*
> 
> 
> DISH Stock: Directv Merger Rumors Supported By Internal Move | Seeking Alpha


Interesting article. I'd always assumed that when the merger happens, it would only involve DISH's pay TV business (satellite and Sling), not their new 5G wireless business. Should this deal happen, perhaps the remaining wireless business will be renamed. IMO, DISH is a pretty stupid name for a cutting-edge wireless company. (I can imagine an SNL parody ad for DISH Wireless showing a customer talking on a cell phone in their car that's wired to a satellite dish mounted on the roof. "The 90s just called and they want your smartphone!")

Given that the DISH satellite TV business is Charlie Ergen's baby, and there's no one at DirecTV/AT&T with a similar emotional attachment to that business, it wouldn't surprise me if Ergen insists that the combined satellite TV service continues to use the DISH branding to ensure that his legacy lives on, even if he's not fully in control of its operations any more. And I've long believed that the combined service would ditch the aging DTV hardware and instead use only the more advanced DISH Hopper and Joey line of receivers for all new customers (although new iterations may need to be produced to work in tandem with DTV sats/dishes). Doubt anything much would change for existing customers of either satellite TV brand, though; they'd be grandfathered into their current packages and equipment.

Perhaps the DirecTV brand would live on via DirecTV Stream, which I assume would somehow absorb Sling, maybe by just offering Sling's set of cheaper and smaller channel packages in addition to whatever set of mainstream packages that the combined satellite service will also offer.


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

NashGuy said:


> would ditch the aging DTV hardware


You don't know how is complicated DTV System Info vault ... no way to combine it with DVB-S what is using by dish, I see the merge as wet nightmare's for two big IT groups


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

P Smith said:


> You don't know how is complicated DTV System Info vault ... no way to combine it with DVB-S what is using by dish, I see the merge as wet nightmare's for two big IT groups


A knowledgable moderator on another forum says that DISH receivers can work with DTV rooftop dishes/signals with just a software update. So that's would I would expect to happen. They'll probably standardize new installation with DTV dishes aimed at DTV sats but using current DISH Hopper and Joey receivers. But there may be the odd installation here or there where the installer can't get good line of sight to the DTV sats but they can with the DISH sats, so in those cases they'll go with a traditional DISH installation. Either way, they'll be able to use the same TV boxes.

For existing DTV customers, nothing would really change, except maybe they'd see the DTV logo in their Genie on-screen menu system replaced with the DISH logo. They'd keep their existing receivers connected to their existing rooftop dish. Same set of channels, same channel numbers.


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

You are missing big chunk of the merging process... encoding, System Tables, EPG and such things
I mean dish HW will not accept the part of DTV stream
Dishes [LNBF] , switches, splitters are NOT compatible too


----------



## MysteryMan (May 17, 2010)

If DISH and DIRECTV were to merge there's no way Charlie could afford to operate two satellite fleets along with their broadcast facilities. One would have to be phased out and we know it won't be DISH.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

NashGuy said:


> But there may be the odd installation here or there where the installer can't get good line of sight to the DTV sats but they can with the DISH sats, so in those cases they'll go with a traditional DISH installation.


Given the realization that Ka turned out to be a bit of a pain and that DISH has two constellations and smaller dishes, I'd expect things to go to transition slowly to the DISH satellites and DISH STBs.

Given that the installed base of DIRECTV STBs are already rather dated (The HS17 is near to celebrating its fifth birthday) and there is NOTHING on the horizon, I'd expect that much of the installed base is already at the cliff.

The Hopper Plus could represent a big boon to transitioning both services to streaming and it would probably add even more to the DIRECTV experience than it does to the DISH experience.

The real concern is probably what will happen with sports programming.

TPG isn't in the business of running companies. They're in the business of trading companies. Anyone who thought that they were into DIRECTV for the long haul is deluding themselves. Most of the coverage before the deal was careful to point out that the goal was to make DIRECTV a takeover target. DISH surely has the best synergies and they are on the same trajectory in terms of where the future lies.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

harsh said:


> Given the realization that Ka turned out to be a bit of a pain and that DISH has two constellations and smaller dishes, I'd expect things to go to transition slowly to the DISH satellites and DISH STBs.


The problem with that plan is that DISH would likely need to build and launch a new satellite in the latter half of this decade and that's an expensive proposition for a business that's slowly dying. Their constellations aren't going to last as long as DTV's, which just launched a new sat in June 2019 and should be good at least through 2030 (i.e. probably for as long as satellite-delivered cable TV service is a viable nationwide business).

As I wrote before, I'm told that current DISH receivers can be updated via software to work with DTV dishes/sats/signals.



harsh said:


> Given that the installed base of DIRECTV STBs are already rather dated (The HS17 is near to celebrating its fifth birthday) and there is NOTHING on the horizon, I'd expect that much of the installed base is already at the cliff.


Yeah. And when their existing boxes die (and maybe even if they wanted to switch out of their grandfathered old DTV package to a current DISH package), they'll be replaced with current DISH boxes that can work with their existing DTV dish and wiring.



harsh said:


> The real concern is probably what will happen with sports programming.


I expect all (or nearly all) of the current sports programming available on _either_ service to be available through the new unified DISH service. Those missing RSNs will probably return to DISH by next year (if not this year) as optional add-ons given that Sinclair is getting ready to launch them as a standalone streaming service anyway. Once that happens, every large MVPD is going to insist on de-bundling their RSNs and making them optional once their current carriage contract is up.



harsh said:


> TPG isn't in the business of running companies. They're in the business of trading companies. Anyone who thought that they were into DIRECTV for the long haul is deluding themselves. Most of the coverage before the deal was careful to point out that the goal was to make DIRECTV a takeover target. DISH surely has the best synergies and they are on the same trajectory in terms of where the future lies.


Agreed. I just didn't expect TPG to begin agitating for a DISH merger less than a year after their DTV deal closed. That was only six months ago!


----------



## compnurd (Apr 23, 2007)

Obviously besides some of the delusional diehards here for various reasons, no one in there right mind thought TPG was going to try and turn Directv around by investing in anything.. My guess is the subscriber declines are continuing at a frantic pace and there could be more layers to the onion TPG saw once they took over and they want it gone


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

MysteryMan said:


> If DISH and DIRECTV were to merge there's no way Charlie could afford to operate two satellite fleets along with their broadcast facilities. One would have to be phased out and we know it won't be DISH.


Not sure why you think that. I believe both are self sustaining at this time they just had a lot of debut piled on DIRECTV because of the mergers and splits of the company. If he can handle that and gain a price advantage with the larger company then he will be able to keep them going. 

The key is if he doesn’t screw up and drop sports from DIRECTV service. That would make me beyond mad….


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

NashGuy said:


> The problem with that plan is that DISH would likely need to build and launch a new satellite in the latter half of this decade and that's an expensive proposition for a business that's slowly dying.


I don't imagine that DISH (or DIRECTV) expects that their DBS products will need to exist much beyond 2026. I would expect that DISH may be able to easily take advantage of existing or leased satellite capacity as they've been doing all along to make that happen. The fact that DIRECTV Ku birds at 110W and 119W could be employed in some capacity on the Western Arc shouldn't be overlooked (although they may not be long for the Belt).


> As I wrote before, I'm told that current DISH receivers can be updated via software to work with DTV dishes/sats/signals.


Sure, but will DISH want to do battle with Ka when they have their Ku capacity that is perhaps better located to offer the broadest coverage. DISH is probably better positioned to get rid of MPEG2 than DIRECTV is so raw satellite capacity becomes much less of an issue than it is today.

An argument can be made for the narrow width of the DIRECTV window but I'm dubious that makes as much difference as better shots to the constellations.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

MysteryMan said:


> If DISH and DIRECTV were to merge there's no way Charlie could afford to operate two satellite fleets along with their broadcast facilities. One would have to be phased out and we know it won't be DISH.


It would be moronic to phase out Directv instead of Dish when Directv has twice the installed base, and Dish is split between two arcs with duplicate satellite fleets. It costs half as much and saves a lot more money (assuming even one of Dish's satellites will need to be replaced before the end of the decade) to phase out Dish's already duplicated fleet.

Making Dish receivers compatible with Directv would probably not be too difficult, everything new is using tuners that can handle SWM. So they'd phase out Dish's satellite fleet and dishes/LNBs and phase out Directv's receivers and DVRs.


----------



## WestDC (Feb 9, 2008)

I willing to file this under --NEVER going to happen


----------



## Teetertotter (Jul 23, 2020)

I don't care........whatever happens, happens. I will just wait and see and go from there. But you folks can hash things over and decide at the end, if it ever happens. Enjoy!


----------



## compnurd (Apr 23, 2007)

WestDC said:


> I willing to file this under --NEVER going to happen


Eh This time its different


----------



## WestDC (Feb 9, 2008)

compnurd said:


> Eh This time its different


Mark my post --NOT going to happen no matter what time it is


----------



## west99999 (May 12, 2007)

Not sure what will happen but I do know the DTV leadership sent an all employee notice today stating none of this article was true and no discussion was going on about a merger with Dish.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

glrush said:


> Here we go again.....
> 
> DirecTV, Dish in merger talks again despite past antitrust concerns (nypost.com)


I have said it before and I'll say it again ... DISH does not need to merge with DIRECTV. They just need to wait and buy the assets. Mr Ergen can set his own terms on this. TPG cannot force DISH to take a bad deal.

As for interoperability etc I have covered that in previous threads. It is silly to look at which receivers are "software upgradable" to work on each other's satellites. The dish outside is not software upgradable and no new firmware is going to magically replace MILLIONS of satellite dishes.

It is interesting to see TPG wanting to bail so quickly on their investment. Perhaps more proof that DIRECTV is not healthy.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

slice1900 said:


> It would be moronic to phase out Directv instead of Dish when Directv has twice the installed base,


DISH is reporting 8.4 million satellite customers. At last report (July 2021) DIRECTV had 15.4 million TOTAL customers (including former UVERSE and streaming). Would you like to reconsider your claim of "twice" the installed base?

Considering UVERSE was 3.6 million when last reported (Dec 2018) and not losing subscribers at that time and AT&T has lost over 3 million subscribers for the past couple years, DIRECTV satellite could be below the 10 million mark. (And if you are going to include UVERSE and Stream with DIRECTV in their "installed base" you must include SlingTV. Twice 11 million subscribers is more than AT&T has had since 2019.


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

James Long said:


> I have said it before and I'll say it again ... DISH does not need to merge with DIRECTV. They just need to wait and buy the assets. Mr Ergen can set his own terms on this. TPG cannot force DISH to take a bad deal.
> 
> As for interoperability etc I have covered that in previous threads. It is silly to look at which receivers are "software upgradable" to work on each other's satellites. The dish outside is not software upgradable and no new firmware is going to magically replace MILLIONS of satellite dishes.
> 
> It is interesting to see TPG wanting to bail so quickly on their investment. Perhaps more proof that DIRECTV is not healthy.


Did anyone actually need more proof that DirecTV is not healthy? That’s been very obvious for quite some time


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

slice1900 said:


> It would be moronic to phase out Directv instead of Dish when Directv has twice the installed base, and Dish is split between two arcs with duplicate satellite fleets.


Two satellite constellations don't cost a whole lot more than one (mostly electricity) and there are significant advantages to where the DISH satellites are located. It has always been DISH's plan to have two constellations (though the Western Arc was supposed to be considerably further west). MPEG2 is nobody's friend and there's still no deadline from DIRECTV other than losing or upgrading those MPEG2 customers "naturally" while DISH has already eliminated MPEG4 from the Eastern Arc (though some in EA regions are still using the WA constellation).

In four years, I'd imagine things will be pretty grim for satellite TV in general as more and more of the traffic moves to broadband and, hopefully, broadband access also improves. I have a nagging feeling if someone doesn't take control soon, the denser weaving of the LEO blanket may create some situations for all Ku traffic (perhaps worse for Ka).


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

lparsons21 said:


> Did anyone actually need more proof that DirecTV is not healthy? That’s been very obvious for quite some time.


DIRECTV is still profitable. DISH is reporting much higher profits, but DIRECTV is still making money.

The big question is the future. The decline in subscribers (when reported) was staggering. While there is a lot of cost per customer (the cost of the programming DIRECTV is reselling is most of the customer's bill) each of those lost subscribers accounts for a monthly loss of profit.


----------



## codespy (Mar 30, 2006)

lparsons21 said:


> Did anyone actually need more proof that DirecTV is not healthy? That’s been very obvious for quite some time


Yea and when the service actually dies, DirecTV will probably still send recovery kits to me to get their old/leased equipment back. 😒


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

west99999 said:


> Not sure what will happen but I do know the DTV leadership sent an all employee notice today stating none of this article was true and no discussion was going on about a merger with Dish.


It is pretty easy to see that this speculation was driven almost entirely by what an analyst saw as an effort to split DISH into two entities (remember the Echostar/DISH split?).

That said, it would be difficult to reason that there's a better place for TPG to unload DIRECTV.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

James Long said:


> DIRECTV is still profitable. DISH is reporting much higher profits, but DIRECTV is still making money.


DIRECTV was also saddled with $6 billion in debt as part of the jettison and the service on that isn't cheap.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

DISH's Eastern Arc gives a clue as what could happen on the Western Arc. DISH now has two orbital locations in the east (61.5 owned by DISH and 72.7 leased from a Canadian company). They control all 64 transponders and have spot beams on 61.5. DISH's use of Mexican licensed 77 in the US has ended. No dish change was needed to remove an orbital location.

On the Western Arc DISH has 21 transponders on 119, 29 transponders on 110 and 32 transponders on 129. 129 is leased from a Canadian company. DIRECTV no longer needs their 14 transponders at 110 and 119, so with some consolidations DISH could leave 129 (no longer paying the Canadians). DISH's current satellites could cover those transponders and with the Canadians not needing a satellite aimed at the US DISH could move the satellite at 129 over.

This move would not require the merger of the companies ... only for DIRECTV to transfer the licenses with the permission of the FCC.

DIRECTV seems to be moving in the direction of being a Ka only service (even though there have been years of discussion over replacing the channels on 101 with MPEG4 HD). That location doesn't help DISH unless millions of dishes swing slightly to the east. Changes that would cost money that doesn't need to be spent.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

James Long said:


> As for interoperability etc I have covered that in previous threads. It is silly to look at which receivers are "software upgradable" to work on each other's satellites. The dish outside is not software upgradable and no new firmware is going to magically replace MILLIONS of satellite dishes.


This is a nonsensical statement. It's exactly because rooftop dishes are not "software upgradable" and because those millions of dishes aren't going to be replaced that it's so important that DISH receivers can easily be made to work with all those millions of installed DTV dishes. If/when the two merge, they'll standardize on one set of receivers going forward and want to use them with both DISH dishes and DTV dishes. It's easy to imagine that the surviving line of receivers will be DISH's, because they're far more advanced than the aging DTV lineup. So post-merger, if a DTV customer wants to upgrade his receiver (or needs it replaced because it has failed), he'll probably be pushed toward a current-gen Hopper (although it's possible that, on request, they'll continue to recirculate old Genie boxes for a few years, as long as they still have working units in stock).


----------



## b4pjoe (Nov 20, 2010)

harsh said:


> It is pretty easy to see that this speculation was driven almost entirely by what an analyst saw as an effort to split DISH into two entities (remember the Echostar/DISH split?).
> 
> *That said, it would be difficult to reason that there's a better place for TPG to unload DIRECTV.*


It will be very difficult for TPG to unload anything that they only own 30% of.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

James Long said:


> No dish change was needed to remove an orbital location.


The DISH MPEG2 -> AVC transition would need to be completed before that happened, right?


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

b4pjoe said:


> It will be very difficult for TPG to unload anything that they only own 30% of.


Yet that would seem to be their responsibility as the controlling partner of the joint venture. It seems even less reasonable that AT&T will take DIRECTV back.


----------



## b4pjoe (Nov 20, 2010)

The one with 30% ownership is not the controlling partner no matter how they word it.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

NashGuy said:


> If/when the two merge, they'll standardize on one set of receivers going forward and want to use them with both DISH dishes and DTV dishes.


Eventually ... but what is the driver to spend millions of dollars to replace working DIRECTV receivers with DISH receivers?

As long as DISH's receivers can control DIRECTV's switches they should be able to tune the current Ka transponders. But I don't see the need to make the change.

I also don't see a reason for DISH and DIRECTV to merge.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

NashGuy said:


> This is a nonsensical statement. It's exactly because rooftop dishes are not "software upgradable" and because those millions of dishes aren't going to be replaced that it's so important that DISH receivers can easily be made to work with all those millions of installed DTV dishes.


It isn't nonsensical at all from the satellite reception perspective. If you can program a DISH receiver to handle SWiM, you're almost done. MoCA differences may be a show stopper.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

James Long said:


> Eventually ... but what is the driver to spend millions of dollars to replace working DIRECTV receivers with DISH receivers?
> 
> As long as DISH's receivers can control DIRECTV's switches they should be able to tune the current Ka transponders. But I don't see the need to make the change.
> 
> I also don't see a reason for DISH and DIRECTV to merge.


Ah, OK, thank you. To clarify, I'm not suggesting that a hypothetical merged company would want to replace millions of working DTV receivers. They wouldn't. They'll want to cut costs, not increase them, versus the current (pre-merger) scenario of DTV and DISH continuing to operate as two separate businesses.

Following is how I see this all working -- my educated guesses -- based on what's been reported, what we know about these companies, and simple logic.

Should the two merge, it seems most likely that DISH will spin off its satellite and streaming TV business. A new privately held joint venture company will be formed that is owned by AT&T and the publicly traded company currently named DISH. AT&T may have majority ownership (e.g. 60% to 40%) but DISH (and specifically, Charlie Ergen) would have a greater voice in shaping strategy for the joint venture. (Sound familiar? This is following the same template as the DTV spin-out from AT&T and the formation of their current joint venture with TPG.) TPG will not own any part of the new joint venture. They want to liquidate their holding in DTV.

When this happens, it's possible that the parent DISH corporation, which would at that point be pretty much solely focused on their new 5G business, would rename itself to something that isn't synonymous with satellite TV and more reflective of their wireless future.

The new joint venture will own the current DISH, Sling, DTV, DTV Stream and Uverse TV services. They'll settle on some unified set of products for new subscribers going forward. Where possible, they'll cut costs by combining operations. Analysts think there's as much as $1 billion in potential cost savings by combining these two businesses. Plus, the two satellite TV services will benefit from eliminating their only existing direct competitor, which will reduce churn and the need for as much up-front promotional discounting to lure new customers (which increasingly are just coming from the other satellite TV service in rural areas where other pay TV options do not yet exist).

I think that the combined/surviving satellite TV service will use the existing DISH brand as well as its line of Hopper and Joey receivers. It may have a somewhat restructured/renamed set of channel packages and pricing. It will continue to use the existing DISH channel numbers. Why do I think all this? Well, unlike DTV, DISH has stabilized their subscriber losses; their numbers over the past couple years haven't been too bad. Meanwhile, DTV continues to hemorrhage subs. (Well, at least that was the case through 2Q21.) And they'll be in for another big blow next year after they lose their NFL Sunday Ticket exclusive (which at this point is arguably DTV's main marketing claim to fame). Even though DTV probably has 35-50% more satellite TV subs than DISH, the gap keeps narrowing.

Time was when DTV was the most premium pay TV service in the country but the AT&T years weren't kind to it. The DTV brand reputation has been tarnished with poor customer service and outdated receivers. DISH's latest Hopper and Joey DVRs are head-and-shoulders above DTV's Genie line, so they'll clearly want to standardize on DISH's receivers going forward and stop manufacturing the DTV line, which will be slowly phased out among the installed DTV user base over time through attrition. Standardizing on one set of equipment reduces overall costs.

Another reason why I see the combined satellite TV service using the DISH name is because I suspect Charlie Ergen would want that. DISH is his baby and I think he'd love to see his brand "take over" his old rival DTV and carry on his legacy for several more years. Meanwhile, I don't think there's anyone with anywhere near Ergen's level of power within DTV or AT&T who is similarly emotionally attached to the DIRECTV brand name. Those folks left the building years ago after AT&T bought it.

For existing DISH customers, nothing really changes. Perhaps they'll see one or two channels get added or yanked from their line-up, but then that kind of thing can happen in any given year anyhow. For existing DTV customers, almost nothing changes. They'll be "welcomed into the DISH family" while being grandfathered in on their existing equipment and channel packages with the same ol' channel numbers. No reason to anger millions of longstanding customers and risk losing some of them because you're forcing changes on them that they didn't ask for. At most, they'll likely see their account billing transition from AT&T over to the new DISH-branded joint venture company, while the DTV on-screen logo on their TVs is replaced with a DISH logo (or maybe a "DIRECTV by DISH" logo). But if they want to change their channel package, they'll have to choose from the current DISH offering being sold to new customers. If they want to upgrade their equipment (or perhaps if their existing equipment dies), they'll be issued current Hopper/Joey hardware, which will be compatible with their existing rooftop dish and wiring.

I would expect that all, or nearly all, of the satellites currently in use by DTV and DISH would continue to be operated by the new joint venture. I can't see how it would make sense financially to shut down any of those three constellations (the DTV fleet, the DISH main arc, or the DISH eastern arc) because that would require expensive re-installation procedures for millions of current customers just to retain them. As for new installation, I would think they would want to concentrate as many of them as possible on one of those three constellations. Logic tells me that would be the DTV fleet since it should remain operationally viable for the longest amount of time (and also because it would already serve well over half the new company's installed user base).

Harder to say what will happen with the non-satellite TV businesses. This would seem like an obvious time for the new joint venture to finally announce the pending shut-down of Uverse TV, with offers to lure as many as possible over to a streaming cable TV service. (I expect AT&T will continue to handle billing for Uverse TV up until it ceases to exist.) Don't know whether they'd continue to operate DTV Stream and Sling separately or perhaps just begin offering most/all of the cheaper Sling packages as lower-cost options on DTV Stream and then phase out Sling. Perhaps DTV Stream would once again be rebranded, perhaps simply to just "DIRECTV". But just as DTV Stream's channel packages now pretty much mirror those offered by DTV satellite, I'd expect that going forward (should it survive), its main set of packages would be the same as those sold by the unified satellite service. But just as with DTV satellite, existing DTV Stream customers would be grandfathered into their existing channel packages and feature set.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

NashGuy said:


> Should the two merge, it seems most likely that DISH will spin off its satellite and streaming TV business. A new privately held joint venture company will be formed that is owned by AT&T and the publicly traded company currently named DISH. AT&T may have majority ownership (e.g. 60% to 40%) but DISH (and specifically, Charlie Ergen) would have a greater voice in shaping strategy for the joint venture. (Sound familiar? This is following the same template as the DTV spin-out from AT&T and the formation of their current joint venture with TPG.) TPG will not own any part of the new joint venture. They want to liquidate their holding in DTV.


The failure in this scenario is that it simply replaces TPG with DISH's pay TV operation in controlling DIRECTV. AT&T doesn't get substantially closer to their goal of liquidating DIRECTV.

From the standpoint of the FTC and others who concern themselves with viable competition, DISH pay TV is effectively identical to DIRECTV and competition is effectively removed from the DBS marketplace.


----------



## west99999 (May 12, 2007)

TPG is now a publicly traded company.


----------



## Mike Lang (Nov 18, 2005)

How many more subscribers does each company need to lose before they're considered small enough for it to not be an issue?


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

harsh said:


> The failure in this scenario is that it simply replaces TPG with DISH's pay TV operation in controlling DIRECTV. AT&T doesn't get substantially closer to their goal of liquidating DIRECTV.


AT&T will probably never be able to liquidate DIRECTV because no one wants it. They tried finding a buyer for several months and all they could find was TPG, who was only willing to (temporarily) buy 30% with the caveat that they essentially be in the driver's seat so that they could quickly steer it toward a tie-up with DISH as soon as they believed the government would allow it.

The same holds true for DISH. No one would buy it outright. The reality is that both satellite TV operations generate a fair amount of cash but that profit stream is in irreversible long-term decline. There would probably be no upside for a third-party buyer unless they were able to purchase either business at a fire-sale price. So the best thing for both AT&T and DISH to do is just to join forces and merge their TV operations in order to cut costs and make that business as profitable as possible until it dies. Should they merge, they'll continue to generate cash that will be split between AT&T and DISH according to whatever formula is struck in the merger negotiations.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

harsh said:


> It isn't nonsensical at all from the satellite reception perspective. If you can program a DISH receiver to handle SWiM, you're almost done. MoCA differences may be a show stopper.


I doubt there are any MoCA differences. The SoCs used in both Directv and Dish hardware are industry standard, and almost certainly support both the band Directv uses and the band Dish uses (plus others that neither use)

With the appropriate software I have little doubt a Hopper 3 could talk to a Directv SWM dish or switch.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

harsh said:


> Two satellite constellations don't cost a whole lot more than one (mostly electricity) and there are significant advantages to where the DISH satellites are located. It has always been DISH's plan to have two constellations (though the Western Arc was supposed to be considerably further west). MPEG2 is nobody's friend and there's still no deadline from DIRECTV other than losing or upgrading those MPEG2 customers "naturally" while DISH has already eliminated MPEG4 from the Eastern Arc (though some in EA regions are still using the WA constellation).
> 
> In four years, I'd imagine things will be pretty grim for satellite TV in general as more and more of the traffic moves to broadband and, hopefully, broadband access also improves. I have a nagging feeling if someone doesn't take control soon, the denser weaving of the LEO blanket may create some situations for all Ku traffic (perhaps worse for Ka).


Two arcs don't cost much more until it is time to replace those satellites. How old are Dish's satellites? Directv's core fleet will last until at least 2030, and there may no longer be any point to satellite TV after that time (which is why I don't think the merger will happen at all, there isn't enough time left to save enough money to pay for the merger overhead)

One of Dish's arcs is still MPEG2 so they have as many MPEG2 channels as Directv. Directv could eliminate MPEG2 anytime they wanted (contracts permitting) but there is no longer any gain for them to do so. They don't need the bandwidth. So what's the rush? Dish on the other hand is bandwidth starved in the western arc, they could probably eliminate the 129 satellite if they dropped MPEG2 so they have reasons to want to do so.

It doesn't matter how many LEO satellites there are, it won't affect Ku or Ka AT ALL.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

NashGuy said:


> AT&T will probably never be able to liquidate DIRECTV because no one wants it.


Liquidate as far as selling the assets instead of selling the company as a whole would be possible, but that would leave the remaining satellite subscribers without a company and the value of the Ka satellites and licenses without the subscribers would not be as high as the value with the customers.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

slice1900 said:


> Two arcs don't cost much more until it is time to replace those satellites. How old are Dish's satellites? Directv's core fleet will last until at least 2030, and there may no longer be any point to satellite TV after that time (which is why I don't think the merger will happen at all, there isn't enough time left to save enough money to pay for the merger overhead)


DISH launched their final sat, EchoStar 23, in March 2017 with an expected lifespan of 15 years, possibly longer. But that satellite was originally intended to mainly (solely?) serve Latin America. Last year DISH was trying to move that sat to 110W. Not sure how it would be used at that location or how much of the US it would cover (if it ever got moved).

Prior to that, Wikipedia shows the two most recent DISH sat launches to be the EchoStar 15 and 14, both launched in 2010 with reportedly a 15 year life expectancy, i.e. possibly dying in 2025. It looks like EchoStar launched other satellites last decade after the EchoStar 15 and before no. 23, although I don't know if those sats are used for DISH at all.

Here's a relevant quote from a NextTV story from Aug. 2021:

_"Dish launched its last satellite, EchoStar XXIII, more than five years ago," MoffettNathanson analyst Craig Moffett wrote in a note to investors, published earlier this week. 

"Of their 11 operating satellites, only two are less than a decade old. Each of Dish's satellites has an estimated useful life of about 15 years. In another five and a half years, only one of their 11 satellites will still be inside its estimated useful lifespan," Moffett added. 

Technically, the 5.5 metric-ton communications satellite known as EchoStar XXIII was put into orbit by SpaceX in March of 2017, putting it around five months past its fourth birthday. But Moffett's larger point is taken. _


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Mike Lang said:


> How many more subscribers does each company need to lose before they're considered small enough for it to not be an issue?


Unfortunately that seems to be the direction DIRECTV is going. The Sirius XM merger was allowed because broadcast and streaming were considered effective competition and the two companies both would not survive.

There are easily less satellite subscribers between the two companies than DIRECTV had at it's peak. (There are less total subscribers, satellite and streaming, between the two companies than AT&T had at their peak).

Hopefully TPG being publicly traded will reveal the status of DIRECTV. Then again, AT&T is publicly traded and they have been able to not report the details of the company.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

James Long said:


> Liquidate as far as selling the assets instead of selling the company as a whole would be possible, but that would leave the remaining satellite subscribers without a company and the value of the Ka satellites and licenses without the subscribers would not be as high as the value with the customers.


Shutting down DTV as an ongoing business and simply selling what's left of the useful life of their last remaining satellite(s) wouldn't fetch much cash. That's a worst-case scenario.


----------



## DefinitelyIan (Apr 9, 2013)

I hate to break it to all the satellite TV fans here, but any type of merger would not result in any major technology changes or consolidations. Linear TV is a dying industry and satellite is taking a lot of the brunt early on. The customer base on both satellite platforms will continue to dwindle at a rapid rate. The sheer cost to do truck rolls, replace equipment and satellites is too extreme for a dying industry. 

A merger of Dish/DTV would follow the same pattern that Sirius & XM did. Both Sirius and XM satellite platforms are still up and running. SXM switched to only selling new XM platform hardware several years ago with the intent of retiring the Sirius platform at some point and repurposing the spectrum. With so many Sirius receivers out there and it being too cost expensive to replace, they're letting the platform ride and the sub count slowly dwindle until such time it makes sense to shut it down. 

If Dish/DTV happens, they'll pick a platform to put any new subs on and then let both platforms exist until the sub count on one of them is low enough to migrate with less cost or just completely shut down. While that's going on, they'll do everything to force people to one of the streaming platforms. Combine all of the efforts by wireless carriers to push 5G into rural areas, we'll see satellite TV become a very niche market.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

slice1900 said:


> I doubt there are any MoCA differences. The SoCs used in both Directv and Dish hardware are industry standard, and almost certainly support both the band Directv uses and the band Dish uses (plus others that neither use)


DISH uses F band in a singular way while DIRECTV uses a couple of different E band configurations. The bandwidth, frequency and any associated filters of the MoCA transciever would need to be under software control and I doubt that this is the case.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

NashGuy said:


> Shutting down DTV as an ongoing business and simply selling what's left of the useful life of their last remaining satellite(s) wouldn't fetch much cash. That's a worst-case scenario.


Given how much of their satellite fleet that is tied up in uniquely configured Ka, I can't imagine anyone wanting to incorporate that into their engineering model. Still, that's pretty much the bulk of what DIRECTV represents when parted out.

The local receive and uplink facilities could be picked up by someone but who could need them?


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

DefinitelyIan said:


> I hate to break it to all the satellite TV fans here, but any type of merger would not result in any major technology changes or consolidations. Linear TV is a dying industry and satellite is taking a lot of the brunt early on. The customer base on both satellite platforms will continue to dwindle at a rapid rate. The sheer cost to do truck rolls, replace equipment and satellites is too extreme for a dying industry.
> 
> A merger of Dish/DTV would follow the same pattern that Sirius & XM did. Both Sirius and XM satellite platforms are still up and running. SXM switched to only selling new XM platform hardware several years ago with the intent of retiring the Sirius platform at some point and repurposing the spectrum. With so many Sirius receivers out there and it being too cost expensive to replace, they're letting the platform ride and the sub count slowly dwindle until such time it makes sense to shut it down.
> 
> If Dish/DTV happens, they'll pick a platform to put any new subs on and then let both platforms exist until the sub count on one of them is low enough to migrate with less cost or just completely shut down. While that's going on, they'll do everything to force people to one of the streaming platforms. Combine all of the efforts by wireless carriers to push 5G into rural areas, we'll see satellite TV become a very niche market.


Yup. And to add to what you wrote, we may see DISH itself evolve from a pure DBS service to a hybrid DBS/IPTV this decade. It actually already is, a little bit; there are a few channels (like some of the secondary HBO and Cinemax channels that were recently added back to DISH) that are not distributed via satellite at all, only via a broadband connection to the Hopper/Joey. But those live streaming channels show up in the channel program guide like a normal channel and work the same way; they can be paused and recorded to the DVR hard drive. And DISH's on-demand platform is already streaming-based. It isn't out of the question that additional linear channels (e.g. less popular ones) could be shifted from satellite to streaming distribution (perhaps due to failing satellites) or that in time we might see DISH optionally offer the entire suite of channels via streaming, without the need for a rooftop dish and its expensive installation. And that could also allow for better picture quality thanks to greater bandwidth devoted to each channel and/or more advanced compression codecs (e.g. HEVC or AV1 instead of the aging MPEG-4 h.264 used for HD delivery via satellite).

Some of the critiques that DBS fans have against streaming cable TV services like DirecTV Stream or YouTube TV is that trick play on live TV isn't as good and that cloud DVR isn't as good in some ways as local DVR. Having a custom TV box and remote, with a built-in hard drive for DVR, could remedy those shortcomings. And it looks like the soon-to-debut next generation of DISH Hopper and Joey hardware will be based on Android TV, with access to Google's app store, allowing those boxes to surpass even Comcast's X1 platform in terms of being an "all-in-one" box that can deliver whatever content the viewer wants.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

The biggest problem with moving customers away from satellite is that there are many places for them to go. DIRECTV doesn't own their customers and DISH doesn't own their customers. Both have a portion of their subscriber base under commitment but they can't force those customers to change from satellite to streaming and require the customer to keep their commitment.

If DIRECTV and DISH push people away from satellite those customers can easily find another company. What both companies need to do (and DISH has done with some success) is give their satellite customers (and other consumers) a good place to go.

DISH lost 4 million satellite subscribers over the past five years but they managed to add a million Sling subscribers - by giving customers a good place to go. 23% of DISH TV's subscribers are Sling.DIRECTV has not had that level of success encouraging customers leaving satellite to go to what is now DIRECTV Stream.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

James Long said:


> DIRECTV has not had that level of success encouraging customers leaving satellite to go to what is now DIRECTV Stream.


I'd bet that it has been more successful than you think. There are more than a few dyed-in-the-wool DIRECTV DBS subs who have switched since the product was rebranded.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Got numbers or a gut feeling? The last numbers reported support the statement I made.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

James Long said:


> Hopefully TPG being publicly traded will reveal the status of DIRECTV. Then again, AT&T is publicly traded and they have been able to not report the details of the company.


Reporting financials of a joint venture is not required. It isn't a matter of going out of their way to hide them. All of the shareholders of the joint venture are surely well aware of the situation without a public announcement.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

James Long said:


> Got numbers or a gut feeling? The last numbers reported support the statement I made.


Mine is indeed a gut feeling based on anecdotal evidence here and elsewhere. I don't think anyone outside DIRECTV and their shareholders has ever seen numbers for DIRECTV Stream.

