# Directv CEO Says Possible Merger with Dish "Could Be Pro-Consumer"



## DMRI2006 (Jun 13, 2006)

Interesting?? (Bold is my emphasis):

_DirecTV CEO Michael White kept the ember of this long-standing idea burning this morning at the Goldman Sachs Annual Communicopia Conference. *"Consolidation could be pro-consumer, perhaps,"* he told investors citing, among other things, the soaring programming costs for DirecTV and other pay TV providers.

White's not the only person who likes the idea of a DirecTV-Dish combination. "A merger would be great news for both DirecTV and Dish Network" - although the cost savings they'd find "would have to be shared with customers" - Bernstein Research's Craig Moffett says this morning. The big question is whether a deal might pass muster with the FCC and antitrust officials. If Mitt Romney's in the White House then "we'll bet on a formally proposed merger within a year," Moffett says. But even if President Obama is re-elected "we'll bet they try it before four years are out."_

Full article here:
http://www.deadline.com/2012/09/directv-dish-network-merger-possibility/


----------



## Carl Spock (Sep 3, 2004)

Pro-consumer in terms of lowering costs? Since when did making a monopoly lower prices? Anybody in the financial department of DirecTV take Econ 101 in college?

It's competition that lowers costs.

It's monopolies that maximize profit.

Yeah, a merger would be great for DirecTV, but pro-consumer? Is he joking?


----------



## TJNash (Jun 5, 2012)

Carl Spock said:


> Pro-consumer in terms of lowering costs? Since when did making a monopoly lower prices? Anybody in the financial department of DirecTV take Econ 101 in college?
> 
> It's competition that lowers costs.
> 
> ...


It will be pro-consumer for those consumers who are DirecTV shareholders. :lol:

Longtime XM subs who lived through the Sirius "merger" can tell you how well that worked out for the consumer.


----------



## Carl Spock (Sep 3, 2004)

TJNash said:


> Longtime XM subs who lived through the Sirius "merger" can tell you how well that worked out for the consumer.


As a guy who subscribed to XM before Sirius even existed, don't remind me. :nono2:

I'd have to go dig out old credit card statements to get the accurate figures but my memory says my satellite radio costs have more than doubled since I originally subscribed. Maybe they have tripled.

And for essentially the same programming although now I get Howard Stern. I've never liked Howard Stern.


----------



## DMRI2006 (Jun 13, 2006)

> Longtime XM subs who lived through the Sirius "merger" can tell you how well that worked out for the consumer.


Exactly...


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

This song is a classic, and heard now for many years.

Hopefully nobody is holding their breath.


----------



## jimmie57 (Jun 26, 2010)

They blocked AT&T from buying T-Mobile and they will block this also for the same reasons.
Cutting down options for the consumer is most of the time a bad deal for us consumers.


----------



## maartena (Nov 1, 2010)

It really wouldn't be pro-consumer for at least a decade. See the Sirius and XM merger, they only came out with a radio that could receive ALL stations from BOTH sets of satellites this year, and they have been merged for 3+ years. And that is a car antenna, not a dish that needs to be specifically pointed to a certain arc.

Customers won't be seeing any advantages until contracts start to be re-negotiated at best, and Dish customers still won't be seeing NFL Sunday Ticket any time soon.

The only advantage I see here is that when negotiating contracts, they will have 34 million customers as leverage.


----------



## fleckrj (Sep 4, 2009)

maartena said:


> The only advantage I see here is that when negotiating contracts, they will have 34 million customers as leverage.


And when there is a carriage dispute, there will be 34 million upset customers, many of whom will have no other alternative. At least now, everyone who wants AMC, the Big 10 Network or ST has the option of switching to DirecTV, and everyone who wants the PAC 12 network has the option of switching to Dish.

The only advantage I see of a merger is that there are a finite number of CONUS orbital slots and a finite number of transponders that can be parked in those slots. Reducing the duplication of what is being transmitted from those slots could open up more possibilities, but it will take many years before duplicates can be turned off because of the cost of replacing the existing equipment. How long has SD and HD been duplicated, and how many more years will SD be around. I cannot see a merged DirecTV/Dish suddenly replacing everyone's receivers and dishes so that satellite space can be freed up to offer more programing.


----------



## Hoosier205 (Sep 3, 2007)

So long as Dish is swallowed whole and the DirecTV way of business is maintained and HD picture quality is still valued...I have no problem with it.


----------



## PCampbell (Nov 18, 2006)

It would be bad for people thad dont live in big citys, Ditrctv and dish are the only options in some places.


----------



## Go Beavs (Nov 18, 2008)

This would be good:


Maximize satellite bandwidth. Think of all the channels we could have or the resolution possible.
Lots of leverage during contract negotiations.

It would be bad:


No choice for rural subs who have no access to cable.
Probably no affect on prices.

IMHO, competition is a good thing. The more choices, the better off consumers are.


----------



## tonyd79 (Jul 24, 2006)

Personally I would hate it. I cannot see the dish satellites. I can see the small arc directv has emphasized.


----------



## zimm7778 (Nov 11, 2007)

Really? This again? They blocked it in 2002/2003. Why would things be any different now?


----------



## LCDSpazz (Dec 31, 2008)

Wasn't this attempted and blocked like 10 years ago? I guess you could argue there's slightly more competitors now like uverse in some markets, but it's pretty much the same competitive landscape.


----------



## maartena (Nov 1, 2010)

zimm7778 said:


> Really? This again? They blocked it in 2002/2003. Why would things be any different now?


Because since then, the following things have happened:

- They allowed the Sirius/XM Merger. This is the most compelling evidence that the FCC and other authorities do not mind a merger that creates a 100% monopoly in 1 service type, in this case satellite radio. Where with DirecTV/Dish, you can at least get 80% or so of offering through cable or telco's - and in some instances more than DBS - you cannot do that with Satellite Radio, especially not in your car.

- They allowed the SBC/AT&T Merger. Not that this directly compares to a Dish/DirecTV merger, but it is an example of how the FCC and other government bodies are becoming a little more lenient in big companies merging in to a huge company. Additionally, of course, AT&T was split up in the 80ties, and this was seen as a first step to bring back the Big Bell.

- Media content/station owners have been asking MUCH higher increases in carriage fees to try and offset their loss of advertising income over the last 3 years or so, resulting in a number of carriage disputes. A merger would give them a lot more leverage to bring price-per-subscriber carriage fees down.

In short: The market has significantly shifted in 10 years. There is a lot more chances of a merger happening in CURRENT market conditions than there was 10 years ago.

I'm still not convinced though. Sirius/XM was held to no price increases for 3 years (I think), but they managed to add other fees and raise existing fees outside of the regular price, so they still managed to squeeze more money out of customers by utilizing sneaky ways around what was on paper. I can see DirecTV/Dish doing the same. Sure the price will stay the same for 5 years, we promise.... oh by the way, your equipment fee is going up from $6 to $8 and your DVR fee is going up from $10 to $15. But our main package price will stay the same as promised.


----------



## HoTat2 (Nov 16, 2005)

Go Beavs said:


> This would be good:
> 
> 
> *Maximize satellite bandwidth. Think of all the channels we could have or the resolution possible. *...


I'm curious as to how this would work and be both technically practical and aesthetically pleasing for the customer.

A small DTH dish that covers 9 or more satellite positions? :eek2:


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

HoTat2 said:


> I'm curious as to how this would work and be both technically practical and aesthetically pleasing for the customer.
> 
> A small DTH dish that covers 9 or more satellite positions? :eek2:


Agree.

There would have to be a number of significant technology and infrastructure changes to even make that work.


----------



## zimm7778 (Nov 11, 2007)

maartena said:


> Because since then, the following things have happened:
> 
> - They allowed the Sirius/XM Merger. This is the most compelling evidence that the FCC and other authorities do not mind a merger that creates a 100% monopoly in 1 service type, in this case satellite radio. Where with DirecTV/Dish, you can at least get 80% or so of offering through cable or telco's - and in some instances more than DBS - you cannot do that with Satellite Radio, especially not in your car.
> 
> ...


Heres where I disagree and don't see how they can. IIRC, the justification for not allowing the merger to go through last time was in large part over rural areas and the lack of competition those areas had along with the fact that Ergen and co. wouldn't put forth a legitimate explanation of how this wouldn't harm those subs. In that vein, nothing much has changed. I sincerely doubt cable and FIOS have reached those areas in the last 10 years. There are no real viable alternatives to a TV signal that have become available.

SXM, while I do not like what it has become I felt like legally they should be allowed to merge. It was am emerging technology that wasn't RELIED UPON by millions of people and a monopoly could really do damage. There were and are too many other ways to get live radio service. Broadcast, apps, internet streams, etc. TV still doesn't have this in that form yet.

Same for the phone. The court broke up AT&T in 1984, right? Well, there were so many other ways for people to communicate with a phone that it was no longer deemed a monopoly.

So, I still don't think this merger should be nor will be approved.


----------



## Carl Spock (Sep 3, 2004)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> There would have to be a number of significant technology and infrastructure changes to even make that work.


If the Sirius/XM merger proved to be a model, initially both companies' technology would be kept running, independent and separate. The company would be rebranded with a common name but you'd either get your programming from Dish's or DirecTV's set of satellites (the Sirius and XM satellites are in two incompatible orbits).

Eventually, you'd go down to one set of satellites and one system of transmission. In the Sirius/XM situation, they have chosen to go with XM's satellites. That transition hasn't happened yet.

To integrate two disparate technologies together would be mind boggling hard. It would be better to go down to one standard.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

Carl Spock said:


> If the Sirius/XM merger proved to be a model, initially both companies' technology would be kept running, independent and separate. The company would be rebranded with a common name but you'd either get your programming from Dish's or DirecTV's set of satellites (the Sirius and XM satellites are in two incompatible orbits).
> 
> Eventually, you'd go down to one set of satellites and one system of transmission. In the Sirius/XM situation, they have chosen to go with XM's satellites. That transition hasn't happened yet.


All true.

That said, I suspect that part of the significant return on investment for such a deal is leveraging the satellite bandwidth from a combined organization as well as transmission facilities/resources. That would bring substantial operating cost reductions like most other tech mergers.

The changes to make that happen, however, would involve some major modifications to a wide range of components in the ecosystem.


----------



## MysteryMan (May 17, 2010)

A merger would be like a double edge sword. The con would be the creation of a monopoly but the pro would be the formidable negotiation power of that monopoly with content providers.


----------



## nmetro (Jul 11, 2006)

One of the biggest issues with merging DirecTV and DISH is that both companies use two different DBS technologies. While yes, one would be able to eliminate duplication and maximize bandwidth it would take a very long, and expensive, time to see one technology emerge. Depending on which technology is chose, 20 million or 14 million Dish's ans receivers would have to be changed out for the favored technology. As there is no gain operating two technologies as a permanent solution.

A merger also depends which company is stronger. 10 years ago DISH thought they were the stronger, attempted to merge and were denied. Now, DirecTV is the stronger of the two. Yet, like 10 years ago, it will be a financial challenge to absorb customers from the other company, as noted above. 

As for "better fro consumers" when was the last time that a monopoly every offered an advantage to the consumer. So far, electric, gas, water and cable tv have proven that the consumer does not win. If this is approved by regulators, they may insist that another company step in to provide DBS. I cannot see this being approved for the same reasons it wasn't 10 years ago; a monopoly in rural areas.


----------



## skoolpsyk (May 24, 2007)

It would be great for consumers! Consumers that have a dream of 10,000 shopping and pay-per-view channels!


----------



## Go Beavs (Nov 18, 2008)

HoTat2 said:


> I'm curious as to how this would work and be both technically practical and aesthetically pleasing for the customer.
> 
> A small DTH dish that covers 9 or more satellite positions? :eek2:


Well, it wouldn't have to cover all the slots. Doesn't DISH have assets at 110 and 119?

You're right though, it's probably not very practical. On the surface, it does sound cool though.


----------



## mrro82 (Sep 12, 2012)

As posted before, Sirius and xms merger is a good reason not to. When they merged certain channels went bye bye. I don't want to see that happen to DirecTV. How would DirecTV customers benefit from this and please please please don't say the P12N. I don't see anything Dish has thatt DirecTV doesn't offer.


----------



## antzona (Sep 23, 2007)

DMRI2006 said:


> *"Consolidation could be pro-consumer, perhaps,"*


If someone uses "could be" and "perhaps" in the same sentence, I don't trust them.


----------



## JoeTheDragon (Jul 21, 2008)

mrro82 said:


> As posted before, Sirius and xms merger is a good reason not to. When they merged certain channels went bye bye. I don't want to see that happen to DirecTV. How would DirecTV customers benefit from this and please please please don't say the P12N. I don't see anything Dish has thatt DirecTV doesn't offer.


Well a merger can give the room to add WEST HD feeds as well

more NHL CI HD feeds?

more mix channels?


----------



## espnjason (Sep 30, 2008)

skoolpsyk said:


> It would be great for consumers! Consumers that have a dream of 10,000 shopping and pay-per-view channels!