I think it is fair to say that DIRECTV Stream is a significant improvement over AT&T TV in most aspects other than price.


----------



## Janice805 (Nov 27, 2005)

I have both Direct TV (Satellite, 24 years) and Direct TV Stream (a couple of months). One thing I can say for sure is the picture quality for the Stream product is nowhere as good as the Satellite. I don't think most people would notice unless they have both, record the same shows for comparison, then watch them. Also, I've run into too many glitches with the Stream Product. For further info, I use my Roku and Direct TV's Stream Box for watching.


----------



## JoeTheDragon (Jul 21, 2008)

NashGuy said:


> I expect all (or nearly all) of the current sports programming available on _either_ service to be available through the new unified DISH service. Those missing RSNs will probably return to DISH by next year (if not this year) as optional add-ons given that Sinclair is getting ready to launch them as a standalone streaming service anyway. Once that happens, every large MVPD is going to insist on de-bundling their RSNs and making them optional once their current carriage contract is up.


The issue with the NHL, NBA, MLB trying there own nationwide steaming with local games. Is that the teams That OWN there own local rights may need to sue under antitrust laws look at this case https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Needle,_Inc._v._National_Football_League
teams are distinct economic actors with separate economic interests that are capable of conspiring under §1 of the Sherman Act.[1] 

With the issues that Sinclair is facing in be blocked by MLB with starting there own will they be willing to take de-bundling their RSN while standalone streaming is tied up in court? Some teams may even want to lock in year round subs.

and for places like sports bars will they do things like NO HDCP needed for live sports? Keep live sports feeds on some kind of cable / dish service?


----------



## compnurd (Apr 23, 2007)

Janice805 said:


> I have both Direct TV (Satellite, 24 years) and Direct TV Stream (a couple of months). One thing I can say for sure is the picture quality for the Stream product is nowhere as good as the Satellite. I don't think most people would notice unless they have both, record the same shows for comparison, then watch them. Also, I've run into too many glitches with the Stream Product. For further info, I use my Roku and Direct TV's Stream Box for watching.


Then there is something wrong with your Roku or your TV stream has a much higher bit rate than satellite


----------



## litzdog911 (Jun 23, 2004)

Janice805 said:


> I have both Direct TV (Satellite, 24 years) and Direct TV Stream (a couple of months). One thing I can say for sure is the picture quality for the Stream product is nowhere as good as the Satellite. I don't think most people would notice unless they have both, record the same shows for comparison, then watch them. Also, I've run into too many glitches with the Stream Product. For further info, I use my Roku and Direct TV's Stream Box for watching.


I still have both DirecTV Satellite and just added DirecTV Stream. I can't see any video quality difference with either my DirecTV Stream box or Rokus. I have 1Gig fiber internet, so perhaps that makes a difference.


----------



## Janice805 (Nov 27, 2005)

I don't know then how to explain it except that I "see" a difference. Some shows on Stream (using the DTV Box) say 1080P and some say 720P. My internet connection is 600 mpbs/20 upload and I watch 4K Dolby Vision programming on Netflix and Disney+ and other stuff that looks REALLY great on other streaming services.

But the DTV Stream picture looks "soft" compared to DTV Satelitte which to me looks "sharper". I don't know how else to explain it.


----------



## compnurd (Apr 23, 2007)

Janice805 said:


> I don't know then how to explain it except that I "see" a difference. Some shows on Stream (using the DTV Box) say 1080P and some say 720P. My internet connection is 600 mpbs/20 upload and I watch 4K Dolby Vision programming on Netflix and Disney+ and other stuff that looks REALLY great on other streaming services.
> 
> But the DTV Stream picture looks "soft" compared to DTV Satelitte which to me looks "sharper". I don't know how else to explain it.


Sounds like your input settings need adjusted


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

JoeTheDragon said:


> The issue with the NHL, NBA, MLB trying there own nationwide steaming with local games. Is that the teams That OWN there own local rights may need to sue under antitrust laws look at this case American Needle, Inc. v. National Football League - Wikipedia
> teams are distinct economic actors with separate economic interests that are capable of conspiring under §1 of the Sherman Act.[1]
> 
> With the issues that Sinclair is facing in be blocked by MLB with starting there own will they be willing to take de-bundling their RSN while standalone streaming is tied up in court? Some teams may even want to lock in year round subs.
> ...


Sinclair/Bally has now nailed down in-market streaming rights with lots of NHL and NBA teams. So the MLB is the only league they don't have covered yet. It's possible that the MLB will do its own separate thing or, if they can get the terms they want, they'll join the other two leagues on Bally. We'll see what happens. But I think we'll see Bally do direct-to-consumer streaming regardless, even if they only have the NHL and NBA.

Meanwhile, Bally has no plans to stop offering their RSNs via traditional cable TV services. So no one, including sports bars, will be forced to switch to a streaming app for those games.


----------



## JoeTheDragon (Jul 21, 2008)

NashGuy said:


> Sinclair/Bally has now nailed down in-market streaming rights with lots of NHL and NBA teams. So the MLB is the only league they don't have covered yet. It's possible that the MLB will do its own separate thing or, if they can get the terms they want, they'll join the other two leagues on Bally. We'll see what happens. But I think we'll see Bally do direct-to-consumer streaming regardless, even if they only have the NHL and NBA.
> 
> Meanwhile, Bally has no plans to stop offering their RSNs via traditional cable TV services. So no one, including sports bars, will be forced to switch to a streaming app for those games.


Just saying how willing will they be with traditional cable TV services to go make it an add on and how many cable systems will point to the direct-to-consumer and say we want that to be an add on channel?

and will the MLB teams end up in court to get the right for there local RSN to be able to have games be on direct-to-consumer?

Also need to plan for an way to get sports bars to have RSN's as traditional cable TV services die or drop RSN's that really can't do streaming or adding streaming may be an lot of work.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

James Long said:


> DISH lost 4 million satellite subscribers over the past five years but they managed to add a million Sling subscribers - by giving customers a good place to go. 23% of DISH TV's subscribers are Sling.DIRECTV has not had that level of success encouraging customers leaving satellite to go to what is now DIRECTV Stream.





harsh said:


> I'd bet that it has been more successful than you think. There are more than a few dyed-in-the-wool DIRECTV DBS subs who have switched since the product was rebranded.


I saw a chart this month from Moffat Nathanson who tracks this stuff. (Can't find it at the moment to link, sorry.) It showed the growth of the various vMVPDs over time. I don't know where they got their recent figures for DTV Stream -- maybe they're just estimates? Anyhow, it looked like they had it at about 1.75 million subs at end of 3Q 21. IIRC they had it at about 1 million back at 1Q 20 when AT&T TV launched nationwide.

Both figures are greater than I was expecting, to be honest. I guess those Serena Williams TV ads are helping to get the word out. But still well short of Sling's reported 2.56 million subs at the end of 3Q 21.

Sling grew by only 100k subs (from 2.46 to 2.56 million) over the year ending 11/30/21. I don't think Sling is mainly recouping DISH drop-outs. That's a bit of it, I guess. They're just targeting streamers looking for a cheap skinny no-locals cable channel bundle. It's a smart play because it complements rather than competes with DISH. DTV Stream, meanwhile, is clearly intended as a direct replacement for DTV satellite. But as Sling's recent growth indicates, I think that service has nearly topped out in terms of finding folks interested in the kind of skinny bundles they sell for $35-50 per month. It should still grow going forward, but only slowly.

Perhaps if DTV and DISH merge, we'd see them combine the two streaming services by offering those skinny Sling bundles inside the DTV Stream app at their current Sling prices and then just shut Sling down. Can't really see the point of marketing, operating and supporting both and it seems to me that DTV Stream has the higher quality software and back-end system. And I'd say the DIRECTV brand (despite the AT&T years) is definitely more associated with premium quality than the Sling brand.


----------



## wmb (Dec 18, 2008)

NashGuy said:


> Can't really see the point of marketing, operating and supporting both and it seems to me that DTV Stream has the higher quality software and back-end system. And I'd say the DIRECTV brand (despite the AT&T years) is definitely more associated with premium quality than the Sling brand.


The point of operating both is the same as why Proctor and Gamble sell Gain and Tide detergents and GM has both Chevrolet and Cadillac. Different products and prices for different customers.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

AT&T's lack of transparency (whether or not reporting is required) makes subscriber counts difficult to follow. At the end of 2020 AT&T reported 16.5 million "premium TV" customers and 656k "AT&T Now" customers. Where did AT&T TV fit in? I assume under the "premium TV" category where DIRECTV satellite and UVERSE streaming were placed. After the end of AT&T Now, AT&T only reported one subscriber figure. DTV Now peaked at 1.8 million subscribers in 2018.

DIRECTV Stream should have millions of subscribers. AT&T was selling AT&T TV to UVerse internet subscribers in place of the old UVerse TV product. While UVerse internet subscribers are free to choose any streaming service (or none) AT&T TV was a natural. In any case, the four buckets of subscribers to DIRECTV (satellite, former uverse, former AT&T Now, former AT&T TV now stream) are somewhere in the count.

BTW: I did not say that Sling TV only marketed to former DISH subscribers, only that adding a million Sling subscribers helped over the longer period of time where they lost four million satellite customers. The same period of time where AT&T lost over 10 million total subscribers. I suspect some of those 10 million became Sling TV subscribers.


----------



## wmb (Dec 18, 2008)

NashGuy said:


> Sinclair/Bally has now nailed down in-market streaming rights with lots of NHL and NBA teams. So the MLB is the only league they don't have covered yet.


I thought the MLB thing with Bally was that Bally wanted to operate an out-of-market streaming service in competition with Extra Innings? 

It would seem if there was in-market streaming rights, they would have them since you can (used to be under Fox anyway) to stream in-market using authentication. If that were the case, it seems that the local cable cos would be stakeholders for the in-market streams.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

JoeTheDragon said:


> and for places like sports bars will they do things like NO HDCP needed for live sports?


A properly configured HDMI chain can support any and all HDCP schemes. This is a red herring.

If someone is still using 720p TVs or component video distribution systems, they deserve all the frustration they get.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

wmb said:


> The point of operating both is the same as why Proctor and Gamble sell Gain and Tide detergents and GM has both Chevrolet and Cadillac. Different products and prices for different customers.


Point taken. I guess it's possible that a hypothetical merged DISH/DTV would continue to operate both streaming brands, Sling and DTV Stream. Guess it would come down to the cost savings in marketing, software development, and customer support for one service vs. however many net customers they think they might lose by consolidating the two services down to a single app/brand. 

It seems to me that most folks who use these "cord-cutter" streaming cable TV services aren't super brand-loyal and are pretty comfortable moving between different streaming app UIs. So I don't think it would cost them many Sling subs if they gave them a, say, 6 month window to voluntarily transfer their account over to DTV Stream, where they'd pay the same price to get the same channels, the same included 50-hr cloud DVR (i.e. more than double what is standard on traditional DTV Stream packages) and perhaps a bigger on-demand library, not to mention the superior picture and sound quality of DTV Stream. And of course that would allow DTV Stream to say "packages starting at $34.99" in their ads.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

wmb said:


> I thought the MLB thing with Bally was that Bally wanted to operate an out-of-market streaming service in competition with Extra Innings?
> 
> It would seem if there was in-market streaming rights, they would have them since you can (used to be under Fox anyway) to stream in-market using authentication. If that were the case, it seems that the local cable cos would be stakeholders for the in-market streams.


No, MLB already operates an out-of-market streaming service called MLB.tv via their own app. Bally isn't trying to do any out-of-market stuff.

Bally currently has in-market broadcast rights for most MLB teams via the Bally Sports RSNs, as well as the right to stream those games in-market but only to customers who are paying subscribers to their RSNs via a cable bundle (i.e., their current Bally Sports app requires a cable log-in). What they want to do is begin streaming those same games in-market to customers as a standalone subscription service (i.e. no cable package subscription required). Their plan is to use the same app and subscribers can sign in either way, via cable authentication or with a standalone login just for that app (i.e. the same way the HBO Max app works).


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

James Long said:


> At the end of 2020 AT&T reported 16.5 million "premium TV" customers and 656k "AT&T Now" customers. Where did AT&T TV fit in?


They explained that the AT&T TV customers were counted in the "Premium TV" class. AT&T TV NOW had become a grandfathered offering.

I imagine they might have been trying to discount how much impact that might have if they all left for much cheaper pastures since the NOW gimmick was its very low (sometimes free) price.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

NashGuy said:


> Point taken. I guess it's possible that a hypothetical merged DISH/DTV would continue to operate both streaming brands, Sling and DTV Stream.


I would.

Keep Sling TV as the bargain brand: Orange, Blue or both then add on packages (similar to Flex Packs on satellite) just as it is today. Let DTV Stream live on as the overpriced brand just as it is today (if people are willing to pay that much then let them). My marketing department would need to convince me to introduce a medium price level for people who wanted better than Sling TV but not as pricey as DIRECTV Stream. A merger (or acquisition by DISH  ) would not be immediate so we are talking post Sunday Ticket exclusive pricing. Perhaps DISH would turn DIRECTV Stream into the mid priced service. 

But whomever owns the services each service would be tied to the agreements each company has already been made with channels. We saw that when DIRECTV merged with UVERSE and everybody (or at least every uniformed body) claimed there would be an immediate merger of channel lineups with cats sleeping with dogs ... er, UVERSE contracted channels on DIRECTV and DIRECTV contracted channels on UVERSE.

Yep ... UVERSE subscribers didn't get access to Sunday Ticket via their closed network streaming service and DIRECTV subscribers didn't get access to PAC-12. Keeping contracts in mind I wouldn't expect anyone who merged all the DISH and DIRECTV services to be any more successful in merging channel offerings. Separate offerings is the most likely outcome.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

James Long said:


> I would.
> 
> Keep Sling TV as the bargain brand: Orange, Blue or both then add on packages (similar to Flex Packs on satellite) just as it is today. Let DTV Stream live on as the overpriced brand just as it is today (if people are willing to pay that much then let them). My marketing department would need to convince me to introduce a medium price level for people who wanted better than Sling TV but not as pricey as DIRECTV Stream. A merger (or acquisition by DISH  ) would not be immediate so we are talking post Sunday Ticket exclusive pricing. Perhaps DISH would turn DIRECTV Stream into the mid priced service.
> 
> ...


But AT&T did merge channel offerings. As they renewed carriage contracts, they did so to cover satellite, UVerse TV and their streaming services. But they never bothered to restructure the Uverse TV packages because it was destined to be deprecated once the streaming platform matured enough to roll out AT&T TV as its successor. And of course AT&T TV/DTV Stream does have the same channel packages as DTV satellite, with just a few exceptions.

If DTV and DISH are joined under the same company, I guess the easiest way of thinking about what I foresee isn't so much to say that they two would _merge_ but rather that DTV would die, with DISH taking over the billing and customer support operations for those customers who would be allowed to keep their DTV hardware and channel package unless and until they chose to switch to the still-ongoing DISH branded service. They'd continue to operate the DTV satellites, of course, and at least some of the existing DTV employees would be kept on in the combined company. But in terms of the brand that would advertised and the set of offerings sold to consumers, it would just look like DISH survived and DTV died (at least with regard to satellite TV service).

I remain skeptical that the Sling brand is well-known enough as a cut-rate/bargain streaming cable TV service to justify keeping it around as a separate brand as opposed to just offering its channel packages as less-touted cheaper options within the DTV Stream (or whatever it would be called) line-up. Anyhoo, it's all speculation. Maybe we'll see how it unfolds in 2023...


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

NashGuy said:


> But in terms of the brand that would advertised and the set of offerings sold to consumers, it would just look like DISH survived and DTV died (at least with regard to satellite TV service)


Which brings me back to the question of why would DISH merge with DIRECTV. The deal as presented would be good for TPG to bail them out of their decision to invest but it would not be good for DISH. Mr Ergen doesn't want to pay billions for a 30% stake. DISH doesn't need to assume debt. If they want DIRECTV's customers they just have to wait for the system to die. Maybe next year AT&T/TPG will have a better offer.


----------



## wmb (Dec 18, 2008)

James Long said:


> Which brings me back to the question of why would DISH merge with DIRECTV.


There is no good reason, but that never stopped mergers in the past.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Who is better suited than DISH to handle DBS customers? Bringing an additional 8 million customers onboard with the synergies that exist would be a win for DISH and, most likely for the former DIRECTV customers.


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

harsh said:


> Bringing an additional 8 million customers onboard with the synergies that exist


It's pretty easy to type here ! But solve such nightmare with a merge of two big companies in reality ?
I wouldn't offer such job position to you


----------



## MysteryMan (May 17, 2010)

harsh said:


> Who is better suited than DISH to handle DBS customers? Bringing an additional 8 million customers onboard with the synergies that exist would be a win for DISH and, most likely for the former DIRECTV customers.


I would be a former DIRECTV customer if this were to happen but I wouldn't consider it a win for me. DISH is the leader for channels going dark among the service providers. Just look at how long DISH customers were without HBO not too long ago.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

MysteryMan said:


> I would be a former DIRECTV customer if this were to happen but I wouldn't consider it a win for me. DISH is the leader for channels going dark among the service providers. Just look at how long DISH customers were without HBO not too long ago.


I reason that the alternative is going to be a non-recoverable bankruptcy so pick your poison. DIRECTV's pricing is putting their product out of reach relative to most alternatives so I suspect that there's going to be a reckoning on caving in to content owner demands as the old 20+ million subscriber fat becomes very, very lean.

Do you envision a better or more likely candidate?

You may be steadfast, but I can recall many claiming that they would drop DIRECTV like a hot potato if AT&T took over.


----------



## MysteryMan (May 17, 2010)

harsh said:


> I reason that the alternative is going to be a non-recoverable bankruptcy so pick your poison. DIRECTV's pricing is putting their product out of reach relative to most alternatives so I suspect that there's going to be a reckoning on caving in to content owner demands as the old 20+ million subscriber fat becomes very, very lean.
> 
> Do you envision a better or more likely candidate?
> 
> You may be steadfast, but I can recall many claiming that they would drop DIRECTV like a hot potato if AT&T took over.


Currently there are 75 local network affiliates and 31 regional sports networks blacked out on DISH due to carriage battles, so yeah, If DISH and DIRECTV merge I'm gone. The only way Charlie could keep me as a customer is by letting me stay out of contract permanently.


----------



## NYDutch (Dec 28, 2013)

MysteryMan said:


> Currently there are 75 local network affiliates and 31 regional sports networks blacked out on DISH due to carriage battles, so yeah, If DISH and DIRECTV merge I'm gone. The only way Charlie could keep me as a customer is by letting me stay out of contract permanently.


I've been a DISH subscriber since 2008 and have never had a contract with them.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

James Long said:


> Which brings me back to the question of why would DISH merge with DIRECTV. The deal as presented would be good for TPG to bail them out of their decision to invest but it would not be good for DISH. Mr Ergen doesn't want to pay billions for a 30% stake. DISH doesn't need to assume debt. If they want DIRECTV's customers they just have to wait for the system to die. Maybe next year AT&T/TPG will have a better offer.


Who knows exactly how the deal would be structured but I would think that the only cash paid up-front by AT&T and DISH would be going to TPG to buy out their stake in DTV. (And either side might finance that buyout payment via a long-term loan from an outside bank.) For the most part, the deal would just be an equity swap. AT&T goes from owning 70% of DTV to some smaller share (e.g. 60%) of the new company, "American Satellite TV LLC" or whatever it's called. Meanwhile, DISH would own the remainder of the new company. Profits from the new company would flow back to the parent companies, AT&T and DISH, according to their respective ownership stakes, e.g. 60% and 40%. 

There's good reason to believe that those two satellite TV services would create higher combined profits if operated under a single company than would be the case now, operated under two independent competing companies thanks to reduced costs, reduced customer churn, etc.

As for Ergen waiting for DTV to die, that's not going to happen any time soon. In fact, DISH is the service whose satellite fleet will die out first unless they launch a costly new satellite (something that DTV invested in and launched just a few years ago). So Charlie sees value in DTV's sats if he wants to keep his business generating cash into the late 2020s. But even if that weren't the case, there's the simple opportunity cost of NOT merging as soon as possible. Because if he and other DISH shareholders could get, let's say, 10% higher profits on their satellite TV business every year post-merger, then why not do it now rather than later?

You may be right that Ergen could get a better deal in, say, mid-2023, after DTV takes the hit of losing those customers who stuck around only because of NFL ST, which will be gone from DTV by then. (But of course any deal struck this year would attempt to factor that in anyway, and Ergen might benefit from an exaggerated prediction of how much the loss of NFL ST would hurt DTV next year.) OTOH, every year that goes by means reduced bandwidth on the DISH satellite fleet as old birds die. His last remaining sats may no longer be viable as soon as 2026. So I'm not really sure to what degree time is on Ergen's side when it comes to strengthening his negotiating stance.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

MysteryMan said:


> Currently there are 75 local network affiliates and 31 regional sports networks blacked out on DISH due to carriage battles, so yeah, If DISH and DIRECTV merge I'm gone. The only way Charlie could keep me as a customer is by letting me stay out of contract permanently.


If the two were to merge, I wouldn't expect Charlie to have nearly the level of control over the combined business as he does now with DISH. He'd still have input, I'm sure, but so would AT&T (who would likely be the majority owner of the new company). There would probably be a new CEO agreeable to both sides put in place to run the new company. Charlie's main focus in terms of day-to-day business operations would be his new 5G thing.

As existing carriage agreements on either the DTV side or the DISH side expire, you'd see the combined company renegotiate and renew them to cover all customers. Of course, the larger combined customer base would give the company a stronger hand in negotiating those renewed agreements. The combined company would still have to honor the remainder of all those DTV contracts. And DTV customers would be grandfathered in on their existing DTV package (and equipment) as long as they wanted to keep it. But gradually over time they might see a channel here or there get added or removed from their package as a consequence of those old DTV contracts lapsing.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

harsh said:


> I reason that the alternative is going to be a non-recoverable bankruptcy so pick your poison.


Directv was still generating $4 billion a year in cash for AT&T before it was spun off, so any bankruptcy would be many years away. Directv may be losing customers at a faster clip than Dish, but still has many more of them, so it is an open question which of them would go bankrupt first if they remain separate.

I don't see any reason to see why Dish would be the last one standing unless Ergen is willing to allow all those cellular investments to keep the DBS business afloat once it goes in the red. Ergen might decide to spin off the cellular part and leave the DBS side saddled with all the debt used to acquire those licenses, putting it in far worse shape than Directv.

I'm not sure anyone's DBS is viable in 10 years or so from now, whether combined or separate.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

slice1900 said:


> Directv was still generating $4 billion a year in cash for AT&T before it was spun off, so any bankruptcy would be many years away.


IIRC (perhaps incorrectly), TPG's share of the DIRECTV debt was around $6B, that suggests that the combined debt is somewhere around $20B.

You can bet that AT&T and TPG wouldn't be satisfied with using all the returns to pay down the debt.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

MysteryMan said:


> Currently there are 75 local network affiliates and 31 regional sports networks blacked out on DISH due to carriage battles, so yeah, If DISH and DIRECTV merge I'm gone.


One of the reasons that I went with DISH back in the day is that DIRECTV had failed to reach agreement with my local CBS affiliate (KOIN, then owned by Emmis) for six months. It isn't all wine and roses.


----------



## MysteryMan (May 17, 2010)

NashGuy said:


> If the two were to merge, I wouldn't expect Charlie to have nearly the level of control over the combined business as he does now with DISH. He'd still have input, I'm sure, but so would AT&T (who would likely be the majority owner of the new company). There would probably be a new CEO agreeable to both sides put in place to run the new company. Charlie's main focus in terms of day-to-day business operations would be his new 5G thing.
> 
> As existing carriage agreements on either the DTV side or the DISH side expire, you'd see the combined company renegotiate and renew them to cover all customers. Of course, the larger combined customer base would give the company a stronger hand in negotiating those renewed agreements. The combined company would still have to honor the remainder of all those DTV contracts. And DTV customers would be grandfathered in on their existing DTV package (and equipment) as long as they wanted to keep it. But gradually over time they might see a channel here or there get added or removed from their package as a consequence of those old DTV contracts lapsing.


Your response is interesting but you're giving Charles Ergen and AT&T way too much credit. When negotiating with content providers Ergen has repeatedly demonstrated he could care less how many channels go dark and for how long they stay that way. As for AT&T, they have continuously demonstrated their ability of turning gold into lead and f***ing up the Lord's Prayer during a Sunday Sermon. That said, the two working together is a worse case scenario.


----------



## MysteryMan (May 17, 2010)

harsh said:


> One of the reasons that I went with DISH back in the day is that DIRECTV had failed to reach agreement with my local CBS affiliate (KOIN, then owned by Emmis) for six months. It isn't all wine and roses.


True, but Charlie's DISH has continuously been the front runner of having the highest number of channels going black than other service providers.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

MysteryMan said:


> True, but Charlie's DISH has continuously been the front runner of having the highest number of channels going black than other service providers.


If that allows me to have a monthly bill that is $50 less than the average DIRECTV subscriber, I'm mostly okay with that. I am a little bitter about the ROOT thing.


----------



## MysteryMan (May 17, 2010)

harsh said:


> If that allows me to have a monthly bill that is $50 less than the average DIRECTV subscriber, I'm mostly okay with that. I am a little bitter about the ROOT thing.


I totally agree. With all the channels that go dark on DISH your monthly bill should be $50.00 less than the average DIRECTV subscriber.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

MysteryMan said:


> Your response is interesting but you're giving Charles Ergen and AT&T way too much credit. When negotiating with content providers Ergen has repeatedly demonstrated he could care less how many channels go dark and for how long they stay that way. As for AT&T, they have continuously demonstrated their ability of turning gold into lead and f***ing up the Lord's Prayer during a Sunday Sermon. That said, the two working together is a worse case scenario.


OK but how is anything you said there a logic or fact-based response to anything I wrote?


----------



## krel (Mar 20, 2013)

MysteryMan said:


> I totally agree. With all the channels that go dark on DISH your monthly bill should be $50.00 less than the average DIRECTV subscriber.
> [/QUOTE
> who in the hell wants to put up with channels going dark


----------



## krel (Mar 20, 2013)

MysteryMan said:


> True, but Charlie's DISH has continuously been the front runner of having the highest number of channels going black than other service providers.


while i will side with charlie for cheaper rates. but if you really think about it it's a money grab for him to since the bills don't go down and only keep going up


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

MysteryMan said:


> Currently there are 75 local network affiliates and 31 regional sports networks blacked out on DISH due to carriage battles, so yeah, If DISH and DIRECTV merge I'm gone.


DIRECTV has carriage contracts with channels. Whomever owns DIRECTV inherits the carriage contracts that were signed by the predecessor ... in effect until they expire.

DIRECTV will not be immediately dropping channels, regardless of who buys them.



NashGuy said:


> As for Ergen waiting for DTV to die, that's not going to happen any time soon. In fact, DISH is the service whose satellite fleet will die out first unless they launch a costly new satellite (something that DTV invested in and launched just a few years ago).


Unless DIRECTV has completely ended their downhill slide of subscriber numbers they will have working satellites but few customers. I suppose at some point their subscriber losses will level off ... but I suspect that point will be after they pass DISH on the way down.



MysteryMan said:


> True, but Charlie's DISH has continuously been the front runner of having the highest number of channels going black than other service providers.


DIRECTV is poised to lose all of their channels ... unless you think they will continue transmitting with only a few million subscribers paying the overhead. 









If the trends stay the same in two years DISH will be the bigger company. All Mr Ergen has to do is wait.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

James Long said:


> 32017[/ATTACH]
> 
> If the trends stay the same in two years DISH will be the bigger company. All Mr Ergen has to do is wait.



Directv could function just fine with only a few million subscribers. They don't need to build any new satellites, new broadcast centers or heck even any new models of equipment really.

I'll bet you any amount of money you want Dish won't be bigger than Directv in two years.


----------



## codespy (Mar 30, 2006)

slice1900 said:


> Directv could function just fine with only a few million subscribers. They don't need to build any new satellites, new broadcast centers or heck even any new models of equipment really.
> 
> I'll bet you any amount of money you want Dish won't be bigger than Directv in two years.


I’ll second that. And I’ll still be with DirecTV even if they lose ST….and no I do not work for nor have any affiliation with them other than as a sub.


----------



## MysteryMan (May 17, 2010)

slice1900 said:


> Directv could function just fine with only a few million subscribers. They don't need to build any new satellites, new broadcast centers or heck even any new models of equipment really.
> 
> I'll bet you any amount of money you want Dish won't be bigger than Directv in two years.


I totally agree.


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

slice1900 said:


> I'll bet you any amount of money you want Dish won't be bigger than Directv in two years.


Would you fulfil your bet, it the company would merge as a part of dish or if DTV will going bankrupt ?


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

slice1900 said:


> I'll bet you any amount of money you want Dish won't be bigger than Directv in two years.


That is entirely in the hands of DIRECTV. I do not see them stopping the slide toward zero within the next two years. Even a drastic reduction in their slide won't stop them from passing DISH on the way down.

While I appreciate the loyalty of those who will be DIRECTV's last customers I am talking about a company that is losing millions of net subscribers each year. I am talking about a company where their subscriber figures are so poor that they stopped reporting them. I am talking about a company where their latest major investor (TPG) wants out less than a year after they closed the deal to get in. I am talking about a company where there are fewer signs of survival than failure.

Feel free to keep your optimism and loyalty. I'll keep looking at what facts are available. I have some optimism that DIRECTV would survive for a few more years but to do that they need to maintain or increase profits. The last reported profits (3Q 2021) were drastically down.

The Titanic was a good ship to board in Southampton, Cherbourg and Cobh as it was leaving Europe. Even after it struck the iceberg there were some who thought it would never sink. I don't expect DISH to be bailing out TPG. They need a much better offer. TPG is selling tickets on the Titanic after it struck the iceberg. Not a good deal.


----------



## Mike Lang (Nov 18, 2005)

I'm fully prepared to drop DTV when there's a better option *for me personally*. So far, I haven't found one.


----------



## MysteryMan (May 17, 2010)

Mike Lang said:


> So far, I haven't found one.


Same here. I've been a DIRECTV customer since 1995 but have never found a better option in all those years.


----------



## b4pjoe (Nov 20, 2010)

Mike Lang said:


> I'm fully prepared to drop DTV when there's a better option *for me personally*. So far, I haven't found one.


If price is more important than features and/or content then there are better options. I'm not there yet.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

James Long said:


> That is entirely in the hands of DIRECTV. I do not see them stopping the slide toward zero within the next two years. Even a drastic reduction in their slide won't stop them from passing DISH on the way down.
> 
> While I appreciate the loyalty of those who will be DIRECTV's last customers I am talking about a company that is losing millions of net subscribers each year. I am talking about a company where their subscriber figures are so poor that they stopped reporting them. I am talking about a company where their latest major investor (TPG) wants out less than a year after they closed the deal to get in. I am talking about a company where there are fewer signs of survival than failure.
> 
> ...


DISH continues a "slide toward zero" as well, although at a significantly slower pace than DTV in the past couple years. And nothing is going to completely arrest the slide toward zero satellite TV subs, whatever the brand. That business is in long-term irreversible decline.

One thing DTV has going for it now is DTV Stream, which they've finally begun to aggressively market. That business is growing and helping to offset _some_ of the satellite losses (with a level of profitability per average sub that is supposedly equal to, if not slightly greater, than on satellite). And, of course, I'm sure a fair amount of the growth DTV Stream is seeing comes from existing customers transferring over from DTV satellite. Still though, that's important; far better to keep those customers than lose them. (As an aside, from what I've read, the situation with DISH vs. Sling is not the same because Sling is a very low-margin product; DISH would much rather have a customer on satellite than on Sling. Although recent price hikes at Sling should have improved the margins there somewhat.)

My guess is we'll see a substantial bump-up in DTV sat cancellations in 2023, after the conclusion of NFL ST, but with a decent slice of those customers shifting over to DTV Stream.

I will concede that right now, between DTV and DISH, DTV is probably the more motivated of the two to merge (due in no small part to TPG's role). If DTV continues to bleed subs at a substantially faster rate than DISH, then if a deal isn't struck until say, two years from now, DISH might be looking at 50/50 ownership of the joint venture rather than something more like 40/60 now, which is a reason for DISH to wait it out. But that has to be weighed against two more years of DISH having to compete against DTV by undercutting them on price. And two years from now -- 2024 -- would put DISH potentially only two years out from the loss of all their sats, a fact that would surely undercut their negotiating position versus DTV somewhat. And then there's the fact that '24 is a presidential election year, which might encourage the Biden admin and Dems in Congress to make a show of standing up for rural voters by denouncing a DISH/DTV merger. So there are clearly some risks for DISH in waiting _too_ much longer to make a deal.

I don't think we'll see DTV continue to let their overall subscriber base melt away at the current rate indefinitely. (I say "current rate" to mean what we saw in recent years. We haven't seen figures since 2Q 21, so we don't really know if the losses have begun to stabilize or not.) If they're not close to a merger deal a year from now, I suspect that they'll have to settle for lower margins (i.e. lower prices for consumers) in order to slow their subscriber decline. That could mean more generous limited-term price reductions for long-time satellite customers and/or lower everyday pricing on DTV Stream. Such moves would help them better compete for subs versus DISH, YTTV, Hulu Live, and the local cable provider. DTV satellite is still trying to sell service with regular pricing as if they're still seen as the nation's premium pay TV operator. But they're not really perceived that way any more for a number of reasons. And once they lose their NFL ST exclusivity, they'll really have no basis to support charging higher prices versus competitors.


----------



## compnurd (Apr 23, 2007)

NashGuy said:


> DISH continues a "slide toward zero" as well, although at a significantly slower pace than DTV in the past couple years. And nothing is going to completely arrest the slide toward zero satellite TV subs, whatever the brand. That business is in long-term irreversible decline.
> 
> One thing DTV has going for it now is DTV Stream, which they've finally begun to aggressively market. That business is growing and helping to offset _some_ of the satellite losses (with a level of profitability per average sub that is supposedly equal to, if not slightly greater, than on satellite). And, of course, I'm sure a fair amount of the growth DTV Stream is seeing comes from existing customers transferring over from DTV satellite. Still though, that's important; far better to keep those customers than lose them. (As an aside, from what I've read, the situation with DISH vs. Sling is not the same because Sling is a very low-margin product; DISH would much rather have a customer on satellite than on Sling. Although recent price hikes at Sling should have improved the margins there somewhat.)
> 
> ...


I dont think the Sunday Ticket loss is going to have a huge effect. At last count they only had somewhere between 2-3 million subs and that didn't distinguish between commercial and who they give for free also


----------



## AZ. (Mar 27, 2011)

compnurd said:


> I dont think the Sunday Ticket loss is going to have a huge effect. At last count they only had somewhere between 2-3 million subs and that didn't distinguish between commercial and who they give for free also


It would affect my decision, but also what the NFL does with it...Internet is slow and even unreliable here....So few more moving parts for me to decide if I walk away from Direct.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

compnurd said:


> I dont think the Sunday Ticket loss is going to have a huge effect. At last count they only had somewhere between 2-3 million subs and that didn't distinguish between commercial and who they give for free also


I don't think it's unreasonable to think that the loss of NFL ST might lead to the loss of an additional 1 million satellite TV subs in 2023 beyond whatever number they would lose anyway (for other reasons having nothing to do with NFL ST). Not unreasonable at all to think they'll be down to 10 million satellite subs by the start of 2023; losing an extra 10% of your subscriber base over the course of that year is pretty significant. Maybe not "huge" as you put it, but still pretty bad.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

MysteryMan said:


> With all the channels that go dark on DISH your monthly bill should be $50.00 less than the average DIRECTV subscriber.


Few would pay an extra $600/year to rush their local Tegna station(s) back and return ROOT to their guide.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Mike Lang said:


> So far, I haven't found one.


Have you looked?

You're going to need to find something unless you plan on giving up on TV in the next five years or so.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

NashGuy said:


> One thing DTV has going for it now is DTV Stream, which they've finally begun to aggressively market.


Don't confuse aggressively marketed with successful or even competitive.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

James Long said:


> I am talking about a company where their latest major investor (TPG) wants out less than a year after they closed the deal to get in.


The expressed purpose of the JV was to liquidate a "non-core" AT&T asset. Getting rid of only 30% is not much of a liquidation.

TPG knew what they were getting into and where still willing to help. I don't agree that TPG obviously regrets their participation in the JV.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

harsh said:


> Don't confuse aggressively marketed with successful or even competitive.


The only thing I have to rely on in terms of DTV Stream's success is a recent chart I saw created by MoffetNathanson. Seemed to indicate that the service has grown every quarter recently and reach about 1.75 million subs at the end of 3Q 21, putting it in 4th place among MVPDs behind YTTV and Hulu Live tied for first at about 4 million each, and Sling in third with 2.56 million.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Fourth place in a two-horse race is what they call an "also-ran".

Now that fuboTV is adding LiL, they're better poised as a competitor to YTTV and DIRECTV Stream.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

NashGuy said:


> DISH continues a "slide toward zero" as well, although at a significantly slower pace than DTV in the past couple years.


The chart in my previous post was intentionally scaled at 27 million subscribers so one could compare DIRECTV's triple black diamond slide to DISH's bunny slope. The third chart (where the lines for DISH and DIRECTV cross) shows the eventual "run out of customers" for both services, based on the last known rates (averaged out - not just their last quarter).


NashGuy said:


> One thing DTV has going for it now is DTV Stream, which they've finally begun to aggressively market.


I believe having one brand helps ... especially with keeping subscribers within the brand. It is an easier sales pitch to do "beam or stream" (which is also promoting old school satellite). But aggressive marketing needs to show results.


NashGuy said:


> DISH would much rather have a customer on satellite than on Sling.


DISH would rather have a customer on Sling than on YouTube TV or AT&T TV or any of the other OTTs. Satellite is the better product but revenue matters.


NashGuy said:


> I will concede that right now, between DTV and DISH, DTV is probably the more motivated of the two to merge (due in no small part to TPG's role). If DTV continues to bleed subs at a substantially faster rate than DISH, then if a deal isn't struck until say, two years from now, DISH might be looking at 50/50 ownership of the joint venture rather than something more like 40/60 now, which is a reason for DISH to wait it out.


Are you basing the ownership percentage on the subscriber balance? I believe DISH would push for 100% ownership before accepting a corporate owner like AT&T as a partner owner. (And no, I don't expect TPG to walk away without losing money.)

The deal really needs to be sweet for Charlie Ergen. Appeal to what he wants. There is an advantage to giving Mr Ergen the merger he has wanted for decades but that advantage is lost if DISH doesn't own the combined company. The less Mr Ergen owns the less interested he will be.


NashGuy said:


> I don't think we'll see DTV continue to let their overall subscriber base melt away at the current rate indefinitely.


I'm not sure they have a choice. I expect some leveling off, but getting from triple black diamond to bunny slope doesn't happen easily and if TPG had the secret formula to slow the slide I'd expect that they would be 1) publicly proclaiming victory in turning DIRECTV around and 2) not be looking to sell without doing #1.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

James Long said:


> Are you basing the ownership percentage on the subscriber balance? I believe DISH would push for 100% ownership before accepting a corporate owner like AT&T as a partner owner. (And no, I don't expect TPG to walk away without losing money.)
> 
> The deal really needs to be sweet for Charlie Ergen. Appeal to what he wants. There is an advantage to giving Mr Ergen the merger he has wanted for decades but that advantage is lost if Mr Ergen doesn't own a majority of the combined company.


LOL. That's nuts. Charlie needs cash to built out his 5G network (else he's going to lose his licenses) and he'd be a fool to double-down on satellite TV, a dying business, right now. I don't see DISH buying out DTV or vice-versa. The only course that makes sense is for the two sides to join forces and split the enhanced revenues that would come from having a single business.

Oh, DISH Wireless and their 5G build-out brings up another angle that could come into play in merger talks. Perhaps the deal would involve some sort of 5G collaboration between AT&T and DISH in addition to a satellite TV joint venture.



James Long said:


> I'm not sure they have a choice. I expect some leveling off, but getting from triple black diamond to bunny slope doesn't happen easily and if TPG had the secret formula to slow the slide I'd expect that they would be 1) publicly proclaiming victory in turning DIRECTV around and 2) not be looking to sell without doing #1.


Of course they have a choice. Consumer uptake of these vMVPDs, which are basically frictionless (all contract-free and easy for anyone with broadband to switch between them instantly), are very price-sensitive. They can easily grow the DTV Stream sub base by cutting prices, _although obviously at the cost of reduced profit margins_. It's not rocket science.


----------



## JoeTheDragon (Jul 21, 2008)

NashGuy said:


> I don't think it's unreasonable to think that the loss of NFL ST might lead to the loss of an additional 1 million satellite TV subs in 2023 beyond whatever number they would lose anyway (for other reasons having nothing to do with NFL ST). Not unreasonable at all to think they'll be down to 10 million satellite subs by the start of 2023; losing an extra 10% of your subscriber base over the course of that year is pretty significant. Maybe not "huge" as you put it, but still pretty bad.


the loss of NFL ST will be really bad for commercial but say it becomes directv commercial only with Joe Hand Promotions? Or will directv try to demand some kind of min package with an least local rsn's + espn? To get access to feeds from Joe Hand Promotions?


----------



## b4pjoe (Nov 20, 2010)

NashGuy said:


> LOL. That's nuts. Charlie needs cash to built out his 5G network (else he's going to lose his licenses) and he'd be a fool to double-down on satellite TV, a dying business, right now. I don't see DISH buying out DTV or vice-versa. The only course that makes sense is for the two sides to join forces and split the enhanced revenues that would come from having a single business.
> 
> Oh, DISH Wireless and their 5G build-out brings up another angle that could come into play in merger talks. Perhaps the deal would involve some sort of 5G collaboration between AT&T and DISH in addition to a satellite TV joint venture.
> 
> ...


When is the last time AT&T cut their prices? I’ll wait…


----------



## krel (Mar 20, 2013)

P Smith said:


> Would you fulfil your bet, it the company would merge as a part of dish or if DTV will going bankrupt ?


I bet that's when the merger will start if any does happen. once bankruptcy starts to loom over what ever one the other will buy it out for pennies on the dollar.


----------



## krel (Mar 20, 2013)

NashGuy said:


> LOL. That's nuts. Charlie needs cash to built out his 5G network (else he's going to lose his licenses) and he'd be a fool to double-down on satellite TV, a dying business, right now. I don't see DISH buying out DTV or vice-versa. The only course that makes sense is for the two sides to join forces and split the enhanced revenues that would come from having a single business.
> 
> Oh, DISH Wireless and their 5G build-out brings up another angle that could come into play in merger talks. Perhaps the deal would involve some sort of 5G collaboration between AT&T and DISH in addition to a satellite TV joint venture.
> 
> ...


I always thought that dish subs would go over to DTV since DTV is in better standing than dish.


----------



## codespy (Mar 30, 2006)

b4pjoe said:


> When is the last time AT&T cut their prices? I’ll wait…


My Regional Sports Fee went down $1.40 starting this month from last year.

(Just don’t ask me about my Premier Package increase). 😜


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

NashGuy said:


> LOL. That's nuts. Charlie needs cash to built out his 5G network (else he's going to lose his licenses) and he'd be a fool to double-down on satellite TV, a dying business, right now.


He would be a bigger fool to give up ownership or control of his company.



NashGuy said:


> They can easily grow the DTV Stream sub base by cutting prices, _although obviously at the cost of reduced profit margins_. It's not rocket science.


They do not seem to be following that advice.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

krel said:


> I always thought that dish subs would go over to DTV since DTV is in better standing than dish.


DISH posted more revenue than DIRECTV 3Q 2021 and about twice as much in profit. Better standing?


----------



## krel (Mar 20, 2013)

James Long said:


> DISH posted more revenue than DIRECTV 3Q 2021 and about twice as much in profit. Better standing?


I was thinking of subscribers


----------



## b4pjoe (Nov 20, 2010)

codespy said:


> My Regional Sports Fee went down $1.40 starting this month from last year.
> 
> (Just don’t ask me about my Premier Package increase). 😜


So they put some change in your front pocket while stealing your wallet out of your back pocket?


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

krel said:


> I was thinking of subscribers


Oh. DIRECTV has lost over 11 million subscribers since it's peak, DISH has lost less than six million (about 3 million including SlingTV - which is fair considering DIRECTV's numbers include streaming). Better standing?


----------



## codespy (Mar 30, 2006)

James Long said:


> Oh. DIRECTV has lost over 11 million subscribers since it's peak, DISH has lost less than six million (about 3 million including SlingTV - which is fair considering DIRECTV's numbers include streaming). Better standing?


Everyone here can speculate what could happen until the cows come home. Fact is, no one has true data on truly only Sat subs between the two companies for a reason- it’s all about corporate and shareholder profits. And no one here knows Jack if a merger will happen or not until something actually happens.

In the meantime both companies are profitable- and both have their advantages and weaknesses. For me, I’m not going to Dish, and other Dish subs aren’t going to DTV.

Satellite service will not be dying tomorrow for either company. What will be will be, so let’s just sit back and enjoy the service we have for now and the foreseeable future and quit with the speculating when no one here knows really anything about what may or may not be happening.

After Sat service is all eventually gone, many of us will already have gone dormant here on this site and several others may flock to different sites.

It’s time to R-E-L-A-X.

By the way, Go Pack! Sorry for the reference. 😀


----------



## wmb (Dec 18, 2008)

James Long said:


> He would be a bigger fool to give up ownership or control of his company.


At 68, Charlie may be looking for an out in the next few years. Cashing out would be estate planning.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

wmb said:


> At 68, Charlie may be looking for an out in the next few years. Cashing out would be estate planning.


I have always seen Charlie Ergen as one of those "died doing what he loved best" kind of people who really loves his job. I don't see him retiring. He stepped away from the CEO job a few years ago but remains active (chairman of the board and owner of over 90% of the voting power) in running his business. Emphasis on his business, which has been his life for the past 42 years.



codespy said:


> It’s time to R-E-L-A-X.


I agree ... there isn't going to be a merger any time soon. Certainly not on TPG's terms.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

James Long said:


> I have always seen Charlie Ergen as one of those "died doing what he loved best" kind of people who really loves his job. I don't see him retiring. He stepped away from the CEO job a few years ago but remains active (chairman of the board and owner of over 90% of the voting power) in running his business. Emphasis on his business, which has been his life for the past 42 years.



But is "what he loves doing best" going to be heading a satellite company on its way into bankruptcy? Which is true whether he runs Dish, Directv, or the two combined. Satellite is not going to be around much beyond a decade from now.

Why would he have made all those investments in cellular bands if he didn't want to move from a declining technology that is less and less important for tomorrow's world into one that's still growing and is more and more important for tomorrow's world? I think it is just as likely he spins off the cellular business and runs that, and sells out of Dish and Echostar. What does he have left to accomplish in the satellite business other than watch it sink into irrelevance?


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

The reports of satellite's death are greatly exaggerated. But yes, Mr Ergen is looking toward a future where Sling TV will be the company's primary content distribution system and the DISH 5G service will be used to connect subscribers to the Internet and content. If you see DISH as just a satellite company you have a very narrow vision.

Perhaps it is the influence of following DIRECTV through many corporate owners over the decades? So accustomed to seeing a satellite carrier passed off to the next owner then the next owner as some investment to be divested. Not as a dream that was realized and nurtured.

Cashing out and watching someone else run it into the ground would be painful. I expect Mr Ergen will stay at the helm for as long as he can. If the DISH company dies on his watch it had a nice run. But I don't expect it to die this decade.


----------



## wmb (Dec 18, 2008)

James Long said:


> The reports of satellite's death are greatly exaggerated.


Was satellite the product, or was it a mode of delivering the product? As a mode of delivery, satellite’s days (ok, years) appear numbered. 

As products go, it’s hard to see any difference between what the cable company, streamers, and satellite providers offer these days. Very little difference in channel lineups. Everyone does whole home DVR, on demand, etc. Sure, there are subtle differences in implementation of these added features, and people have certain preferences based upon these differences.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

wmb said:


> As a mode of delivery, satellite’s days (ok, years) appear numbered.


Every service and delivery method will end some day. The point is that number is higher than some people will admit.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

slice1900 said:


> But is "what he loves doing best" going to be heading a satellite company on its way into bankruptcy?


Like DIRECTV, DISH has a dog in the streaming fight. Unlike DISH, DIRECTV doesn't have something as indispensable as wireless to fall back on.

To assume that Charlie doesn't have deep pockets and a lot of friends with money is not reasoned opinion.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

b4pjoe said:


> When is the last time AT&T cut their prices? I’ll wait…


Yeah, so far they've never cut the stated regular prices but we really don't know what they're doing in terms of ARPU given the varying amounts of loyalty discounts they dole out to keep so many customers on board.

And even in the case of DTV Stream, rather than cutting the intro price from $70, they could include the unlimited cloud DVR at that price point rather than charging an extra $10/mo for it. That would make them more competitive with YTTV, Hulu Live and Fubo TV, on a cost/value basis, than they are now. And/or, they could offer an optional 1-yr contract for DTV Stream that comes with a monthly discount off the base price.

At any rate, if DTV remains on its own (i.e. not merged with DISH), then they're going to need to somehow improve the cost/value proposition to attract and retain subs, especially once the satellite service loses exclusive (and for many customers, free) NFL ST.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

codespy said:


> What will be will be, so let’s just sit back and enjoy the service we have for now and the foreseeable future and quit with the speculating when no one here knows really anything about what may or may not be happening.


Uh, posting/speculating/debating about a rumored DTV/DISH merger is the whole point of this thread. It's harmless entertainment. No one is making you read or post on this thread.


----------



## Phil T (Mar 25, 2002)

I have now gone full circle. Growing up I watched three networks on OTA TV. Got cable in the early 80's (I want my MTV) and then, when it got too expensive, went to Dish in 1997. When Charlie wouldn't give me a good promotion I switched to DirecTV in 2003. In 2017 AT&T ruined DirecTV and I went back to Comcast cable. Now pricing is out of control again so yesterday I disconnected the Comcast cable input to the CommScope splitter and ran the cable to it from my Televes Diganova Boss antenna. Called Comcast and switched to internet only, pulled the cable card and reprogrammed my lifetime Tivo Bolt Vox. I am now getting 80+ channels plus all major networks OTA for no cost. I have two Tivo minis so getting the same programming in three rooms.

I have an Apple TV, Roku and Amazon Fire Stick. I get Netflix through my 55+ T-mobile plan along with Apple TV + and Paramount + free for a year. I also have Amazon Prime. I may break down and subscribe to Discovery +. 

I think the satellite TV days are numbered. If Dish and DirecTV would merge I think it would be a good thing, but I thought the same 20 years ago. For me those days are long gone...


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

slice1900 said:


> Why would he have made all those investments in cellular bands if he didn't want to move from a declining technology that is less and less important for tomorrow's world into one that's still growing and is more and more important for tomorrow's world? I think it is just as likely he spins off the cellular business and runs that, and sells out of Dish and Echostar. What does he have left to accomplish in the satellite business other than watch it sink into irrelevance?


Agreed. Who knows exactly how the deal would be structured but what seems likeliest/most plausible to me is that DISH spins off its pay TV business and merges it (including its liabilities, getting that off the main DISH books) with DTV in a private company jointly owned by AT&T and DISH, a lot like what currently exists between AT&T and TPG for DTV. As I've said before, perhaps at that point DISH takes on a new corporate name that would reflect their forthcoming 5G service since that's what they would actually be directly managing. Charlie will remain CEO of that parent company, focused on the 5G business which I'm sure he's more excited about. 

The DISH, Sling, DTV, DTV Stream, and Uverse TV brands and services would be operated within the newly formed joint venture, with an oversight board appointed by AT&T and DISH. Charlie would still have influence on how that joint venture is run but it wouldn't be something he'd be involved with day-to-day. Perhaps part of the deal would involve AT&T and DISH somehow cooperating in the wireless space too. They've already struck a deal to make AT&T the primary network services partner for DISH's wireless brands (currently Boost, Ting and Republic Wireless). Certainly not out of the question that they'll strike further agreements.


----------



## b4pjoe (Nov 20, 2010)

NashGuy said:


> Yeah, so far they've never cut the stated regular prices but we really don't know what they're doing in terms of ARPU given the varying amounts of loyalty discounts they dole out to keep so many customers on board.
> 
> And even in the case of DTV Stream, rather than cutting the intro price from $70, they could include the unlimited cloud DVR at that price point rather than charging an extra $10/mo for it. That would make them more competitive with YTTV, Hulu Live and Fubo TV, on a cost/value basis, than they are now. And/or, they could offer an optional 1-yr contract for DTV Stream that comes with a monthly discount off the base price.
> 
> At any rate, if DTV remains on its own (i.e. not merged with DISH), *then they're going to need to somehow improve the cost/value proposition to attract and retain subs, especially once the satellite service loses exclusive (and for many customers, free) NFL ST.*


Which they should have already tried since the bleeding didn't just start yesterday but they've never given any indication of doing it up to this point. It's just not in their DNA to "get competitive" with the competition. I'm sure they would like to find another sucker like TPG though. Doubt it will be DISH though that bites on that stinky bait.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

NashGuy said:


> Uh, posting/speculating/debating about a rumored DTV/DISH merger is the whole point of this thread. It's harmless entertainment. No one is making you read or post on this thread.


I'm just glad to discover that you can indeed craft a post without at least five paragraphs of text.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

b4pjoe said:


> It's just not in their DNA to "get competitive" with the competition.


The way that DIRECTV has apparently been handing out discounts and freebies of late, I think someone has been tweaking the genome.

This doesn't do anything perceptible to attract new customers but it certainly helps stem the hemorrhaging.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

harsh said:


> I'm just glad to discover that you can indeed craft a post without at least five paragraphs of text.


Ha.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

harsh said:


> The way that DIRECTV has apparently been handing out discounts and freebies of late, I think someone has been tweaking the genome.
> 
> This doesn't do anything perceptible to attract new customers but it certainly helps stem the hemorrhaging.


Perhaps. For satellite, their game plan should only be to hold onto to existing subs (and attract any new ones who are specifically looking for NFL ST). DTV Stream should be where they're trying to attract new subs for the most part, which of course is why they're now advertising it heavily while hardly advertising satellite at all.


----------



## b4pjoe (Nov 20, 2010)

harsh said:


> *The way that DIRECTV has apparently been handing out discounts and freebies of late, I think someone has been tweaking the genome.*
> 
> This doesn't do anything perceptible to attract new customers but it certainly helps stem the hemorrhaging.


You see a lot posts on these forums of people getting discounts but I think that is a very small amount of the entire subscriber base. I think the great majority never asks for discounts and just pays the bill every month. I was like that for the first 20+ years of being a DTV subscriber. Heck I didn’t know it was even possible until I started reading this forum a few years ago.


----------



## APB101 (Sep 1, 2010)

Let’s say the merge will actually happen.

_When_ does it need to happen?


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

APB101 said:


> Let’s say the merge will actually happen.
> 
> _When_ does it need to happen?


The answer depends on which company you are thinking about.

TPG needs it to happen while they can still get their investment back.
AT&T needs it to happen while there is still a company to save.
I don't believe DISH needs it to happen.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

b4pjoe said:


> I think the great majority never asks for discounts and just pays the bill every month. I was like that for the first 20+ years of being a DTV subscriber. Heck I didn’t know it was even possible until I started reading this forum a few years ago.


By the same token, there are millions of DIRECTV subscribers who aren't represented here and negotiation certainly doesn't require a actively sharing one's results with a post on DBSTalk.

For many, sharing discount successes is a "mine is bigger than yours" competition.

It is pretty clear that the trend among posters here has been a substantial upswing in offers.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

James Long said:


> I don't believe DISH needs it to happen.


DISH could certainly use a mass infusion of subscribers. Look what Boost did for them.

As I said previously, perhaps even Echostar could benefit from any patent holdings that DIRECTV may still have.


----------



## codespy (Mar 30, 2006)

harsh said:


> By the same token, there are millions of DIRECTV subscribers who aren't represented here and negotiation certainly doesn't require a actively sharing one's results with a post on DBSTalk.
> 
> For many, sharing discount successes is a "mine is bigger than yours" competition……


I don’t really agree with that assessment. Like b4pjoe explained above- didn’t even know discounts were possible before until reading the thread. I and many others were in the same boat. Services like Spectrum and others give nothing in the form of monthly discounts.

I’m glad people share their experiences here. The thread is pretty popular in the 8.5 year run so far, and it helps educate what’s available out there using good faith negotiations with the provider/CSR’s. Of course, we will likely never know the algorithms that DirecTV uses across different subs. 

The subs that call to ‘cancel’ to see what might be offered when they really don’t intend to cancel- well that’s different imho and not the approach I would take, although it’s interesting to read what others have been offered over time.

Oops, I contributed to veering off topic![/QUOTE]


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

harsh said:


> DISH could certainly use a mass infusion of subscribers. Look what Boost did for them.


DISH doesn't get to count Boost subscribers as DISH TV subscribers.



harsh said:


> As I said previously, perhaps even Echostar could benefit from any patent holdings that DIRECTV may still have.


Can you name one where DISH/Echostar does not already own or have rights to a similar patent and needs DIRECTV's technology?


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

James Long said:


> Can you name one where DISH/Echostar does not already own or have rights to a similar patent and needs DIRECTV's technology?


One of those - AMC. Advanced Modulation and Coding, using for A3 transponders mostly for Ka sats, but they're using it on a few tpns of Ku sats.
Second (by TiVo, but DTV have an agreement of using it) - indexing of video PID files. They making I-frame marks instead of harsh time marks by dish indexing (remember dish litigation ? failed!); trick play is intensively using the marks


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

DISH settled the Tivo lawsuit several years ago and can use the method DISH infringed on. But during the lawsuit DISH stopped using Tivo's method and developed their own. DISH does not need DIRECTV to not use a process they don't want.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

b4pjoe said:


> Which they should have already tried since the bleeding didn't just start yesterday but they've never given any indication of doing it up to this point. It's just not in their DNA to "get competitive" with the competition. I'm sure they would like to find another sucker like TPG though. Doubt it will be DISH though that bites on that stinky bait.


FYI, as of today, DTV Stream has done away with charging an extra $10/mo for cloud DVR. It's now included in every package at no extra cost, including the base Entertainment package which is staying at $70/mo. Looks like they're getting at least somewhat more competitive with the competition. 

For comparison, YouTube TV has a somewhat different channel package with unlimited cloud DVR for $65/mo. Hulu with Live TV costs $70/mo but has only 50 hrs of cloud DVR without the ability to FF through ads, although it also comes with Disney+ and ESPN+ at no extra cost. You can upgrade their cloud DVR to 200 hrs with the ability to skip ads for an extra $10/mo. None of the three include RSNs. For those, you need DTV Stream's Choice package, which is about to go up to $90/mo.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

James Long said:


> The answer depends on which company you are thinking about.
> 
> TPG needs it to happen while they can still get their investment back.
> AT&T needs it to happen while there is still a company to save.
> I don't believe DISH needs it to happen.


DISH satellites are going to last FOREVER!


----------



## b4pjoe (Nov 20, 2010)

NashGuy said:


> FYI, as of today, DTV Stream has done away with charging an extra $10/mo for cloud DVR. It's now included in every package at no extra cost, including the base Entertainment package which is staying at $70/mo. Looks like they're getting at least somewhat more competitive with the competition.


That is good news. Now they need to do away with that 90 day time limit. At least match YTTV 9 month time period.


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

James Long said:


> developed their own


I knew that from its files not from press-release. It was very bad solution for smooth trick play, for sure.


----------



## compnurd (Apr 23, 2007)

b4pjoe said:


> That is good news. Now they need to do away with that 90 day time limit. At least match YTTV 9 month time period.


I am fine with 90 days if i havent watched it by then i am not going to.. or i can find it on demand later


----------



## b4pjoe (Nov 20, 2010)

Not everyone is like that though. And accodring to the website you are not elgible for the free unlimited Cloud DVR.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

b4pjoe said:


> That is good news. Now they need to do away with that 90 day time limit. At least match YTTV 9 month time period.


Agreed. That's another of the improvements I've been saying for a year or more that they should make to the service: extend the unlimited cloud DVR to at least 9 months (same as YTTV), although one year would be best (same as Xfinity's cloud DVR).


----------



## litzdog911 (Jun 23, 2004)

b4pjoe said:


> Not everyone is like that though. And accodring to the website you are not elgible for the free unlimited Cloud DVR.


Folks in the DirecTV support forum claim that existing customers will indeed get free unlimited Cloud DVR. We shall see if that's true. It's supposed to roll out over the next few days.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

James Long said:


> DISH doesn't get to count Boost subscribers as DISH TV subscribers.


I was using Boost to support the idea that DISH's revenue stream isn't limited to pay TV. DIRECTV sells only pay TV and service plans.


> Can you name one where DISH/Echostar does not already own or have rights to a similar patent and needs DIRECTV's technology?


The feature that gives DVRs the ability to record back-to-back programs on the same channel using the same tuner. I'd dearly love to have that capability with my OTA tuners.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

P Smith said:


> One of those - AMC. Advanced Modulation and Coding, using for A3 transponders mostly for Ka sats, but they're using it on a few tpns of Ku sats.


What practical advantage does this technology from 30 years ago offer over what DISH is using?

If I'm not wrong, AMC was developed by NASA which adds to the red herring factor.


> Second (by TiVo, but DTV have an agreement of using it) - indexing of video PID files. They making I-frame marks instead of harsh time marks by dish indexing (remember dish litigation ? failed!); trick play is intensively using the marks


TiVo patents are covered under the TiVo license. Bad example.

"Skip to tick" may or may not be related.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

harsh said:


> The feature that gives DVRs the ability to record back-to-back programs on the same channel using the same tuner. I'd dearly love to have that capability with my OTA tuners.


That's patented by DIRECTV? Wow. They should sue DISH for infringement since I can record back-to-back programs on my DISH Hopper on any of the four major networks (24/7). I have not tried that on random satellite channels lately (such as recording a marathon on a cable channel without burning two tuners for the overlaps). But the technology is there ... they just have to use it.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

NashGuy said:


> DISH satellites are going to last FOREVER!


Merging with DIRECTV will not replace DISH satellites (without the greater expense of changing dishes if you are still on that DISH receivers can receive DIRECTV satellites train of thought). But if DIRECTV wants to sell any usable Ku DBS satellites to DISH for a good price a deal could be made. With or without the licenses at 110 and 119. The companies do not have to merge for DISH to buy DIRECTV assets.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

James Long said:


> Merging with DIRECTV will not replace DISH satellites (without the greater expense of changing dishes if you are still on that DISH receivers can receive DIRECTV satellites train of thought). But if DIRECTV wants to sell any usable Ku DBS satellites to DISH for a good price a deal could be made. With or without the licenses at 110 and 119. The companies do not have to merge for DISH to buy DIRECTV assets.


Why would DTV sell to DISH the only one or two sats that they have which will outlast the DISH fleet into the late '20s-early 30s? Because DTV will obviously need their own sats to continue operating. I know you think their customer base will whittle down to zero within 3 or 4 years but I really don't think it will.

The reality is that both businesses need each other and that becomes only more true for each side as the years go by. They would be better off riding out the rest of their existence together than apart. Which is why, as Ergen has repeatedly said, a merger between DTV and DISH is *inevitable*. He knows what he's talking about.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

NashGuy said:


> Why would DTV sell to DISH the only one or two sats that they have which will outlast the DISH fleet into the late '20s-early 30s? Because DTV will obviously need their own sats to continue operating. I know you think their customer base will whittle down to zero within 3 or 4 years but I really don't think it will.


DIRECTV doesn't need the Ku satellites they could become a Ka only service. They don't have to lose customers before liquidating selected assets. Selling assets while remaining in business as a Ka competitor to DISH would be easier for the government to accept, give DIRECTV some money (return on their investment) and help DISH. No merger required.

DISH doesn't need a merger. Mr Ergen's never stated that a merger was needed for DISH to survive. Consider it a prediction that eventually DISH will control DIRECTV. On Mr Ergen's terms.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

James Long said:


> DIRECTV doesn't need the Ku satellites they could become a Ka only service. They don't have to lose customers before liquidating selected assets. Selling assets while remaining in business as a Ka competitor to DISH would be easier for the government to accept, give DIRECTV some money (return on their investment) and help DISH. No merger required.


Not sure that plan would be feasible (and even if it was, it would be sub-optimal in terms of profitability for both sides versus simply merging). DTV's newest sat, T16, was launched in 2019. They wouldn't sell that one. The next-newest is the T15, launched in 2015, and it supports both Ku and Ka. Then there's the T14, launched in 2014, which is Ka-only, so likely wouldn't be sold under your "DTV-goes-Ka-only" scenario. Older than that and we're getting into sats launched in 2009 and earlier, meaning that their expected lifespan isn't any greater than anything DISH already is using.

So the only sat I could _possibly_ see DTV selling to DISH under the scenario you proposed would be the T14 T15, which is expected to operate until 2029. That might last DISH long enough to see them to the point where cable TV via DBS ceases to be a viable business. But again, it's a sub-optimal alternative to both businesses merging years before that point. Cable TV via DBS as a nationwide consumer service will remain viable longer if there's only one such business operating in the latter half of the 20s than if there are still two fighting it out with each other to see who bleeds out first.

EDIT: Corrected "T14" to "T15" in the second para (see strikethrough).


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Ok ... back up a step and tell me how a merger changes the situation? According to you DISH will still need new satellites. How does a merger increase the feasibility of DIRECTV giving up theirs? Or are you suggesting the new company spend money moving DISH subscribers over to DIRECTV? Sure - that will help profitability.  Or are you expecting the companies to hold hands and go over the cliff together like Thelma and Louise?

I'm still not seeing a reason for a merger other that what I previously stated (to help DIRECTV and TPG). DISH don't need no stinking merger. Especially a stinky one like the one being suggested in this thread.


----------



## wmb (Dec 18, 2008)

James Long said:


> Ok ... back up a step and tell me how a merger changes the situation? According to you DISH will still need new satellites. How does a merger increase the feasibility of DIRECTV giving up theirs? Or are you suggesting the new company spend money moving DISH subscribers over to DIRECTV? Sure - that will help profitability.  Or are you expecting the companies to hold hands and go over the cliff together like Thelma and Louise?
> 
> I'm still not seeing a reason for a merger other that what I previously stated (to help DIRECTV and TPG). DISH don't need no stinking merger. Especially a stinky one like the one being suggested in this thread.


The big question is ‘where does the subscriber drop off stop?’ At some subscriber level, a company cannot operate profitably. Combining the companies could put the combined one over that threshold.

15 years ago, I saw a value add for satellite over cable in the fact that satellite offered more HD. D10 was about to come online. A DVR and free Sunday Ticket, for essentially the same price, such a deal. Today everyone has a full suite of HD. It took about 10 years for everyone to catch up. I’d still be a DirecTV customer today if they renewed my discount and my price didn’t double. Went to DirecTV Now, got my free Apple TV’s, and paid 1/3 my new D* bill.

My question about the future of satellite is what is the benefit that the customer will pay for? I get rural people that can’t get service any other way, but is that enough? When will the subscriber losses stop?

So, if subscriber losses don’t stop, a merger might be enough to allow the combined company to continue. Of course, cost of combining the systems will be non-trivial, but each company will need to buy new satellites and replace nonfunctional equipment anyway.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

James Long said:


> They should sue DISH for infringement since I can record back-to-back programs on my DISH Hopper on any of the four major networks (24/7).


I specifically said OTA and spoke of recording marathons on local subchannels and you're holding up PTAT as the answer.

The DISH scheduler will always demand two tuners (even if you zero the padding at both ends) to record consecutive programs on the same channel outside the decidedly narrow scope of PTAT.

The scheme used by DIRECTV can record back-to-back programs on the any one channel and tuner with full padding.

DISH's answer was giving the Hopper 3 a ton of tuners but that doesn't extend to how they treat OTA where the limit is two tuners.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

NashGuy said:


> Why would DTV sell to DISH the only one or two sats that they have which will outlast the DISH fleet into the late '20s-early 30s?


Because it is TPG's responsibility to liquidate DIRECTV and DISH would appear to be the logical choice from a synergy standpoint.


> Because DTV will obviously need their own sats to continue operating.


DIRECTV has been angling for many years to unburden themselves from dependence on the 110W and 119W slots. It is their failure to make the transition sufficiently attractive thus far that has prevented it. This most recent "free upgrade" program has been available since 2019 where it was intended to solve the problem by 2020.

DIRECTV has also placed their "spare" satellite, DIRECTV 15, into service to handle international programming from 103W so the plot thickens.

It isn't as if DIRECTV (since before AT&T) hasn't tried to sour the teat with some of the worst SD PQ extant but there are still lots of AVC-incapable receivers out there.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

harsh said:


> I specifically said OTA and spoke of recording marathons on local subchannels and you're holding up PTAT as the answer.


Ok ... calm down. No reason to be so ... harsh.

Are you claiming DIRECTV has a patent that allows them to record overlapping OTA programming that somehow DISH would be able to use but only with DIRECTV's permission? If so, please provide the patent number. Also, before wasting your time looking up the number tell us why dish would NEED that allegedly patented process. OTA is a minor part of their service. OTA is a minor part of DIRECTV's service as well. As any DIRECTV customer about how well OTA works on DIRECTV through whatever method DIRECTV kinda supports today. Even if you find the alleged patent, I don't believe DISH needs that patent.

The goal of DISH Network is not to make you, one customer, happy. Their goal is to keep most of their customers happy enough not to leave and make their service appealing enough that they can attract new customers to replace those who choose to leave. Not being able to record back to back OTA isn't a deal breaker and if you believe it is, why are you paying DISH?