If it is done in an effort to keep subscription prices at bay, I wouldn't mind. But I think a hundred would suffice given the amount of duplications.



JoeTheDragon said:


> Well a merger can give the room to add WEST HD feeds as well.


I sense that is a distinct possibility. There are quite a handful of west feeds of basic cable channels like TNT and TBS.
______________________________________________________

We shouldn't get too carried away with this. Like many others, the SiriusXM merger is still fresh in my memory. I was an XM sub from March '03 til the merger when XM's creativity pretty much went out the window in favor of Sirius' business model and from what I understood, things haven't been the same since.

Pardon my ignorance but I wonder how much it would cost to replace all the individual satellite dishes and to make interoperable receivers that would access both sets of programming? Aren't we having enough trouble with migrating customers from SD to HD as it is?


----------



## lokar (Oct 8, 2006)

If allowed, I bet it would go down like D*'s Primestar acquisition in the '90s. Primestar was completely shut down within 6 months and existing customers got a bit of a break on D* equipment if you transitioned over. I think it would probably take a few years but the same principle would apply here, Dish would get shut down.

This merger would be disastrous for rural customers now just as much as it was 10 years ago when Dish tried to buy D*. Cable in many smaller areas either does not reach rural houses and/or doesn't come close to the HD offerings of either D* or E*. Unfortunately what is best for the consumer doesn't often enter into these things...


----------



## HoTat2 (Nov 16, 2005)

Go Beavs said:


> Well, it wouldn't have to cover all the slots. Doesn't DISH have assets at 110 and 119?
> 
> You're right though, it's probably not very practical. On the surface, it does sound cool though.


I took that into consideration;

But its still a total on 9 slots to accommodate --- 61.5, 72.7, 77, 99, 101, 103, 110, 119, 129.

Now I understand that 77 is not necessary in most cases for Dish's EA, so an eight feed horn LNB might suffice as a minimum.

And even if one could build it to any practicality, how many regions of the U.S. have good LOS to all those slots?


----------



## espnjason (Sep 30, 2008)

HoTat2 said:


> I took that into consideration;
> 
> But its still a total on 9 slots to accommodate --- 61.5, 72.7, 77, 99, 101, 103, 110, 119, 129.
> 
> ...


Pretty much all of the Southwest? Florida? Tornado Alley?


----------



## Shades228 (Mar 18, 2008)

You can't compare it to Sirius XM because that was done out of necessity. 

I would compare it more to the Sprint/Nextel merger where it was in name only really for many years because it wasn't worth swapping out the equipment. 

While less competition would impact rural people from being able to jump back and forth it would allow them to not have rate increases as high as before because of the negotiating power. Both companies use national pricing so therefor the rural markets wouldn't be "singled" out because they could be.


----------



## Hoosier205 (Sep 3, 2007)

Just so long as Dish sheds their lawsuits prior to being taken over by DirecTV.


----------



## davidatl14 (Mar 24, 2006)

Shades228 said:


> You can't compare it to Sirius XM because that was done out of necessity.
> 
> I would compare it more to the Sprint/Nextel merger where it was in name only really for many years because it wasn't worth swapping out the equipment.
> 
> While less competition would impact rural people from being able to jump back and forth it would allow them to not have rate increases as high as before because of the negotiating power. Both companies use national pricing so therefor the rural markets wouldn't be "singled" out because they could be.


This.

People comparing this to Sirius-XM are way off base IMO.

Apples and Oranges.

Long way down the road if ever, but I can't see much downside from the financial aspect for consumers in this particular case.


----------



## Satelliteracer (Dec 6, 2006)

Carl Spock said:


> Pro-consumer in terms of lowering costs? Since when did making a monopoly lower prices? Anybody in the financial department of DirecTV take Econ 101 in college?
> 
> It's competition that lowers costs.
> 
> ...


The key is to contain costs, doesn't mean it will lower them. In other words, retard the rate of increases.

When you have 35 million customers you have that much more buying power than if you have 20 million. No different than a WalMart, etc. You can get better pricing.

It's inevitable prices are going to continue to go up because the content providers are not going to take cuts there. The next question, however, is whether that rate of increase can be slowed which would benefit consumers. Now, there is no doubt consumers will say their prices are still going up, so where is the benefit. That's not the way to think about it in my opinion. No different than the Viacom DIRECTV situation. At the end of the day, Directv is still having to pay Viacom about 20% increase which means customer bills are going up, but they would have gone up more if Viacom got their way.


----------



## Satelliteracer (Dec 6, 2006)

DMRI2006 said:


> Exactly...


I would argue it did work out for the customer. Without the Sirius-XM merger, likely neither company is around right now. If they are both gone, how does that benefit the consumer?

It's more than just dollars and cents, it's the bigger picture.


----------



## Satelliteracer (Dec 6, 2006)

The bandwidth would be huge...think 4K on a LOT of channels. Not just HD, but 4K.


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

Satelliteracer said:


> The key is to contain costs, doesn't mean it will lower them. In other words, retard the rate of increases.
> 
> When you have 35 million customers you have that much more buying power than if you have 20 million. No different than a WalMart, etc. You can get better pricing.
> 
> It's inevitable prices are going to continue to go up because the content providers are not going to take cuts there. The next question, however, is whether that rate of increase can be slowed which would benefit consumers. Now, there is no doubt consumers will say their prices are still going up, so where is the benefit. That's not the way to think about it in my opinion. No different than the Viacom DIRECTV situation. At the end of the day, Directv is still having to pay Viacom about 20% increase which means customer bills are going up, but they would have gone up more if Viacom got their way.


 I agree, but those customers that only have satellite as an option will be forced into a single provider. Thats not good, since there is no competition then in those areas, so I see HUGE price increases, maybe even regional prices. Look at Wild blue, even Directway.

Those prices are nuts for those pethedic internet speeds.


----------



## WebTraveler (Apr 9, 2006)

I call bull**** on this. CEO White is already in over his head. A deal like this would give him the perfect exit strategy and coverup his horrendous management skills.


----------



## tonyd79 (Jul 24, 2006)

"WebTraveler" said:


> I call bull**** on this. CEO White is already in over his head. A deal like this would give him the perfect exit strategy and coverup his horrendous management skills.


Wow. Did he run over your dog or something?


----------



## tonyd79 (Jul 24, 2006)

"WebTraveler" said:


> I call bull**** on this. CEO White is already in over his head. A deal like this would give him the perfect exit strategy and coverup his horrendous management skills.


Wow. Did he run over your dog or something?


----------



## Hoosier205 (Sep 3, 2007)

"WebTraveler" said:


> I call bull**** on this. CEO White is already in over his head. A deal like this would give him the perfect exit strategy and coverup his horrendous management skills.


I guess you haven't taken notice of their unprecedented success under his leadership.


----------



## davidatl14 (Mar 24, 2006)

tonyd79 said:


> Wow. Did he run over your dog or something?


Must still be raw about White not falling on his knees and acknowledging the deity that is Larry Scot.
:lol:

On a more serious note in the Pac 12 network saga I do wish both sides could come to an agreement for the National feed at the very least.

Gonna miss a few of the games they have upcoming.

Always enjoyed watching PAC 12 gridiron late Saturday Nights/Early Sunday Morings during CFB season.


----------



## Carl Spock (Sep 3, 2004)

Satelliteracer said:


> The key is to contain costs, doesn't mean it will lower them. In other words, retard the rate of increases.
> 
> When you have 35 million customers you have that much more buying power than if you have 20 million. No different than a WalMart, etc. You can get better pricing.


Satelliteracer, you are exactly right. A monopoly does have the power to lower their own costs, or retard the rate of increase, as you point out.

As a customer, that's not the first cost I'm worried about.  It's the cost of the service to me that is primarily on my mind.

A monopoly has the ability to set prices. They are outside of the standard competition model. OPEC in the 1970s was the classic monopoly. They controlled the majority of the world's oil supply and they could set the price. We saw gas go from 29¢ a gallon to over $1.50 in just a few years.

A monopoly has the best of both worlds. They can lower their own costs because, as you point out, they have more leverage as a buyer, and they can raise the price to their customer since the customer has no where else to go.

This is why monopolies are so profitable.

The question is, would a merger of DirecTV and Dish be viewed as a monopoly? Could they pull off both of these tricks, lowering their costs and setting their price?

Certainly, as you say, they can do the first. They will have greater buying power. But will there still be competition, with other television choices for the consumer that will keep the price they can charge in check?

In many rural markets, this will certainly not be the case. There is no alternative for television beyond OTA, DirecTV or Dish, and in some of those markets, OTA doesn't work, either. In terms of geography, this could be half the country, if not more. A person more knowledgeable than me would have to determine how much of the population this would cover. My guess would be around 10%.

I am discounting the Internet for a source for rural cable television because for those folks, their Internet is probably still dial-up. If they could hook up a cable modem, they could also hook up cable TV. DSL doesn't work well when run miles from a substation.

The more populated parts of the country could have alternatives to a DirecTV/Dish merger, and more than they did in 2003. The idea that there is one cable system for each town yesterday's concept. Often the local phone company is offering TV. There can be other landline providers of television. This might keep a DirecTV/Dish merger from being viewed as a monopoly. We'll see. That's a call for folks a lot more swift than an old stereo salesman on an Internet board.


----------



## Grafixguy (Mar 15, 2008)

TJNash said:


> It will be pro-consumer for those consumers who are DirecTV shareholders. :lol:
> 
> Longtime XM subs who lived through the Sirius "merger" can tell you how well that worked out for the consumer.


For the life of me I don't know why people keep bringing this up. Satellite radio is far different than TV. For starters there is tons of competition for most of what Sirius XM offers and more importantly is the fact that without that merger one or both of them would have gone out of business in short order anyway leaving us in the same situation.

And for what it's worth, subscribers are now able to subscribe to a limited number of stations for a reduced fee. I took advantage of that myself. I don't need Howard Stern, Playboy, Martha Stewart, etc. I just listen to music and a few news stations as well as weather and traffic.

And that ends my off topic rant.

Carry on.


----------



## Carl Spock (Sep 3, 2004)

Satelliteracer said:


> I would argue it did work out for the customer. Without the Sirius-XM merger, likely neither company is around right now. If they are both gone, how does that benefit the consumer?
> 
> It's more than just dollars and cents, it's the bigger picture.


Sirius vs. XM was always a race to the bottom. Neither company was making money. The question was: who would run out of money first?

We found out the answer. It was XM.

I agree only one would survive. It doesn't make it a better deal for the consumer. I used to have 4 radios on my XM account. I gave them away for Christmas presents to nieces and nephews, with the agreement I'd continue to pay for their service as long as their grades stayed up. Now I have two radios on my account, one for my home and one for my car, and the money I pay to SiriusXM is about the same.

Yes, the merger kept the company alive and for that I'm grateful. I was a great deal for the listener but no, it was not a boon to the consumer.


----------



## WebTraveler (Apr 9, 2006)

Hoosier205 said:


> I guess you haven't taken notice of their unprecedented success under his leadership.


Yea he is pumping some short term profits at the expense of customers to drive stock price. It will all come crashing down. A net 52,000 loss of subscribers last quarter and profits are up....so you spend less on sign up promotions this quarter and get a profit. That strategy can work in the short term, but in the long term you cannot ignore this.

Being king of soda pop does not mean you will be king of tv


----------



## WebTraveler (Apr 9, 2006)

tonyd79 said:


> Wow. Did he run over your dog or something?


Want to post this same dribble a third time to make even a bigger point?


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

Oh yeah...this thread is about the idea and potential of a merger of DirecTV and Dish some day...it was getting hard to tell there for a bit...


----------



## TXD16 (Oct 30, 2008)

Much as they now do as individual companies, a post-merger DIRECDish®  will have to keep prices at a level that allows them to remain cost-competitive with cable and fiber in (sub)urban areas, and, hence, rural consumers will continue reap the benefits of that competition.


----------



## Hoosier205 (Sep 3, 2007)

"WebTraveler" said:


> Yea he is pumping some short term profits at the expense of customers to drive stock price. It will all come crashing down. A net 52,000 loss of subscribers last quarter and profits are up....so you spend less on sign up promotions this quarter and get a profit. That strategy can work in the short term, but in the long term you cannot ignore this.
> 
> Being king of soda pop does not mean you will be king of tv


What exactly has he done at the expense of customers? They've added content, features, and products. They completed 39 retrans deals in 2010, most if not all of 80 in 2011, and the numbers for 2012 will be very high as well.


----------



## wilbur_the_goose (Aug 16, 2006)

My biggest fear is a lesson from the XM/Sirius "merger". XM was MANY times bigger than Sirius, but Sirius' management essentially ended XM forever. There's zero XM left now, and it's a real shame.