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

If Directv wanted to sell Dish satellites and slots they have a perfect candidate. D8, which is currently using national beams to broadcast MPEG2 SD duplicate locals to a couple dozen markets at 119. It has fuel life until 2034, so Dish would get a lot of value out of it, and if they were selling off the 110 & 119 transponders to Dish they wouldn't have any use for D8 so they might as well sell it.

Any ideas that Directv would abandon 101 and go Ka only can only come from someone who is completely clueless about Directv. Why would they abandon the middle of their 99/101/103 area? What possible gain is there for them in doing that? Also, EVERY Directv receiver looks to 101 when it starts up. If they dropped 101 they'd have to update firmware to have them look at 99 or 103 instead, but that would break every single receiver is that powered off or otherwise not used when the firmware updates went out. They'd have to wait at least a couple years after making the change and still have people who were upset the receiver they kept as a backup or in a cabin only turned on to have something to do when it rains all day wouldn't work like it had before.

So forget the idea, Directv will NEVER abandon 101. And if they did, Dish would need new dishes/LNBs to use it so it doesn't even do them any good anyway.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

slice1900 said:


> EVERY Directv receiver looks to 101 when it starts up. If they dropped 101 they'd have to update firmware to have them look at 99 or 103 instead, but that would break every single receiver is that powered off or otherwise not used when the firmware updates went out.


An issue that remains whether or not the companies merge. A merger doesn't free up the Ku satellite at 101 any faster than making DIRECTV a good offer.

A firmware update is not impossible but considering how slowly DIRECTV has moved to get people off of 101 I agree that decommissioning 101 would be unlikely. To further expand the "not impossible" I'm sure there is a old Ku satellite owned by DISH or DIRECTV that could be put at 101 to serve as a beacon to the old receivers theoretically left unplugged for years. Such a beacon satellite would also allow DIRECTV to keep the licenses without considering the slot abandoned.



slice1900 said:


> So forget the idea, Directv will NEVER abandon 101. And if they did, Dish would need new dishes/LNBs to use it so it doesn't even do them any good anyway.


DIRECTV's Ku satellites could rebroadcast DISH transponders. Moving it to a DISH location was part of the "not impossible" scenario.

The argument in this case is would a merger make a difference? Would a combined DISH/DIRECTV make that move? (Move 101 to a DISH location and put something else there as a beacon.) If your answer is "great idea but DIRECTV would never go for it" then you would agree that a merger would make a difference. If your answer is "it will never happen merger or no merger" then we are back to the point I was making - a merger isn't going to make a difference.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

James Long said:


> Are you claiming DIRECTV has a patent that allows them to record overlapping OTA programming that somehow DISH would be able to use but only with DIRECTV's permission?


That DIRECTV implemented the feature and DISH didn't suggests that this is almost likely the case. In coarse terms it shouldn't be particularly difficult to tack the beginning of the next program onto the tail of the previous one.


> Also, before wasting your time looking up the number tell us why dish would NEED that allegedly patented process.


I explained previously that it could extend the utility of the DVRs that weren't Hopper 3s and often double the utility of the OTA tuner dongle on all Hoppers and the Wally.


> OTA is a minor part of their service.


I might buy into that very questionable claim if DISH hadn't made such a big deal of opting out of LiL.


> OTA is a minor part of DIRECTV's service as well.


This is mostly DIRECTV's fault for their on-again off-again interest and insufficient supply as opposed to a commentary on the value of OTA reception in a world where they only LiL a fraction (a respectable 20% in my market) of the available local channels. Used OTA tuner adapters for DIRECTV receivers are currently listed on eBay for as much as $199.99 + shipping! This suggests a pretty healthy demand given that the original retail price was $69.


> As any DIRECTV customer about how well OTA works on DIRECTV through whatever method DIRECTV kinda supports today.


DIRECTV has never officially supported OTA. They've offered admirable (except for their size) products but not a lot of help and updates have been sparse. I would point out that interest in these OTA solutions from subscribers of both services always rockets when there is an LiL carriage dispute.


> Even if you find the alleged patent, I don't believe DISH needs that patent.


That's nonsense. Intellectual property is something that DIRECTV has paid a lot for and they well know that if they don't defend it, they risk losing their investment.


> Not being able to record back to back OTA isn't a deal breaker and if you believe it is, why are you paying DISH?


I didn't say it was a deal breaker for me (although you might get that idea about mwdxer). I offered it as something to refute your summary dismissal of the value of DIRECTV's IP portfolio.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

harsh said:


> That DIRECTV implemented the feature and DISH didn't suggests that this is almost likely the case.


You are starting with a bad assumption. Once you have taken the wrong fork in the road it doesn't matter how far you drive, you can't get to the right destination until you correct the error and get back on the right path.

The decision whether or not to implement a feature or decisions on how to implement a feature are not 100% driven by patent restrictions. Assuming that DISH didn't do something only because they were legally blocked from doing something is a bad assumption. The added assumption that a merger would cause DISH to change their processes and perform the recordings the way you want them to is just another bad assumption.

If you are going to claim that a merger would allow DISH to use a DIRECTV patent then there should at least be a valid patent behind your claim. Otherwise it is just noise.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

James Long said:


> Ok ... back up a step and tell me how a merger changes the situation? According to you DISH will still need new satellites. How does a merger increase the feasibility of DIRECTV giving up theirs? Or are you suggesting the new company spend money moving DISH subscribers over to DIRECTV? Sure - that will help profitability.  Or are you expecting the companies to hold hands and go over the cliff together like Thelma and Louise?
> 
> I'm still not seeing a reason for a merger other that what I previously stated (to help DIRECTV and TPG). DISH don't need no stinking merger. Especially a stinky one like the one being suggested in this thread.


Good god man, I've written this up multiple times already, including in this thread. Just go back and read my earlier posts if you really want to understand. The upshot is that by combining forces rather than fighting each other in a battle to the death, DISH+DTV will be able to cut costs, reduce competition/churn, negotiate better channel rates thanks to a larger subscriber base, and therefore enjoy a higher level of profitability. What each side has complements the other. DISH has better technology (Hopper and Joey DVRs) while DTV has a newer satellite fleet with greater capacity which will remain operational into the 2030s, long after DISH's last sat burns out.

It's not absolutely necessary at this point that either side merge with the other, although doing so would be optimal versus the current situation. As time goes by, though, a merger will become increasingly necessary due to DISH's looming satellite burn-outs and both sides' dwindling subscriber bases.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Satellites mean nothing without subscribers. You seem to easily dismiss DIRECTV's freefall of subscriber count. Your earlier posts claimed "increased revenues" for a combined service. Being one service does not increase combined revenue.

There would be some reduction in costs with a combined service but nothing immediate. DIRECTV cannot shut down their system and move everyone over to DISH and DISH can't shut down their system and move over to DIRECTV. The conversion cost burns up any savings. Customer Service is scalable at both companies. Where is any massive cost savings coming from? Firing upper management? Using the word "synergy" doesn't change the balance sheet.

I believe you are overestimating the life of DIRECTV as a company and underestimating the life of DISH satellites. I believe you are completely overlooking the fact that AT&T is looking for a way to get DIRECTV off of their books (moderately successful with the sale to TPG) and TPG would like to do the same. DISH is not looking to get out of the satellite business. DISH doesn't need no stinking merger. DISH and Mr Ergen can wait for a better deal.

It really isn't a battle to the death.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

James Long said:


> It really isn't a battle to the death.


Methinks you've made underestimated the cult-like brand loyalty. Then again, what people say they actually do isn't particularly equal. If it were, millions of DIRECTV would have cancelled the instant that the AT&T takeover was consummated.

Having one company manage the whole wad would axe a lot of the most expensive employees. That's a synergy. Being able to consolidate billing, support and installation functions are all synergies that may not lead to halving the workforce but they will likely significantly reduce the costs. Over time the synergies and advertising efforts could be more finely tuned to address a smaller set of competitors.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

harsh said:


> Having one company manage the whole wad would axe a lot of the most expensive employees. That's a synergy.


Firing upper management?


harsh said:


> Being able to consolidate billing, support and installation functions are all synergies that may not lead to halving the workforce but they will likely significantly reduce the costs.


If it takes X number of people to support DISH and Y number of people to support DIRECTV why would it take less than X+Y people to support a merged company? Cross training the employees doesn't change the workload. That sort of "synergy" sounds like poor management that has led to companies failing.


harsh said:


> Over time the synergies and advertising efforts could be more finely tuned to address a smaller set of competitors.


Merging DISH and DIRECTV would eliminate one competitor. A reduction of one competitor. They don't seem to be focused on fighting each other now. DIRECTV has a web page that says they are better than DISH because of NFL Sunday Ticket. In a year they will have to fall back on other claims.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

James Long said:


> Firing upper management?


Either that or demote them if they don't leave on their own. You can't afford keep them all out of charity.


> If it takes X number of people to support DISH and Y number of people to support DIRECTV why would it take less than X+Y people to support a merged company?


Because there is a lot of overlap that wouldn't need to be there. It doesn't take two CEOs (or CFOs, CTOs, COOs and various vice presidents) to oversee a company that would be about the same size as DIRECTV once was at its peak with only one of each. That's a few million dollars right there.


> Cross training the employees doesn't change the workload.


There are many tasks that are identical between companies and there's no training needed. Accounting and advertising typically don't involve skills that aren't unique to any business. In the modern age of computer billing, Accounting in particular scales quite nicely. Every little bit helps.

There are likely to be significant gains (especially in customer satisfaction) to be had from DIRECTV no longer subcontracting their customer-facing services from AT&T.

Finally, if subcontracting makes sense, it is perhaps a better value to shop a single large account than two small ones.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

You are misreading my post. Each line of my reply was specific to the text quoted above it. You spoke of support people, I replied and now you are twisting it and making a comment about getting rid of C suite people. Please be more careful in your reading. Your whole push seems to be aimed at getting rid of upper level employees. There are only so many C suite and upper level people that can be shed. The support people _I_ was talking about (X and Y) are needed regardless of the ownership. Unless your goal is to run BOTH companies into the toilet.


----------



## wmb (Dec 18, 2008)

James Long said:


> The support people _I_ was talking about (X and Y) are needed regardless of the ownership.


One thought I had was that both DirecTV and Dish could form a joint venture to do the space operations support side of things. A Satellite fleet may need n customers to be financially viable, but a joint back end could support X + Y > n. The key would be that the joint venture’s customers (Dish + DirecTV + others???) all adopt the same transponder tech.

The fun part about this has been noted above… limited life of current satellite fleets, need to consolidate slots/bands. The other side is the lead time on contract/design/build/launch a satellite. This is 5 years + timeline. Once this is decided, a replacement common fleet could be deployed, along with receivers using these joint venture fleets by the time the each company’s current satellite fleet go EOL.

Dish, DirecTV , others(?) could then each have their own customer service, channel packages, receivers, etc using the joint venture (ultimately spun off) satellite/uplink infrastructure.

Granted, this is something that gets developed over the next few years, but we’re on the clock now for it to happen in time.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

NashGuy said:


> although doing so would be optimal versus the current situation.


I hope FCC and FTC would be on our side - customers - and will kill another monopoly what would be happy to milk more money from us !
You're posing here as a pure protagonist for big company; perhaps being a wealthy shareholder?


----------



## NYDutch (Dec 28, 2013)

P Smith said:


> I hope FCC would be on our side - customers - and will kill another monopoly what would be happy to milk more money from us !
> You're posing here as a pure protagonist for big company; perhaps being a wealthy shareholder?


Between cable expansion and the variety of streaming choices available now, a Dish/DTV merger would still need to stay competitive on pricing to retain subscribers. The relatively few people without broadband Internet access wouldn't make for much of a monopoly.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

P Smith said:


> I hope FCC would be on our side - customers - and will kill another monopoly what would be happy to milk more money from us !


While the FCC has a guideline to be anti-monopoly, that responsibility comes down to the FTC. The FCC and their apparent lack of motivation is how we ended up with giants like Sinclair that have figured out how to game the system and end up operating stations that aren't theirs on paper.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

P Smith said:


> I hope FCC and FTC would be on our side - customers - and will kill another monopoly what would be happy to milk more money from us !
> You're posing here as a pure protagonist for big company; perhaps being a wealthy shareholder?


Yes, in writing about why the two might merge, I've done so from the perspective of the companies themselves/their owners. Whether I personally _want_ to see them merge, or whether such a merger would be good for consumers, are separate questions. Personally, I guess I don't really care as I don't subscribe to any of their TV services, nor am I a shareholder of either AT&T or DISH. 

I agree that the government should be more aggressive in putting a stop to big mergers that harm competition than has been the case in recent years. If these two were to announce a merger this year, I'm not sure whether I think the DOJ ought to stop it or simply impose some kind of price control on them as a condition of the merger to make sure that they don't try to price gouge rural dwellers who have no other option besides satellite for pay TV. Hopefully the merger wouldn't be allowed to sail through without any conditions imposed to protect consumers.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

wmb said:


> One thought I had was that both DirecTV and Dish could form a joint venture to do the space operations support side of things. A Satellite fleet may need n customers to be financially viable, but a joint back end could support X + Y > n. The key would be that the joint venture’s customers (Dish + DirecTV + others???) all adopt the same transponder tech.
> 
> The fun part about this has been noted above… limited life of current satellite fleets, need to consolidate slots/bands. The other side is the lead time on contract/design/build/launch a satellite. This is 5 years + timeline. Once this is decided, a replacement common fleet could be deployed, along with receivers using these joint venture fleets by the time the each company’s current satellite fleet go EOL.
> 
> ...


That's an interesting thought experiment but I don't think either AT&T or DISH sees enough life/profitability left in DBS pay TV service over the coming years to justify the expense of any further satellite launches. AT&T definitely declared that the T16 would be the last-ever satellite launched for DTV back in 2019. As far as I know, DISH hasn't specifically ruled out the possibility of launching additional sats but my guess is that they wouldn't as it's just cost-prohibitive given the dwindling market. Makes much more sense to just merge with DTV and use their sats, which should last into the early 2030s, i.e. long enough until we get to the point where so much of their user base has migrated to their own or competing internet-delivered services that it's uneconomic to continue operating even a single DBS service any more.

Here's a plausible hypothetical scenario I see playing out. All the dates I use are rough guesses.

2022: AT&T, DISH and TPG announce an agreement to spin off their pay TV businesses into a new privately held joint venture company.

2023: After government approval, the new JV launches and announces that DISH will be the sole satellite TV brand still actively marketed and taking new customers. New DISH customers will have rooftop dishes installed to aim and use the DTV satellite fleet. Existing DTV customers will see their service rebranded to "DIRECTV by DISH" but be grandfathered into their existing channel packages and allowed to keep their existing equipment. All of the channels under contract to be carried by either the DISH brand or the old DTV brand will be transmitted through the DTV satellite fleet so they can serve customers under both brands.

2025: As the original fleet of aging DISH satellites face extinction, DISH contacts all of their legacy customers who had been installed before the 2023 merger and are therefore still receiving signals from the old DISH sats. Those customers are notified that they must either opt into receiving all of their channels via a broadband connection to their Hopper and Joey receivers (making their rooftop dish unnecessary) or they must schedule to have a DISH installer come out and install a new dish aimed at the DTV satellite fleet. There would be some incentive to choose the broadband option, such as a gift card and/or an installation charge or new contract commitment if choosing a new dish installation.

At this time (if not earlier), we'll see DISH also offer the broadband delivery option for all their new and existing customers. Customers will use the same DISH Hopper/Joey hardware and enjoy the same user experience whether the service is delivered by satellite or broadband (although without rain fade in the case of the latter). The goal over the course of this decade will be to get as many of their TV subscribers as possible transitioned away from satellite delivery over to some form of streaming pay TV subscription service so that the business will be positioned to survive as long as "cable TV" continues to exist.


----------



## DefinitelyIan (Apr 9, 2013)

harsh said:


> I'd bet that it has been more successful than you think. There are more than a few dyed-in-the-wool DIRECTV DBS subs who have switched since the product was rebranded.


I actually made the jump from DTV satellite to Stream recently. Stream offers their custom Android TV box that has a number pad remote with all the functions of a regular DTV satellite remote. I've actually found their stream box to be faster and more responsive to actions like pulling up the DVR list than my HR54 and C61 was. Was very pleasantly surprised on the speed and functionality. The only thing I miss from satellite are the secondary HBO and Starz channels.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

NashGuy said:


> That's an interesting thought experiment but I don't think either AT&T or DISH sees enough life/profitability left in DBS pay TV service over the coming years to justify the expense of any further satellite launches.


For that reason alone, it seems pointless to theorize about concentrating the customer bases on either satellite fleet. I think it is almost certain that both fleets will outlast their respective offerings.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

NashGuy said:


> Yes, in writing about why the two might merge, I've done so from the perspective of the companies themselves/their owners.


Me too. 

Owners AT&T and TPG want DIRECTV off of their books. AT&T doesn't seem to mind reporting the financials of their investment in DIRECTV. They are able to downplay the value of the investment as it no longer has a major impact on their overall business. TPG is the reason this thread exists. They want out. DISH ... the "inevitable" comment was in the past and does not relate to the current "offer".

I believe AT&T and TPG are going to need to suffer through another year and show that DIRECTV is still worth investing in. Once the NFL Sunday Ticket issue is resolved (exclusive to another carrier or available to all willing MVPD/vMVPDs ?) we will have a better idea of the future. Can DIRECTV survive without their cornerstone NFL exclusive? We are going to find out.

We have wasted a lot of time and angst on a rumor. As I said before - DISH doesn't need the merger. It isn't going to happen.


----------



## codespy (Mar 30, 2006)

James Long said:


> .....Can DIRECTV survive without their cornerstone NFL exclusive? We are going to find out......


I'm not too worried about that. After all, Dish has all these years without ST.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

James Long said:


> As I said before - DISH doesn't need the merger. It isn't going to happen.


From all the way back in August 2021:








Ergen: DirecTV/DISH merger “inevitable”


Charlie Ergen, speaking to analysts on the DISH Network post-results analysts call, again touched on the prospects for a merger between DirecTV and Ergen’s DI




advanced-television.com


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

harsh said:


> For that reason alone, it seems pointless to theorize about concentrating the customer bases on either satellite fleet. I think it is almost certain that both fleets will outlast their respective offerings.


Nope. As I've posted before, every last one of DISH's satellites will have died by some point in 2026 unless they're able to outlive their expected 15-year lifespan (which I admit is possible). DISH will still have enough customers and strong enough financials to be a viable business past 2026, assuming they have any working satellites.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

NashGuy said:


> As I've posted before, every last one of DISH's satellites will have died by some point in 2026 unless they're able to outlive their expected 15-year lifespan (which I admit is possible).


You perhaps missed where slice1900 noted that DIRECTV 8 is still up there bouncing CONUS Ku and it is almost 17 years old with enough fuel to last a long time.

Since the tin whisker problems of days gone past and a plethora of issues with DIRECTV 10, satellite lifespan is more a depreciation schedule than an expiration date.

DISH has been pretty fortunate thus far with their satellites. Their last big event was perhaps in 2008 when Echostar 5 at 129W was "wobbing" until it could be replaced by Ciel 2.


----------



## WestDC (Feb 9, 2008)

Never going to happen --NO way ever


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

NashGuy said:


> From all the way back in August 2021:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Yep. Comments made months before the rumor that started this thread. Not related to the proposals written in this thread. YOU have said more in favor of a merger than Mr Ergen!

Structured right I am sure that Charlie Ergen and DISH would be willing to take over DIRECTV. Anything else, "meh".



NashGuy said:


> As I've posted before, every last one of DISH's satellites will have died by some point in 2026 unless they're able to outlive their expected 15-year lifespan (which I admit is possible).


More than possible. Some of their satellites have passed the 15 year mark. You seem to be more worried about this than DISH!


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

James Long said:


> Yep. Comments made months before the rumor that started this thread. Not related to the proposals written in this thread. YOU have said more in favor of a merger than Mr Ergen!


Yes, I'm sure the merger discussions he's reportedly had in Dec/Jan with DTV have ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with his thoughts on the matter which he publicly shared all the way back in August. LOL. As he stated then, "it's a timing issue more than anything else". It'll happen when they think the feds will allow it. And of course, Ergen will hold out and negotiate to get what he believes are the best possible terms. But the longer he waits, the greater the pressure will be to do it.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

NashGuy said:


> Yes, I'm sure the merger discussions he's reportedly had in Dec/Jan with DTV have ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with his thoughts on the matter which he publicly shared all the way back in August.


Reported by whom? "Unnamed sources?"



> “TPG is driving the conversations. They want their investment back,” a source close to the situation said.


TPG, not DISH (if you choose to believe unnamed sources).


> Officials at DirecTV and Dish declined to comment. TPG also declined to comment.


And there is the fact of the matter.

Don't get wound up in rumors and innuendo. The time is not right.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

James Long said:


> Don't get wound up in rumors and innuendo. The time is not right.


 For godssake, rumors and immuendo is the basis of this entire thread. DBSTalk has served up quite a few ads to folks visiting this and other threads on this forum that are nothing more than shooting the breeze over "rumors and immuendo". It helps keep the lights on here and is a harmless diversion. "The time is not right" -- seriously, what?!


----------



## west99999 (May 12, 2007)

James Long said:


> Reported by whom? "Unnamed sources?"


The New York Post! Lol very much fake news. Leader of DTV said no such talks have happened.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

NashGuy said:


> "The time is not right" -- seriously, what?!


See the article you linked earlier. It is "a timing issue more than anything else". Mr Ergen can hold out for the deal he wants (which I believe is nothing like your speculation).

Inevitable is not the same word as imminent.

Thank you for viewing and clicking on the advertising. Long term subscriptions are also available. (No, staff do not get paid.)


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

harsh said:


> You perhaps missed where slice1900 noted that DIRECTV 8 is still up there bouncing CONUS Ku and it is almost 17 years old with enough fuel to last a long time.



That's definitely not the norm, and apparently happened because of the way it was launched left it with far more fuel than planned. You might get a 15 years or a few more out of a typical Ku satellite launched in the mid 2000s like it was. It appears D9S that was launched slightly later runs out of fuel life in less than two years - or at least that's all they renewed its license for, which would give it a 17 year lifespan.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

NashGuy said:


> And of course, Ergen will hold out and negotiate to get what he believes are the best possible terms. But the longer he waits, the greater the pressure will be to do it.


Not to pick sides, but I don't see the pressure.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

slice1900 said:


> It appears D9S that was launched slightly later runs out of fuel life in less than two years - or at least that's all they renewed its license for, which would give it a 17 year lifespan.


I reason that the difference could be that station keeping for a spotbeam satellite requires more energy than for a CONUS satellite since the orientation must be more closely held to maintain spotbeam placement.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

harsh said:


> I reason that the difference could be that station keeping for a spotbeam satellite requires more energy than for a CONUS satellite since the orientation must be more closely held to maintain spotbeam placement.


No that's not true at all.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

slice1900 said:


> No that's not true at all.


CONUS beams need to be aimed as painstakingly aimed as spotbeams?


----------



## NYDutch (Dec 28, 2013)

harsh said:


> I reason that the difference could be that station keeping for a spotbeam satellite requires more energy than for a CONUS satellite since the orientation must be more closely held to maintain spotbeam placement.


Spot beam footprints are actually a bit larger than the intended target area, likely to allow for normal satellite drift. I've probably seen this now and then when we've changed to locations out of the published spot beam footprint with our RV and are still able receive the previous location's locals, albeit with a significantly reduced signal strength. Sometime later, when we've returned to the same location the previous locals were either gone or the signal was too low to be stable, yet another time they're receivable again.


----------



## codespy (Mar 30, 2006)

NYDutch said:


> Spot beam footprints are actually a bit larger than the intended target area, likely to allow for normal satellite drift. I've probably seen this now and then when we've changed to locations out of the published spot beam footprint with our RV and are still able receive the previous location's locals, albeit with a significantly reduced signal strength. Sometime later, when we've returned to the same location the previous locals were either gone or the signal was too low to be stable, yet another time they're receivable again.


Quite a bit larger in many instances. I’m in the Milwaukee DMA, but receive the same locals when in the 54457 zip code area with zero issues/fade.

In the old days with SD at that location around 1998, it was hit or miss with the 18” dish. Using a DISH 500 dish (a little bigger) with DirecTV LNB helped a little bit, but then the Winegard 30” dish I found completely solved that issue.

Then HD with the Slimeline replaced the 30” SD dish around 2007 and we still have zero issues with that spot beam to this day.


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

NYDutch said:


> Sometime later, when we've returned to the same location the previous locals were either gone or the signal was too low to be stable, yet another time they're receivable again.


All sat's stationary keeping system keep it "wobbling" in some boundaries. It cannot point antennas steady due orbital mechanics and sat's fuel limit.


----------



## krel (Mar 20, 2013)

i could be wrong here but don't dish lease space off the DTV sats?


----------



## codespy (Mar 30, 2006)

krel said:


> i could be wrong here but don't dish lease space off the DTV sats?


😳


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

James Long said:


> See the article you linked earlier. It is "a timing issue more than anything else". Mr Ergen can hold out for the deal he wants (which I believe is nothing like your speculation).


Ergen will play hardball on the negotiations, as that's what he always does. And why shouldn't he? It's worth dragging things out for awhile to secure better terms. But the only real factor in the "timing issue" he refers to is "When will the DOJ let us merge?" If he thinks they're likely to let the deal pass now and he feels he's being offered the best terms from AT&T and TPG as he's likely to get anytime soon, then he'll sign a deal now.

But the bigger question is whether the DOJ will try to squash the merger again like they did the last time it was attempted. They're making noises about getting tougher on trying to block mergers as opposed to just placing conditions on them.









DOJ antitrust chief says that mergers should be blocked, remedies don't work (NASDAQ:CHNG)


DOJ antitrust chief Jonathan Kanter said he believes that mergers should be blocked if the regulator finds they lessen competition rather than finding a remedy to salvage a deal."I...




seekingalpha.com





So it may well still be too soon for the government to allow the tie-up. They may want to see greater broadband deployment in rural areas and smaller subscriber bases at each DBS service before they'll allow it.


----------



## NYDutch (Dec 28, 2013)

krel said:


> i could be wrong here but don't dish lease space off the DTV sats?


No... Dish has more than enough capacity on their own satellites.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

krel said:


> i could be wrong here but don't dish lease space off the DTV sats?


DISH has their own satellites. Neither company leases satellites nor licenses from each other.

Such a lease is possible ... but that would require cooperation between competing companies.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

harsh said:


> Not to pick sides, but I don't see the pressure.


The pressure will come from a dwindling satellite fleet getting closer and closer to end of life as the years wear on.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

NashGuy said:


> But the bigger question is whether the DOJ will try to squash the merger again like they did the last time it was attempted. They're making noises about getting tougher on trying to block mergers as opposed to just placing conditions on them.


Mr Ergen is listening to the indicators. I do not believe that he would accept a deal that would fail. The last failure (decades ago) cost DISH a lot of money.


----------



## AZ. (Mar 27, 2011)

James Long said:


> Mr Ergen is listening to the indicators. I do not believe that he would accept a deal that would fail. The last failure (decades ago) cost DISH a lot of money.


Sling or Blockbuster?


----------



## NYDutch (Dec 28, 2013)

AZ. said:


> Sling or Blockbuster?


I don't think Sling could be called a failure. And I've always wondered whether DISH got the rights to various technology patents and trademarks with the Blockbuster deal that made it worthwhile at the time despite shutting down the video business. Or maybe it was just a mistake from the get go...


----------



## AZ. (Mar 27, 2011)

NYDutch said:


> I don't think Sling could be called a failure. And I've always wondered whether DISH got the rights to various technology patents and trademarks with the Blockbuster deal that made it worthwhile at the time despite shutting down the video business. Or maybe it was just a mistake from the get go...


Well sling had lots of problems, stopped manufacturing years ago, not supporting it, and shutting it down in less than a year....They never came out with a new product the whole time they took over?...I wouldn't call using the name Sling TV worth the 400 million they paid for it.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

AZ. said:


> Sling or Blockbuster?


I was referring to the $690 million DISH paid DIRECTV in 2002 when the previous merger attempt failed. Both Sling and Blockbuster were successful mergers (the companies became part of DISH). It cost DISH around $700 million total for Sling and Blockbuster. They ended up owning the companies.

Whether or not these purchases were good investments is a matter of opinion. DISH used (and uses) Sling technology in the Hopper 2 and 3 to provide remote viewing of channels that could not be streamed from a central server. Sling technology can also be used as the back end for DISH Anywhere and Sling TV. Shutting down personal Sling boxes closed a hole used by pirates to share subscriptions (hosted sling box farms where one could watch someone else's cable subscription remotely). Blockbuster's purchase seeded DISH's access to a content library for On Demand programming.

$7.6 billion dollars for minority ownership of DIRECTV? That is a bad deal. One TPG took and is trying to get out of less than a year after the deal was announced and only six months after the deal closed.


----------



## NYDutch (Dec 28, 2013)

AZ. said:


> Well sling had lots of problems, stopped manufacturing years ago, not supporting it, and shutting it down in less than a year....They never came out with a new product the whole time they took over?...I wouldn't call using the name Sling TV worth the 400 million they paid for it.


As James said, the technology Dish gained from the Sling purchase has been well worthwhile...


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

NashGuy said:


> The pressure will come from a dwindling satellite fleet getting closer and closer to end of life as the years wear on.


I'd imagine they can stretch it out at least as long as DISH DBS is viable. You put too much weight on design lifetimes versus what happens in practice.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

NYDutch said:


> As James said, the technology Dish gained from the Sling purchase has been well worthwhile...


I disagree. I don't think DISH made nearly as much out of the Sling technology portfolio as it could have. I don't see that it has much use outside the Hopper community and perhaps not a whole lot there.


----------



## NYDutch (Dec 28, 2013)

harsh said:


> I disagree. I don't think DISH made nearly as much out of the Sling technology portfolio as it could have. I don't see that it has much use outside the Hopper community and perhaps not a whole lot there.


Do we have any knowledge of how profitable Sling was at the time Dish shut it down? If not, we really have no idea why they chose that option.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

NYDutch said:


> Do we have any knowledge of how profitable Sling was at the time Dish shut it down?


So you think that DISH was playing keep-away?


----------



## NYDutch (Dec 28, 2013)

harsh said:


> So you think that DISH was playing keep-away?


Possibly, but I think Dish also wanted the technology, patents, trademarks, etc. Of course we don't know what Sling's financial situation was towards the end, but then we don't know how much use Dish has made of the technology, etc, that's not visible to us or its value. Maybe some of that went to Echostar? We don't know...


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

NYDutch said:


> Possibly, but I think Dish also wanted the technology, patents, trademarks, etc.


They already licensed all that stuff. The reason to buy it would be to be able to license it to others. Thus far that doesn't seem to extend beyond DISH (AirTV is Sling).


> Of course we don't know what Sling's financial situation was towards the end...


You'll have to explain how Sling's pre-acquisition financials are inextricably connected with the value of Sling's IP portfolio.


----------



## NYDutch (Dec 28, 2013)

harsh said:


> They already licensed all that stuff. The reason to buy it would be to be able to license it to others. Thus far that doesn't seem to extend beyond DISH (AirTV is Sling).You'll have to explain how Sling's pre-acquisition financials are inextricably connected with the value of Sling's IP portfolio.


I didn't say "pre-acquisition". If there had been enough post acquisition profit potential for Dish, the Sling hardware, etc. would likely still be in production.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

NYDutch said:


> I didn't say "pre-acquisition". If there had been enough post acquisition profit potential for Dish, the Sling hardware, etc. would likely still be in production.


With the understanding that Sling Media was less than three years old when it was acquired by Echostar in 2007 and that there were an estimated two million Slingboxes sold over twelve or so years, I don't imagine hardware was ever really flying out the doors at Sling. Sling created Sling Entertainment Group in 2006.

Echostar was a significant shareholder of Sling from the start so acquiring the balance of the company was probably a logical conclusion. The fact that DISH came away with Sling in the separation is a pretty strong indicator that they had already decided that Sling would be more Sling Media than Sling hardware.

EDIT: corrected Sling Media reference to Sling Entertainment Group.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

Weird to me that Dish decided to name their streaming cable TV service Sling TV, given that it has basically nothing to do with what the original Sling brand stood for. I guess they just thought, "Hey, we've got this unused brand name sitting around. May as well dust it off and repurpose it."


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Could have called it DISHless TV. 
I am glad they chose a separate brand. It saves confusion between the completely different satellite and streaming services.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

James Long said:


> Could have called it DISHless TV.
> I am glad they chose a separate brand. It saves confusion between the completely different satellite and streaming services.


Ha! Yeah, a different brand made sense, both because it obviously doesn't require a dish but also because it has different (cheaper) channel packages and features targeting a different demo. So it made sense to use a different brand, I just don't get why they didn't create an entirely new name rather than slapping the old Sling brand on it (given that Sling isn't evocative of streaming or TV at all, really, and Sling TV has nothing to do with the old Slingbox).


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Qubi was taken? Sling TV isn't the worst brand I have heard.

DIRECTV is a good brand ... TV direct to the consumer. Works for satellite or streaming.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

NashGuy said:


> Weird to me that Dish decided to name their streaming cable TV service Sling TV, given that it has basically nothing to do with what the original Sling brand stood for.


Sling TV was Sling's idea dating back to 2006 (before the acquisition). DISH has shown that it likes to keep things separable rather than stuffing it all in one bag.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

harsh said:


> Sling TV was Sling's idea dating back to 2006 (before the acquisition).


The original pre-Dish Sling had the idea of launching a vMVPD back in '06, before any such thing existed? Link please.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

James Long said:


> Qubi was taken? Sling TV isn't the worst brand I have heard.


Maybe not the worst but pretty bad. Sorta made sense for the original product, as in "slinging video from the TV in your home to other devices anywhere in the world". But makes no more sense for the service it's now attached to than would "Sprinkle TV" or "Fetch TV".


----------



## NYDutch (Dec 28, 2013)

NashGuy said:


> Maybe not the worst but pretty bad. Sorta made sense for the original product, as in "slinging video from the TV in your home to other devices anywhere in the world". But makes no more sense for the service it's now attached to than would "Sprinkle TV" or "Fetch TV".


Yeah, you'd think they'd name it something that at least makes sense. Like Philo or Stremium or Roku or...


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

NYDutch said:


> Yeah, you'd think they'd name it something that at least makes sense. Like Philo or Stremium or Roku or...


Philo is named after Philo Farnsworth, the US inventor who helped create TV. Stremium obviously brings to mind "streaming," the practice of consuming video over the internet. So both of those names do make sense as brands for their products.

Roku (much like Hulu or TiVo or Vevo) is just a made-up nonsense word, an empty container that could be filled with the associated product's meaning. (Well, "TiVo," with its capitalized T and V, is an obvious reference to "TV," so I guess that one's not completely devoid of meaning.)

Sling, on the other hand, is a real word, with a real meaning, which has nothing to do with television or streaming or the internet or cutting-edge technology.


----------



## b4pjoe (Nov 20, 2010)

Roku was founded in October 2002 as a *limited liability company (LLC)*, by ReplayTV founder Anthony Wood. Roku (六) means "six" in the Japanese language, to represent the fact that Roku is the sixth company Wood started.

TiVo was developed by Jim Barton and Mike Ramsay through a corporation they named *"Teleworld"* which was later renamed to TiVo Inc. Though they originally intended to create a home network device, it was redesigned as a device that records digitized video onto a hard disk.

Why is Hulu called Hulu?

After generating a long list of potential names and writing them all over the walls, Eric Feng (CTO) suggested the name Hulu. He didn’t just randomly come up with the clever name. He highly considered it for a previous company. Prior to joining Hulu, Feng was the Founder and CEO of Mojiti – an online video automation service located in Beijing, China. Mojiti was almost called Hulu. The team liked the name because it was short, fun, easy to pronounce and didn’t have any meaning in the english language. In other words, the name did come with any false impressions. This is one of the greatest benefits of picking a name that doesn’t exist in the marketplace.

According to the Hulu blog:

In Mandarin, Hulu has two interesting meanings, each highly relevant to our mission. The primary meaning interested us because it is used in an ancient Chinese proverb that describes the Hulu as the holder of precious things. It literally translates to “gourd,” and in ancient times, the Hulu was hollowed out and used to hold precious things. The secondary meaning is interactive recording. We saw both definitions as appropriate bookends and highly relevant to the mission of Hulu.

Vevo (/ˈviːvoʊ/ VEE-vo, an abbreviation for "Video evolution") is an American multinational video hosting service, best known for providing music videos to YouTube. The service is also available as an app on selected smart TVs, digital video recorders, digital media players and streaming television services.


----------



## NYDutch (Dec 28, 2013)

NashGuy said:


> Philo is named after Philo Farnsworth, the US inventor who helped create TV. Stremium obviously brings to mind "streaming," the practice of consuming video over the internet. So both of those names do make sense as brands for their products.
> 
> Roku (much like Hulu or TiVo or Vevo) is just a made-up nonsense word, an empty container that could be filled with the associated product's meaning. (Well, "TiVo," with its capitalized T and V, is an obvious reference to "TV," so I guess that one's not completely devoid of meaning.)
> 
> Sling, on the other hand, is a real word, with a real meaning, which has nothing to do with television or streaming or the internet or cutting-edge technology.


Ah, ok, I get it... Because the word "Sling" has a meaning unrelated to the product, it shouldn't be used. How about using it for the name of an employee scheduling product? Would that be ok? Oh, and Wictionary lists "Sling" as a slang word meaning "To sell, peddle, or distribute". So maybe using it for a streaming service isn't as offbeat as it might seem.






Home


Sling is a free and easy to use employee shift scheduling and planning software that helps your business manage shifts and communicate with employees.




getsling.com













sling - Wiktionary







en.wiktionary.org


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

NashGuy said:


> The original pre-Dish Sling had the idea of launching a vMVPD back in '06, before any such thing existed? Link please.


See paragraph 3 regarding Sling Entertainment Group:





EchoStar Announces Agreement to Acquire Sling Media, Inc.


EchoStar Communications Corporation (Nasdaq:DISH) announced today that it has agreed to acquire Sling Media, Inc., a privately-held digital lifestyle products company. EchoStar, through its DISH...




about.dish.com


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

"Clip and Sling" is not "Sling TV". Sling TV was the name Sling applied to one of it's advanced Slingboxes. The name was removed from the Slingbox when DISH decided to use it for the vMVPD service.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

James Long said:


> "Clip and Sling" is not "Sling TV". Sling TV was the name Sling applied to one of it's advanced Slingboxes


You clearly jumped over the first two sentences to reach the third.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

It is clear that sling TV is not mentioned. Clip and sling is the only technology noted. Not sure what article you're reading but the one you linked does not support what you're saying.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

James Long said:


> Not sure what article you're reading but the one you linked does not support what you're saying.


Try ignoring the third sentence and develop an understanding excluding that potential product:


Echostar PR said:


> In 2006, Sling Media created the Sling Entertainment Group with the mission of developing entertainment experiences and business models that reach beyond the Slingbox. The group also fosters and manages relationships with content creators and owners.


The "mission" of "developing entertainment experiences" and building "relationships with content owners and creators" sounds at least an aggregator if not a full-blown vMVPD.

"Reaching beyond the Slingbox" tells the careful reader that they were thinking outside the scope of a Slingbox. Clearly the Clip+Sling offering is a different product (not necessarily involving a Slingbox) and falls far short of being an "entertainment experience".


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Clip and sling was an example of the technology Sling wanted to advance. The content creators they were referring to were the social media types (today called influencers). People who would clip what they saw on TV and sling it on a website. Not content distributors such as channel owners, although getting copyright permission for the clips instead of relying on "fair use" might be helpful. If they meant retransmission of linear channels there is an easier way to say that than "content creators".


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

James Long said:


> The content creators they were referring to were the social media types (today called influencers). People who would clip what they saw on TV and sling it on a website.


It sounds like you are reading a lot into Sling Media's mission statement. Perhaps you have some documentation you could offer that is more definitive.

Sharing "clips" sounds a lot different from selling independently produced video packages to a subcription blog site (the 2006 definition of "Social Media Influencer").

In any event, Clip+Sling never happened so trying to promote it as the primary topic of discussion seems like a distraction.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

As is your false claim that Sling was planning on launching a "Sling TV" vMVPD service. There was no foundation for your claim. The only "Sling TV" prior to DISH was an advanced slingbox and Sling never launched or promised a vMVPD service. Giving credit to pre-DISH Sling for Sling TV is wrong.

Moving on ... back to why merging DIRECTV and DISH is wrong.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

harsh said:


> Try ignoring the third sentence and develop an understanding excluding that potential product:The "mission" of "developing entertainment experiences" and building "relationships with content owners and creators" sounds at least an aggregator if not a full-blown vMVPD.


You're reaching. But of course having a super-weak argument never keeps you from posting it.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

James Long said:


> Moving on ... back to why merging DIRECTV and DISH is wrong.


You mean, why it's *inevitable*.


----------



## glrush (Jun 29, 2002)

From today's DISH investor call (article in the WSJ): 

Asked about media reports that Dish had held merger talks with rival DirecTV, Mr. Ergen repeated his oft-made prediction that the two satellite operators would merge, adding, “otherwise both companies will just melt away and there will be no service for customers.”


----------



## glrush (Jun 29, 2002)

Dish and DirecTV's pay-TV biz will 'just melt away' without a merger, Ergen says | Light Reading


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

Every year that goes by without a merger makes it less useful in terms of economies of scale. Sure, they can consolidate their billing, customer service and other back office stuff. In the past they could have raised prices on captive rural customers (which is why the merger was shot down before) who had no cable and no broadband alternative, but between fixed wireless 5G and Starlink that's no longer a viable long term strategy.

It is already too late to merge the satellite fleets, the cost of switching 8 million Dish customers to Directv dishes would be larger than whatever the savings would be from retiring Dish's two satellite arcs. Ditto for the customer hardware, since neither is likely building much new hardware - most installs are likely done with refurbished hardware and that can continue for a very long time since there will always be more customers leaving than customers signing up. There's no way they are going to replace customer hardware to eliminate all Directv or all Dish receivers. It isn't even quite worth it yet for Directv to eliminate all pre 2005 SD receivers!

The main reason to merge has always been to create a rural TV monopoly and rake in big profits, but the pool of rural customers who don't have good broadband options is quickly becoming too small for that so the merged company would have to continue to compete on price with all the vMVPDs and SVODs.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

WSJ said:


> Asked about media reports that Dish had held merger talks with rival DirecTV, Mr. Ergen repeated his oft-made prediction that the two satellite operators would merge, adding, “otherwise both companies will just melt away and there will be no service for customers.”


With all due respect, I don't see how merging the companies will make much of a difference. Whether they "melt" separately or together all a merger does is remove one competitor.


----------



## Shades228 (Mar 18, 2008)

James Long said:


> With all due respect, I don't see how merging the companies will make much of a difference. Whether they "melt" separately or together all a merger does is remove one competitor.


Consolidating rural accounts would allow them to be more financially sound and give them better negotiating power as they lose customers. If they aren't allowed to merge then eventually they will probably come up with some sort of fleet sharing agreement.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

We need better numbers from the DIRECTV side before making any assumption that a merger would be beneficial to DISH.

DISH passed the $3 billion mark in profit last year. Their net subscriber loss was up slightly last year but nowhere near the last losses reported by DIRECTV. By the end of 2022 DISH could easily be the larger provider - without a merger.

In order to "stop the melt" (so to speak) subscriber loss needs to be curtailed. Unless one believes DISH has the magic formula to turn DIRECTV around and stop subscribers from leaving both companies merging won't make much of a difference.


----------



## codespy (Mar 30, 2006)

So after 13 pages of this thread and thinking outside the box, I have a question on how an account like mine would be handled with a so called merger using Dish equipment instead of my current DirecTV setup. I realize I do not have the ‘typical’ account. I have 38 tuners including a 5 tuner Genie, plus one client. I get OTA on every receiver, and have 2 different RV’s both equipped with two 2 tuner DVR’s.

What would be the hardware setup that’s comparable to what I currently have including local channels via both satellite and OTA, including the RV IRD’s? I’m just looking at a hardware comparison not taking programming into consideration. Thanks.


----------



## Shades228 (Mar 18, 2008)

James Long said:


> We need better numbers from the DIRECTV side before making any assumption that a merger would be beneficial to DISH.
> 
> DISH passed the $3 billion mark in profit last year. Their net subscriber loss was up slightly last year but nowhere near the last losses reported by DIRECTV. By the end of 2022 DISH could easily be the larger provider - without a merger.
> 
> In order to "stop the melt" (so to speak) subscriber loss needs to be curtailed. Unless one believes DISH has the magic formula to turn DIRECTV around and stop subscribers from leaving both companies merging won't make much of a difference.


I guess I'm looking at it from a balance sheet perspective and not a what company it is better for. Both companies are losing subscribers, or trading them in some areas, and with 5g being able to help rural areas more this will continue. Let's say both companies have 9 million, these are made up numbers because I haven't followed either company in years, then combined they have 18 million which is close to when I last paid attention. This gives the single company enough capital to invest in the future. Dish has a 5g plan but it won't ever compete with the big boys unless they go crazy on the next auction. It would however compliment a satellite fleet in the areas they service.

So my point is the benefit is a stronger company overall. It's the same reason they get shot down every time. It creates a monopoly in rural America. They will have to use Telco marketing in their bid to merge so they can prove 5G will now cause competition and that competition will create a hardship on the companies that could result in them not being around. Satellite TV will eventually go away this just prolongs it while other technologies can be built up to replace it. We're just starting to see that option in 5G however I think we're 10+ years away from rural places really being served consistently. Once someone can come out with a hybrid 5G and wire to home service that is economical then we'll see the real end of satellite. Until then a single company could get by with 8-10 million customers. I don't think 2 companies with 5 million would be able to do so as well without working together.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Shades228 said:


> Let's say both companies have 9 million, these are made up numbers because I haven't followed either company in years, then combined they have 18 million which is close to when I last paid attention. This gives the single company enough capital to invest in the future.


Subscribers are not capital. The argument AT&T used a few years ago when they purchased DIRECTV was that they needed DIRECTV's larger subscriber base to negotiate better deals and be able to launch an OTT service. (Reports were that UVERSE was paying 14% more for programming than DIRECTV due to the smaller subscriber base.) The merger did not instantly allow AT&T|DIRECTV to leverage their new higher subscriber base and it took years to get their full OTT service launched.

The AT&T|DIRECTV merger was so successful that investors wanted it reversed and DIRECTV lost a lot of value. DIRECTV is currently so successful that AT&T no longer reports subscriber numbers, revenue or income for their video services. It is as if the services they own 70% of do not exist.



Shades228 said:


> Dish has a 5g plan but it won't ever compete with the big boys unless they go crazy on the next auction. It would however compliment a satellite fleet in the areas they service.


DISH doesn't have to go crazy in the next auction ... they went crazy in the last one. They have plenty of bandwidth. But I believe that DISH's intent is to be a home service. Sure, they will offer cell phones that people can take anywhere and (with partner arrangements) can use where DISH 5G is not built yet. But I expect they will focus on fixed 5G installations - and sell video over 5G to compete with other vMVPDs.



Shades228 said:


> So my point is the benefit is a stronger company overall. It's the same reason they get shot down every time. It creates a monopoly in rural America.


By the time they get together I expect the total subscribers to be too low. A decade ago DIRECTV did well in negotiations with 20 million satellite subscribers to leverage ... but the market has changed drastically since then. There is a lot of content that is 100% not available on DIRECTV (or any other MVPD). Instead of channels going a la carte via DISH or DIRECTV as some consumers have been wanting the content has left the linear channel format for streaming and the 2022 version of a la carte is having unique content on each of a multitude of streaming services.

23% of DISH's current customer base are streaming customers paying for Sling TV (not satellite). I expect that there will be a fire sale in a couple of years where what is left of DIRECTV either merges with DISH or becomes managed by DISH. On the satellite side the two companies will never be the same and long term contracts with providers will ensure the separation of DISH and DIRECTV programming line ups until the next renewals. Just like when AT&T bought DIRECTV.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

James Long said:


> Whether they "melt" separately or together all a merger does is remove one competitor.


This ignores synergies that may become more valuable as the respective companies shrink.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

codespy said:


> I have 38 tuners including a 5 tuner Genie, plus one client. I get OTA on every receiver, and have 2 different RV’s both equipped with two 2 tuner DVR’s.


What you have isn't nearly as important as what you actually need. In your case, it probably comes down to the number of TVs served at one time since that's what the client-server architecture is built around.

Not considering the TVs, you could get two Hopper 3s for a total of 32 tuners (not counting PTAT) (or maybe three for 48 tuners?) for the primary residence. If that sounds ridiculous is it probably because it is.

The RVs could be handled with a Wally with an external drive and an OTA dongle each. Fancier configurations are available.

Not knowing how big a part that OTA has in your viewing schedule, that remains a question but there could be at least a couple of tuners available to all TVs through the OTA dongle.

Unless you're entirely air-gapped, I would imagine your needs have probably changed quite a bit since you amassed this setup so again, I counsel that you consider what you need rather than duplicating what you have. This could also allow you to thin the herd of TV fees that you're paying now in a more informed way.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

codespy said:


> So after 13 pages of this thread and thinking outside the box, I have a question on how an account like mine would be handled with a so called merger using Dish equipment instead of my current DirecTV setup. I realize I do not have the ‘typical’ account. I have 38 tuners including a 5 tuner Genie, plus one client. I get OTA on every receiver, and have 2 different RV’s both equipped with two 2 tuner DVR’s.
> 
> What would be the hardware setup that’s comparable to what I currently have including local channels via both satellite and OTA, including the RV IRD’s? I’m just looking at a hardware comparison not taking programming into consideration. Thanks.


When a merger eventually happens, and if you're still a DTV customer at that point, here's what would likely change for you:

_nothing_.

Existing customers will be grandfathered in on their current programming packages and will be able to use their existing hardware (aside, perhaps, from really old receivers, like MPEG-2/SD-only boxes that were going to be phased out anyway).

One of the main rationales for a merger is cost reductions. And you don't reduce costs by needlessly replacing functional receivers. And you certainly don't reduce costs by sending an installer back out to install a new rooftop dish and wiring if the existing one works. Forcing changes on satisfied customers is a good way to upset them and run them off.

That said, I'm sure that DTV subscribers post-merger would have the _option_ to voluntarily upgrade their receivers and swap out their channel packages to whatever the unified company is selling to new customers at that point. And my guess is that they'll be using DISH hardware (the latest Hoppers and Joeys) since that platform is much more advanced than the aging DTV Genie platform. I'm told that DISH's current receivers can work with either DISH or DTV dishes/sats based on the software they're running. In the previous post, Harsh details the likely DISH hardware set-up you'd use, based on what they currently offer, if you wanted to swap out your DTV equipment for DISH equipment.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

harsh said:


> This ignores synergies that may become more valuable as the respective companies shrink.


Instead of using business doublespeak of meaningless words how about offering a meaningful answer?

I'm sure a combined company could leverage the bandwidth to facilitate a new paradigm that would revolutionize the spend ratio and manage the scalability of the alignment, engage the framework and streamline the cohesiveness of their core-competency in a holistic best-of-breed proactive space while rightsizing the enterprise. But how much money will that save? How many more years of life will a merger add to the survivor's timeline?

It took years for DISH to migrate from QPSK to 8PSK. They still have MPEG2 channels on western arc (on 8PSK transponders). Likewise DIRECTV took years to eliminate their old EPG system and is still transmitting DSS signals years after they planned on moving away from that technology. The physical infrastructure cannot and will not be integrated overnight.

It took years for AT&T to combine the programming contracts for DIRECTV and UVERSE and be able to offer a unified experience (with some content variations remaining). Merging the companies does not instantly merge the rights and obligations of every current contract. The new company can't cherry-pick the best deal and cancel the other contract.

Call centers and installers are scalable. If DISH needs X CSRs and DIRECTV needs Y CSRs why would a merger require less than X+Y CSRs? The same for installers. The only way X+Y without merger does not equal X+Y with merger is reducing the level of service (reducing X or Y or both).

What is left? Upper management? In real dollars (no doublespeak) how much money would a merger actually save? Two companes collecting billions of dollars in revenue and making billions of dollars in profit. Saving what? A few million per year? That isn't going to change the life expectancy of the surviving company.

Buzzwords are not going to reduce the "melt". Policy changes are needed. Policies that COULD be made as independent companies (within the limits of each company's contracts). No merger required and no benefit specifically from a merger.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

Too much of the talk about the merger revolves around understanding DTV and DISH as "satellite TV" companies. I believe that both companies' long-term plans are to evolve from DBS to internet delivery. This is already pretty obvious with DTV but I suspect DISH will do the same, regardless of a future merger with DTV.

As overall demand for cable TV shrinks, the market will become increasingly concentrated in a few large operators. Scale is important and that's what Ergen understands, as communicated by his "melt away" comment. Cable TV isn't going away, at least any time in the foreseeable future. But in the latter half of this decade, the only players in the MPVD industry that will matter will be a merged DISH/DTV (running a combination of internet and DBS-delivered service), Comcast, Charter, Google (YouTube TV), and maybe Disney (although the future of Hulu and its Live TV service is, IMO, somewhat uncertain).


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

There's also all of the stuff that DIRECTV is currently contracting with AT&T for that could be brought under one roof: billing, account management, install and repair. These are in addition to the overheads that you mentioned that are both costly and don't typically improve the customer experience in and of themselves.

DISH, while certainly not done with their MPEG2 conversion is much further along than DIRECTV's "natural attrition" approach. Conversion to DISH could take place at a gradual rate and many who couldn't access DIRECTV's centralized constellation may be granted access to DISH's arcs.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

NashGuy said:


> Too much of the talk about the merger revolves around understanding DTV and DISH as "satellite TV" companies. I believe that both companies' long-term plans are to evolve from DBS to internet delivery. This is already pretty obvious with DTV but I suspect DISH will do the same, regardless of a future merger with DTV.


I agree ... especially with the "regardless of the merger" portion of that prediction.
By the numbers, Sling TV has already allowed DISH to evolve into an OTT company. They simply decided to provide a separate service not tied to the satellite/cable packages that have been dragging down the industry. AT&T|DIRECTV decided to maintain the "tier building on tier" structure of a traditional MVPD when building AT&T TV. DISH offered "Flex Packs" via satellite (core plus a modular add on approach) with limited success.

23% of DISH's TV subscriptions are via Sling TV. That is fairly good and is something to build on. Having customers self install an off the shelf box is much cheaper than truck rolls. DISH has also extended their satellite service to include streamed linear channels and on demand content which helps them compete with other services that include more than can be done via satellite. (DIRECTV has also expanded their satellite service to include streamed content.)



NashGuy said:


> As overall demand for cable TV shrinks, the market will become increasingly concentrated in a few large operators. Scale is important and that's what Ergen understands, as communicated by his "melt away" comment.


Mr Ergen is obviously more involved in the industry than I am and he has to be somewhat protective when he makes such statements, not always as clear as he could be if he would speak the plain truth instead of using reserved language. He did not say "DISH will die if they do not merge with DIRECTV". I believe he sees a future where the companies are under one umbrella (previously stated as "inevitable"). He has not defined what that umbrella would look like.

People other than Mr Ergen have been speculating about the structure of a future merged company. I disagree with anyone that believes Mr Ergen will trade his company that he has owned since it started for money. He doesn't need to walk away as an unemployed/retired billionaire to consider himself a success. He is and can remain successful right where he is for the rest of his life. He will remain in control as long as he possibly can ... and with his massive ownership stake no one can force him to leave.

Will DISH and DIRECTV eventually be one company? Probably. DIRECTV could merge with another MVPD but DISH is best suited to keep the waning satellite service running. Will DISH fail without merging with DIRECTV? I don't think so.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

harsh said:


> There's also all of the stuff that DIRECTV is currently contracting with AT&T for that could be brought under one roof: billing, account management, install and repair. These are in addition to the overheads that you mentioned that are both costly and don't typically improve the customer experience in and of themselves.


These are the scalable things where the cost doesn't magically get cheaper just because the companies merge. If DIRECTV is paying too much for AT&T's services they can always contract with someone else or even have DISH manage these services for DIRECTV - without a merger.



harsh said:


> DISH, while certainly not done with their MPEG2 conversion is much further along than DIRECTV's "natural attrition" approach. Conversion to DISH could take place at a gradual rate and many who couldn't access DIRECTV's centralized constellation may be granted access to DISH's arcs.


There seems to be a "redacted" reason why DIRECTV needs to complete their conversion. There is nothing compelling DISH from doing anything more than they have already done. Status quo allowing the customers with 8PSK MPEG2 only equipment to stay connected without another receiver swap is working. If some reason to force these customers to MPEG4 ever presents itself DISH can make the change then.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

James Long said:


> 23% of DISH's TV subscriptions are via Sling TV. That is fairly good and is something to build on. Having customers self install an off the shelf box is much cheaper than truck rolls. DISH has also extended their satellite service to include streamed linear channels and on demand content which helps them compete with other services that include more than can be done via satellite.


I think Sling TV was just DISH's initial foray into OTT-delivered pay TV. They wanted to start at the low end with a skinny service that didn't directly compete with their higher-margin full-scale DBS-delivered product. But in reality, DISH is already a hybrid DBS/OTT service. Current model Hoppers and Joeys can get not only VOD content via OTT but also linear channels that way too. A few of DISH's linear channels (e.g. some of the secondary HBO and Cinemax channels) are exclusively available via OTT. And of course, the entire line-up of DISH linear channels is delivered OTT to their app for Fire TV devices, which customers can use in lieu of rented Joeys on their secondary TVs.

So there's really zero technical reasons, and I would bet zero contractual reasons, why they couldn't sell full-scale DISH service to customers (either with or without DISH hardware) via a fully OTT system without the need for a satellite dish. Eventually we'll see this happen but my guess is not before a merger with DTV, which obviously already sells a fully OTT version of their full-scale service via DTV Stream.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

James Long said:


> Will DISH and DIRECTV eventually be one company? Probably. DIRECTV could merge with another MVPD but DISH is best suited to keep the waning satellite service running. Will DISH fail without merging with DIRECTV? I don't think so.


The only major MVPD that will see a steeper slide in subs in the next few years than DTV is DISH. Both suffer from the fact that they're one-trick ponies, unlike Comcast and Charter, who also sell broadband, mobile phone and home phone service in addition to pay TV. I don't disagree that DTV needs DISH more than DISH needs DTV but the reality is that both would be better off together than remaining separate.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

NashGuy said:


> But in reality, DISH is already a hybrid DBS/OTT service. Current model Hoppers and Joeys can get not only VOD content via OTT but also linear channels that way too.


Yep ... from the text you quoted in your post:


James Long said:


> DISH has also extended their satellite service to include streamed linear channels and on demand content which helps them compete with other services that include more than can be done via satellite. (DIRECTV has also expanded their satellite service to include streamed content.)


I believe it would be a fair bet that any channel contracted to be carried on Sling TV would also be available to be delivered via stream to DISH receivers - but the programmers may want a higher price. Making a channel a "stream" channel reduces its availability and the number of subscribers who can receive the channel. If one argues that DISH+DIRECTV would get a better price due to a combined total of subscribers one should accept that DISH would get a worse price for channels that are stream only.

Other than the HBO/Cinemax channels most of the channels that are currently "stream" are international channels and a few specialty channels that are not in any DISH tier. Their choice is stream only or no carriage. The few that are in regular tiers are niche channels that are likely happy to have any carriage.

But yes, I agree that DISH likely has streaming rights in pocket for most of the channels on satellite (whether or not they are on Sling TV). They have had several years of renewal cycles to add those rights.



NashGuy said:


> The only major MVPD that will see a steeper slide in subs in the next few years than DTV is DISH. Both suffer from the fact that they're one-trick ponies, unlike Comcast and Charter, who also sell broadband, mobile phone and home phone service in addition to pay TV.


DISH is growing the 5G side ... 5G to the home makes them a broadband and mobile phone provider. If their modem has a phone jack on it they have home phone service. The pony is learning some new tricks.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

James Long said:


> By the numbers, Sling TV has already allowed DISH to evolve into an OTT company.


Sling TV picked up around 32,000 customers for the year. To assert that DISH has found the secret recipe for evolution into an OTT linear streaming operation is surely an overstatement.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

The 2.4 million subscribers before those should count for something. How many vMVPDs are there? Where does Sling TV rank? 2.4 million in that category is fairly good.


----------



## codespy (Mar 30, 2006)

Not sure how much of this article is accurate, I’ll have to research that.









Dish Network Reports Loss of 273,000 Subscribers to End 2021 — The National Interest


Sat Feb 26 05:00:00 EST 2022




apple.news


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

James Long said:


> The 2.4 million subscribers before those should count for something.


They do, but if this is DISH's out of DBS, they need to be growing much faster. IIRC, Sling TV had more customers at the end of 2019 than they do now.


> How many vMVPDs are there?


That's a little like asking how many political parties there are.


> Where does Sling TV rank? 2.4 million in that category is fairly good.


Last I heard, this was the ranking:

YTTV
Hulu Live
Fubo
Sling TV
Philo TV
DIRECTV Stream
The first two in the list represent around 90% of the subscriptions.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

codespy said:


> Not sure how much of this article is accurate, I’ll have to research that.


The first half of the article parrots the DISH press release. The latter part about the merger stuff is probably as much rumor as anything else.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

harsh said:


> > How many vMVPDs are there?
> 
> 
> That's a little like asking how many political parties there are.


Two big ones and several smaller ones? The question was vMVPDs, not streamers. Not a huge list of companies playing in that sandbox.



harsh said:


> Last I heard, this was the ranking:
> 
> YTTV
> Hulu Live
> ...


Fubo finished 2021 with 1.13 million subscribers. Hulu Live lost 100k subscribers in Q4 ending with 4 million "live" subscribers (three quarters of lost subscribers in a row). The best report I can find states that there were 14.2 million total vMVPD subscribers at the end of 3Q. Sling TV had about 17% of them.


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

NashGuy said:


> I'm told that DISH's current receivers can work with either DISH or DTV dishes/sats based on the software they're running


By whom ? When ? here


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

P Smith said:


> By whom ? When ? here


One of the top admins on another popular DBS forum who has contacts inside DISH. He says he's been told that the DISH hardware is compatible with the DTV system but would need a software/firmware update first. Makes sense that that would be the case if Ergen has been thinking that a merger with DTV is definitely going to happen at some point. And he keeps flatly stating that that is exactly what he believes.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

James Long said:


> But yes, I agree that DISH likely has streaming rights in pocket for most of the channels on satellite (whether or not they are on Sling TV). They have had several years of renewal cycles to add those rights.


Can't you stream the entire lineup of channels in your DISH package via the DISH app for Fire TV? That's my understanding. And if that's the case, that means that DISH has streaming rights for every single channel they carry.

Again, what's to keep DISH from doing the same thing that, say, Comcast is already doing, where they make their STB rental optional and instead allow customers to access their cable TV service via their app for Fire TV, Roku, etc.? From a technical standpoint, the only thing I can see is that DISH doesn't have a cloud DVR system in place. When you use their app for Fire TV, it simply fetches your DVR recordings from a Hopper in your home (but, if I understand correctly, streams live and VOD TV from DISH's servers). Of course, they have already developed a cloud DVR platform for use with Sling, so it wouldn't be a big deal technically to implement it for DISH too (although that might require additional contracts with the content owners).

Imagine a revamped future DISH (after absorbing Sling and perhaps DTV and DTV Stream) that offers an array of options. You could still choose a traditional rooftop dish installation requiring a 2-year contract (and perhaps an up-front installation fee) or instead opt for a streaming version of the service without a contract. If you go the streaming route, you could either rent their Hopper and Joey receivers (with the same local DVR functionality that currently exists for satellite customers) and/or save money by using a DISH app with cloud DVR service on your own devices. (Presumably if you had a Hopper, its DVR recordings would be mirrored to the cloud DVR, the same way Comcast does.) And lastly, you'd have an array of base and add-on channel packages and prices, from skinny to full, available whichever way you took the service.



James Long said:


> DISH is growing the 5G side ... 5G to the home makes them a broadband and mobile phone provider. If their modem has a phone jack on it they have home phone service. The pony is learning some new tricks.


Yes, Nashville is among the 25 major metro launch markets they announced this week. Service must launch by June to meet the FCC deadline to cover at least 20% of the US population. 

But as for fixed wireless 5G home broadband (like what Verizon and T-Mobile are doing), DISH sounds a bit iffy on that proposition, from what I'm reading. Sounds like they're more interested in offering private networks to businesses. I think I read a quote from Ergen saying that they might do some fixed wireless home service here and there by partnering with others too, perhaps meaning licensing some of their spectrum in certain areas to Verizon, T-Mo or others who would actually be the consumer-facing fixed wireless brand.









Dish promises 5G launch in 25 major markets before June deadline


Dish Wireless is gearing up for a busy 2022 as the new 5G network is nearly ready to launch in Las Vegas and the company plans to turn up service in 25 major markets and | Dish Wireless is gearing up for a busy 2022 as the new 5G network is nearly ready to launch in Las Vegas and the company...




www.fiercewireless.com


----------



## west99999 (May 12, 2007)

harsh said:


> There's also all of the stuff that DIRECTV is currently contracting with AT&T for that could be brought under one roof: billing, account management, install and repair. These are in addition to the overheads that you mentioned that are both costly and don't typically improve the customer experience in and of themselves.
> 
> DISH, while certainly not done with their MPEG2 conversion is much further along than DIRECTV's "natural attrition" approach. Conversion to DISH could take place at a gradual rate and many who couldn't access DIRECTV's centralized constellation may be granted access to DISH's arcs.


I’ve told you before so not sure why you still think it but DTV is NOT contracting those things out through ATT.


----------



## compnurd (Apr 23, 2007)

west99999 said:


> I’ve told you before so not sure why you still think it but DTV is NOT contracting those things out through ATT.


He is right for once. Directv has stated in past releases they are doing such and there was no plans to stop


----------



## west99999 (May 12, 2007)

compnurd said:


> He is right for once. Directv has stated in past releases they are doing such and there was no plans to stop


He’s actually not right. DTV does not use ATT for any part of installations or service. Only exception is if an Att tech is out installing internet they are allowed to assist with setting up stream service. They are not allowed to touch any part of DTV other than that. Billing system and other systems that Att once used are either already been charged or in the process of changing. Customer service had some contracts that were in place that had to stay but that is going to change as well. I’ve heard Dtv is even switching all their employees cell phones over to T-Mobile.


----------



## compnurd (Apr 23, 2007)

west99999 said:


> He’s actually not right. DTV does not use ATT for any part of installations or service. Only exception is if an Att tech is out installing internet they are allowed to assist with setting up stream service. They are not allowed to touch any part of DTV other than that. Billing system and other systems that Att once used are either already been charged or in the process of changing. Customer service had some contracts that were in place that had to stay but that is going to change as well. I’ve heard Dtv is even switching all their employees cell phones over to T-Mobile.


Lol. So he is right


----------



## west99999 (May 12, 2007)

compnurd said:


> Lol. So he is right


 They don’t contract out any of what he said from Att but yeah he’s right.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

NashGuy said:


> Makes sense that that would be the case if Ergen has been thinking that a merger with DTV is definitely going to happen at some point. And he keeps flatly stating that that is exactly what he believes.


You make it sound like the alleged compatibility is part of some decades old master plan. The potential for DISH equipment to work on DIRECTV is more a function of following the same international standards for DBS with DIRECTV moving closer to international standards, not DISH moving closer to DIRECTV's standards. Even with the similarities there are major differences in the systems to overcome. Not quite like running Android apps on an iPhone or vice versa, but still some major differences.



NashGuy said:


> Can't you stream the entire lineup of channels in your DISH package via the DISH app for Fire TV? That's my understanding. And if that's the case, that means that DISH has streaming rights for every single channel they carry.


I won't say the entire lineup, but streaming a DISH satellite subscription requires a DISH satellite installation. Perhaps someone somewhere has their DISH equipment turned off and is relying only on streamed channels but that isn't the way the channels are sold. It is a secondary delivery method not intended to be the primary method of viewing the service.


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

NashGuy said:


> DISH hardware is compatible


I wouldn't be so sure - there is at least one huge heavy roadblock - whole conditional access path, what included internal parts inside of SoC. 
It's big BGA chip inside of IRD


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

James Long said:


> You make it sound like the alleged compatibility is part of some decades old master plan. The potential for DISH equipment to work on DIRECTV is more a function of following the same international standards for DBS with DIRECTV moving closer to international standards


"Decades old master plan?" Bit of a rhetorical exaggeration there. I definitely think it's plausible that DISH engineers may have been designing things with the thought in mind that the Hopper/Joey platform would at some point need to be used with DTV installations, given Ergen's view that the two services would eventually merge. 

At any rate, I see no reason to doubt what I was told by a knowledgeable person that modern DISH receivers can in fact be used with DTV installations with the proper software installed.



James Long said:


> I won't say the entire lineup, but streaming a DISH satellite subscription requires a DISH satellite installation. Perhaps someone somewhere has their DISH equipment turned off and is relying only on streamed channels but that isn't the way the channels are sold. It is a secondary delivery method not intended to be the primary method of viewing the service.


Yes, I'm well aware of this. The question I asked was whether the full DISH channel line-up can be streamed via the DISH app. Never mind, the relevant page on their website seems to answer the question:

"Watch 100% of your live and recorded TV on the DISH Anywhere app available on your Amazon Fire TV Stick. Watching live and recorded TV anywhere requires an internet-connected Hopper with Sling or Hopper 3 and compatible mobile device."