Therefore, my fear is that Echostar would rule the merged company - we'd lose our sports, our DVRs - all the stuff we like about D*, and it'd be replaced by a no NFLST, cheapened version of D* with crappy DVRs. But at least we'd get the Water Channel


----------



## Araxen (Dec 18, 2005)

Carl Spock said:


> As a guy who subscribed to XM before Sirius even existed, don't remind me. :nono2:
> 
> I'd have to go dig out old credit card statements to get the accurate figures but my memory says my satellite radio costs have more than doubled since I originally subscribed. Maybe they have tripled.
> 
> And for essentially the same programming although now I get Howard Stern. I've never liked Howard Stern.


To be somewhat fair Sirius/XM has to negotiate rates with the RIAA and the RIAA raked them over the coals last time. Sirius can't afford to be without music so they had no leverage. They had no choice but to raise rates.

Don't get me wrong I think the merger wasn't that great and I think Sirius/XM quality has suffered because of it.


----------



## sigma1914 (Sep 5, 2006)

WebTraveler said:


> Yea he is pumping some short term profits at the expense of customers to drive stock price. It will all come crashing down. A net 52,000 loss of subscribers last quarter and profits are up....so you spend less on sign up promotions this quarter and get a profit. That strategy can work in the short term, but in the long term you cannot ignore this.
> 
> Being king of soda pop does not mean you will be king of tv


DirecTV was the only company to have something like 16+ straight quarters with net growth. Every other big provider was losing quarter after quarter...

You've got to get past your personal anger over Pac12 Network and look at the big picture.


----------



## mhking (Oct 28, 2002)

I lived through the Sirius-XM merger mess and would be first to say that the potential writing is on the wall here, but I would suggest that DirecTV look elsewhere beside Dish for merger bait. Think outside the box -- perhaps a Fios/Uverse element? How about going REALLY radical and merging with someone north of the border -- see if Bell or Rogers would spin off their satellite services into a truly North American service?

I'll admit it's pie in the sky, but radical things come from radical ideas....


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> Agree.
> 
> There would have to be a number of significant technology and infrastructure changes to even make that work.


Something D* doesn't do well.

Rich


----------



## Hoosier205 (Sep 3, 2007)

"Rich" said:


> Something D* doesn't do well.
> 
> Rich


Really? I'd say just the opposite.


----------



## TheRatPatrol (Oct 1, 2003)

zkc16 said:


> DIRECDish®


DirecDishTV 



mhking said:


> I lived through the Sirius-XM merger mess and would be first to say that the potential writing is on the wall here, but I would suggest that DirecTV look elsewhere beside Dish for merger bait. Think outside the box -- perhaps a Fios/Uverse element? How about going REALLY radical and merging with someone north of the border -- see if Bell or Rogers would spin off their satellite services into a truly North American service?
> 
> I'll admit it's pie in the sky, but radical things come from radical ideas....


I was kind of thinking this too, instead of the two satellite providers merging, what would happen if one of the major cable companies bought one of the satellite companys? Then that cable company could be "everywhere".

DirectCastTV? :eek2:


----------



## TBoneit (Jul 27, 2006)

mhking said:


> I lived through the Sirius-XM merger mess and would be first to say that the potential writing is on the wall here, but I would suggest that DirecTV look elsewhere beside Dish for merger bait. Think outside the box -- perhaps a Fios/Uverse element? How about going REALLY radical and merging with someone north of the border -- see if Bell or Rogers would spin off their satellite services into a truly North American service?
> 
> I'll admit it's pie in the sky, but radical things come from radical ideas....


The Thing is that Dish has been acquiring lots of wireless bandwidth and Blockbuster, that may make them a more attractive merger partner, than just as a satellite TV provider.

Not to mention that adding the dish transponders on 110 & 119 (?) would give DirecTV a whole of of quick bandwidth with a relatively easy to make dish. Then add in the Dish satellites as in orbit spares and ...............

Put all foreign channels on the Dish Eastern Arc and in HD. Right Now I believe Dish is way ahead of DirecTV in foreign language channels. That seems to be a growth market.

Much easier to carry all channels in HD for all markets from one company with more transponders.

To me it looks like a merger could be a good deal.


----------



## Carl Spock (Sep 3, 2004)

zkc16 said:


> DIRECDish®


_DirecTV + Dish =_

Ditch Divers
Revs Did Itch
Sir Did Vetch

_or my favorite_

Red Itch Vids


----------



## NR4P (Jan 16, 2007)

Shades228 said:


> You can't compare it to Sirius XM because that was done out of necessity.
> 
> While less competition would impact rural people from being able to jump back and forth it would allow them to not have rate increases as high as before because of the negotiating power. Both companies use national pricing so therefor the rural markets wouldn't be "singled" out because they could be.


Agree it was necessary, here's why. It was necessity because of stupid business practives because Sirius offered Howard Stern $.5B (yes Billion) and then XM countered with $.7B for Major League Baseball.

And now there is one and may subs will tell you service did suffer with big rate increases after the 2 year moratorium.



Satelliteracer said:


> I would argue it did work out for the customer. Without the Sirius-XM merger, likely neither company is around right now. If they are both gone, how does that benefit the consumer?
> 
> It's more than just dollars and cents, it's the bigger picture.


Sometimes its OK for the government not to bail out the companies as a reward for stupid business decisions mentioned above. The sats would not have fallen from the sky. Once bankruptcy would have been declared, courts and creditors would have had to deal with the company. They would have emerged as a much leaner more efficient company. This way the creditors get to foot the bill, not the subs.



Araxen said:


> To be somewhat fair Sirius/XM has to negotiate rates with the RIAA and the RIAA raked them over the coals last time. Sirius can't afford to be without music so they had no leverage. They had no choice but to raise rates.
> 
> Don't get me wrong I think the merger wasn't that great and I think Sirius/XM quality has suffered because of it.


Yes Quality has suffered. Many more channels with commercials now. They also made their traffic channels less useful. Before the merger, two cities shared a channel with traffic every 3-4 mins back to back. Now 3 cities share a channel with traffic for your city every 10 minutes. At 65mph one covers alot of roadway in 10 mins making the traffic reports useless.

In general, reduced choice usually hurts consumers.


----------



## Satelliteracer (Dec 6, 2006)

WebTraveler said:


> Yea he is pumping some short term profits at the expense of customers to drive stock price. It will all come crashing down. A net 52,000 loss of subscribers last quarter and profits are up....so you spend less on sign up promotions this quarter and get a profit. That strategy can work in the short term, but in the long term you cannot ignore this.
> 
> Being king of soda pop does not mean you will be king of tv


The loss of customers is because of a planned pullback of going after certain customers. This had been signaled to the street for more than 2 quarters. If D* wanted to have positive numbers in the last quarter, EASILY could have done it by letting customers on the platform and juicing marketing. The issue is that with subscriber acquisition costs as high as they are, it makes no sense to go after some customers that aren't credit worthy.

There is a reason why Warren Buffet and others have bought so much stock in D* in the last year, because it is a well run company. The days of growing, growing, growing subscribers at any costs are over. Don't let the drop in subs fool you, that was planned...there's a reason why D* hit it's all time high in stock price only two weeks ago. They are playing it smart, trying to reign in costs and keeping the customers that make the most sense in the long run.


----------



## Satelliteracer (Dec 6, 2006)

Rich said:


> Something D* doesn't do well.
> 
> Rich


Directv has already absorbed other technologies over the year, including Prime Star, etc.


----------



## Satelliteracer (Dec 6, 2006)

mhking said:


> I lived through the Sirius-XM merger mess and would be first to say that the potential writing is on the wall here, but I would suggest that DirecTV look elsewhere beside Dish for merger bait. Think outside the box -- perhaps a Fios/Uverse element? How about going REALLY radical and merging with someone north of the border -- see if Bell or Rogers would spin off their satellite services into a truly North American service?
> 
> I'll admit it's pie in the sky, but radical things come from radical ideas....


Canada....meh....way too many regulations up there including what programming you can offer. The other problem is all the cost to go into a market with only 35 million people, most of them entrenched with another provider.

I would be stunned if D* and Dish haven't looked at Canada and both come to the conclusion that you just can't be profitable up there with the current setup.


----------



## Hoosier205 (Sep 3, 2007)

"Satelliteracer" said:


> Directv has already absorbed other technologies over the year, including Prime Star, etc.


Exactly.

I would also note that Dish's technology advances have, at times, come by the way of stolen patents and alongside hefty lawsuits.


----------



## zimm7778 (Nov 11, 2007)

"wilbur_the_goose" said:


> My biggest fear is a lesson from the XM/Sirius "merger". XM was MANY times bigger than Sirius, but Sirius' management essentially ended XM forever. There's zero XM left now, and it's a real shame.
> 
> Therefore, my fear is that Echostar would rule the merged company - we'd lose our sports, our DVRs - all the stuff we like about D*, and it'd be replaced by a no NFLST, cheapened version of D* with crappy DVRs. But at least we'd get the Water Channel


And I and many others would be gone and quick.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

maartena said:


> - They allowed the Sirius/XM Merger. This is the most compelling evidence that the FCC and other authorities do not mind a merger that creates a 100% monopoly in 1 service type, in this case satellite radio.


There is competition with SiriusXM outside of satellite. Local terrestrial radios still tend to rule the air ... plus there are streaming options via data networks that give people who want to pay an option.

Satellite radio simply is not as big of a deal as pay television. Sure there are ~21 million subscribers to SiriusXM, but many of them did not choose to subscribe (service came with their new cars) and SiriusXM practically gives away subscriptions to people who have cancelled their service.



> - They allowed the SBC/AT&T Merger. Not that this directly compares to a Dish/DirecTV merger, but it is an example of how the FCC and other government bodies are becoming a little more lenient in big companies merging in to a huge company. Additionally, of course, AT&T was split up in the 80ties, and this was seen as a first step to bring back the Big Bell.


With a lot more regulation than they had in the 80s. Back in the day Ma Bell controlled their networks and could tell people what they could or could not connect to a phone line. A series of court victories and the breakup of AT&T opened the door to competition that still exists today (even with the merger of the bells). While the ILEC in a community may be a reconstituted AT&T, the CLECs live and can compete with AT&T by reselling AT&Ts own lines at a government regulated cost.

AT&T T-Mobile fell through ... not all mergers will be approved.



> In short: The market has significantly shifted in 10 years. There is a lot more chances of a merger happening in CURRENT market conditions than there was 10 years ago.


As long as DirecTV takes the loss when it falls through I don't see the harm in trying. DISH's attempt to buy DirecTV ended with a huge loss ... but it did mark the beginning of never posting a negative year again.

I am surprised to have people at that level talk of a merger. I don't see it as pro-consumer.


----------



## wilbur_the_goose (Aug 16, 2006)

What makes people think D* would be the surviving entity? From where I sit, E* would be chief in charge.

Bigger doesn't usually mean the survivor.

I went through this 2 times in the last 8 years at work. In both cases, the smaller entity ended up ruling the roost (and, IMHO, killing the combined company)


----------



## Hoosier205 (Sep 3, 2007)

"wilbur_the_goose" said:


> What makes people think D* would be the surviving entity? From where I sit, E* would be chief in charge.
> 
> Bigger doesn't usually mean the survivor.
> 
> I went through this 2 times in the last 8 years at work. In both cases, the smaller entity ended up ruling the roost (and, IMHO, killing the combined company)


For me...it's because DirecTV is the only one that deserves to survive. It had better survive.


----------



## PrinceLH (Feb 18, 2003)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> Agree.
> 
> There would have to be a number of significant technology and infrastructure changes to even make that work.


For one, those shared satellite locations, at 119 and 110 would be an increase. Dish also has a Ku band bird at 118.9. So now you've added those transponders. That would be quite a boost and not having to change the LNB to do it!


----------



## john262 (Oct 26, 2011)

Why would Directv want to merge with anybody when they're already making record profits? Is there any end to their greed?


----------



## Satelliteracer (Dec 6, 2006)

john262 said:


> Why would Directv want to merge with anybody when they're already making record profits? Is there any end to their greed?


Directv's profit margin is not that large, very much in line with other companies and industries. 9.84% the last quarter and has been between 7.5% and 10.3% the last three years.

In fact, Directv's profit margin is in the 68th percentile and ranked 1391 out of 4,420 companies. In the CATV systems sector, ranked 11th out of 20.

Apple, is at 25.1%. THOSE GREEDY BASTARDS!! 

Yahoo at 18.61%
Google at 22.8%
Oracle 24.86%
AT&T 12.36%
Exxon 12.49%
Disney 16.51%

ETc, etc


----------



## mnassour (Apr 23, 2002)

Folks....I think we all know that _any_ time _any_ CEO says that a merger involving his company will be "good for the consumer" you need to seriously watch your wallet.



wilbur_the_goose said:


> What makes people think D* would be the surviving entity? From where I sit, E* would be chief in charge.


Then point the dish straight up and use it as a birdbath. That's the _only_ thing that could make me run screaming back to Time Warner.

Charlie in charge? Pay more for less as he drops channel after channel, screaming about how he's saving us money while charging us the same rates for less programming. My God, how stupid does he think we are?