So yes, apparently every linear channel that DISH carries can be streamed through their DISH Anywhere app for Fire TV. Although it isn't clear from that text whether some, all or none of the linear channels are being streamed from DISH's server versus coming from the Hopper, as is definitely the case with DVR recordings.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Since you have not named your source and he has not named his I will use my red line skills and cross out "fact". "He believes" would be more accurate.

Much of DISH Anywhere comes from the home. That is where DISH uses the Sling technology they bought with the company.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

P Smith said:


> By whom ? When ? here


Dish's last couple generations of hardware uses SoCs that support SWM, new firmware (and obviously a new dish) would make them able to get programming from Directv's satellites.


----------



## NYDutch (Dec 28, 2013)

James Long said:


> Since you have not named your source and he has not named his I will use my red line skills and cross out "fact". "He believes" would be more accurate.
> 
> Much of DISH Anywhere comes from the home. That is where DISH uses the Sling technology they bought with the company.


Exactly... The entire subscribed channel list is available with the DA app connected to an H2 or 3. Only about 100 channels are available via direct streaming.


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

slice1900 said:


> Dish's last couple generations of hardware uses SoCs that support SWM, new firmware (and obviously a new dish) would make them able to get programming from Directv's satellites.


I did specifically dig into relevant part of dish HW what does prevent accept blind technically clueless "source" of such misleading info. He is usually non proficient in HW aspects and just parroting rumors from his close source from top managers, not engineers, nor understanding technical aspects. It was before, it's happening now - he didn't change. He would tell anything what would attract an attention to his person or his site


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

P Smith said:


> I did specifically dig into relevant part of dish HW what does prevent accept blind technically clueless "source" of such misleading info.


I must have missed where you cited an authoritative source. An engineering background or degree doesn't logically give you access to the hardware and software design details for everything.

Your facts _seem_ to come more from basic reverse engineering than being directly involved in relevant product planning or development. Understanding hardware capabilities can tell a lot about a device but they don't address what might going on in software or support hardware.


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

harsh said:


> to come more from basic reverse engineering


At least it's real basis for do discuss possibilities of HW vs what that person, who are technically illiterate and totally relay to words of someone who are far away from HW Dept, perhaps rumoring itself or passing wishful thinking.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

P Smith said:


> At least it's real basis for do discuss possibilities of HW vs what that person, who are technically illiterate and totally relay to words of someone who are far away from HW Dept, perhaps rumoring itself or passing wishful thinking.


SoC spec sheets give insight into the hardware but they typically don't give any insight into the software and implementation choices which are where the differences typically happen. The chips are similary capable in the grand scheme.

By your argument, a modern PC couldn't possibly run Sega Genesis or Gameboy titles yet there are several very good emulators for each.

Where you stepped in it was to assert that nobody else could possibly have insights because they haven't identified themselves as electronic engineers. That's probably worse than asserting that you must be a DIRECTV subscriber to to follow what's going on. Your accusing others of not having proof yet you've provided little to nothing to back up your position other than claiming an educational credential.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

harsh said:


> SoC spec sheets give insight into the hardware but they typically don't give any insight into the software and implementation choices which are where the differences typically happen.


Software cannot add capabilities that are unsupported by the hardware. If the chipset cannot output the signals that the external devices rely on no level of firmware will make it work. Otherwise USB 1.0 ports would be software upgradable to USB 3.0, HDMI 1.0 ports would be software upgradable to HDMI 2.1.

Video games are UIs. Self contained on a computer they do not need to interface with external devices. Worst case one would need a physical interface to make old controllers work on new hardware. With a powerful enough computer one could emulate any UI. Controlling external hardware? That takes hardware compatibility.



harsh said:


> The chips are similary capable in the grand scheme.


Are you 100% sure that the chips DISH uses are 100% physically compatible with DIRECTV's switches?


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

James Long said:


> Are you 100% sure that the chips DISH uses are 100% physically compatible with DIRECTV's switches?


They are the same Broadcom 8 tuner satellite chips in Hopper and HR54/HS17. The main SoC is different I believe, with Hopper using one that's a bit more powerful but the satellite chips are what handles SWM.

The SoC does stuff like decoding MPEG4/HEVC, ethernet, MoCA, has the CPU and GPU, and so forth - obviously HS17 doesn't need as much power since it doesn't connect to a display.


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

To stir the side discussion down to functioning of [Broadcom] chip's... well known tuner chip BCM4500 have "cuts" eg revisions what are different, some of them support 8PSK with Trellis turbocoding, some - DSS. Wanna talk about SoC cuts now?


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

4505 and 4506 support both according to the listing on Broadcom's site. I do not know the eight tuner chip that the HR54, HS17 and H3 use. 4505 and 4506 are single and dual tuner chips.


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

Well, take in account current A3 [ACM] support for DVB-S2[D] signaling and you will have a headache (not for harsh though)


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

James Long said:


> 4505 and 4506 support both according to the listing on Broadcom's site.


 True, but in reality, you must order by specifying certain cut, according your specs.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

James Long said:


> Software cannot add capabilities that are unsupported by the hardware.


That used to be true, but in the 21st century we have devices that are powerful and flexible enough to implement protocols that aren't built in to the hardware. This probably doesn't include adding features like more advanced video compression schemes but it can certainly instruct the hardware to use different communications and signalling protocols such as client support. Much of what used to be determined by hardware logic gates is now under the rule of software drivers and hardware abstraction layers so you're assertion is clearly not a universal truth.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

P Smith said:


> To stir the side discussion down to functioning of [Broadcom] chip's... well known tuner chip BCM4500 have "cuts" eg revisions what are different, some of them support 8PSK with Trellis turbocoding, some - DSS. Wanna talk about SoC cuts now?


Not unless you can provide specific and authoritative details as to how they are included in the respective DIRECTV and DISH receiver designs (and probably not even then).

This thread is about a possible corporate merger, not an exposition on general satellite STB design. Only existing DIRECTV and DISH STBs need to be considered and then only in the event that the hardware platforms might be somehow merged.


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

harsh said:


> Not unless you can provide specific and authoritative details


Go to Broadcom, make a request, get it approved, sign NDA and KEEP YOUR MOUTH SHUT !


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

P Smith said:


> To stir the side discussion down to functioning of [Broadcom] chip's... well known tuner chip BCM4500 have "cuts" eg revisions what are different, some of them support 8PSK with Trellis turbocoding, some - DSS. Wanna talk about SoC cuts now?


That's a 10+ year old chip, irrelevant to the discussion about modern 8-16 tuner DVRs.

It is also virtually certain that all BCM4500 "cuts" are the same silicon, with different features licensed for use or not. It costs a lot to design and tape out a chip, it is too expensive to actually use different dies for each when you can use the same chip for them all and just not license Dish the "DSS" feature or Directv the "8PSK turbo" feature. Those features would still be in the chip, thus easily enabled in software (after negotiating a small fee to Broadcom to do so legally)


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

harsh said:


> ... you're assertion is clearly not a universal truth.


Be careful. Your assertion than everything can be done in software is absolutely not a universal truth. See examples above. Your confidence in DISH engineering is encouraging, but misplaced.


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

slice1900 said:


> Those features would still be in the chip


According field tests/attempts to employ same FW (for dish or dss or dvb) this is not correct - features was different and did tie to three letters (cut/die version), like P20 or P21 or P30 printed on that chips.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

slice1900 said:


> That's a 10+ year old chip, irrelevant to the discussion about modern 8-16 tuner DVRs.


The claim was:


slice1900 said:


> Dish's last couple generations of hardware uses SoCs that support SWM, new firmware (and obviously a new dish) would make them able to get programming from Directv's satellites.


To include the "last couple generations" one would need to go back at least 10 years. The Hopper 3 was released in January 2016 (six years ago) and remains the latest generation. Being kind the "last couple generations" should go back to the Hopper 2000 in 2012 - or "all XIP models" (various Hoppers and the Wally). I will be kind and not assume the claim includes VIP models from 2006 ish. (The Hopper 3 was in development more than six years ago and the Hopper 2000 more than 10.)

That being said I'm sure DISH could work something out. They had a "Q-Box" a few years ago that would connect to their previous generation receivers (VIP) and allow them to work on QAM systems (satellite feeds converted to QAM for commercial MDU use). They could develop a "D-Box" if needed to make an XIP (possibly even a VIP) work. Arguing over whether or not that compatibility is native to the XIP or would need an adapter is basically pointless and in the weeds.

DISH's latest "receivers" focus on the Internet. The Hopper Plus which adds an Android interface to the Hopper 3 and eventually the Hopper w/Sling and the Joey 4 and Joey 4 wireless that replace the older Joeys and have an Android interface. One should be able to run the DIRECTV Stream app on the new devices (or Sling TV, or YTTV or other apps.)


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

I'm still very VERY skeptical about ability dish HW support DTV conditional access, especially counting the "latest" dish DVR [H3] designed 10 years ago and pretty sure - that time dish wouldn't pay for "universal" chips [SoC] eg for DTV/BCM IP rights to decode DTV channels

Highly Unlike !


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

slice1900 said:


> That's a 10+ year old chip, irrelevant to the discussion about modern 8-16 tuner DVRs.


You still missing a point of DTV/_News Datacom_ IP related to DTV HW conditional access,
dish cannot employ now nor 10 years ago any part of DTV conditional access, nor BCM !


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

P Smith said:


> Go to Broadcom, make a request, get it approved, sign NDA and KEEP YOUR MOUTH SHUT !


What would be the point of going to all that trouble?

Knowing what the chips are and aren't capable of doesn't give you mastery over how they were actually cobbled together with other hardware and software to make a specific finished product.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

P Smith said:


> You still missing a point of DTV/_News Datacom_ IP related to DTV HW conditional access,
> dish cannot employ now nor 10 years ago any part of DTV conditional access, nor BCM !


That's what was said about TiVo not being able to handle switched digital cable back in the day. The answer came in the form of the tuning adapter.

We already know that DISH receivers can use foreign keys for EHD use. I don't think it is reasonable to assume that DIRECTV technology will be the long-term survivor in the event that this merger scenario comes to pass.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

harsh said:


> I don't think it is reasonable to assume that DIRECTV technology will be the long-term survivor in the event that this merger scenario comes to pass.


Why can't both technologies survive? One starts from a false assumption if one thinks that either system will be decommissioned (satellites or receivers) quickly after a merger.

By the time either system is shut down something long term will be available.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

James Long said:


> Your assertion than everything can be done in software is absolutely not a universal truth.


I didn't make such a broad assertion. Yours was all-encompassing.


> Your confidence in DISH engineering is encouraging, but misplaced.


I recall a time when the concept of EHD content being used between receivers was seen as hardware heresy but here we are with a software solution using a foreign key (on the DISH side anyway).


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

James Long said:


> By the time either system is shut down something long term will be available.


Methinks you have too much confidence in the future in DBS. It is pretty clear that DIRECTV isn't working all that feverishly on a long-term DBS solution and DISH hasn't shown any grand gestures to extend the life of their DBS efforts.

I would direct your attention to the Orby fiasco.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

Even if it was 100% impossible to use Dish hardware with Directv broadcasts that's irrelevant. It would take years to phase out Dish's two arcs, and since that process would require replacing the Dish they could replace the receivers at that time. Whether they are refurbished HS17s or a "Hopper 5" that's compatible with both legacy Dish and Directv broadcasts wouldn't matter to 95% of customers who wouldn't know/care about the difference anyway.

This debate is mostly mental masturbation, a merged company isn't going to go on a massive program of replacing 8 million Dish dishes on roofs whether or not the same hardware could be used. They will wait years until the number of people is small enough to make that worth it, and by then they would not be wanting to use outdated Hopper 3/4 hardware that would be beyond its service life anyway.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

harsh said:


> I didn't make such a broad assertion. Yours was all-encompassing.


You are having difficulty reading. My posts are above for those who are confused.



harsh said:


> Methinks you have too much confidence in the future in DBS. It is pretty clear that DIRECTV isn't working all that feverishly on a long-term DBS solution and DISH hasn't shown any grand gestures to extend the life of their DBS efforts.


Again you are having difficulty reading. I did not say the "something long term" would be DBS. At least not the FCC license definition of DBS. I am thinking more along the lines of this site's definition of DBS ... the Digital Bit Stream.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

James Long said:


> Software cannot add capabilities that are unsupported by the hardware.


That sounds pretty absolute.

The HS17 is incapable of producing an HDMI signal but with software and client hardware, it can drive up to seven displays.

The HR54 has an HDMI output but it is incapable of displaying 4K. Software and a 4K Genie Mini makes it possible.


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

duh ! 💩 👺


----------



## AZ. (Mar 27, 2011)

Id like to know the last time any antitrust was stopped? IMO thats a huge part of all are problems with media!

A handful of companies run all our local affiliates....Every major network has at least one movie production company. ATT is the poster boy of antitrust BS!.....Close second Comcast!


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

AZ. said:


> Id like to know the last time any antitrust was stopped?


Some companies (including DISH) have bowed to threats from government agencies but of those who decided that they were going to make it happen no matter what, roadblocks could be end-run by promises of good citizenship. The TV station ownership thing is largely the FCC's baby while merger's such as this would be FTC and DOJ reviewed. The FCC needs to solicit help.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

harsh said:


> The HS17 is incapable of producing an HDMI signal but with software and client hardware, it can drive up to seven displays.
> 
> The HR54 has an HDMI output but it is incapable of displaying 4K. Software and a 4K Genie Mini makes it possible.


Nether are examples of a device with hardware limitations being able to overcome that limit via software. Both are examples of "if your hardware cannot perform USE DIFFERENT HARDWARE for the missing capability"

Still waiting for you to claim a USB 1.0 port can be upgraded to USB 3.2 or a HDMI 1.0 output can be upgraded to HDMI 2.1 by only changing software. Perhaps you buy gas for your car online and have it delivered by email? Not everything can be done via software. (And don't waste your time saying you didn't say that - what you did say is just as outrageous.)


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

James Long said:


> Nether are examples of a device with hardware limitations being able to overcome that limit via software. Both are examples of "if your hardware cannot perform USE DIFFERENT HARDWARE for the missing capability"


If that works, who are we to whine? I'm sure you recall the Hopper Snap that is connected via USB 2.0 to the earlier Hoppers accelerate the CUI since the internal SoC apparently isn't up to it.


> Still waiting for you to claim a USB 1.0 port can be upgraded to USB 3.2 or a HDMI 1.0 output can be upgraded to HDMI 2.1 by only changing software.


I made no such specific claim. I'm talking about areas where the functionality of the hardware can be extended by software, not replaced by it.

The goal here is not to throw the baby out with the bathwater but to suggest ways that existing hardware might be made interoperable with the other side's protocols.


----------



## krel (Mar 20, 2013)

NashGuy said:


> One of the top admins on another popular DBS forum who has contacts inside DISH. He says he's been told that the DISH hardware is compatible with the DTV system but would need a software/firmware update first. Makes sense that that would be the case if Ergen has been thinking that a merger with DTV is definitely going to happen at some point. And he keeps flatly stating that that is exactly what he believes.


It's gonna be interesting to see how everything plays out with all of the rumors and speculation flying around. I don't think Charlie hast the money to buy dtv with his 5G investment 🤔.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

krel said:


> I don't think Charlie hast the money to buy dtv with his 5G investment 🤔.


Don't underestimate Charlie and don't overestimate the value of DIRECTV. DIRECTV's value in other than consumer recognition is fading awfully fast and as James regularly points out, Charlie will benefit the longer he waits (up to a point).


----------



## krel (Mar 20, 2013)

harsh said:


> Don't underestimate Charlie and don't overestimate the value of DIRECTV. DIRECTV's value in other than consumer recognition is fading awfully fast and as James regularly points out, Charlie will benefit the longer he waits (up to a point).


i agree with you. id'e wait till one files bankrupt then buy it cheap


----------



## AZ. (Mar 27, 2011)

krel said:


> i agree with you. id'e wait till one files bankrupt then buy it cheap


I cant imagine ATT filing for bankruptcy because of Direct?


----------



## NYDutch (Dec 28, 2013)

AZ. said:


> I cant imagine ATT filing for bankruptcy because of Direct?


 But now that AT&T has spun DTV off as a separate company, I can see that company potentially filling for bankruptcy.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

NYDutch said:


> But now that AT&T has spun DTV off as a separate company, I can see that company potentially filling for bankruptcy.


At the time of the spinoff, Directv was generating well over $3 billion a year in cash flow. The amount of debt it brought with it into the spinoff means it will be making money well into the latter half of this decade.

Wall Street funds don't invest in businesses that are going on a short path to bankruptcy.


----------



## CraigerM (Apr 15, 2014)

I think it would be cool if Dish came out with the Hopper 4 with Google TV and allowed that along with the Hopper 3 to be used with the DTV Dish and satellites. The only bad thing about that is DTV customers would have to learn new channel numbers and there GUI. Also, for the DTV customers to get the Dish Network pricing. I saw they are lower than DTV's. Then when the satellite's run out of fuel, they would have DTV Stream or SlingTV replace SatelliteTV.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

slice1900 said:


> Wall Street funds don't invest in businesses that are going on a short path to bankruptcy.


Typically I would agree, but TPG's desire to divest so soon (less than a year after purchase) leads me to believe that the investment may have been a mistake.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

James Long said:


> Typically I would agree, but TPG's desire to divest so soon (less than a year after purchase) leads me to believe that the investment may have been a mistake.


No they are just indicating they will happy to sell it if they can find someone willing to pay more than they did. Or even the same price they did, which combined with the profit they've made from it during the time they held it would be a nice YoY return for them.

If they were offered a lowball price they will hold it, as they obviously would not have bought it if they didn't see it as a winner. Maybe not something they view as a winner 10 years from now, but they'd have to plan at least 3-5 years out.


----------



## krel (Mar 20, 2013)

James Long said:


> Typically I would agree, but TPG's desire to divest so soon (less than a year after purchase) leads me to believe that the investment may have been a mistake.


I thought that tgp was like a mediator. They just buy companies and stir things up so they can sell it for higher profit


----------



## MysteryMan (May 17, 2010)

krel said:


> I thought that tgp was like a mediator. They just buy companies and stir things up so they can sell it for higher profit


TPG is an American investment company that focuses on leveraged buyouts and growth capital. In 2021 they purchased 30% of DIRECTV with operational control. AT&T owns 70% of DIRECTV.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

AZ. said:


> I cant imagine ATT filing for bankruptcy because of Direct?


DIRECTV is a joint venture and has its own books. It can most certainly enter bankruptcy without either of the parent companies doing so.

The concern there would be who the "secured creditors" (those who get first whack at the cremains) are and you can bet that AT&T would be atop that list in the event of a liquidation.


----------



## krel (Mar 20, 2013)

AZ. said:


> I cant imagine ATT filing for bankruptcy because of Direct?


Dtv is a seperate company now. though att just helps out now and then. what dtv needs to be doing is finding ways to be competitve you know things like loyality discounts first responder discounts old folks discounts. and maybe doing a two year price lock like dish does. i am sure that will help em keep customers.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

krel said:


> Dtv is a seperate company now. though att just helps out now and then.


slice1900 would probably disagree, but I suspect that DIRECTV couldn't operate without AT&T's various contributions were they to suddenly and collectively go away.


----------



## compnurd (Apr 23, 2007)

krel said:


> Dtv is a seperate company now. though att just helps out now and then. what dtv needs to be doing is finding ways to be competitve you know things like loyality discounts first responder discounts old folks discounts. and maybe doing a two year price lock like dish does. i am sure that will help em keep customers.


what??????


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

slice1900 said:


> Even if it was 100% impossible to use Dish hardware with Directv broadcasts that's irrelevant. It would take years to phase out Dish's two arcs, and since that process would require replacing the Dish they could replace the receivers at that time. Whether they are refurbished HS17s or a "Hopper 5" that's compatible with both legacy Dish and Directv broadcasts wouldn't matter to 95% of customers who wouldn't know/care about the difference anyway.
> 
> This debate is mostly mental masturbation, a merged company isn't going to go on a massive program of replacing 8 million Dish dishes on roofs whether or not the same hardware could be used. They will wait years until the number of people is small enough to make that worth it, and by then they would not be wanting to use outdated Hopper 3/4 hardware that would be beyond its service life anyway.


Generally agree with you here. But my original point about using current DISH receivers (e.g. Hopper 3 and Joey) with DTV's DBS system is based on my hypothesis that all new subscribers post-merger would be set up with rooftop dishes pointed at the DTV satellite fleet since it has a longer expected lifespan (and perhaps other advantages over the DISH fleet as well). But given the technical superiority of the DISH receiver platform, they would opt to use those boxes for new subs, meaning that they would have to work properly with the DTV DBS system.

Yes, if necessary, the merged company could simply create a new Hopper 4 that works with both DBS systems. But my original point is that that probably wouldn't be necessary, that they could simply take the existing Hopper 3 and Joey and load new firmware/software on them to make them compatible with both systems and therefore work with both types of installations.

As I've said before, I do not think there would be any widespread replacement of existing rooftop dishes or receivers after the two companies merge as that would be cost-prohibitive. I expect that existing DTV customers would be grandfathered into their DTV-branded service with its distinctive set of Genie receivers and channel packages. But any of those customers who chose to switch to the ongoing DISH-branded post-merger service could do so and would be sent new Hopper/Joey receivers that they could easily swap out and use with their existing rooftop dish and wiring.

Now, at some point in the future, the DISH satellite fleet will completely die. The expected time for that to happen, based on the standard 15-year lifespan for DBS sats, is 2026, although as we've both said, sats can and often do last longer than 15 years. But whenever that day comes, the combined company will be expecting it and will have worked well in advanced of that date to shift their existing customers still being served by the DISH sat fleet over to either 100% OTT streaming-delivered service or to service delivered via the still operational DTV sat fleet. The latter option, of course, would require a new rooftop dish to be installed.

My guess is that the combined company will aim to shift as much of their customer base over from DBS to OTT streaming delivery of their service as possible over the course of this decade for various reasons. DBS will increasingly be used only for homes where broadband is unavailable. And of course the percentage of US homes for which that's true will only continue to dwindle as fiber, cable, and fixed wireless broadband continues to penetrate rural America in the 20s.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

harsh said:


> slice1900 would probably disagree, but I suspect that DIRECTV couldn't operate without AT&T's various contributions were they to suddenly and collectively go away.


Define "contribution". Are you talking about contracted services such as billing (for those billed by AT&T) and marketing (especially important to reach AT&T data customers that would have been offered Uverse a few years ago)? Or are you suggesting some under the table support?


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

NashGuy said:


> they could simply take the existing Hopper 3 and Joey and *load *new firmware/software on them to make them compatible with both systems


Oh no! Not again!

You can't "load something" into dish H3,if its HW doesn't support DTV's: DSS, A3, NDS, etc


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

harsh said:


> slice1900 would probably disagree, but I suspect that DIRECTV couldn't operate without AT&T's various contributions were they to suddenly and collectively go away.


Obviously Directv got rid of its own billing department and CSRs, or some of them were merged into AT&T's departments. They'd need to do the reverse to operate independently as before.

Whether that's actually happening, or will happen, I don't know.

Since AT&T owns 70% of it, obviously they won't "suddenly and collectively go away" so that's a ridiculous strawman. If overlap between AT&T's functions are planned to go away so Directv becomes independent it will happen that way, "planned" not "suddenly".


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

krel said:


> though att just helps out now and then.


AT&T still owns the DIRECTV.COM domain. That's hardly a sign of a free-standing entity.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

James Long said:


> Are you talking about contracted services such as billing (for those billed by AT&T) and marketing (especially important to reach AT&T data customers that would have been offered Uverse a few years ago)? Or are you suggesting some under the table support?


There may be a little of both, but I was referring mainly to the services that DIRECTV contracts out to AT&T.


----------



## NYDutch (Dec 28, 2013)

harsh said:


> AT&T still owns the DIRECTV.COM domain. That's hardly a sign of a free-standing entity.


Keep in mind the spin off is less than a year old. There's a lot of small details involved in a business separation like this that just take time to resolve. The domain ownership may not even change until renewal time or later. This is of course a very friendly separation, not a contentious divorce.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

NYDutch said:


> The domain ownership may not even change until renewal time or later.


The directv.com registration expires in 12 days days so we don't have long to wait to find out.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

If it expires will you grab it? 

Their IP address range for the website is registered to:
Hughes Electronics Corporation
2250 East Imperial Highway, El Segundo CA


----------



## krel (Mar 20, 2013)

harsh said:


> AT&T still owns the DIRECTV.COM domain. That's hardly a sign of a free-standing entity.


Agree


----------



## krel (Mar 20, 2013)

compnurd said:


> what??????


I belive that dish has some of those perks as well!!!


----------



## krel (Mar 20, 2013)

harsh said:


> slice1900 would probably disagree, but I suspect that DIRECTV couldn't operate without AT&T's various contributions were they to suddenly and collectively go away.


I would also think that att is collecting dividends on dtv still. Since they lost there asses in the sale.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

James Long said:


> If it expires will you grab it?


DIRECTV can (and arguably should) execute a transfer before expiration. A third party can't do anything until after expiration.

How this goes down may tell us a lot about how many thumbs AT&T still has in the DIRECTV pie and/or how much attention to detail they're exercising in their divestiture efforts.


> Their IP address range for the website is registered to:
> Hughes Electronics Corporation
> 2250 East Imperial Highway, El Segundo CA


Who the domain host is has little to do with anything.

That Hughes Electronics Corporation no longer exists may be evidence to the neglect that DIRECTV has exercised in keeping up with its paperwork in the post News Corp era.

There is a Hughes Electronics Products Corporation but they are headquartered in Livonia Michigan.


----------



## NYDutch (Dec 28, 2013)

harsh said:


> DIRECTV can (and arguably should) execute a transfer before expiration. A third party can't do anything until after expiration.
> 
> How this goes down may tell us a lot about how many thumbs AT&T still has in the DIRECTV pie and/or how much attention to detail they're exercising in their divestiture efforts.
> Who the domain host is has little to do with anything.
> ...


Are you forgetting that AT&T is still owns 70% of DTV?


----------



## MysteryMan (May 17, 2010)

NYDutch said:


> Are you forgetting that AT&T is still owns 70% of DTV?


There's a lot of people on this site that can't understand that!


----------



## b4pjoe (Nov 20, 2010)

harsh said:


> DIRECTV can (and arguably should) execute a transfer before expiration. A third party can't do anything until after expiration.


A third party can make an offer or bid on the domain but the previous owner has first rights to renew for 30 days. If after 30 days they don't renew the third party can then purchase it.

Domain Registration: The Life Cycle of a Domain


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

harsh said:


> That Hughes Electronics Corporation no longer exists may be evidence to the neglect that DIRECTV has exercised in keeping up with its paperwork in the post News Corp era..


That's the point. Using the name on the registration as proof that the old company remains in day to day control over the operation is a fallacy. Whether the domain is renewed in the name of AT&T or DIRECTV (or Hughes) does not affect who is in day to day control of DIRECTV.



NYDutch said:


> Are you forgetting that AT&T is still owns 70% of DTV?


Are you forgetting AT&T sold control of DTV? Sure, they still get a share of the profits and can bury the results in their SEC filings as if they are ashamed of their investment. But if AT&T disagrees about how DIRECTV is being operated their only control is through the board of directors where AT&T has a minority membership.


----------



## NYDutch (Dec 28, 2013)

James Long said:


> That's the point. Using the name on the registration as proof that the old company remains in day to day control over the operation is a fallacy. Whether the domain is renewed in the name of AT&T or DIRECTV (or Hughes) does not affect who is in day to day control of DIRECTV.
> 
> 
> Are you forgetting AT&T sold control of DTV? Sure, they still get a share of the profits and can bury the results in their SEC filings as if they are ashamed of their investment. But if AT&T disagrees about how DIRECTV is being operated their only control is through the board of directors where AT&T has a minority membership.


My point was more to the relatively minor details like domain ownership of a spin off that can take an extended period to get sorted out since there's no hard split involved here and no rush. It took at least a couple of years for Echostar and Dish to get the various contracts, licensing, etc., sorted out when they split.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

P Smith said:


> Oh no! Not again!
> 
> You can't "load something" into dish H3,if its HW doesn't support DTV's: DSS, A3, NDS, etc


"If" is the key word there. I'll believe the H3 hardware _is_ capable of supporting DTV's system, given that it's running the appropriate firmware/software, unless proven wrong.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

NYDutch said:


> Keep in mind the spin off is less than a year old. There's a lot of small details involved in a business separation like this that just take time to resolve. The domain ownership may not even change until renewal time or later. This is of course a very friendly separation, not a contentious divorce.


Yes. And why bother with any further major changes (e.g. billing) to separate DTV from AT&T for the time being, when the current structure is only intended to be temporary, until TPG can manage to secure some kind of merger deal with Dish, collect their payout and exit the business? I really doubt that TPG ever intended to own and operate DTV indefinitely. It was always about getting it ready for as quick a sale as possible.


----------



## compnurd (Apr 23, 2007)

NashGuy said:


> Yes. And why bother with any further major changes (e.g. billing) to separate DTV from AT&T for the time being, when the current structure is only intended to be temporary, until TPG can manage to secure some kind of merger deal with Dish, collect their payout and exit the business? I really doubt that TPG ever intended to own and operate DTV indefinitely. It was always about getting it ready for as quick a sale as possible.


Yup. And anyone who thinks otherwise is smoking some good cheeba


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

NashGuy said:


> "If" is the key word there. I'll believe the H3 hardware _is_ capable of supporting DTV's system, given that it's running the appropriate firmware/software, unless proven wrong.


Agreed. I will believe that the H3 can support viewing DIRECTV satellite channels only if it happens. At least the claim has shrunk from all of the latest receivers. 

That being said, the Hopper Plus and Joey 4 should be able to run the DIRECTV Stream app.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

NashGuy said:


> Yes. And why bother with any further major changes (e.g. billing) to separate DTV from AT&T for the time being, when the current structure is only intended to be temporary, until TPG can manage to secure some kind of merger deal with Dish, collect their payout and exit the business?


The separation will need to be done unless AT&T wants to support DISH in the future. The point of the sale was to get out of the MVPD / vMVPD business. Still collect a cut of whatever profits DIRECTV makes but not have "Video" as a focus. Other than billing for customers with other AT&T products, they should be working away from providing customer support. I'd expect that they would want all of the independent customers on DIRECTV billing before they wrap up the "Video" services with a bow and hand it to the next buyer.



NashGuy said:


> I really doubt that TPG ever intended to own and operate DTV indefinitely. It was always about getting it ready for as quick a sale as possible.


I expected the deal to last a lot longer than 6 months before they shopped for someone to bail them out. I have not researched every company TPG has flipped (bought and then later sold). Alltel was a quick flip (6 months from buy to sell) but I didn't see anything else flip that quick. (Perhaps you have a list?)


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

I don’t understand why anyone thinks they would start moving everyone to one system. I don’t see the point, not anytime soon anyway. 

Nor would they stop selling either service, they’d run them both separately to the front facing customer imho. Combine backend where they could (csr for example) but leave the products separate for the customer. 

I can see them using hoppers as new hardware for DIRECTV satelite service but it would still be sold either to dish customers or DIRECTV customers. Want satellite, ok…. Here the box, which service? Ok we will slap this sticker on the front of the box then. 

There is zero incentive money wise from a cost savings point to move everyone to either platform. The cost savings would be in the bargaining power for channels and streaming rights. And those would become crazy complicated since they’d still be selling most channels on two totally separate systems in different packages. 

It would truly mean dish could permanently drop every sports channel there is, and make sure DIRECTV carried everyone of them forever. It’d allow them to truly offer more options. It’d make for crazy negotiations but it’d benefit them big time in the long run because they’d be able to have their cake and eat it to in the dispute category.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

James Long said:


> The separation will need to be done unless AT&T wants to support DISH in the future. The point of the sale was to get out of the MVPD / vMVPD business. Still collect a cut of whatever profits DIRECTV makes but not have "Video" as a focus. Other than billing for customers with other AT&T products, they should be working away from providing customer support. I'd expect that they would want all of the independent customers on DIRECTV billing before they wrap up the "Video" services with a bow and hand it to the next buyer.
> 
> I expected the deal to last a lot longer than 6 months before they shopped for someone to bail them out. I have not researched every company TPG has flipped (bought and then later sold). Alltel was a quick flip (6 months from buy to sell) but I didn't see anything else flip that quick. (Perhaps you have a list?)


I wonder if they actually shopped or if dish called and said, ok, now that someone with a brain is in charge let’s talk. Likely thinking they may get a better deal if they chase it sooner rather than latter as well.


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

NashGuy said:


> I'll believe the H3 hardware _is_ capable of supporting DTV's system, given that it's running the appropriate firmware/software, unless proven wrong.


Actually you are reversed it and do fly again common sense; like asking to prove miracles. You have no base to suggest such universality of H3' HW while having no proof of your idea.
The point is HW capability, while you're repeatedly pedaling SW/FW features, carefully carving out my points of inability the dish H3 HW to support many DTV key features.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

P Smith said:


> Actually you are reversed it and do fly again common sense; like asking to prove miracles. You have no base to suggest such universality of H3' HW while having no proof of your idea.


Yes I do. My basis for believing what I believe on this subject are statements from other folks whom I deem to be more credible than you. Bye.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

inkahauts said:


> I don’t understand why anyone thinks they would start moving everyone to one system. I don’t see the point, not anytime soon anyway.


The reason a merged Dish/DTV would aim to consolidate their business under one brand and one technical platform is the same reason that Discovery's CFO today announced that the future Warner Bros. Discovery will merge HBO Max and Discovery+ into one service/app: to reduce operating and marketing costs. It's not as simple to do that with two DBS services as it is with two OTT SVODs; the consolidation process would certainly take longer. But it just wouldn't make sense for them to continue spending money marketing two separate DBS services or creating hardware for two separate tech platforms. 

That said, there's no getting around them having to continue supporting all the existing installed hardware out in the field. And they're not going to yank away anyone's existing channel package, whether its under the DTV or Dish brand. But going forward, they'll want to sell a unified set of channel packages. As existing Dish and DTV channel carriage contracts expire, they'll negotiate new ones that cover their entire customer base. Relatively greater numbers of subs under a given contract tend to result in relatively lower carriage costs.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

James Long said:


> The separation will need to be done unless AT&T wants to support DISH in the future. The point of the sale was to get out of the MVPD / vMVPD business. Still collect a cut of whatever profits DIRECTV makes but not have "Video" as a focus. Other than billing for customers with other AT&T products, they should be working away from providing customer support. I'd expect that they would want all of the independent customers on DIRECTV billing before they wrap up the "Video" services with a bow and hand it to the next buyer.


I think the main point of the sale, from AT&T's perspective, was just to get DTV off their books and out of their quarterly earnings calls to Wall Street. That sale, along with the subsequent Warner sale, is all about AT&T getting leaner and focused once again on their core competency: communications networks.

I do think we'll see AT&T separate out DTV billing but, as I say, it may make more sense from them to wait until a deal is struck with DISH so that they know the technical specifics of what the final billing system is going to look like. For instance, let's say that the merged company would place all accounts in the existing DISH system. DTV accounts currently exist in two separate systems: the original DTV system and the AT&T system. Why shift all those DTV accounts in the AT&T system over to the DTV system in 2022 if, come 2023, all those account will then have to be shifted over to the DISH system? Wouldn't it just make more sense to stick with the status quo for the time being?


----------



## b4pjoe (Nov 20, 2010)

NashGuy said:


> Why shift all those DTV accounts in the AT&T system over to the DTV system in 2022?


They have already started moving accounts to directv.com from att.com. Mine, and some others were migrated back within the last week.









Account has been migrated...


back to DIRECTV from AT&T. WOOHOO! I only found out because I needed to replace a remote under the protection plan. Logged into AT&T and none of my DirecTV info was there. No billing. No receivers. No Programming. Only option was to add an AT&T service. Logged into DirecTV.com which usually...




www.dbstalk.com


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

NashGuy said:


> I believe on this subject are statements from other folks whom I deem to be more credible than you.


Duh! 
You have no doubt following words from folks who are totally have no credibility in HW of dish and DTV IRDs, but reporting rumors from unknown source. That's fine for personal consuming, but only if you will keep it for yourself and do not propagate it in Internet.
Else, you are posting a "miracle" nonsense here. Sorry, it's not your cup of tea.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

NYDutch said:


> Are you forgetting that AT&T is still owns 70% of DTV?


Are you forgetting that it is AT&T's goal (and the primary purpose of the joint venture) is to liquidate DIRECTV?

To that end, they should tidy up any loose ends rather than waiting until the last minute (or pass on to the next owner) such that everything is current and accurate.

Hughes Electronics was renamed to The DIRECTV Group in 2003 when News Corp acquired it.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

harsh said:


> Are you forgetting that it is AT&T's goal (and the primary purpose of the joint venture) is to liquidate DIRECTV?
> 
> To that end, they should tidy up any loose ends rather than waiting until the last minute (or pass on to the next owner) such that everything is current and accurate.
> 
> Hughes Electronics was renamed to The DIRECTV Group in 2003 when News Corp acquired it.


Can you show me any statement or evidence anywhere their goal is to liquidate DIRECTV? Liquidate means to sell it off for parts and see it disappear.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

DELETED (b4pjoe beat me to it)


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

NashGuy said:


> The reason a merged Dish/DTV would aim to consolidate their business under one brand and one technical platform is the same reason that Discovery's CFO today announced that the future Warner Bros. Discovery will merge HBO Max and Discovery+ into one service/app: to reduce operating and marketing costs. It's not as simple to do that with two DBS services as it is with two OTT SVODs; the consolidation process would certainly take longer. But it just wouldn't make sense for them to continue spending money marketing two separate DBS services or creating hardware for two separate tech platforms.
> 
> That said, there's no getting around them having to continue supporting all the existing installed hardware out in the field. And they're not going to yank away anyone's existing channel package, whether its under the DTV or Dish brand. But going forward, they'll want to sell a unified set of channel packages. As existing Dish and DTV channel carriage contracts expire, they'll negotiate new ones that cover their entire customer base. Relatively greater numbers of subs under a given contract tend to result in relatively lower carriage costs.


We will have to disagree on this one completely. The customers of the two service are at least 50% different in what they want, as one doesn’t care about sports and I’m sure the other does. 

And the HBO max is a terrible comparison. That will cost minimal amount of money. No confusion for the customer. Swapping everyone to one system or the other will cause a massive amount of customers to just flat out leave the system. The vast majority of people with dish and DIRECTV are with them because they offer something the other service/s don’t offer and would see no point in staying if those options disappeared. 

There is a reason so many grocery chains have multiple brands even in the same markets. Or why Walmart owns sams club… 

Now I could see them merging sling and DIRECTV stream…. But even then I’m not totally convinced because they both offer very different options as well.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

inkahauts said:


> Can you show me any statement or evidence anywhere their goal is to liquidate DIRECTV? Liquidate means to sell it off for parts and see it disappear.


Liquidate was the wrong term (my bad). The term used was "monetize". The end result is that DIRECTV will end up off of AT&T's books.









AT&T CEO John Stankey Updates Shareholders


AT&T CEO John Stankey gave an update on the company’s operational and capital allocation strategies at the Goldman Sachs Communacopia Conference.




about.att.com





This announcement came less than a year after Stankey told the Wall Street Journal that DIRECTV was "too important" to be divested.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

inkahauts said:


> And the HBO max is a terrible comparison. That will cost minimal amount of money. No confusion for the customer.


Minimal amount? Discovery's CFO said yesterday that the total spend for marketing and technology between HBO Max and Discovery+ is $6 billion. By combining the two into one service running on a single tech platform, they think they'll lower that cost considerably. The overall cost savings they think they'll get from merging WB and Discovery is about $3 billion.









Streaming Combo Of HBO Max And Discovery+ Will “Take A While,” CFO Affirms


Eventually, HBO Max and Discovery+ will come together as a single streaming offering, but the integration will “take a while,” CFO Gunnar Wiedenfels said at an investor conference Monda…




deadline.com







inkahauts said:


> Swapping everyone to one system or the other will cause a massive amount of customers to just flat out leave the system. The vast majority of people with dish and DIRECTV are with them because they offer something the other service/s don’t offer and would see no point in staying if those options disappeared.


God, I don't know how many times I have to type this up: *Existing customers will NOT be forced to swap out their existing installed hardware or channel packages after DTV and DISH merge. They'll be grandfathered in on what they have. *

What I'm talking about is having a single service going forward that is actively sold to new subscribers (as well as to existing subs who wish to make changes to their hardware and/or channel package.) Maybe that single service will be branded as DIRECTV. Maybe it will be branded as DISH. Maybe something else. My guess, for various reasons, is that it will be branded DISH. And if they continue to use the DIRECTV brand, it will be for the streaming version of the service. (In time, if not immediately, both the satellite and streaming version will offer the same set of channel packages, just as is the case between DTV satellite and DTV Stream today.)

Let's say the new service is branded as DISH and has a slightly rejiggered set of channel packages versus what DISH sells now (perhaps with RSNs available as a la carte add-ons to any base package, much like HBO and Showtime). You can be sure that if there's only one ongoing satellite TV service, it will offer all the popular channels (especially sports) already offered between the two current services. And my guess is that it will continue to use the more advanced DISH hardware: Hopper 3, Hopper Duo, and the new Hopper Plus and wireless Joey. New DISH customers would get a rooftop dish pointed at the newer DTV satellite fleet with which their new DISH hardware would be compatible.

And just as DTV has not shut down the legacy AT&T Uverse TV service, even though it hasn't been sold to new customers in two years now, the merged company wouldn't shut down the legacy DTV satellite service. Maybe your bill would change to denote that your DTV service is now run by a different company (e.g. "DIRECTV by DISH"). And eventually, over time, you might see a channel here or there dropped or added from your package. But as long as your old Genie continued to work and you were happy with your grandfathered package, they'd let you keep it. Why run off a paying customer? 



inkahauts said:


> There is a reason so many grocery chains have multiple brands even in the same markets. Or why Walmart owns sams club…


Those are flawed analogies. A better analogy would be Ford Motor Company having two essentially similar brands, Ford and Mercury. It became increasingly obvious that there was no point in spending the additional money to produce slightly differently trimmed versions of Fords and brand them as Mercury. It just increased production and marketing costs. So they eventually killed the Mercury brand. Likewise, if one company owns and operates both satellite TV services, they'll only keep one of them alive as an ongoing brand that is marketed and sold. And as time goes by, they'll renew their channel carriage contracts in order to produce a single set of contracts that cover the entire customer base, whether they're under the DISH brand or the legacy grandfathered DTV brand (or on a streaming pay TV service they operate).


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

NashGuy said:


> inkahauts said:
> 
> 
> > And the HBO max is a terrible comparison. That will cost minimal amount of money. No confusion for the customer.
> ...


The cost of conversion is not the same as the savings generated by converting to one platform.

The same would apply to satellite. Most if any of the cost savings of combining DIRECTV and DISH will be in areas that do not require customers to change to the other service. Any savings that potentially could be realized by moving customers would be weighed against the cost of moving those customers.

Time Warner Discovery may end up spending millions of dollars to save billions of dollars. That is good (and qualifies as a minimal amount of money). Moving all DISH customers to DIRECTV or vice versa could be billions of dollars to save millions of dollars. Not a good ratio. Spending millions to save billions is a good idea. Spending billions to save millions is not.



NashGuy said:


> In time, if not immediately, both the satellite and streaming version will offer the same set of channel packages, just as is the case between DTV satellite and DTV Stream today.


Definitely not immediately. Carriage contracts prevent that. Companies that refused to allow DIRECTV to carry their content are not going to allow content to be added to DIRECTV leveraging DISH contracts. Companies that refused to allow DISH to carry their content are not going to allow content to be added to DISH leveraging DIRECTV contracts. The combined company does not have the privilege of picking and choosing which contract serves them best and shifting all of their customers over to that contract.

As for "eventually" look for how long it took other companies to eliminate one line in favor of another. Especially in industries where there is brand loyalty it is not good to kill off a well loved brand in favor of another.

Ford/Lincoln/Mercury and Dodge/Chrysler/Plymouth. Often rolling the cars off of the same assembly lines with very minor differences. Perhaps the cheaper trimmed model would be one brand and the more expensive model another brand instead of referring to trim models by packages (SE, SXT, etc). How long did it take for either group to kill off a brand?

SiriusXM would be a better example ... still package differences 14 years after the merger. They have some radios that can serve channels from both platforms but the merged company is relying on non-satellite technology for reaching many of their customers. There is speculation that one platform may be shut down later this decade ... 20 years after the merger? That "eventually" would require a critical mass of subscribers to leave one platform for the other. (Merging lineups was easier for SiriusXM since they produced most of their content.)

No, not "immediately".


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

James Long said:


> Moving all DISH customers to DIRECTV or vice versa could be billions of dollars to save millions of dollars. Not a good ratio. Spending millions to save billions is a good idea. Spending billions to save millions is not.


Rather than responding to straw man arguments that I didn't make, maybe read what I actually posted (and even bothered to put in bold)?


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

NashGuy said:


> Rather than responding to straw man arguments that I didn't make, maybe read what I actually posted (and even bothered to put in bold)?


Thank you for not wasting another 10,000 words trying to wear out people who disagree with you by shouting them down.

If you feel led to reread my post you will see that I read yours and responded kindly, My response was to the thread, which included some discussion you apparently overlooked.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

NashGuy said:


> Rather than responding to straw man arguments that I didn't make, maybe read what I actually posted (and even bothered to put in bold)?


I'm not convinced that transitioning Discovery subscribers to HBO's platform (or vice versa) is a trivial proposition. We've heard a lot about the transitions that AT&T has made between DIRECTV and AT&T and back.


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

James Long said:


> Thank you for not wasting another 10,000 words trying to wear out people who disagree with you by shouting them down.


Duh !


----------



## b4pjoe (Nov 20, 2010)

Dish Network, DirecTV Merger Would Make Sense in the “Near Term,” Exec Says


----------



## Teetertotter (Jul 23, 2020)

b4pjoe said:


> Dish Network, DirecTV Merger Would Make Sense in the “Near Term,” Exec Says


 The future is in streaming w/o interruption in service, no dish to get out of alignment over time, and a little less expensive. Right now, DTV Streaming, has the best programing coverage. My DTV Satellite ends January 7, and will be planning to switch over to their streaming service with 3 boxes. We would still maintain the Ultimate Package for our programing needs. 

I predict Satellite TV will continue to decline over time. Newer TV's come with a multitude of apps and no need to purchase plug-ins for access to apps. Newer TV's apps can be added. Any other thoughts??


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

Teetertotter said:


> The future is in streaming w/o interruption in service


My sat service has 99.9999% up time. Probably even more. My internet service has definitely gone down more often then my sat service.



Teetertotter said:


> , no dish to get out of alignment over time


Nope. Haven't had to touch my dish in over 10-15+ years.



Teetertotter said:


> , and a little less expensive.


Ymmv. DirecTV is considerably cheaper for me due to DirecTV promos and Cox data caps.

Plus haven't you noticed? Streaming services are ramping up the rates at a MUCH faster clip then traditional. Within a few years they'll be on par.

Plus, I don't pay RSN ($12/mo in Los Angeles!) on DirecTV (Preferred Xtra package) and have a better package then any streaming service can offer.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Teetertotter said:


> Right now, DTV Streaming, has the best programing coverage.


Perhaps you should reserve judgement on that until after you've made the transition. There are significant (to some) sports deficiencies in the STREAM product (i.e. NFL network, BIG10, NFL Redzone and others) that appear on most other MVPDs and vMPVDs. The channel counts on DBS are more than double that of STREAM with the same package.

There's also the issue of the pricing on the DIRECTV package and are clearly "industry leading" in terms of their heights.

To be sure, DIRECTV STREAM ticks all the big cable channels in the comparison at The Streamable but that list isn't exhaustive. It also starts looking a little less complete when you get into the sports channels.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

b4pjoe said:


> Dish Network, DirecTV Merger Would Make Sense in the “Near Term,” Exec Says


He's going to be saying this until one or the other folds its tent or the acquisition is allowed. The logic about the chances improving is mostly sound but the top regulatory heads (Judicial, FTC, FCC) remain POTUS appointed and Senate confirmed.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

I agree with Mr Ergen that there is a window to make an attempt, but there is a big risk that the merger will fail. His risk but I'd rather see no attempt than another failed attempt.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

b4pjoe said:


> Dish Network, DirecTV Merger Would Make Sense in the “Near Term,” Exec Says


So Ergen is saying that once the mid-term elections are over next week, the time will be ripe for Dish and DirecTV to work out a merger deal.

In other words, the same thing I've been saying for for months now. Here's my full reasoning, written back in Sept., on why we're likely to see a DTV/Dish deal announced sometime between this Thanksgiving and mid-2023:









Is there new DirecTV equipment on the way?


Wasn't streaming...they died long before that To buy a VHS movie wasn't cheap but DVDs changed that and they scratched a lot..making them crappy rentals. Why rent for 3 o4 bucks when you can buy for 10? Then cable and satellite VOD also killed it Steaming is new in regards to decent choices I...




www.satelliteguys.us


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

James Long said:


> I agree with Mr Ergen that there is a window to make an attempt, but there is a big risk that the merger will fail. His risk but I'd rather see no attempt than another failed attempt.


Maybe the differences here are:

Charlie won't make the mistake of offering a merger abortion "bonus"
TPG's primary mission in the joint venture is to get the DIRECTV monkey off AT&T's back while minimizing financial damage


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

NashGuy said:


> A knowledgable moderator on another forum says that DISH receivers can work with DTV rooftop dishes/signals with just a software update. So that's would I would expect to happen. They'll probably standardize new installation with DTV dishes aimed at DTV sats but using current DISH Hopper and Joey receivers. But there may be the odd installation here or there where the installer can't get good line of sight to the DTV sats but they can with the DISH sats, so in those cases they'll go with a traditional DISH installation. Either way, they'll be able to use the same TV boxes.
> 
> For existing DTV customers, nothing would really change, except maybe they'd see the DTV logo in their Genie on-screen menu system replaced with the DISH logo. They'd keep their existing receivers connected to their existing rooftop dish. Same set of channels, same channel numbers.



Yep I've long said if there was a merger that's how it would work, since Dish hardware uses chips that can handle SWM (and use something very similar to it these days) and receiver hardware has always been Dish's strength while the satellite fleet has always been Directv's.

I doubt they would bother with installations pointed at Dish's satellites after a merger, because the plan would be to migrate off Dish's satellites in the longer term. They'd quit making / stocking Dish dishes entirely - anyone needing a dish replaced would get a Directv dish. Maintaining three arcs is expensive, and after a few years of doing Directv style installs they'd have only the longer term legacy Dish customers left. It would be worth sending someone out to replace their dishes from the savings the merged company would realize from decommissioning two arcs and the ground stations that support them.


----------



## mitchflorida (May 18, 2009)

A corporate merger between DirecTV and Dish would never be approved by the Biden Administation. End of story.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

slice1900 said:


> I doubt they would bother with installations pointed at Dish's satellites after a merger, because the plan would be to migrate off Dish's satellites in the longer term. They'd quit making / stocking Dish dishes entirely - anyone needing a dish replaced would get a Directv dish.


I think you unfairly discount the advantages of a fully Ku-band setup. Two looks are almost likely to trump a single, narrower look and reducing rain fade is an automatic win.


----------



## CraigerM (Apr 15, 2014)

I wonder what would happen with DirecTV Stream? Would that change to Dish Network Stream and keep the same UI? Or maybe something like Dish+ or Dish Network+? Also, could you switch over to Dish Network using the DTV dish and get the Dish Network pricing and use the Hopper 3, Hopper Plus and Joey 4? Plus, no ETF.


----------



## CraigerM (Apr 15, 2014)

harsh said:


> I think you unfairly discount the advantages of a fully Ku-band setup. Two looks are almost likely to trump a single, narrower look and reducing rain fade is an automatic win.


Keep Watching With Broadband Option | DIRECTV Customer Service & Support


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

slice1900 said:


> Yep I've long said if there was a merger that's how it would work, since Dish hardware uses chips that can handle SWM (and use something very similar to it these days) and receiver hardware has always been Dish's strength while the satellite fleet has always been Directv's.
> 
> I doubt they would bother with installations pointed at Dish's satellites after a merger, because the plan would be to migrate off Dish's satellites in the longer term. They'd quit making / stocking Dish dishes entirely - anyone needing a dish replaced would get a Directv dish. Maintaining three arcs is expensive, and after a few years of doing Directv style installs they'd have only the longer term legacy Dish customers left. It would be worth sending someone out to replace their dishes from the savings the merged company would realize from decommissioning two arcs and the ground stations that support them.


Yep. Only thing I'd add to that is that I can imagine Dish possibly trying to their current customers to connect their Hopper DVRs to broadband (if they haven't already) and agreeing to get the service delivered to them that way, as opposed to via DBS. This assumes, of course, that the existing boxes could be software-updated to allow such a switchover. But if I understand correctly, they probably _already_ can do that. Because at least a few linear Dish channels (e.g. some of the Cinemax channels) are already exclusively delivered via streaming, not via sat. I don't see why all channels couldn't be sent via streaming, with the DVR recording that stream to its internal hard drive and working just the same way as it works now with the stream coming in via satellite. Yes, Dish would have to get permission from the various channel owners to allow it but that shouldn't be a problem -- we're not (necessarily) talking about any devices _other_ than Dish hardware being able to access those live channel streams, so we're not talking about out-of-home rights or unlimited in-home screens. For the end-user, the experience wouldn't feel like "streaming," per se. Everything would work pretty much the same as now, except the HD picture quality might improve.

The reason to do this is obvious: the more of their customers there are getting service via the internet, the fewer homes they'd have to go back out to and re-install with dishes pointed at the DTV arc come 2024-25 as they're staring down their last Dish sat running out of fuel. Re-installs are expensive.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

CraigerM said:


> I wonder what would happen with DirecTV Stream?


My guess is that they'd keep selling DTV Stream but just call it DIRECTV. The satellite service (which they now specifically brand as "DIRECTV Satellite") would cease to be sold to new customers. Since the streaming version would be the only one still actively sold, there would be no need to specify it as DIRECTV Stream. And already, if you notice, their advertising now just says "DIRECTV." Even the app available in the App Store for DTV Stream on my Apple TV 4K box is now labeled as DIRECTV, not DIRECTV Stream.

Over time, they'd gradually harmonize the channel packages and line-ups so that new customers would get the same options via streaming (DIRECTV) as via satellite (DISH). As always, existing customers would likely be grandfathered into whatever channel packages they already have, on whichever service they're on, as long as they don't change it.

As for the RSNs, which is the biggest thing that DTV has but Dish lacks, I suspect Dish will begin selling most of them again in the next couple years as a la carte add-ons to their base packages. I think this is what will happen to the RSNs with just about every pay TV provider as the RSNs also become available as standalone streaming services.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

mitchflorida said:


> A corporate merger between DirecTV and Dish would never be approved by the Biden Administation. End of story.


Will be interesting to see how that plays out. But Ergen seems to think that, all things considered, it makes more sense to try to get a deal done under Biden in '23 than to wait until '25 under whoever's president then.

I think the correct reading of the situation is that a DTV/Dish merger is only truly worrisome for rural Americans who have no other option for pay TV because they aren't wired for cable and can't get broadband. Outside of that slice of homes -- constituting maybe 10-15% of the population -- there are now more options than ever for pay TV thanks to the rise of streaming services.

But the Biden infrastructure bill includes a lot of money to get those rural homes wired for broadband over the coming years. So it's going to be less and less of an issue as time goes by.

I suspect that the Biden DOJ would allow the deal but with certain concessions in place. Maybe future price hikes would have to be tied to the rate at which their underlying programming costs rise. Some kind of constrain that would keep them from essentially engaging in monopoly pricing in rural areas.


----------



## CraigerM (Apr 15, 2014)

NashGuy said:


> My guess is that they'd keep selling DTV Stream but just call it DIRECTV. The satellite service (which they now specifically brand as "DIRECTV Satellite") would cease to be sold to new customers. Since the streaming version would be the only one still actively sold, there would be no need to specify it as DIRECTV Stream. And already, if you notice, their advertising now just says "DIRECTV." Even the app available in the App Store for DTV Stream on my Apple TV 4K box is now labeled as DIRECTV, not DIRECTV Stream.
> 
> Over time, they'd gradually harmonize the channel packages and line-ups so that new customers would get the same options via streaming (DIRECTV) as via satellite (DISH). As always, existing customers would likely be grandfathered into whatever channel packages they already have, on whichever service they're on, as long as they don't change it.
> 
> As for the RSNs, which is the biggest thing that DTV has but Dish lacks, I suspect Dish will begin selling most of them again in the next couple years as a la carte add-ons to their base packages. I think this is what will happen to the RSNs with just about every pay TV provider as the RSNs also become available as standalone streaming services.


If they rename it DTV Stream to DTV wouldn't people think that means Satellite TV and not streaming?


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

CraigerM said:


> If they rename it DTV Stream to DTV wouldn't people think that means Satellite TV and not streaming?


The specific language used in the ads could make it clear that they're referring to a streaming service, for instance "Stream the best of TV, live and on-demand, with DIRECTV."


----------



## b4pjoe (Nov 20, 2010)

NashGuy said:


> But the Biden infrastructure bill includes a lot of money to get those rural homes wired for broadband over the coming years. So it's going to be less and less of an issue as time goes by.


In most cases that government money never makes it to the intended target.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

NashGuy said:


> Yep. Only thing I'd add to that is that I can imagine Dish possibly trying to their current customers to connect their Hopper DVRs to broadband (if they haven't already) and agreeing to get the service delivered to them that way, as opposed to via DBS. This assumes, of course, that the existing boxes could be software-updated to allow such a switchover. But if I understand correctly, they probably _already_ can do that. Because at least a few linear Dish channels (e.g. some of the Cinemax channels) are already exclusively delivered via streaming, not via sat. I don't see why all channels couldn't be sent via streaming, with the DVR recording that stream to its internal hard drive and working just the same way as it works now with the stream coming in via satellite. Yes, Dish would have to get permission from the various channel owners to allow it but that shouldn't be a problem -- we're not (necessarily) talking about any devices _other_ than Dish hardware being able to access those live channel streams, so we're not talking about out-of-home rights or unlimited in-home screens. For the end-user, the experience wouldn't feel like "streaming," per se. Everything would work pretty much the same as now, except the HD picture quality might improve.
> 
> The reason to do this is obvious: the more of their customers there are getting service via the internet, the fewer homes they'd have to go back out to and re-install with dishes pointed at the DTV arc come 2024-25 as they're staring down their last Dish sat running out of fuel. Re-installs are expensive.


Yeah sounds like a good plan to have them use broadband instead of satellite so there is no need for a visit from an installer.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

harsh said:


> I think you unfairly discount the advantages of a fully Ku-band setup. Two looks are almost likely to trump a single, narrower look and reducing rain fade is an automatic win.


The crap PQ of Dish due to their lack of bandwidth is a much bigger problem than a slight increase in the incidence of rain fade.


----------



## Bender The Lab (7 mo ago)

b4pjoe said:


> In most cases that government money never makes it to the intended target.


Did in my case, live in what is considered a rural area in Florida, every house has at least 2 Acres, no sewers, no water, septic and well, lots of other land, only Century Link 3 down/ 1 Up speed, Charter took the State Grant, now this area has gigabit since 2018.

Also read other state grants they are getting this year-

Public announcements show Charter has won at least $170.8 million so far this year, including major awards in Ohio ($51 million), Kentucky ($49.9 million) and Indiana ($27 million). It has also scored grants in Georgia ($12.2 million), Maryland ($8.5 million), Louisiana ($7.88 million), Alabama ($7.26 million), Wisconsin ($5.9 million) and Pennsylvania ($1.2 million).

The operator also won funding in North Carolina, but the state did not release the funding totals for each award. Additionally, Charter received a preliminary grant award of $126.1 million in Montana, though that total has yet to be finalized.



https://www.fiercetelecom.com/telecom/charter-comcast-lead-race-state-broadband-grants-now


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

NashGuy said:


> The specific language used in the ads could make it clear that they're referring to a streaming service, for instance "Stream the best of TV, live and on-demand, with DIRECTV."


There is a certain logic to DISH TV being via a dish and DIRECTV being direct via the Internets.

Replacing seven million dishes will be expensive - which is why any migration from DISH licensed satellites to DIRECTV licensed satellites would be slow.

As for the current companies, I find it interesting that DIRECTV satellite channels fail over to streaming while DISH satellite channels fail over to other satellite channels. Although DISH has removed many of the SD channels used for fail over (especially on Eastern Arc).

DISH has their fair share of "Stream" channels on their satellite service. The high profile ones are the three HBO/Cinemax channels but at last check there were 236 channels of that type on the service. DISH could probably do stream fail over similar to DIRECTV.

Probably the biggest challenge (after government approval) will be merging the services. AT&T and DIRECTV proved that getting contracts that cover combined services is more difficult than wishing they had such contracts. I do not expect content providers to allow a combined company to pick and choose which contract they will follow. AT&T didn't get to immediately drop the rates that they were paying for content for their UVERSE customers down to the reported 14% lower rates DIRECTV paid.

The logistical and contractual hurdles will keep the systems separate for years.


----------



## b4pjoe (Nov 20, 2010)

Bender The Lab said:


> Did in my case, live in what is considered a rural area in Florida, every house has at least 2 Acres, no sewers, no water, septic and well, lots of other land, only Century Link 3 down/ 1 Up speed, Charter took the State Grant, now this area has gigabit since 2018.


The Biden infrastructure wasn’t even a thing back in 2018.


----------



## Bender The Lab (7 mo ago)

b4pjoe said:


> The Biden infrastructure wasn’t even a thing back in 2018.


The FCC, Federal and states have been giving away money to broadband providers well before Biden.


----------



## b4pjoe (Nov 20, 2010)

No gigabit fiber around here.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

The 2018 program was ReConnect





 Broadband







www.usda.gov





I have had gigabit fiber available for about a year. A second provider has recently lit up my area and is selling multi-gigabit service. It is nice to have a choice between two fiber providers. But there are plenty of places in my county where no such service is available.


----------



## MysteryMan (May 17, 2010)

b4pjoe said:


> No gigabit fiber around here.


Same here.


----------



## Steveknj (Nov 14, 2006)

We've been hearing about a Dish/DIrecTV merger for how many years now? Charilie comes out with similar statements about once a year. It gets shot down, always. Why do you think it would be different this time?


----------



## CraigerM (Apr 15, 2014)

How can Dish buy DTV when they want to raise $2 billion to pay for the rest of their 5g build? I guess through partners?

Dish to raise $2B to help pay for 5G network build | Fierce Wireless


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

b4pjoe said:


> No gigabit fiber around here.


I don't have access to fiber either but I can get gigabit from Comcast over their coax lines.

Gigabit certainly isn't a must for typical home TV viewing.


----------



## b4pjoe (Nov 20, 2010)

harsh said:


> Gigabit certainly isn't a must for typical home TV viewing.


No one said it was. It is just how it is in rural areas. I'm lucky to have what I have here. It is just that programs like the latest government plan takes a long time to ever get out here. If ever. Once the election is over next Tuesday look for this infrastructure plan to be killed.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

b4pjoe said:


> It is just how it is in rural areas.


You kinda make it sound like rural areas are necessarily left out of the streaming space and that's clearly not the case.

That wireless, satellite and microwave have obscure data caps and less than gig speeds doesn't summarily invalidate them.


----------



## b4pjoe (Nov 20, 2010)

Forget my home internet. Before I retired a company (CLEARWAVE) put in fiber in the small town where I worked. Population around 3,000. For 200/200 service they are paying $1,500 per month. If it was in a city they wouldn't be paying near that much. And it does work that way for residential as well. If they were located in larger city where AT&T has fiber they could get 1 gig up and down for $160 per month. And 300/300 for $95 per month.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

Steveknj said:


> We've been hearing about a Dish/DIrecTV merger for how many years now? Charilie comes out with similar statements about once a year. It gets shot down, always. Why do you think it would be different this time?



Because Directv is partially owned by AT&T who obviously wants to get rid of it since they already sold 30% and control to a private equity firm who wants to make a profit on it. Clearly AT&T would have no interest in buying Dish, and it is probably a real longshot TPG would - and Ergen sounds like he wants to acquire Directv rather than sell Dish.

If if Ergen is willing to pony up enough for TPG to book a return on their several year investment they consider sufficient and for AT&T to think it is better off than what they believe they'll make off their 70% over the next decade then maybe it'll happen.

But probably what Ergen is willing to pay and what AT&T and TPG will accept aren't the same, and maybe not even close.


----------



## Bender The Lab (7 mo ago)

slice1900 said:


> If if Ergen is willing to pony up enough for TPG to book a return on their several year investment they consider sufficient and for AT&T to think it is better off than what they believe they'll make off their 70% over the next decade then maybe it'll happen.
> 
> But probably what Ergen is willing to pay and what AT&T and TPG will accept aren't the same, and maybe not even close.


Dish does not have the cash right now to buy it outright ,it would be tough to get that a loan in today’s environment, like I posted before, he would have to go to the banks, says he needs Billions of Dollars in long term loans to buy another slowly dying Satellite Service that is losing about 1.5 to 2 million subs a year.

So it would have to be some kind of merger, but even after that, still going to need money for the switch over and right now, Dish Network’s cash on hand is 921 Million, not Billion.

Their cash on hand in 2021 was $5 Billion, so they burned thru more then 4 Billion in a year, proberly on their 5G Plans.

Also, TPG Capital is going to want Billions also to buy out there 30% share.

here-

DISH Network cash on hand for the quarter ending September 30, 2022 was $0.921B, a 82.46% decline year-over-year.
DISH Network cash on hand for 2021 was $5.404B, a 44.75% increase from 2020.






DISH Network Cash on Hand 2010-2022 | DISH


DISH Network cash on hand from 2010 to 2022. Cash on hand can be defined as cash deposits at financial institutions that can immediately be withdrawn at any time, and investments maturing in one year or less that are highly liquid and therefore regarded as cash equivalents and reported with or...




www.macrotrends.net


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

Dish Network's market cap is only $7 billion, can that be right? TPG paid about $9 billion in cash for a 70% share of Directv, and Directv assumed some of AT&T's debt as well. Dish's market cap isn't large enough to even make TPG whole, so it seems like a merger would have to go the other way with Directv/TPG buying Dish.

What happened to all that wireless spectrum Dish bought which they paid way more than $7 billion for. I guess that was transferred to another entity, so Dish is just the DBS business and that's it now?


----------



## b4pjoe (Nov 20, 2010)

slice1900 said:


> Dish Network's market cap is only $7 billion, can that be right? TPG paid about $9 billion in cash for a 70% share of Directv, and Directv assumed some of AT&T's debt as well. Dish's market cap isn't large enough to even make TPG whole, so it seems like a merger would have to go the other way with Directv/TPG buying Dish.
> 
> What happened to all that wireless spectrum Dish bought which they paid way more than $7 billion for. I guess that was transferred to another entity, so Dish is just the DBS business and that's it now?


TPG got 30% of DirecTV and AT&T kept 70%.


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

b4pjoe said:


> Forget my home internet. Before I retired a company (CLEARWAVE) put in fiber in the small town where I worked. Population around 3,000. For 200/200 service they are paying $1,500 per month. If it was in a city they wouldn't be paying near that much. And it does work that way for residential as well. If they were located in larger city where AT&T has fiber they could get 1 gig up and down for $160 per month. And 300/300 for $95 per month.
> 
> View attachment 32606
> 
> ...


I live in a high tech, populous city and we only have fiber in newer construction. Everybody else can get 1Gbps down from Cox. I pay $119/mo for 1Gig+Digital Phone. Dropping the phone would actually make my bill go UP since the promo is giga+phone only.

Living in rural areas is typically voluntary and services are typically hit or miss (usually miss). One Youtube channel I watch, the brothers decided to build their dream homes up in the mountains. Cool, but they're already having water issues and need a septic system, etc.

Gig is definitely not required for streaming. You could do streaming with a stable 25-50Gbps.


----------



## Bender The Lab (7 mo ago)

b4pjoe said:


> TPG got 30% of DirecTV and AT&T kept 70%.


TPG paid $1.8 Billion in cash and took over $7.4 Billion in debt, so a tad over $9 billion, Slice is correct.

And above, I posted the link that shows everything about Dish, including that they _only _have $900 million, that means they are shy a tad over $8 billion to buy out TPG’s 30%, Slice is correct on that also.

So Dish, if they are going to buy it, needs to borrow about $30-40 Billion from the Banks, good luck with that.

This will not happen, I know AT&T is desperate to offload DirecTV, I cannot see them taking a major loss in the sale.


----------



## NYDutch (Dec 28, 2013)

slice1900 said:


> What happened to all that wireless spectrum Dish bought which they paid way more than $7 billion for. I guess that was transferred to another entity, so Dish is just the DBS business and that's it now?











Dish Wireless | About Us


America's First Smart Network




www.dishwireless.com


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

Going to be a bit hard to argue that Dish+DirecTV would be antitrust since the last attempt was 2 yrs ago and they've lost a bunch of subs since then and streaming has become more mainstream.

Dish market cap is largely irrelevant due to market conditions. Net income was 2.1B in 2022 and assets are $50B.

They're likely going to argue that both companies will fail if they don't merge, so then rurals will be left with nothing.

5G so far has been a big nothing burger, so can't really argue about that either. You're extremely lucky to get 100Mbps on TMobile home internet (if it even works at all).

It's also going to be hard to argue that the sat companies are dead/dying. The customer hemorrhaging was due to unsustainable low teaser prices of live & VOD services. We see those are FAST coming up and will be the roughly equivalent in the next few years. Sub decline has definitely slowed down quite a bit.