----------



## coolyman (Oct 4, 2007)

Goldman Sachs is not an example of capitalism at work. Corporatism, folks. And what does that have to do with communications anyhow? The customer is only a revenue stream. What benefits the customer is not necessarily beneficial to the business, especially when government is involved. Centralization equally harmful to the consumer and the citizen. Competition in a free market is most beneficial.


----------



## sdirv (Dec 14, 2008)

Carl Spock said:


> As a guy who subscribed to XM before Sirius even existed, don't remind me. :nono2:
> 
> I'd have to go dig out old credit card statements to get the accurate figures but my memory says my satellite radio costs have more than doubled since I originally subscribed. Maybe they have tripled.
> 
> And for essentially the same programming although now I get Howard Stern. I've never liked Howard Stern.


You're telling me......I signed up with XM in mid 2005. I was paying about $140 a year. I got my bill last month, it's up to $220 a year. I canceled.

Of course my use has changed too. I was using mine mainly on my motorcycle and I was doing MANY long distance trips which I'm not doing very many now at all. The other impact has been that back in 2005 my cell phone was just a cell phone. Today my cell phone has every record and CD I've ever owned loaded into it....LOL. Why do I need XM....LOL


----------



## y2k02c5 (Sep 15, 2006)

One thing that hasn't been mentioned is how many people are going to lose their jobs because of the redundancy between the two companies? This reminds me of our Auto industry back in 2008 when they were talking of the GM/Chrysler Merger which would have been detrimental to the local economy and the jobs lost. 

Of course, this could be different, but i'm sure there would be some job losses.


----------



## Dmitriy (Mar 24, 2002)

I've been hearing about this merger for years now... is it ever going to happen?


----------



## Shades228 (Mar 18, 2008)

y2k02c5 said:


> One thing that hasn't been mentioned is how many people are going to lose their jobs because of the redundancy between the two companies? This reminds me of our Auto industry back in 2008 when they were talking of the GM/Chrysler Merger which would have been detrimental to the local economy and the jobs lost.
> 
> Of course, this could be different, but i'm sure there would be some job losses.


I don't see huge cuts but I could see a reduction at higher levels. The amount of calls and customers wouldn't change so therefor call centers, installers, and support staffs would probably increase, which make up the bulk of employees of both companies, distribution and warehouses would possibly be impacted depending on redundancy.

However even if it happened today the consumer aspects wouldn't change for at least 2 years just due to the sheer volume of technology aspects. I would bet it would take at least 6 years for existing customers to even start to see technology changes one way or the other. If one company had a stockpile of cash like Apple does it might be faster because they could just eat the loss easier of a more aggressive change but it still wouldn't take more than a year or two off at most.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Neither company has the money to change all of their older receivers over to receivers that would be compatible with the other company. The customers with MPEG4 receivers would be a step ahead but there are millions of older receivers that would need to be replaced to take advantage of the extra satellite space. The two systems would remain separate for years.

Even if DISH MPEG4 customers were migrated over to DirecTV satellites it would mean a new dish. It isn't an impossible task, but it is an expensive one. Such a massive change will either cut into the profits of the combined company or lead to higher rates. As long as cable keeps raising their rates "DirectDISHTV" could raise rates and still be competitive. But it still seems like a formula for higher rates for all. Not "pro-consumer".


----------



## mkdtv21 (May 27, 2007)

My question is what hardware platform would we have to go with? Would we all transition to a new UI and hardware or could we keep either a HR or a VIP. Most likely we would be all forced to one of them and millions of customers would have to learn a whole new system.


----------



## wilbur_the_goose (Aug 16, 2006)

mnassour - exactly right. Having E* in charge would force my hand.

I wonder if our commitments would be in force if a merger happened and they knocked the stuffing out of D* like they did with XM?


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

I'd be included to believe that DirecTV would take the reins on any merger *IF* it even ever happens.

There are financial, technical, business, and other reasons why this scenario is more likely.

Still....were the situation reversed...they'd have to pry my cold dead hands off my DirecTV remote first.


----------



## Rickt1962 (Jul 17, 2012)

It took along time for the FTC to allow XM and Sirius ! Now Fnck with peoples TV with less choices and history with congress and Cable TV prices going up ! They will have a huge fight with public out cry


----------



## WebTraveler (Apr 9, 2006)

sigma1914 said:


> DirecTV was the only company to have something like 16+ straight quarters with net growth. Every other big provider was losing quarter after quarter...
> 
> You've got to get past your personal anger over Pac12 Network and look at the big picture.


Perhaps, but time will really tell the answer. Truth be told Directv is forcing me away. They offer me upgrades in equipment, fees off each month, but I tell them NO. I want Pac 12, period. So how is it they offer me extras to stay? This just costs them money.


----------



## WebTraveler (Apr 9, 2006)

Hoosier205 said:


> What exactly has he done at the expense of customers? They've added content, features, and products. They completed 39 retrans deals in 2010, most if not all of 80 in 2011, and the numbers for 2012 will be very high as well.


OK, well they lost the Pac 12 and now subsidiary Root Sports NW is showing high school games because there is no content available to them in the NW area! I don't want to watch high school football! Last year they showed Pac 12.

OK, they lost the contract....so I should naturally get a rebate....Pac 12 viewership is worth more than high school football.

Here's just one move that has been at the expense of customers./


----------



## Hoosier205 (Sep 3, 2007)

"WebTraveler" said:


> OK, well they lost the Pac 12 and now subsidiary Root Sports NW is showing high school games because there is no content available to them in the NW area! I don't want to watch high school football! Last year they showed Pac 12.
> 
> OK, they lost the contract....so I should naturally get a rebate....Pac 12 viewership is worth more than high school football.
> 
> Here's just one move that has been at the expense of customers./


That's one recently launched channel they haven't added. Again, what have they done at the expense of customers?


----------



## Carl Spock (Sep 3, 2004)

Come, on, guys, take it outside...

...or at least to the PAC-12 thread going on here.

This is the merger thread.

Hoosier, upthread, weren't you complaining about this discussion getting derailed?


----------



## zimm7778 (Nov 11, 2007)

"WebTraveler" said:


> OK, well they lost the Pac 12 and now subsidiary Root Sports NW is showing high school games because there is no content available to them in the NW area! I don't want to watch high school football! Last year they showed Pac 12.
> 
> OK, they lost the contract....so I should naturally get a rebate....Pac 12 viewership is worth more than high school football.
> 
> Here's just one move that has been at the expense of customers./


They did not *lose* the PAC-12! They never had an agreement with them to lose it! It isn't like they black the games out or something. The PAC 12's deal with the networks which used to air them ended and they created a new channel. A channel that would cost everyone more if they added it! I'm not an idiot. I imagine one day it will be. But until then it sounds like if you want to go this route it's the Pac-12 you should be mad at, not Directv. They have the same channels they had previously.


----------



## zimm7778 (Nov 11, 2007)

"Carl Spock" said:


> Come, on, guys, we have another PAC-12 thread going.
> 
> This is the merger thread.


It's ridiculous. As one who couldn't care less about the channel the complaints everywhere in multiple threads is stupid. It's here and I noticed on Directv's fb page too. They post about the Emmys and people are whining about this channel there.


----------



## Carl Spock (Sep 3, 2004)

zimm7778 said:


> It's ridiculous. As one who couldn't care less about the channel the complaints everywhere in multiple threads is stupid. It's here and I noticed on Directv's fb page too. They post about the Emmys and people are whining about this channel there.


The mods recently requested that we keep programming discussion to one thread.


----------



## Hoosier205 (Sep 3, 2007)

"Carl Spock" said:


> Hoosier, upthread, weren't you complaining about this discussion getting derailed?


No


----------



## Hoosier205 (Sep 3, 2007)

"Carl Spock" said:


> The mods recently requested that we keep programming discussion to one thread.


One thread per channel.


----------



## WebTraveler (Apr 9, 2006)

Hoosier205 said:


> That's one recently launched channel they haven't added. Again, what have they done at the expense of customers?


I just answered your question. They don't have the Pac 12 Network, they don't carry CSN NW so I can watch my local NBA team, and get this, they now show high school football on Root Sports NW (a Directv subsidiary) because they lost all the other content to other providers......NBA Blazers to Comcast, Pac 12 to Pac 12 Network, and others. So there it is. My rates are the same and I get high school sports because Directv lost the content to everyone else. You'd think with less content the cost of Root Sports NW should be less....Directv WAS the sports leader, no more.

Now, of course you can simply repeat the same question again and I can answer it again the same way; I am thinking that perhaps you are Mike White in disguise with your defense of him.


----------



## WebTraveler (Apr 9, 2006)

zimm7778 said:


> They did not *lose* the PAC-12! They never had an agreement with them to lose it! It isn't like they black the games out or something. The PAC 12's deal with the networks which used to air them ended and they created a new channel. A channel that would cost everyone more if they added it! I'm not an idiot. I imagine one day it will be. But until then it sounds like if you want to go this route it's the Pac-12 you should be mad at, not Directv. They have the same channels they had previously.


They had Pac 12 content on subsidiary Root Sports NW......now they lost Pac 12 content on Root Sports NW and have replaced that content with high school sports.

Yes I can be mad at the Pac 12 to some extent.

But I also can be mad at Directv. Directv charges for having a regional sports channel. The channel USED to carry Pac 12. Now it does now. So Root Sports pays LESS for its content, but still pockets the same amount of subsciber fees. Directv really should apply those subscriber fees to getting Pac 12 Network or refund them directly to me.


----------



## Hoosier205 (Sep 3, 2007)

"WebTraveler" said:


> I just answered your question. They don't have the Pac 12 Network, they don't carry CSN NW so I can watch my local NBA team, and get this, they now show high school football on Root Sports NW (a Directv subsidiary) because they lost all the other content to other providers......NBA Blazers to Comcast, Pac 12 to Pac 12 Network, and others. So there it is. My rates are the same and I get high school sports because Directv lost the content to everyone else. You'd think with less content the cost of Root Sports NW should be less....Directv WAS the sports leader, no more.
> 
> Now, of course you can simply repeat the same question again and I can answer it again the same way; I am thinking that perhaps you are Mike White in disguise with your defense of him.


Thanks. I only wanted to get the full list of his failures, in your opinion, that have so deeply hurt DirecTV's 20 million customers. Three RSN's is all it takes apparently.


----------



## WebTraveler (Apr 9, 2006)

Hoosier205 said:


> Thanks. I only wanted to get the full list of his failures, in your opinion, that have so deeply hurt DirecTV's 20 million customers. Three RSN's is all it takes apparently.


OK Mike. Make it all so simple. That's what you want to make it - so black and white.

This is one (or is it two or three) failures that directly impact ME.

I am sure there are others that have other examples of direct impact.

Mike, I am also sure you want to make it so black and white to prove your point that Directv is such an awesome company and you are doing such an awesome job as CEO to the shareholders and customers alike. That's what a CEO is paid to do. Mike, its to create the appearance that all is dandy and great in neverland. To somehow make the customers THINK they are getting a good deal when in reality you are screwing them over. It's mass marketing 101 and Mike you certainly have done a good job shoveling the B.S. to the customer. You've convinced quite a few that despite the fact that the Pac 12 has offered Directv the same deal as Dish Network (and the others) that still somehow Pac 12 is playing hardball (as you had your employees post over on your Facebook page)

Good job Mike. I am sure you will have another great FAQ posted to your company's webpage today about how I do not need the Pac 12. Maybe this time you can get the right # of Pac 12 games??


----------



## WebTraveler (Apr 9, 2006)

zimm7778 said:


> It's ridiculous. As one who couldn't care less about the channel the complaints everywhere in multiple threads is stupid. It's here and I noticed on Directv's fb page too. They post about the Emmys and people are whining about this channel there.


Aren't you whining here as well? Certainly looks that way.


----------



## WebTraveler (Apr 9, 2006)

Hoosier205 said:


> Thanks. I only wanted to get the full list of his failures, in your opinion, that have so deeply hurt DirecTV's 20 million customers. Three RSN's is all it takes apparently.


http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.co...s-for-going-to-commercial-on-lions-hail-mary/

Here's another example.

But in all seriousness, a merger would do what? A combined entity with say 35M customers would be the biggest provider of in home TV services It would have incredible leverage with content providers. No doubt a combined entity would reduce fees to content providers.

But as consumers is it even reasonable to expect that we get this "savings" in our bills? Fat chance. It will all go to the new combined entity.

This is NOT about consumers.


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

This is not a thread about Pac-12. Let's move back to topic, thanks.


----------



## twiseguy (Jan 31, 2011)

WebTraveler said:


> http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.co...s-for-going-to-commercial-on-lions-hail-mary/
> 
> Here's another example.
> 
> ...


You`re right. A combined company would have 35M people by the shorthairs when it comes to raising rates. If you live out in the sticks, what would be your options?