If a live streaming service is roughly the same price as cable or sat, it'll just be a random roll of the dice as to who picks what.

Going back in history a bit, in the early days, DirecTV used the tactic of "we're not going to do anything about piracy" to build a customer base. We'll worry about that later.

Live streaming services are doing the same now. Low teaser prices, not enforcing password sharing and many or unlimited streams. That'll all go away and/or be monetized at some point. Netflix has officially announced they are going to crack down on password sharing, so that will start the ball rolling with other providers.


----------



## b4pjoe (Nov 20, 2010)

Bender The Lab said:


> TPG paid $1.8 Billion in cash and took over $7.4 Billion in debt, so a tad over $9 billion, Slice is correct.
> 
> And above, I posted the link that shows everything about Dish, including that they _only _have $900 million, that means they are shy a tad over $8 billion to buy out TPG’s 30%, Slice is correct on that also.
> 
> ...


I didn’t say his dollar numbers were wrong just that he said TPG owned 70% of DirecTV. They don’t. They own 30% while AT&T still owns 70%.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

SledgeHammer said:


> Going to be a bit hard to argue that Dish+DirecTV would be antitrust since the last attempt was 2 yrs ago and they've lost a bunch of subs since then and streaming has become more mainstream.


The last merger attempt was *20* years ago and it cost DISH $690 million in merger termination fees. The prospect of DISH buying DIRECTV instead of TPG was raised two years ago but no offer was made. TPG has been attempting to sell their stake in DIRECTV for the past few months. The idea of TPG buying DISH is the opposite of selling DIRECTV. 

Mr Ergen has been predicting that DISH and DIRECTV will eventually be merged for the past couple of years. No offer has been made by DISH to buy DIRECTV nor has anyone made an offer to purchase DISH TV. Mr Ergen's comment that there might be a window is the closest we have been to an actual merger offer.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

slice1900 said:


> What happened to all that wireless spectrum Dish bought which they paid way more than $7 billion for. I guess that was transferred to another entity, so Dish is just the DBS business and that's it now?


DISH Network still owns the wireless spectrum and reports wireless subscribers in their DISH Network quarterly/annual reports. DISH TV service is broken out in those reports (including reporting satellite subscribers separate from streaming).

If you have a link to anyone making an offer to purchase DISH please post. All I have seen so far is third party speculation that some unnamed entity theoretically could buy TPG's stake in DIRECTV and DISH TV to create a merger. "Someone else" yet to be found to buy both companies. More wishful thinking to unload DIRECTV and bail out AT&T than to actually buy and control both companies.

When someone finds a buyer let us know.


----------



## Bender The Lab (7 mo ago)

SledgeHammer said:


> Going to be a bit hard to argue that Dish+DirecTV would be antitrust since the *last attempt was 2 yrs ago* and they've lost a bunch of subs since then and streaming has become more mainstream.


It was 20 years ago.



SledgeHammer said:


> They're likely going to argue that both companies will fail if they don't merge, so then rurals will be left with nothing.


It is a myth that the majority of Rural Homes subscribe to Satellite TV, math shows us that.

24 million Households are in Rural areas ( out of 128 Million in the United States).

DirecTV/Dish has a total of 18-19 Million Subscribers.

If you did a 70% Urban / 30% Rural split of how many sub to Sat Service, out of 19 million Sat Subs, that is only 5.7 Million, that means 18.3 Million Rural Homes do not subscribe to Sat TV.

Even if you increased it to a 50/50 split, then means 9.5 million subscribe, 14.5 rural homes do not.



SledgeHammer said:


> Sub decline has definitely slowed down quite a bit.


Sub decline has increased, now up to 2 million drop service every quarter.



SledgeHammer said:


> If a live streaming service is roughly the same price as cable or sat, it'll just be a random roll of the dice as to who picks what.


The difference between the two in price remains the same, Traditional Providers go up $5 every year, OTT Live TV Service goes up $5.

The other main advantage OTT Live TV service has is no fees.

But the majority leaving Traditional Live TV is not going to OTT Live TV, they are going to Hulu, Paramount and the likes, for the biggest price saving along with more content.


----------



## west99999 (May 12, 2007)

James Long said:


> The last merger attempt was *20* years ago and it cost DISH $690 million in merger termination fees. The prospect of DISH buying DIRECTV instead of TPG was raised two years ago but no offer was made. TPG has been attempting to sell their stake in DIRECTV for the past few months. The idea of TPG buying DISH is the opposite of selling DIRECTV.
> 
> Mr Ergen has been predicting that DISH and DIRECTV will eventually be merged for the past couple of years. No offer has been made by DISH to buy DIRECTV nor has anyone made an offer to purchase DISH TV. Mr Ergen's comment that there might be a window is the closest we have been to an actual merger offer.


Not saying you’re wrong but do you have news link that tpg is trying to sell DTV?


----------



## compnurd (Apr 23, 2007)

west99999 said:


> Not saying you’re wrong but do you have news link that tpg is trying to sell DTV?


Its in almost every news article from earlier this year with the Dish/Directv Merger 









DirecTV and Dish in merger talks once again despite past antitrust concerns


DirecTV and Dish Network are in fresh talks to merge after years of on-again, off-again wrangling and multiple clampdowns from federal antitrust officials, The Post has learned.




nypost.com





Talks between the satellite-TV giants are being pushed forward by private-equity behemoth TPG Capital, according to sources close to the situation. TPG bought 30 percent of DirecTV from AT&T in a deal last February that gave the struggling company an enterprise value of $16.25 billion.
“TPG is driving the conversations. They want their investment back,” a source close to the situation said.


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

Bender The Lab said:


> It was 20 years ago.


You should re-read the article a bit closer:

"Two years ago, the DOJ also quietly warned executives off a prospective deal, concerned about the nascent rollout of 5G, sources said."



Bender The Lab said:


> DirecTV/Dish has a total of 18-19 Million Subscribers.


More like 21.69M.



Bender The Lab said:


> Sub decline has increased, now up to 2 million drop service every quarter.


This is also incorrect. Here's a chart of DirecTVs sub losses. Looks like a slow down to me (After the big drop from 20 -> 13).










Here's another article from last year that also agrees: https://www.lightreading.com/videomedia/directv-subscriber-losses-slowing-down/d/d-id/770933



Bender The Lab said:


> The difference between the two in price remains the same, Traditional Providers go up $5 every year, OTT Live TV Service goes up $5.


Wrong again. DirecTV goes up about 6-7% on a typical increase. Hulu (since you mention this one) for example has raised their price close to 40% since 2020. And if you really want to be a sticker for those pesky details, I have been on Preferred Xtra for probably 15-20 years and my cost has gone DOWN due to the loyalty program. I pay $91/mo out the door and get more channels then ANY streaming provider offers.



Bender The Lab said:


> The other main advantage OTT Live TV service has is no fees.


I do pay a $23 "fee" for HD/DVR/WHDR. I don't pay an outlet fee since the first box is free. I also don't pay an RSN fee ($12/mo in LA) since I'm on Preferred Xtra. Hulu doesn't carry WB or OTA channels. I also believe it doesn't carry PBS? How much does it cost to fill in those channels? I'd need to add at least 2 more apps. Right now I get everything under one roof in a unified DVR, guide, UI, bill and provider (i.e. CSR, billing support, etc).

That being said, if you have a lot of TVs, you may come out ahead with streaming TODAY. As my main point was (and proven) streaming is coming into equilibrium with traditional at a rapid clip. Is it there today? No. In 2-3 yrs? Probably.

You also left out the part about data caps. Many of the large ISPs in the US have data caps. Cox has a 1.25TB data cap. I currently do 300-400GB without streaming. IF (and not a guarantee, I'd have to see how much data Live streaming used) I needed to get unlimited data, that would cost an extra $50/mo.



Bender The Lab said:


> But the majority leaving Traditional Live TV is not going to OTT Live TV, they are going to Hulu, Paramount and the likes, for the biggest price saving along with more content.


Nope. Preferred Xtra has more channels then Hulu Live.


----------



## west99999 (May 12, 2007)

compnurd said:


> Its in almost every news article from earlier this year with the Dish/Directv Merger
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Yeah I’ve seen that post such as these. I should have said credible news sources. Most of them are speculation or why it should happen articles. I’m sure they plan to do something with it but didn’t they have a timeline laid out in the beginning? I seem to remember something after so many years Att or tpg had some options on the table just can’t seem to find that info.


----------



## Bender The Lab (7 mo ago)

SledgeHammer said:


> More like 21.69M.


DirecTV has about 10-11 Million, Dish a tad under 8 million, that 14 million number for DirecTV that keeps going out includes Uverse ( 2-3 million)and DirecTV stream (1.5 million), all numbers estimated by the experts.





SledgeHammer said:


> This is also incorrect. Here's a chart of DirecTVs sub losses. Looks like a slow down to me (After the big drop from 20 -> 13).
> 
> View attachment 32613
> 
> ...


Your picture has no link and the dates are cut off, but I assume that uptick is when they started putting uverse and stream in the totals.



SledgeHammer said:


> Wrong again. DirecTV goes up about 6-7% on a typical increase. Hulu (since you mention this one) for example has raised their price close to 40% since 2020. And if you really want to be a sticker for those pesky details, I have been on Preferred Xtra for probably 15-20 years and my cost has gone DOWN due to the loyalty program. I pay $91/mo out the door.
> 
> I do pay a $23 "fee" for HD/DVR/WHDR. I don't pay an outlet fee since the first box is free. I also don't pay an RSN fee ($12/mo in LA) since I'm on Preferred Xtra. Hulu doesn't carry WB or OTA channels.


Hulu Live now includes Disney and ESPN+ since 2020, so a bigger price jump, while You Tube TV is still $65 and include more channels then your xtra package.



SledgeHammer said:


> Nope. Preferred Xtra has more channels then Hulu Live.


More channels does not mean more new content, most things on cable channels are reruns, with just the streaming services ( not Live TV), I get the vast majority of new content from Live TV and the new exclusive content.

I do not watch reruns, even being retired I cannot catch up with all the new stuff.


----------



## CraigerM (Apr 15, 2014)

Why would TPG want to buy Dish when their satellite fleet will run out of fuel by 2025.


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

Bender The Lab said:


> DirecTV has about 10-11 Million, Dish a tad under 8 million, that 14 million number for DirecTV that keeps going out includes Uverse ( 2-3 million)and DirecTV stream (1.5 million), all numbers estimated by the experts.


Most "experts" have Dish at 7.61M and DirecTV at 13.9 (Statista & LRG). Depends who you believe.



Bender The Lab said:


> Your picture has no link and the dates are cut off, but I assume that uptick is when they started putting uverse and stream in the totals.


Its from Statista 2014-2022 quarters. Yeah, seems like that includes all their video services. And? And they are still dropping. If the users shifted from Sat to Streaming, that would be a net 0. Dish just reported their earnings and they added 30k subs.

And to reiterate, I never said they weren't dropping sat subs. I said its slowed down significantly.



Bender The Lab said:


> You Tube TV is still $65 and include more channels then your xtra package.


What? Lol. YouTube TV has ~100 channels. Preferred Xtra has like 220+. YTTV does have PBS, but CW/WB is VOD only.



Bender The Lab said:


> More channels does not mean more new content, most things on cable channels are reruns, with just the streaming services ( not Live TV), I get the vast majority of new content from Live TV and the new exclusive content.


What? Lol. YTTV has the same channels as DirecTV except less of them. No live CW/WB, doesn't look like it has History or Science channel either based on their current channel listing.

Huh? you get your "exclusive content" "from not live TV" or "from live tv" you just said both.

I currently get my new content from CBS, NBC, Fox, NatGeo, CW, History, Science, ID, Discovery, PBS and VH1. And maybe a few more assorted cable channels. I do have a shared Netflix account. Nothing to watch on there. Last show I watched on there was Man vs. Bee that was a few months ago and before that Squid Games (which I mostly fast forwarded through the boring parts). I did like a few shows on Apple TV, and have another one starting up on Showtime soon.

Wait, so to be clear you DON'T have DirecTV?


----------



## Bender The Lab (7 mo ago)

SledgeHammer said:


> Most "experts" have Dish at 7.61M and DirecTV at 13.9 (Statista & LRG). Depends who you believe.
> 
> Its from Statista 2014-2022 quarters. Yeah, seems like that includes all their video services. And? And they are still dropping. If the users shifted from Sat to Streaming, that would be a net 0. Dish just reported their earnings and they added 30k subs.


13.9 million includes Uverse and stream, that uptick is when they started reporting the numbers as a whole.

I only brought up Satellite Subs for Rural areas, Uverse and Stream would mean nothing to them.

So that means I am correct, the vast majority in Rural Areas do not sub to Sat. Service.


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

Bender The Lab said:


> the vast majority in Rural Areas do not sub to Sat. Service.


so what do they use?

BTW, hate to break it to you, but DirecTV themselves stated they were targeting mostly rural areas with their sat service  (as have Dish & Starlink) :

AT&T will continue selling DirecTV in "more rural or less dense suburban areas," John Stankey, the president of AT&T said at an investor conference. "But in terms of our marketing muscle and our momentum in the market, it will be about software-driven pay-TV packages."


----------



## compnurd (Apr 23, 2007)

SledgeHammer said:


> so what do they use?
> 
> BTW, hate to break it to you, but DirecTV themselves stated they were targeting mostly rural areas with their sat service  (as have Dish & Starlink) :
> 
> AT&T will continue selling DirecTV in "more rural or less dense suburban areas," John Stankey, the president of AT&T said at an investor conference. "But in terms of our marketing muscle and our momentum in the market, it will be about software-driven pay-TV packages."


Probably Antenna or nothing.. Not everyone needs TV. I have a friend who has a summer home up a rural road in Western PA.. There is maybe 30 summer and permanent homes on this dirt road and they all either have antenna or nothing. they dont want to spend 75-100 bucks a month on TV


----------



## Bender The Lab (7 mo ago)

SledgeHammer said:


> so what do they use?
> 
> BTW, hate to break it to you, but DirecTV themselves stated they were targeting mostly rural areas with their sat service  (as have Dish & Starlink) :
> 
> AT&T will continue selling DirecTV in "more rural or less dense suburban areas," John Stankey, the president of AT&T said at an investor conference. "But in terms of our marketing muscle and our momentum in the market, it will be about software-driven pay-TV packages."


Again, do the math, Satellite only has, roughly, 18-19 million subs, there are 24 million households in rural areas, like I posted, if 50% of Sat Subs were in rural areas, that still means the majority do not have it.

Part of the reason is Broadband is more available, as I posted before, I live in a rural area and here did not have broadband until 2018.


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

Bender The Lab said:


> Again, do the math, Satellite only has, roughly, 18-19 million subs, there are 24 million households in rural areas, like I posted, if 50% of Sat Subs were in rural areas, that still means the majority do not have it.
> 
> Part of the reason is Broadband is more available, as I posted before, I live in a rural area and here did not have broadband until 2018.


I think you're confused. Nobody (including me) ever said DirecTV is mostly rural. Nor did I ever say that rural is mostly DirecTV.

I said if rural people want a premium TV service, sat is the main option. As compnurd mentioned, its mostly antenna or nothing. If you don't have broadband or have a low quality BB service, then streaming isn't an option either. I did try find market share for TV options in rural areas, but no such thing haha.

Using DirecTV only as a base for how many rural sat subs there are is not correct since there's also Dish & Starlink and maybe BUDs if thats still a thing?


----------



## Bender The Lab (7 mo ago)

SledgeHammer said:


> I think you're confused. Nobody (including me) ever said DirecTV is mostly rural. Nor did I ever say that rural is mostly DirecTV.


You wrote-


SledgeHammer said:


> They're likely going to argue that both companies will fail if they don't merge, so then *rurals will be left with nothing.*


All I did was point out the vast majority in rural areas already have nothing.




SledgeHammer said:


> Using DirecTV only as a base for how many rural subs there are is not correct since there's also Dish & Starlink and maybe BUDs?


When I wrote 18-19 Satellite Subs, obviously that included Dish and DirecTV, Starlink is Broadband and only has 400,000 subs globally ( I just googled it).

I just googled this about BUDs-_The 4DTV subscription system shutdown on August 16, 2016.

On August 24, 2016, at 9:18 AM EST, Headend In The Sky (the provider for 4DTV/DigiCipher II programming) transitioned to DVB-S2 (MPEG-2/256 QAM), meaning that support for 4DTV ended on that date._


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

Bender The Lab said:


> Starlink is Broadband and only has 400,000 subs globally ( I just googled it).


Yes, lol, I'm aware. That's how rural people would get internet & streaming.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

Bender The Lab said:


> Dish does not have the cash right now to buy it outright ,it would be tough to get that a loan in today’s environment, like I posted before, he would have to go to the banks, says he needs Billions of Dollars in long term loans to buy another slowly dying Satellite Service that is losing about 1.5 to 2 million subs a year.
> 
> So it would have to be some kind of merger, but even after that, still going to need money for the switch over and right now, Dish Network’s cash on hand is 921 Million, not Billion.


Even if Dish _did_ have the cash, I'm not sure why they'd want to buy DTV unless AT&T and TPG were willing to strike a deal at a fire-sale price. This is not a growth business.

It's always made the most sense to me that the deal would be a merger, with both sides' pay TV businesses put into a new joint venture LLC in which AT&T would own a certain percentage and Dish would own the rest, with both sides getting to name members to the oversight board. The only cash that would be necessary to close the deal would be the amount to buy out TPG's 30% stake in DTV. Profits from the joint operation would then just flow back to the parent companies based on their ownership stake, e.g. 55% to AT&T, 45% to Dish.


----------



## CraigerM (Apr 15, 2014)

NashGuy said:


> Even if Dish _did_ have the cash, I'm not sure why they'd want to buy DTV unless AT&T and TPG were willing to strike a deal at a fire-sale price. This is not a growth business.
> 
> It's always made the most sense to me that the deal would be a merger, with both sides' pay TV businesses put into a new joint venture LLC in which AT&T would own a certain percentage and Dish would own the rest, with both sides getting to name members to the oversight board. The only cash that would be necessary to close the deal would be the amount to buy out TPG's 30% stake in DTV. Profits from the joint operation would then just flow back to the parent companies based on their ownership stake, e.g. 55% to AT&T, 45% to Dish.


Interesting idea Dish Network buying TPG's stake. However, could Ergen and Stankey get along?


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

CraigerM said:


> Interesting idea Dish Network buying TPG's stake. However, could Ergen and Stankey get along?


Who knows if it would be Dish alone buying out TPG's stake or Dish and DTV each buying out a portion of it. Maybe they'd get another investor/financier involved to buy out TPG's stake.

As for Ergen and Stankey getting along, I wouldn't see either one involved in day-to-day management decisions of the merged business. Question, I guess, is whether Ergen is ready to let go of calling the shots for Dish and moving on to focusing on just his new 5G business.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

NashGuy said:


> Even if Dish _did_ have the cash, I'm not sure why they'd want to buy DTV unless AT&T and TPG were willing to strike a deal at a fire-sale price. This is not a growth business.


I agree. The prospect is barely worth mentioning except Mr Ergen gave it credence by mentioning it. My opinion is DISH should wait for the fire sale.


----------



## CraigerM (Apr 15, 2014)

Unless he can get the fire sale by 2025 when the last of their satellite's run out of fuel.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

James Long said:


> I agree. The prospect is barely worth mentioning except Mr Ergen gave it credence by mentioning it. My opinion is DISH should wait for the fire sale.





CraigerM said:


> Unless he can get the fire sale by 2025 when the last of their satellite's run out of fuel.


TPG is anxious to cash out but I don't see any reason why AT&T would accept a lowball offer. It's Dish who's in the more precarious position and feeling greater pressure to make a deal because the Dish satellite fleet is not going to last nearly as long as the AT&T fleet. I suspect that this is why it's Ergen making these public statements again and again about an "inevitable" merger that makes more sense in the "near-term."


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

NashGuy said:


> This is not a growth business.


If you can hike up your economies of scale at a good price, there's a one-time growth opportunity to be had.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

NashGuy said:


> ... the Dish satellite fleet is not going to last nearly as long as the AT&T fleet.


I question whether the DIRECTV subscriber base will last anywhere as long as the DISH subscriber base. If the third party estimates are correct DIRECTV's losses have slowed down but losing 9 million subscribers over the past three years (11.5 million over the past four) is not good.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

James Long said:


> I question whether the DIRECTV subscriber base will last anywhere as long as the DISH subscriber base. If the third party estimates are correct DIRECTV's losses have slowed down but losing 9 million subscribers over the past three years (11.5 million over the past four) is not good.


Why should Directv lose customers at a higher percentage than Dish? They have long had a lot more than 50%, but not nearly as many as 100% more customers than Dish. That was true at their peak, and is still true today after both have been bleeding customers. Directv may lose more in absolute terms, but there's no reason they will in percentage terms. Well maybe they will see one more surge next year when NFLST goes to Apple as it would free up those customers to switch to cable or a vMVPD.

Other than that the "easy" customer losses for satellite may be past now - i.e. the people who aren't sports fans have mostly left so there are not as many of them left to go. The sports fans need some sort of linear TV for the foreseeable future. Doesn't have to be satellite, but it has to be satellite, cable, or vMVPD.

Recently cable companies which had seen rather modest losses during Directv's bloodbath thanks to bundling making their TV price artificially low have seen a big surge in subscriber losses. The cord cutting is from non sports fans is hitting even cable companies where customers are effectively spending only $50 for TV - though Comcast has already said that TV is barely revenue neutral at this point so it won't affect their bottom line like it does Directv and Dish.


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

slice1900 said:


> Well maybe they will see one more surge next year when NFLST goes to Apple as it would free up those customers to


People give NFLST too much credit. It's always been a money loser for DirecTV and can't imagine it being a winner for Apple or Disney or whomever takes it on. There's also been talk of DirecTV partnering with somebody on it to keep the bar business.

Plus, one of the things that DirecTV did was give it out FREE to people to play the long game. Apple or Disney or whomever aren't going to give it out for free like DirecTV did and if they did, they'd lose money on it just like DirecTV did.


----------



## b4pjoe (Nov 20, 2010)

SledgeHammer said:


> Plus, one of the things that DirecTV did was give it out FREE to people to play the long game. Apple or Disney or whomever aren't going to give it out for free like DirecTV did and if they did, they'd lose money on it just like DirecTV did.


I've never really understood why DirecTV gives it away. I can see giving it to new customers as an incentive to sign up. But how many current subscribers are saying "if you don't give it to me for free I am leaving"? I just wonder if there is some kind of penalty if they don't have a certain number of subscribers to NFL Sunday Ticket? And giving it away for free is better than the penalty. Or maybe they are just generous. Who knows?


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

b4pjoe said:


> I've never really understood why DirecTV gives it away. I can see giving it to new customers as an incentive to sign up. But how many current subscribers are saying "if you don't give it to me for free I am leaving"? I just wonder if there is some kind of penalty if they don't have a certain number of subscribers to NFL Sunday Ticket? And giving it away for free is better than the penalty. Or maybe they are just generous. Who knows?


As I've harped on lol, I couldn't care less about sports, but I used to work with a guy who I think loved football more then women. Haha. He signed up for the Ultimate + Free ST promo so he could watch all the games. He loved it. He was in lala land. Then the promo ended. I told him he could call up and renew it, but instead he cancelled the service and went back to hanging out in sports bars.

So the thesis is that, it's a sign up incentive, it's an incentive to stick with DirecTV (or which ever service provider has it) -- as long as its free/discounted. The folks that keep DirecTV for ST AND pay full price for it, are probably very small.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

harsh said:


> If you can hike up your economies of scale at a good price, there's a one-time growth opportunity to be had.


Yeah, increasing scale is a main economic rationale for the merger. But that's really about reducing costs (which increases profits), not about growing your customer base and overall revenue, which is what I meant by "growth." I suspect that the total number of customers across all those brands (DTV, Dish, Sling) will continue to decline even after a merger, although perhaps a little more slowly than before.


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

NashGuy said:


> Yeah, increasing scale is a main economic rationale for the merger. But that's really about reducing costs (which increases profits), not about growing your customer base and overall revenue, which is what I meant by "growth." I suspect that the total number of customers across all those brands (DTV, Dish, Sling) will continue to decline even after a merger, although perhaps a little more slowly than before.


I don't know how "economies of scale" really fits here. They're obviously not going to move everybody to DirecTV equipment / systems. So they have to maintain 2 sets of equipment, 2 backend systems, 2 teams of CSRs, 2 sets of sats, 2 sets of techs, etc.

If the theory is that Dish+DirecTV would have more bargaining power for TV rights, that didn't really work out for AT&T (and was a main reason they bought DirecTV in the first place). They certainly wouldn't be able to get single contracts for both services until the existing ones expire and even then, why would you give a Dish+DirecTV a bulk discount if you wouldn't give one to AT&T?

Even merging the backend systems (like when AT&T started moving DirecTV accounts over) would be a monumental task that AT&T STILL hasn't finished.

Given the limited lifetime remaining in either service (and there hasn't been any inkling of new sats), I'd be surprised if the bean counters can make it work, but I'm not a bean counter .


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

slice1900 said:


> Why should Directv lose customers at a higher percentage than Dish?


The better question would be why DID DIRECTV lose customers at a higher percentage than DISH. AT&T|DIRECTV's peak (at the end of 2016) was 25.532 million subscribers. Their last officially reported count (July 2021) was 15.412 million ... a drop of 39.6%. DISH lost 19.5% of their subscribers over the exact same time period.

Why SHOULD DIRECTV stop losing customers at a higher rate than DISH?



slice1900 said:


> They have long had a lot more than 50%, but not nearly as many as 100% more customers than Dish. That was true at their peak, and is still true today after both have been bleeding customers.


At DIRECTV's peak they had 11.8 million more subscribers than DISH. So DISH plus 86% is probably the number you are looking for instead of DISH having 53% of DIRECTV's subscriber count.
Using the last officially reported number for DIRECTV, DIRECTV had 4.4 million more subscribers than DISH. DISH plus 40% or DISH having 71% of DIRECTV's subscriber count.
DIRECTV is catching up to DISH on the way down. (DIRECTV caught and passed Xfinity on the way down.)

The last estimated subscriber count for DIRECTV would be a decent number ... only 10% of their 2Q 2021 subscribers lost in a year. DISH lost 9% of their 2Q 2021 subscribers over the same period. Of course, DISH just posted a slight gain. Do you think DIRECTV is secretly gaining subscribers? 

(BTW: If your reply is going to be "I meant satellite customers" AT&T|DIRECTV stopped reporting them separately at the end of 2018 following two years where they lost 8% of their satellite customers and 4% of their total customers. The numbers looked better if their buried the satellite losses in "Premium TV". Get DIRECTV to report numbers and we'll talk.)


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

SledgeHammer said:


> Even merging the backend systems (like when AT&T started moving DirecTV accounts over) would be a monumental task that AT&T STILL hasn't finished.


It certainly is handy to have AT&T to blame for the entirety of DIRECTV's misfortunes.


----------



## Bender The Lab (7 mo ago)

James Long said:


> The better question would be why DID DIRECTV lose customers at a higher percentage than DISH. AT&T|DIRECTV's peak (at the end of 2016) was 25.532 million subscribers. Their last officially reported count (July 2021) was 15.412 million ... a drop of 39.6%. DISH lost 19.5% of their subscribers over the exact same time period.


I assume that high number for DirecTV includes Uverse, I have 21 Million at the end of 2016, numbers from statista.

I do not know if you are adding in the Sling numbers with Dish?

The only reason I bring it up is it would change the percentage.









DirecTV: no of video subscribers in the U.S. 2022 | Statista


As of the third quarter of 2022, the number of Direct TV video subscribers was around 13.5 million in the United States.




www.statista.com







James Long said:


> The last estimated subscriber count for DIRECTV would be a decent number ... only 10% of their 2Q 2021 subscribers lost in a year. DISH lost 9% of their 2Q 2021 subscribers over the same period. *Of course, DISH just posted a slight gain. *Do you think DIRECTV is secretly gaining subscribers?


Dish did not have a gain, Sling did, but since they reported them together it gave the illusion that Dish Network was up-

Dish end of Quarter Two - 7,790,000

Dish end of Quarter Three- 7,610,000

So a loss of 180,000 Satellite Subscribers 

Sling End of Quarter Two- 2,190,000

Sling End of Quarter Three- 2,410,000

So a gain of 220,000 for Sling









DISH Network Reports Third Quarter 2022 Financial Results


/PRNewswire/ -- DISH Network Corporation (NASDAQ: DISH) reported revenue totaling $4.10 billion for the quarter ending September 30, 2022, compared to $4.45...




www.prnewswire.com


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Bender The Lab said:


> I assume that high number for DirecTV includes Uverse, I have 21 Million at the end of 2016, numbers from statista.


Unfortunately AT&T|DIRECTV's decision to stop reporting satellite separately after the end of 2018 means we only have numbers for "Premium TV".


Bender The Lab said:


> I do not know if you are adding in the Sling numbers with Dish?


It would be unfair to allow DIRECTV to count streaming and not count SlingTV.

Trying to stay apples to apples as much as possible even though one company stopped telling us how many bushels they have.



Bender The Lab said:


> The only reason I bring it up is it would change the percentage.


It would, but one cannot compare real numbers with vapor. As stated, get DIRECTV to post real numbers and we will talk.

DISH should get credit for their growth of Sling TV. DIRECTV inherited millions of "non satellite" customers from UVERSE. There were 5.9 million UVERSE subscribers at the end of 2014 ... and 3.6 million at the end of 2018. (Is that good?) DISH launched a successful service that went from 97 thousand to 2.4 million over the same four years. A service that this quarter allowed them to lose satellite subscribers and still post a gain. DIRECTV has not posted a net gain since 2016. DISH has had five quarters since 2016 where SlingTV gains have been greater than satellite losses. That's a good thing.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

James Long said:


> The better question would be why DID DIRECTV lose customers at a higher percentage than DISH. AT&T|DIRECTV's peak (at the end of 2016) was 25.532 million subscribers. Their last officially reported count (July 2021) was 15.412 million ... a drop of 39.6%. DISH lost 19.5% of their subscribers over the exact same time period.



Including the Uverse numbers gives a false picture, as that was a old and crappy technology AT&T quit doing new installs on so it could only have customers leaving, there was no 'churn' of returning customers like every other provider had.

They had 6 million Uverse TV subscribers when they bought Directv, I wouldn't be surprised if they have less than a million now between upgrading Uverse customers to fiber (who aren't eligible for Uverse TV) and customers deciding 20 Mbps DSL isn't good enough internet even without TV stealing part of that bandwidth.

The only valid comparison is Directv satellite vs Dish satellite, but for most recent years we only have estimates of those numbers.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

slice1900 said:


> Including the Uverse numbers gives a false picture,


AT&T|DIRECTV is the company that decided to hide their numbers. First by not reporting satellite separately and then by making DIRECTV a subsidiary and not reporting numbers publicly at all.



slice1900 said:


> I wouldn't be surprised if they have less than a million now ...


For UVERSE itself? Or for all DIRECTV Stream. That's the problem. The more subscribers one assumes are satellite subscribers the more of a failure the stream service becomes.

The last report for DIRECTV satellite was 19.2 million at the end of 2018. The current estimate for all of DIRECTV is 13.9 ... so satellite has lost at least 5.3 million subscribers (if there were zero DIRECTV Stream subscribers). A 27% loss. If the number of streaming subscribers has fallen to a million then satellite has lost 6.3 million subscribers. 32.8% That number gets bigger if the actual stream subscriber count is bigger. I would not be surprised if DIRECTV Stream had 2 million subscribers (satellite losing 7.3 million or 38%). Which is still ahead of the curve since DIRECTV has lost 43% of all Premium TV customers since 2018.

DISH has lost about 21% of their satellite subscribers since December 2018. DIRECTV Satellite would need more than 15 million satellite subscribers to have lost less than 21%. They don't have 15 million satellite subscribers.



slice1900 said:


> Why should Directv lose customers at a higher percentage than Dish?


Why IS DIRECTV losing customers at a higher percentage than DISH?


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

James Long said:


> Why IS DIRECTV losing customers at a higher percentage than DISH?


Good question. DirecTV is generally regarded as having the better PQ. Dish is generally regarded as having better equipment. Dish generally has more black outs. Pricing is pretty similar. So on the surface, DirecTV is the better service.

So the evidence leads me to believe its mostly the whiny people who hate AT&T. We've seen posters on here say that explicitly that they are cancelling because they are sick of dealing with their customer service. I personally haven't had any issues with them. 0 billing issues. Once or twice a year I call in to re-up my promos. Quick call lasting a few minutes.

Then there are also the people that want Ultimate+ST+Center Ice+Premium PP for "pretty much free" and then give it all up anyways to go to streaming and claim they didn't need all that and they are fake saving hundreds a month lol.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

SledgeHammer said:


> So on the surface, DirecTV is the better service.


Methinks you're not taking into account the customer satisfaction ratings that favor DISH as well as DIRECTV's high pricing. Perhaps they're better in some metrics but not better enough to warrant the prices they're asking.

The trend of the economy is likely to make the impact of premium pricing even more damaging and I expect that the net adds percentage is going to increase in magnitude rather than remain level or slow.

For the AT&T blamers, I'd be interested in your perspectives on where DIRECTV might have been today without the AT&T acquisition.


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

harsh said:


> Methinks you're not taking into account the customer satisfaction ratings that favor DISH as well as DIRECTV's high pricing. Perhaps they're better in some metrics but not better enough to warrant the prices they're asking.
> 
> The trend of the economy is likely to make the impact of premium pricing even more damaging and I expect that the net adds percentage is going to increase in magnitude rather than remain level or slow.
> 
> For the AT&T blamers, I'd be interested in your perspectives on where DIRECTV might have been today without the AT&T acquisition.


DirecTV used to have fan boy status. The AT&T acquisition didn't help them, it hurt them. So they'd probably be better off or perhaps would have been acquired by someone else that would have been more capable of maintaining the fan boy status.

You'd still have cord cutting in households with a lot of TVs simply because an "all you can eat" service is more cost effective then a "per outlet" one. At 1 - 2 TVs, it's not necessarily.

At the end of the day, people value different properties of a service. If someone values having 16 TVs, then a "per outlet" service is probably not for them (at least on all TVs).

To think streaming companies will continue to offer "all you can eat" at 50% off traditional providers since most are taking huge hits to their bottom lines to build out the service.

I posed that question to a streaming fan boy poster once who claimed he got tired of paying $200/mo. So I asked him if the streaming cost went up to the same price or more, which would he pick and his response was that he hated AT&T lol.


----------



## CraigerM (Apr 15, 2014)

What if DTV does make it so the C71-KW and A21-KW works with DTV? Also, wouldn't charge $7 a month? Plus, all the DTV channels would be on those boxes. Then you could have the best of both worlds. Then DTV and Dish Network wouldn't need to merge. DTV would have equipment like Dish. Unless TPG really wants out of their contract?


----------