----------



## john262 (Oct 26, 2011)

Satelliteracer said:


> Directv's profit margin is not that large, very much in line with other companies and industries. 9.84% the last quarter and has been between 7.5% and 10.3% the last three years.
> 
> In fact, Directv's profit margin is in the 68th percentile and ranked 1391 out of 4,420 companies. In the CATV systems sector, ranked 11th out of 20.
> 
> ...





> DIRECTV DTV +0.40% today reported an increase in second quarter 2012 revenues of 9% to $7.22 billion, operating profit before depreciation and amortization(1) (OPBDA) of 9% to $2.01 billion and operating profit of 15% to $1.41 billion compared to last year's second quarter. DIRECTV reported that second quarter net income increased 1% to $711 million and diluted earnings per share grew 20% to $1.09 compared with the same period last year.


Is anyone going to tell me that that's not enough profit already? Of course some of the Directv sycophants in this forum will defend them no matter what they do, but how can anyone reasonably argue that they are not making enough money already? No to any mergers.

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/directv-announces-second-quarter-2012-results-2012-08-02


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

twiseguy said:


> You`re right. A combined company would have 35M people by the shorthairs when it comes to raising rates. If you live out in the sticks, what would be your options?


That appears to be a pessimistic and unfounded perspective.

A wide revenue stream and lowered operating costs (combined support and technologies just to name 2 elements) through merged operations actually would probably reduce the probability of raised rates, or at minimum stabilize them.

In addition, the potential 35 million subscriber total pales in comparison to the cable subscriber total numbers - so plenty of competition would keep an incentive to be competitive.


----------



## Hoosier205 (Sep 3, 2007)

"john262" said:


> Is anyone going to tell me that that's not enough profit already? Of course some of the Directv sycophants in this forum will defend them no matter what they do, but how can anyone reasonably argue that they are not making enough money already? No to any mergers.
> 
> http://www.marketwatch.com/story/directv-announces-second-quarter-2012-results-2012-08-02


No, I'd never tell any company they are making enough money. I'd encourage them to be as successful as possible.


----------



## Carl Spock (Sep 3, 2004)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> That appears to be a pessimistic and unfounded perspective.
> 
> A wide revenue stream and lowered operating costs (combined support and technologies just to name 2 elements) through merged operations actually would probably reduce the probability of raised rates, or at minimum stabilize them.
> 
> In addition, the potential 35 million subscriber total pales in comparison to the cable subscriber total numbers - so plenty of competition would keep an incentive to be competitive.


I don't think you can say that so categorically. Whether the merged companies would be a monopoly and capable of monopolistic pricing is certainly open to a lot of discussion. I don't think there is much question the combined company would be a monopoly in rural areas. How much of a problem that would be is the only question, at least regarding areas not serviced by cable. Whether competition in primary and secondary markets would be enough to keep a single satellite provider from being a monopoly is a very questionable issue. It was determined it would be a monopoly just 10 years ago.

Nobody responded to my analysis of exactly this issue upthread here.

And *john262*, who made you the profit police? Laws against making too much profit are few. There are usury laws against charging too much interest but most of those unfortunately have gone away. Usury was a sin a century ago. Now it's considered a pawn store reality TV show. There are also laws against monopolies for exactly this issue. But otherwise, if you can make something for a 10¢ and sell it for $10, more power to you.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

Carl Spock said:


> Whether the merged companies would be a monopoly and capable of monopolistic pricing is certainly open to a lot of discussion.


That statement is certainly true.

My point is that a merged DirecTV/Dish entity would hardly be a monopoly in terms of the overall content-delivery business itself. It would for sat alone obviously, but that's only once slice of the pie. That fact alone would deem that competitive forces still very much come into play when it comes to pricing models.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> That appears to be a pessimistic and unfounded perspective.


Given the similar Sirius/XM merger and the NBC/Comcast merger as examples , I see little reason not to be pessimistic about the outcome from the perspective of a viewer.

Regrettably (or happily if that's the way you look at it), each company seems to be edging towards the other.


----------



## raott (Nov 23, 2005)

"hdtvfan0001" said:


> That statement is certainly true.
> 
> My point is that a merged DirecTV/Dish entity would hardly be a monopoly in terms of the overall content-delivery business itself. It would for sat alone obviously, but that's only once slice of the pie. That fact alone would deem that competitive forces still very much come into play when it comes to pricing models.


Agreed, although they would or could be a monopoly in a specific rural area, the pricing is national pricing rather than area specific. The need to compete with cable companies in non-rural areas would negate concerns about a rural monopoly, IMO.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

harsh said:


> Given the *similar Sirius/XM merger and the NBC/Comcast merger* as examples , I see little reason not to be pessimistic about the outcome from the perspective of a viewer.
> 
> Regrettably (or happily if that's the way you look at it), each company seems to be edging toward the other.


That, of course, assumes all mergers operate that way, which is not the case. I also disagree that the Sirius/XM scenario is nearly the same set of circumstance in terms of scope, scale, maturity of companies and technologies, or industry impact. Each merger has it's own dynamics.

Since this theoretical merger was evaluated more than once before, and only agency approval was seen as a potential obstacle, I suspect that both parties already have some form of a "what if" strategy.


----------



## tonyd79 (Jul 24, 2006)

I'll add this. Directv and Dish have advanced because of competition between them. Watch the features. The channels. Most of their ads. Directv versus Dish. 

A combined system would not see cable as their true competition and would dwarf the largest cable company by at least 50%. Not competition. 

Satellite is not the same market as cable. The dynamics are different. For example, no one can handle Sunday Ticket like directv. No one would have as much out of town sports as satellite (as it is up there anyway and making it available is a software task). Different critters. As the PAC 12 knows.


----------



## Carl Spock (Sep 3, 2004)

Great point, tonyd79. I'd never thought of that.

The competition aspect is a good one but the national coverage point hit me more.

None of the cable companies are truly national providers. All have great swatches of the country they don't reach. Many are basically regional providers. Only DirecTV and Dish are nation-wide television service providers. That gives them a unique reach for news, religious, public service, shopping and infomercial channels. 

Dish and DirecTV also allow an advertiser to make a buy that will cover the entire country, getting both reach and diversity. If an advertiser like McDonalds wants to hit a lot of people in different age and demographic groups, they would either have to buy the networks or place ads with many different content providers. Instead, now they can buy DirecTV or Dish and find their ad in many places across the platform.


----------



## WebTraveler (Apr 9, 2006)

raott said:


> Agreed, although they would or could be a monopoly in a specific rural area, the pricing is national pricing rather than area specific. The need to compete with cable companies in non-rural areas would negate concerns about a rural monopoly, IMO.


Who says they cannot price per market?

They never have, but that does not necessarily mean they cannot.

Comcast has outlets all over the nation, and for whatever reason, they are not all priced the same. I don't see any reason why Directv cannot charge one rate in one locality and another rate in another.

Is there a reason?


----------



## WebTraveler (Apr 9, 2006)

and competition brings out the best, so if the companies were combined what incentive would there be to continue innovative new features?

From a programmer perspective I like the idea. These guys are raising rates like crazy.

From a customer perspective I am very suspect.



tonyd79 said:


> I'll add this. Directv and Dish have advanced because of competition between them. Watch the features. The channels. Most of their ads. Directv versus Dish.
> 
> A combined system would not see cable as their true competition and would dwarf the largest cable company by at least 50%. Not competition.
> 
> Satellite is not the same market as cable. The dynamics are different. For example, no one can handle Sunday Ticket like directv. No one would have as much out of town sports as satellite (as it is up there anyway and making it available is a software task). Different critters. As the PAC 12 knows.


----------



## Carl Spock (Sep 3, 2004)

WebTraveler said:


> Who says they cannot price per market?
> 
> They never have, but that does not necessarily mean they cannot.
> 
> ...


If I had a monopoly, I would charge different prices per market.

That's the essence of a monopoly. You can set the price people have to pay. If you don't do that, you aren't being a good monopoly.

It would be no great sweat to come up with a nationwide map of the competitive prices for each market. When someone became a new subscriber, the CSR would plug in their zip code and get a price sheet for all the various packages and services on the screen for their location. Live in Detroit and have cheap cable choices? You'd get a better deal than the guy who lives in New York City. The person with a cabin in the Rockies would pay the most. Maybe only the introductory package would be the same price nationwide so the merged company could advertise, "Get USA and Nickelodeon starting at only $19.95 a month."

This may seem cruel to some but it's the way capitalism and monopolies work. You squeeze the customer when you don't have competition.


----------



## tonyd79 (Jul 24, 2006)

"WebTraveler" said:


> Who says they cannot price per market?
> 
> They never have, but that does not necessarily mean they cannot.
> 
> ...


Probably just too complicated. And they have single ad campaigns.

Comcast is not really one company but a coalition of smaller systems. The local systems have a lot of autonomy in pricing, channel selection. Heck, my nephew who works for them says that a lot of the local systems are resisting the Comcast HD lineup plan (all in 800s and up, reorganized).


----------



## tonyd79 (Jul 24, 2006)

"WebTraveler" said:


> and competition brings out the best, so if the companies were combined what incentive would there be to continue innovative new features?
> 
> From a programmer perspective I like the idea. These guys are raising rates like crazy.
> 
> From a customer perspective I am very suspect.


Total agreement.


----------



## zimm7778 (Nov 11, 2007)

"Hoosier205" said:


> No, I'd never tell any company they are making enough money. I'd encourage them to be as successful as possible.


+1


----------



## Satelliteracer (Dec 6, 2006)

john262 said:


> Is anyone going to tell me that that's not enough profit already? Of course some of the Directv sycophants in this forum will defend them no matter what they do, but how can anyone reasonably argue that they are not making enough money already? No to any mergers.
> 
> http://www.marketwatch.com/story/directv-announces-second-quarter-2012-results-2012-08-02


I grew up in a time where it was good to have American companies doing well and being profitable. Somewhere along the line that has changed. To each, their own, but I don't think making 10% profit margin is greedy. All it takes is a few bad quarters where you are underwater and things can get south in a hurry. I want companies to be able to make profits, reinvest in their companies, innovate, etc, and be prepared for those sour times as well because bailouts typically aren't the norm.

Again, each to their own but 10% isn't greedy in my book, not even close, not with the world in which we live in.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

The trouble is that these multi-billion dollar profitable companies play the "buddy" card. Every time they put out a press release that says a decision was made "to save their customers money" they are trying to make us feel like they really care about our money.

Have you ever seen the press release that said "we are dropping this channel or not adding this other channel in order to raise our profits and make more money"? Have you seen a press release that said "we need our annual rate increase will allow us to maintain our 10% profit margin ... or increase our profits beyond 10%"? No ... the "bad news" for consumers is always wrapped in excuses ("just passing on the rate increases we are seeing" or "just keeping your rates down") or "PR" (also spelt BS) that is intended to give their customers a warm fuzzy feeling about the bad news.

And the PR works. There are people who will defend to the death a company that they do not work for and hold no stock in. A company who will gladly continue to raise rates to keep their profits up. A company who will raise rates on retirees on a fixed income and when they can't pay they will let them go and find younger, more affluent customers. Congrats to the PR team for making customers happy about it.

Seeing a company remain reasonably profitable is good for all the reasons mentioned. But I don't mind that people disagree on what level is "reasonable". If a merger such as DirecTV and DISH would bring down costs for the consumer it might be a good thing. But somehow the expectation that consumer prices will continue to rise while costs are reduced for the new company seems to be more likely. Higher prices, more profit. 

The preceding statement is my own and does not represent the opinion of the site or any company.


----------



## WebTraveler (Apr 9, 2006)

tonyd79 said:


> Probably just too complicated. And they have single ad campaigns.


Maybe, but in time they will figure it out. If there is no national competitor (i.e. only one satellite company) then it's a matter of time before they figure it out. So long as someone else is lurking with a national rate no one can make a move.



tonyd79 said:


> Comcast is not really one company but a coalition of smaller systems. The local systems have a lot of autonomy in pricing, channel selection. Heck, my nephew who works for them says that a lot of the local systems are resisting the Comcast HD lineup plan (all in 800s and up, reorganized).


Yes this is true - as Comcast has acquired existing systems it really has not done a wholesale consolidation.....but in time you will see it get tighter as they continue to look for efficiencies in their operation.


----------



## raott (Nov 23, 2005)

WebTraveler said:


> Who says they cannot price per market?
> 
> They never have, but that does not necessarily mean they cannot.
> 
> ...


I wouldn't be surprised to see some sort of pricing restrictions in any merger. However, we all know how well that worked out for subscribers of Sirius and XM.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> That, of course, assumes all mergers operate that way, which is not the case.


Perhaps you could cite an example of an entertainment media/medium merger/acquisition that wasn't ultimately a downer for consumers.


----------



## zimm7778 (Nov 11, 2007)

"harsh" said:


> Perhaps you could cite an example of an entertainment media/medium merger/acquisition that wasn't ultimately a downer for consumers.


I wasn't a sub then but was Directv's acquisition of Primestar really a bad thing at the time? I mean looked at with total negativity?


----------



## Hoosier205 (Sep 3, 2007)

"harsh" said:


> Perhaps you could cite an example of an entertainment media/medium merger/acquisition that wasn't ultimately a downer for consumers.


This would would be great for Dish customers. They'd get to experience what it's like with a superior company like DirecTV. It would also put 1/3 of the nation's attorneys out of work without the Dish Network endless legal parade.


----------



## Carl Spock (Sep 3, 2004)

harsh said:


> Perhaps you could cite an example of an entertainment media/medium merger/acquisition that wasn't ultimately a downer for consumers.


1) Atlantic Records being purchased by Warner Bros. in 1967. It gave Ahmet Ertegun the structure and the money to take his R & B label to the next level. It's hard to imagine he could have signed either Led Zepellin or the Rolling Stones without the purchase. Read "The Last Sultan" by Robert Greenfield for a great book on Ertegun.

2) Pixar's purchase by Walt Disney Corporation in 2006. It gave Pixar the capital to expand the number of films they could put out and a permanent distribution deal. Before the purchase, their distribution deal with Disney had soured.

3) The 2002 purchase of the Boston Red Sox by New England Sports Ventures and John Henry. I don't think you can argue against the success of World Series Championships in 2004 and 2007 after decades of frustration. We'll see if the same group can also revive the Liverpool F.C. from years of poor play. They purchased Liverpool in 2007.


----------



## wilbur_the_goose (Aug 16, 2006)

I still firmly believe that Echostar would be the company in charge. Just think of why you didn't go with E* and you'll see what I'm fearing.


----------



## Hoosier205 (Sep 3, 2007)

wilbur_the_goose said:


> I still firmly believe that Echostar would be the company in charge. Just think of why you didn't go with E* and you'll see what I'm fearing.


Echostar and Dish Network split into two separate companies nearly five years ago.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

harsh said:


> Perhaps you could cite an example of an entertainment media/medium merger/acquisition that wasn't ultimately a downer for consumers.


Gee...

With you being a Dish customer, I would have thought you'd be able to cite Echostar's purchases of DISH Network, Hughes networks, Move Networks, and other stellar examples.


----------



## archer75 (Oct 13, 2006)

Having had both, and now with direct tv I can say that without a doubt I prefer Dish. The regular out of contract price I was paying with Dish was lower than my 1st year promo price with direct. I also like aspects of Dish's receivers better. Though Direct's receivers do have some nice features.

I'm not sure i'd be a fan of a merger. I could only see prices going up and for many people cable is not an option and the new combined sat company wouldn't have to work as hard to retain you as you'd have no where else to go. At least with the both of them I can threaten to go to the other and usually get the deal I want.


----------



## n3ntj (Dec 18, 2006)

I believe that we need separate competing satellite and cable cos. to be more consumer friendly and lower prices.


----------



## mnassour (Apr 23, 2002)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> That appears to be a pessimistic and unfounded perspective.
> 
> A wide revenue stream and lowered operating costs (combined support and technologies just to name 2 elements) through merged operations actually would probably reduce the probability of raised rates, or at minimum stabilize them.
> 
> In addition, the potential 35 million subscriber total pales in comparison to the cable subscriber total numbers - so plenty of competition would keep an incentive to be competitive.


Really?

That's right, after the Sirius/XM merger choice on the XM side went up and rates went down.

Oh....wait a minit........

Please, look at merger after merger after merger.....that "wide revenue stream" flows right from our pockets into those of the investors.

I lived through Sirius' destruction of XM. No offense, but I'm tired of those (not you) who would piss on my shoes and tell me it's raining.


----------



## oldcrooner (Feb 23, 2004)

James Long said:


> The trouble is that these multi-billion dollar profitable companies play the "buddy" card. Every time they put out a press release that says a decision was made "to save their customers money" they are trying to make us feel like they really care about our money.
> 
> Have you ever seen the press release that said "we are dropping this channel or not adding this other channel in order to raise our profits and make more money"? Have you seen a press release that said "we need our annual rate increase will allow us to maintain our 10% profit margin ... or increase our profits beyond 10%"? No ... the "bad news" for consumers is always wrapped in excuses ("just passing on the rate increases we are seeing" or "just keeping your rates down") or "PR" (also spelt BS) that is intended to give their customers a warm fuzzy feeling about the bad news.
> 
> ...


Very well and accurately put. Of course, the usuals will pretend that this does not describe the benevolent Directv and Dish companies.


----------



## VLaslow (Aug 16, 2006)

I'd like to think that, sooner or later, price increases can't continue as the customers will simply fade away. Even though we haven't seen it yet on a broad scale, there is a limit to what people can, and will, pay.

The Sirius/XM deal took two failing ccmpanies and made one failing company. That's not the situation with Dish and DirecTV. But, never underestimate the capabilities of a good lobbyist.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> Gee...
> 
> With you being a Dish customer, I would have thought you'd be able to cite Echostar's purchases of DISH Network, Hughes networks, Move Networks, and other stellar examples.


So you don't have any examples of mergers (as opposed to acquisitions of satellite bandwidth) to support your claim? I was kinda suspicious that you didn't believe what you posted.

BTW, as Hoosier205 accurately pointed out, Echostar didn't purchase DISH. Spinning off Echostar put Echostar in a better position to do STB business with DISH competitors.


----------



## Richierich (Jan 10, 2008)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> Gee...
> 
> With you being a Dish customer, I would have thought you'd be able to cite Echostar's purchases of DISH Network, Hughes networks, Move Networks, and other stellar examples.


But if the Merger between Dish and Directv goes thru then Harsh would be justified with his Posting on the Directv side of DBSTALK because he then would be a Directv/Dish Customer so Directv Posters could no longer poke fun at him for posting on the Directv side of DBSTALK!!! :lol:


----------



## Hoosier205 (Sep 3, 2007)

"Richierich" said:


> But if the Merger between Dish and Directv goes thru then Harsh would be justified with his Posting on the Directv side of DBSTALK because he then would be a Directv/Dish Customer so Directv Posters could no longer poke fun at him for posting on the Directv side of DBSTALK!!! :lol:


NOOOOOOO!


----------



## Diana C (Mar 30, 2007)

Mr White can think whatever he wants, but he's dreaming if he thinks this deal is any more likely to be approved than it was last time. Unlike the Sirius/XM deal (and the Sprint/Nextel deal) both DirecTV and Dish Network are financially healthy and vibrant companies. There is no consumer benefit to be gained from a merger of the companies, other than a reduction in operating costs.

The problem with even that benefit is that it is unlikely to have much, if any, effect on customer's bills. The majority of our monthly bill is driven by programming costs, not operating costs. Anyone who thinks that a combined Dish/DirecTV would have more leverage with content providers is dreaming. Even if they kept every current subscriber (and assuming there are not many subscribers to both) they'd have about 34 million subs, making them about 50% larger than the current #1 Comcast (which, at 22 million is about 50% larger than #3 Dish Network separately). But has Comcast's larger size made them able to hold the line on costs any better than Dish? Not for one minute.

In terms of subscriber savings, even if ALL the cost savings were passed on, a merger might mean an annual increase of $1.95 per month instead of $2.00. Hardly enough to overcome antitrust and bandwidth monopoly concerns.


----------



## tonyd79 (Jul 24, 2006)

"Titan25" said:


> Mr White can think whatever he wants, but he's dreaming if he thinks this deal is any more likely to be approved than it was last time. Unlike the Sirius/XM deal (and the Sprint/Nextel deal) both DirecTV and Dish Network are financially healthy and vibrant companies. There is no consumer benefit to be gained from a merger of the companies, other than a reduction in operating costs.
> 
> The problem with even that benefit is that it is unlikely to have much, if any, effect on customer's bills. The majority of our monthly bill is driven by programming costs, not operating costs. Anyone who thinks that a combined Dish/DirecTV would have more leverage with content providers is dreaming. Even if they kept every current subscriber (and assuming there are not many subscribers to both) they'd have about 34 million subs, making them about 50% larger than the current #1 Comcast (which, at 22 million is about 50% larger than #3 Dish Network separately). But has Comcast's larger size made them able to hold the line on costs any better than Dish? Not for one minute.
> 
> In terms of subscriber savings, even if ALL the cost savings were passed on, a merger might mean an annual increase of $1.95 per month instead of $2.00. Hardly enough to overcome antitrust and bandwidth monopoly concerns.


Not to mention the cost of merging technologies. They can't even afford to shut down mpeg2 SD today, who says they'd have any gain in merging two companies using completely different technologies. The cost savings comes down to things like Human resources and some other functions that would save money.

The cost savings is a mirage.


----------



## Christopher Gould (Jan 14, 2007)

"Titan25" said:


> Mr White can think whatever he wants, but he's dreaming if he thinks this deal is any more likely to be approved than it was last time. Unlike the Sirius/XM deal (and the Sprint/Nextel deal) both DirecTV and Dish Network are financially healthy and vibrant companies. There is no consumer benefit to be gained from a merger of the companies, other than a reduction in operating costs.
> 
> The problem with even that benefit is that it is unlikely to have much, if any, effect on customer's bills. The majority of our monthly bill is driven by programming costs, not operating costs. Anyone who thinks that a combined Dish/DirecTV would have more leverage with content providers is dreaming. Even if they kept every current subscriber (and assuming there are not many subscribers to both) they'd have about 34 million subs, making them about 50% larger than the current #1 Comcast (which, at 22 million is about 50% larger than #3 Dish Network separately). But has Comcast's larger size made them able to hold the line on costs any better than Dish? Not for one minute.
> 
> In terms of subscriber savings, even if ALL the cost savings were passed on, a merger might mean an annual increase of $1.95 per month instead of $2.00. Hardly enough to overcome antitrust and bandwidth monopoly concerns.


But does comcast negotiate as 22 million customers or does it do it by area since all channels aren't available in all areas?


----------



## Shades228 (Mar 18, 2008)

The cost savings would be more in the future of contract negotiations and reduced SAC costs. Would the bills go down? No but they may not rise at a steady 3-4% a year either.

If either company had regional pricing then there would be a lot more of concern with price fixing but both companies have national pricing. The people with 6 options have the same cost as the people with 2. Now some loss would be the people with 2 options right now being able to "threaten" to leave to get discounts but eventually this "business model" will evolve and the discounts won't be as they are today.


----------



## raott (Nov 23, 2005)

Shades228 said:


> The cost savings would be more in the future of contract negotiations and reduced SAC costs.


In other words, no more up front deals to come to Directv because we no longer have to compete with Dish in the rural areas.


----------



## Carl Spock (Sep 3, 2004)

There are two kinds of costs here, raott. You're talking about the cost of the service to the consumer. I think Shades228 was talking about costs of procuring programing for DirecTV. Those are two completely different things.

We really should call the first one price and the second one costs but we often don't. Your remark about lower prices when there is competition is very valid, as is Shades' one about possibly lower costs with a merged company.


----------



## tonyd79 (Jul 24, 2006)

Shades228 said:


> The cost savings would be more in the future of contract negotiations and reduced SAC costs. Would the bills go down? No but they may not rise at a steady 3-4% a year either.


Not sure I really imagine much cost per unit to go down in contract negotiations. Why would they? It is not like we are going an order of magnitude. DirecTV would go from 20 mil to 35 mil. That is a big jump but not enough to force a big change in pricing, especially as it is assumed that Dish is getting good deals now because they are 15 mil-ish.

What could happen is that DishrecTV thinks they are big enough to push things and there are more disputes.

I am not seeing economies of scale elsewhere either. This is not a paper company where they can just mingle the stock.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

tonyd79 said:


> Not sure I really imagine much cost per unit to go down in contract negotiations. Why would they?


I would expect a "bulk discount" for a wider distribution ... a channel accepting 20c per subscriber because they are in Entertainment or AT120 and wanting 25c per subscriber if they are placed in Choice or AT200. Knowing that they will make more money off of the additional subscribers in the lower tiers (regardless of actual channel viewership).

Perhaps a combined DirecTV-DISH could offer a channel 25 million viewers at the Choice/AT200 level and expect a better price than when they were only offering 10 or 15 million. The channel provider would only getting 25 million subscribers - even if their payment comes from one company instead of two. So I doubt if there would be a better price.

It may even backfire to the point where channel providers look at the profit the combined company is making and want a bigger cut. If one company can afford to buy the other they certainly can pay higher rates per channel. Right? The channels will always want a bigger piece of the profits.


----------



## Eksynyt (Feb 8, 2008)

Coincast and the cable companies will pay off whoever they have to in order to prevent this from happening.


----------



## tonyd79 (Jul 24, 2006)

"James Long" said:


> I would expect a "bulk discount" for a wider distribution ... a channel accepting 20c per subscriber because they are in Entertainment or AT120 and wanting 25c per subscriber if they are placed in Choice or AT200. Knowing that they will make more money off of the additional subscribers in the lower tiers (regardless of actual channel viewership).
> 
> Perhaps a combined DirecTV-DISH could offer a channel 25 million viewers at the Choice/AT200 level and expect a better price than when they were only offering 10 or 15 million. The channel provider would only getting 25 million subscribers - even if their payment comes from one company instead of two. So I doubt if there would be a better price.
> 
> It may even backfire to the point where channel providers look at the profit the combined company is making and want a bigger cut. If one company can afford to buy the other they certainly can pay higher rates per channel. Right? The channels will always want a bigger piece of the profits.


The problem I have is that most of the channels are already in directv and dish households. At levels both companies are happy with. Why would they give a discount just because they are now dealing with one company. That would be asking them to foot the bill of the merger. They won't like that. If the new company sticks to its guns, more disputes.


----------



## Davenlr (Sep 16, 2006)

Only consumer benefit I see to a merger would be that the combined company would be able to repurpose satellites to exclusively offer 4K or 8K programming. The cable companies will never have the bandwidth for it. Neither Dish or DirecTv alone, really have the bandwidth for it either.


----------



## Shades228 (Mar 18, 2008)

tonyd79 said:


> Not sure I really imagine much cost per unit to go down in contract negotiations. Why would they? It is not like we are going an order of magnitude. DirecTV would go from 20 mil to 35 mil. That is a big jump but not enough to force a big change in pricing, especially as it is assumed that Dish is getting good deals now because they are 15 mil-ish.
> 
> What could happen is that DishrecTV thinks they are big enough to push things and there are more disputes.
> 
> I am not seeing economies of scale elsewhere either. This is not a paper company where they can just mingle the stock.


35 million households is over 1/3rd of the population who pay for pay TV. You also have to think of market penetration as well. In some place a dispute may only impact 150k subs in a market because they have a share of that. With the two companies it could impact 300k subscribers.



tonyd79 said:


> The problem I have is that most of the channels are already in directv and dish households. At levels both companies are happy with. Why would they give a discount just because they are now dealing with one company. That would be asking them to foot the bill of the merger. They won't like that. If the new company sticks to its guns, more disputes.


It's the increase in rates that is driving the bills. No one is saying that there will be a discount in any sense. What is being said is that it would be much more costly to blackout a channel because it impacts that many people. It also allows a smaller increase because they'll get it from more people. So instead of a larger increase it could be smaller due to the more consistent amount of customers.

There would be other savings as well but they would be offset by other costs so who knows how that would pan out. Advertising would be less than both companies spend but licenses for software users would increase. Then there's the whole getting everyone on the same platform but that's already been discussed.


----------



## tonyd79 (Jul 24, 2006)

"Shades228" said:


> 35 million households is over 1/3rd of the population who pay for pay TV. You also have to think of market penetration as well. In some place a dispute may only impact 150k subs in a market because they have a share of that. With the two companies it could impact 300k subscribers.
> 
> It's the increase in rates that is driving the bills. No one is saying that there will be a discount in any sense. What is being said is that it would be much more costly to blackout a channel because it impacts that many people. It also allows a smaller increase because they'll get it from more people. So instead of a larger increase it could be smaller due to the more consistent amount of customers.
> 
> There would be other savings as well but they would be offset by other costs so who knows how that would pan out. Advertising would be less than both companies spend but licenses for software users would increase. Then there's the whole getting everyone on the same platform but that's already been discussed.


You are proving part of my point. More disputes. Because that will become the big weapon. It is the only weapon. There is no discount because you are not growing the market. You are consolidating the market. And the big company will expect bigger discounts.

As programming is the big cost, that is where they would expect to gain in a merger so it will become more contentious.

Otherwise there is no real economy of scale. You still need the same customer support. The same amount if engineering (maybe more if you plan to merge systems some day). The same installation contracts as you have different systems.

Just the rebranding alone is costly. There will not be fewer ads. There will be more during rebranding.

Mergers like this make no sense. Mergers between commodity companies do. Mergers like Comcast/NBC do from their perspective. No one wins in a dish/directv merger except maybe someone who gets a golden parachute if revenues go up.

When Allied Signal and Honeywell merged, both CEOs got bonuses because they hit numbers in the merger year. They both used the combined numbers.

Beware when a man who is paid by revenues proposes a merger.


----------



## PrinceLH (Feb 18, 2003)

I wish that they'd just do a transponder swap and leave it as two companies. Directv gains 110w and Dish gets 119w and any assets in the eastern arc and then call it a day!


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

PrinceLH said:


> I wish that they'd just do a transponder swap and leave it as two companies. Directv gains 110w and Dish gets 119w and any assets in the eastern arc and then call it a day!


Can you name the assets?

DISH has 29 transponders at 110, DirecTV has 3.
DirecTV has 11 transponders at 119, DISH has 21.
Trading 29 transponders for 11 (reducing DISH from 82 transponders to 64 on Western Arc) is not a good deal.

DISH has control of 88 transponders serving the US on Eastern Arc. DirecTV vacated their use of 72.5 last year so that isn't something they could give to DISH. Was 72.5 the Eastern Arc assets you were thinking of?


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

tonyd79 said:


> Just the rebranding alone is costly. There will not be fewer ads. There will be more during rebranding.


I wonder if they would be better off keeping the brands separate and just sharing satellites and other infrastructure where possible? Keep marketing DirecTV as a premier service worth paying more to have and DISH as a discount service that will save you money. It would not be the first company with competing brands.

Sharing satellite infrastructure would require new dishes and LNBs. DISH makes it easy on their technology to add one more orbital location to their dishes (a complete arc of three orbitals plus one other location). If DirecTV could add a second dish then a single satellite dish aimed at 61.5, 77 or 129 (depending on market) could add HD locals in some markets.

But the real economies may be in the local point of presence. Instead of operating separate receive and backhaul facilities for local channels these sites could be combined. Echostar has an extensive fiber network that could easily deliver received channels to both a DISH and a DirecTV uplink. (Echostar sells capacity on their fiber network to TV stations and others needing a backhaul that reaches every market.)


----------



## Hoosier205 (Sep 3, 2007)

"James Long" said:


> I wonder if they would be better off keeping the brands separate and just sharing satellites and other infrastructure where possible? Keep marketing DirecTV as a premier service worth paying more to have and DISH as a discount service that will save you money. It would not be the first company with competing brands.
> 
> Sharing satellite infrastructure would require new dishes and LNBs. DISH makes it easy on their technology to add one more orbital location to their dishes (a complete arc of three orbitals plus one other location). If DirecTV could add a second dish then a single satellite dish aimed at 61.5, 77 or 129 (depending on market) could add HD locals in some markets.
> 
> But the real economies may be in the local point of presence. Instead of operating separate receive and backhaul facilities for local channels these sites could be combined. Echostar has an extensive fiber network that could easily deliver received channels to both a DISH and a DirecTV uplink. (Echostar sells capacity on their fiber network to TV stations and others needing a backhaul that reaches every market.)


Associating the DirecTV brand with Dish would only drag DirecTV down. Better to wipe them out, settle the various lawsuits Charlie has invited, and keep what is worth keeping. Chop shop.


----------



## tonyd79 (Jul 24, 2006)

James Long said:


> I wonder if they would be better off keeping the brands separate and just sharing satellites and other infrastructure where possible? Keep marketing DirecTV as a premier service worth paying more to have and DISH as a discount service that will save you money. It would not be the first company with competing brands.


To a large degree, that is what Sirius XM has done. Too many radios out there that are aimed at one company. The shift is coming but it took years and they still brand individually as well as joint. Didn't even clean up the channels on each.


James Long said:


> But the real economies may be in the local point of presence. Instead of operating separate receive and backhaul facilities for local channels these sites could be combined. Echostar has an extensive fiber network that could easily deliver received channels to both a DISH and a DirecTV uplink. (Echostar sells capacity on their fiber network to TV stations and others needing a backhaul that reaches every market.)


True.


----------



## raott (Nov 23, 2005)

Carl Spock said:


> There are two kinds of costs here, raott. You're talking about the cost of the service to the consumer. I think Shades228 was talking about costs of procuring programing for DirecTV. Those are two completely different things.
> 
> We really should call the first one price and the second one costs but we often don't. Your remark about lower prices when there is competition is very valid, as is Shades' one about possibly lower costs with a merged company.


Shades mentioned two things, one of them being SAC (subscriber aquisition cost), which is the one I was addressing. I don't think programming costs are in that bucket.

SAC goes down if you don't need to give the customer the moon to entice that customer to come to your service. That can easily happen in a rural area where there is no longer two sat companies to compete against each other. Shades acted like this was a good thing. Probably is for the investor. For the customer, not so much.


----------



## MCHuf (Oct 9, 2011)

Hoosier205 said:


> Associating the DirecTV brand with Dish would only drag DirecTV down. Better to wipe them out, settle the various lawsuits Charlie has invited, and keep what is worth keeping. Chop shop.


Charlie controls Dish Network. He will still be a big player in any merged company. And where Charlie goes, lawsuits will follow, even if the current ones are settled. Do we really want him to screw over 34 million sat customers instead of 14 million?


----------



## maartena (Nov 1, 2010)

Hoosier205 said:


> Associating the DirecTV brand with Dish would only drag DirecTV down. Better to wipe them out, settle the various lawsuits Charlie has invited, and keep what is worth keeping. Chop shop.


FCC will never go for that. Dish is not a failing company in financial struggle that can be bought out and chopped up, it is a company that is doing very well financially, and has 14 million customers. They will do perfectly fine on their own, and besides the FCC not approving such a scenario, I think Dish would rather continue on their own than have it being chopped up.

If they ever merge, it will probably an actual merger with a name change. Just like SiriusXM, they would become something like DirecDish or something similar.

Personally, I don't think a merger will happen any time soon. And if they do, they will probably remain two separate companies for many years, while from the top level down they will slowly - say over 10 years - work towards a compatible standard in technology so they can become one company.

Look at cable acquisitions for instance: In 2008, when Adelphia failed, TWC and Comcast bought up the pieces and started dividing up their markets. TWC got all of Los Angeles, and gained all of Adelphia and Comcast in this market, where they gave up other markets to Comcast. That was 2008.

Four years later, my mother-in-law still has a Adelphia DVR, people still have Comcast equipment, and they essentially are STILL running 3 networks with 3 different setups. They even haven't streamlined the channel lineups yet. TWC in my home town has a vastly different channel lineup and channel location as the town my mother-in-law lives in, only 5 minutes down the road.

Dish may be the smaller party in a potential merger, but they would not be absorbed. It is much more likely that IF a merger would take place, they will stay separate companies for at least 5 years with a corporate merger, and then slowly merge into a one-name company that might not carry either name at all. They would have to come up with a technology merging plan first.


----------



## Hoosier205 (Sep 3, 2007)

"maartena" said:
 

> FCC will never go for that. Dish is not a failing company in financial struggle that can be bought out and chopped up, it is a company that is doing very well financially, and has 14 million customers. They will do perfectly fine on their own, and besides the FCC not approving such a scenario, I think Dish would rather continue on their own than have it being chopped up.
> 
> If they ever merge, it will probably an actual merger with a name change. Just like SiriusXM, they would become something like DirecDish or something similar.
> 
> ...


I know...but I can dream.


----------



## Shades228 (Mar 18, 2008)

raott said:


> Shades mentioned two things, one of them being SAC (subscriber aquisition cost), which is the one I was addressing. I don't think programming costs are in that bucket.
> 
> SAC goes down if you don't need to give the customer the moon to entice that customer to come to your service. That can easily happen in a rural area where there is no longer two sat companies to compete against each other. Shades acted like this was a good thing. Probably is for the investor. For the customer, not so much.


If SAC goes down then that money can be reallocated or absorbed into profits. If it's absorbed into profites then that means a smaller increase would take place to keep profit margins the same.

You keep saying rural however DIRECTV and DISH are national. They do not have rural pricing so people in rural areas get the benifits of DIRECTV and DISH having to be competitive in markets with multiple options.

Could the company choose to keep the profits and pass on all increases? Sure but they can do that now if they wanted to. So it wouldn't be doomsday for either situation. They wouldn't lose major markets for the sake of trying to get more out of rural markets that would be counter productive.

The largest "negative" I can think of for consumers will be the simple fact that the current game of swapping back and forth would stop and the retention credit aspect would not have to be as much. This again would free up cash flow into profits which could have the impact of lower increases as well.

What it really comes down to is what they would do with the profits. Would they turn into Apple or would they pass the savings along. I think they would do a mixture of both because it's smart business sense.


----------



## WebTraveler (Apr 9, 2006)

Just because this is what Mr. White is hoping for does not mean it will happen. While Mr. White may want this, it takes two parties to deal here. Directv stock has been going up, up, and up....and no way a deal will be for Dish to buy or absorb Directv at the current price levels. Companies buy others when they believe the stock price is good deal, not one that is trading at or close to all time highs....

Dish has moved other directions, buying wireless spectrums for future use, absorbing Blockbuster, and other things. It's eggs are not all in one basket. Directv, on the other hand, really doesn't have much other than pay TV in its pocket.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

WebTraveler said:


> Just because this is what Mr. White is hoping for does not mean it will happen.


I'm not sure that Mr White is hoping for a merger or even wants one to happen. I'm just seeing his comments as stating that such a merger may not be a bad idea ... instead of a complete rejection of the concept.

You are right about the complexity of the deal and the differences between the two companies.

DirecTV has remained a satellite TV company with limited movements into other markets. Over the years DirecTV have been owned by companies with other interests.

DISH started as Echostar until that part of the business was separated, but the ownership of the two companies remains primarily the same and the primary ownership of the companies has remained the same since before DISH was born. Over the years DISH has purchased other companies and brought them under the DISH/Echostar umbrellas.

Both companies have purchased other DBS properties ... both "live" companies (eg: DirecTV purchase of USSB) and unbuilt licenses. Both have used such purchases to grow their DBS offerings. The merger of DirecTV and DISH would be the biggest of those deals ever.

One thing to keep in mind ... DirecTV's best quarter so far has been the addition of 1.28 million (gross) customers 3Q 2011. If DirecTV abruptly ended DISH service they would be unable to handle the influx of "new" customers. In addition, with subscriber acquisition costs over $800 per customer it would be cost prohibitive to replace all the equipment. Both company's systems would need to remain in business for several years for a smooth transition.


----------



## Dude111 (Aug 6, 2010)

Carl Spock said:


> It's monopolies that maximize profit.


Yup prices would most likely sky rocket!!


----------



## Carolina (Jan 20, 2012)

Oh joy this reminds me too much of the Sirius/XM merger that was a mess. Two companies that were one company, but not really because their technologies were not immediately compatible. Prices did go up and on top of it all Sirius/XM is not as good as either Sirius or XM were when they were separate. Oh please don't let this happen :angel:


----------



## Bambler (May 31, 2006)

Bad idea. Regardless of how you may think DirecTV is "pro-consumer," explain that the next time they blackout and don't roll back rates. 

The less choices available is always a bad thing and I think the FCC will agree in regards to Dish and DirecTV.


----------



## Hoosier205 (Sep 3, 2007)

"Bambler" said:


> Bad idea. Regardless of how you may think DirecTV is "pro-consumer," explain that the next time they blackout and don't roll back rates.
> 
> The less choices available is always a bad thing and I think the FCC will agree in regards to Dish and DirecTV.


Blackout what?


----------



## Bambler (May 31, 2006)

Hoosier205 said:


> Blackout what?


I'm speaking in future-tense and my thoughts carry good weight based on what we've seen so far regarding DirecTV's negotiating stance. Re-read.


----------



## Hoosier205 (Sep 3, 2007)

"Bambler" said:


> I'm speaking in future-tense and my thoughts carry good weight based on what we've seen so far regarding DirecTV's negotiating stance. Re-read.


They completed 39 retrans deals in 2010, around 80 in 2011, and a ton in 2012 so far. There have been very few "blackouts" however. So based on what exactly?


----------



## Bambler (May 31, 2006)

Hoosier205 said:


> They completed 39 retrans deals in 2010, around 80 in 2011, and a ton in 2012 so far. There have been very few "blackouts" however. So based on what exactly?


Viacom? Who is to say the next big one will be easier as DirecTV tries to leverage their declining subscriber numbers against another? I'm just guessing, but you don't know the future, either.


----------



## Hoosier205 (Sep 3, 2007)

"Bambler" said:


> Viacom? Who is to say the next big one will be easier as DirecTV tries to leverage their declining subscriber numbers against another? I'm just guessing, but you don't know the future, either.


Viacom? That's one "blackout" compared to 119 successful non-blackout retrans deals from 2010-2011 and a large number of them already in 2012. Still trying to understand why you think it is bad that they are firm in negotiating deals in order to minimize those rate increases.


----------



## Bambler (May 31, 2006)

Hoosier205 said:


> Viacom? That's one "blackout" compared to 119 successful non-blackout retrans deals from 2010-2011 and a large number of them already in 2012.


Okay? So maybe those other channels didn't have as much pull and were begging DirecTV to carry. I have no idea? But the line has been drawn in regards to leveraging power. The content providers and content distributors knows where it's at...who blinks first?


----------



## TXD16 (Oct 30, 2008)

Carolina said:


> Oh joy this reminds me too much of the Sirius/XM merger that was a mess. Two companies that were one company, but not really because their technologies were not immediately compatible. Prices did go up and on top of it all Sirius/XM is not as good as either Sirius or XM were when they were separate. Oh please don't let this happen :angel:


As has been mentioned, that's an apples-to-oranges comparison as both Sirius and XM were bleeding cash and would both be out of business if the merger hadn't been approved. Such is not the case for DIRECTV and Dish.

Personally, I believe that with the existing competition from cable, fiber, and IP, I would love to see what a single merged, leaner satellite offering could offer, both in quality and quantity.


----------



## Bambler (May 31, 2006)

zkc16 said:


> As has been mentioned, that's an apples-to-oranges comparison as both Sirius and XM were bleeding cash and would both be out of business if the merger hadn't been approved. Such is not the case for DIRECTV and Dish.
> 
> Personally, I believe that with the existing competition from cable, fiber, and IP, I would love to see what a single merged, leaner satellite offering could offer, both in quality and quantity.


As enticing as that may sound, I don't agree. Whenever "choices" decline, the consumer loses in the long-run and I think the FCC, no matter how you may think of them, would agree when it comes to something like this.

Satellite radio doesn't count in the eye of the FCC.


----------



## MysteryMan (May 17, 2010)

zkc16 said:


> As has been mentioned, that's an apples-to-oranges comparison as both Sirius and XM were bleeding cash and would both be out of business if the merger hadn't been approved. Such is not the case for DIRECTV and Dish.
> 
> Personally, I believe that with the existing competition from cable, fiber, and IP, I would love to see what a single merged, leaner satellite offering could offer, both in quality and quantity.


What that would offer is a monopoly. We're the only satellite service provider. Take what we provide or use a ota antenna or the cable service in your area.


----------



## mreposter (Jul 29, 2006)

It would only be a monopoly in rural areas without cable. A combined Direct-Dish would be a national carrier. It would have to compete with every cable system in the country. 

Past regulations have made it clear that the two companies have to offer uniform pricing nationally, so they couldn't get away with charging higher rates or additional fees to rural customers where they have monopoly power. So competition with Time Warner, Comcast and other other biggies in the urban/suburban areas will keep rates within reason.

My own take is that this would be a hugely expensive merger over 3-5 years to combine the technology, the set top boxes and software, etc all while grappling with the increasing impact of the internet and video on demand. If so, it would take a long time for this thing to pay off with higher profits.


----------



## mrro82 (Sep 12, 2012)

Personally, I view it like this. What if Sprint had been bought by Verizon or AT&T and right now there was only AT&T and Verizon? Imagine those 2 merged. How much better off would you be then?


----------



## Hoosier205 (Sep 3, 2007)

A DirecTV run merged company would make up for all of the disadvantages of Dish. They would still face heavy competition on all fronts from other providers.


----------



## Mike Greer (Jan 20, 2004)

I think if DirecTV and Dish did merge rather than getting the best of both we would get the worst of both. That way they could maximize profits without having to worry about giving up subs to the other....

Just think, we could look forward to all HD being HD-Lite and the HD DVRs will all stop responding to the remote. Sounds like a win-win for stock holders and a lose-lose for consumers.

I certainly hope a merger is NEVER allowed to happen!


----------



## WebTraveler (Apr 9, 2006)

Hoosier205 said:


> A DirecTV run merged company would make up for all of the disadvantages of Dish. They would still face heavy competition on all fronts from other providers.


who says it would be a Direct run company? It won't happen anyway, Dish has diversified itself to all sorts of other activities. Direct has all its eggs in one basket.


----------



## tonyd79 (Jul 24, 2006)

"WebTraveler" said:


> who says it would be a Direct run company? It won't happen anyway, Dish has diversified itself to all sorts of other activities. Direct has all its eggs in one basket.


Yeah. Dish owns all those blockbuster stores.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

tonyd79 said:


> Yeah. Dish owns all those blockbuster stores.


And Sling and a lot of licenses for providing Internet/data services.


----------



## sigma1914 (Sep 5, 2006)

Who's got more money?


----------



## lipcrkr (Apr 27, 2012)

I would love it, combine the best of both worlds. The new company will be called Double D (DD).


----------



## Hoosier205 (Sep 3, 2007)

"James Long" said:



> And Sling and a lot of licenses for providing Internet/data services.


Also lawyers. Lots and lots of lawyers.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Hoosier205 said:


> Also lawyers. Lots and lots of lawyers.


DISH is a job creator. 

As noted earlier in the thread, DISH owns companies and has had the same primary ownership since it began. DirecTV has been owned by several companies over the years. For DISH changing owners would be a first ... for DirecTV changing owners is more routine.

I do not expect the companies to ever merge. Both companies may eye each other's bandwidth and wish they had it all, but at the end of the day reality takes hold.


----------



## WebTraveler (Apr 9, 2006)

tonyd79 said:


> Yeah. Dish owns all those blockbuster stores.


And a lot more....wireless spectrums they want to run phones and other data with. This is a potential attractive option for other companies to purchase Dish or for Dish to purchase other companies.

Dish has gotten farther into the internet than Directv and is going even further. Yes, a cheap pickup of Blockbuster coincidentally helped this effort.

Dish owns sling.

I can go on, but the point is Dish is better positioned as it has diversified.


----------



## WebTraveler (Apr 9, 2006)

James Long said:


> DISH is a job creator.
> 
> As noted earlier in the thread, DISH owns companies and has had the same primary ownership since it began. DirecTV has been owned by several companies over the years. For DISH changing owners would be a first ... for DirecTV changing owners is more routine.
> 
> I do not expect the companies to ever merge. Both companies may eye each other's bandwidth and wish they had it all, but at the end of the day reality takes hold.


Plus Dish is eyeing the day when satellite is not the way to do business....looking pretty hard at this internet stream concept for service.


----------



## Hoosier205 (Sep 3, 2007)

Well, they had better be looking at other ways of doing business. They've been running a distant second to DirecTV for many years. Imagine how poorly they'd perform without stealing patents and screwing content providers!


----------



## PrinceLH (Feb 18, 2003)

sigma1914 said:


> Who's got more money?


The Oil Companies?


----------



## sigma1914 (Sep 5, 2006)

PrinceLH said:


> The Oil Companies?


:lol: Exxon could buy them both. ExxDirecEcho.


----------



## Diana C (Mar 30, 2007)

WebTraveler said:


> Plus Dish is eyeing the day when satellite is not the way to do business....looking pretty hard at this internet stream concept for service.


This is perhaps the smartest move Dish has made since Charlie Ergen leveraged his C-Band business into a small dish company in the early 1990's.

Say what you like about Charlie, he can see where things are headed. He knows that MSOs as we know them have a limited lifespan and he is positioning his company to support alternative technologies.


----------



## tonyd79 (Jul 24, 2006)

Titan25 said:


> Say what you like about Charlie, he can see where things are headed. He knows that MSOs as we know them have a limited lifespan and he is positioning his company to support alternative technologies.


Do they? I don't see any model that has been proposed to replace them working economically.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

Titan25 said:


> This is perhaps the smartest move Dish has made since Charlie Ergen leveraged his C-Band business into a small dish company in the early 1990's.
> 
> Say what you like about Charlie, he can see where things are headed. He knows that MSOs as we know them have a limited lifespan and he is positioning his company to support alternative technologies.


Saw that he's giving up on the whole Blockbuster thing today. Says it was a bad business choice. Shocking.

Rich


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

Rich said:


> Saw that he's giving up on the whole Blockbuster thing today. Says it was a bad business choice. Shocking.
> 
> Rich


Is this the point where some of us get to tell Charlie "We told you so"? 

A number of financial market pundits saw that acquisition as questionable right out of the gate. Those are just the kind of business decisions Charlie Ergen makes that render doubt about any merger actually happening.


----------



## maartena (Nov 1, 2010)

Hoosier205 said:


> A DirecTV run merged company would make up for all of the disadvantages of Dish. They would still face heavy competition on all fronts from other providers.


It would never be a "DirecTV run" company. Dish is not a company that can be gobbled up, they are financially stable and large enough to have a stake in what is to be done.

If these two companies ever merge, I would see it much more likely they will go the route of SiriusXM, with a merged name.

"DirecDish" is probably not an unlikely choice. Or a completely new name.


----------



## renegade (Jul 28, 2011)

Hoosier205 said:


> So long as Dish is swallowed whole and the DirecTV way of business is maintained and HD picture quality is still valued...I have no problem with it.


Really? Screwed into a two-year extension of a contract just for making a phone call to ask a question ('the DirecTV way of business')? How is this going to be good for the consumer? 'HD picture quality?' Please, tell me more about pay-TV in this parallel universe YOU live in!

:nono:

/s


----------



## maartena (Nov 1, 2010)

WebTraveler said:


> Plus Dish is eyeing the day when satellite is not the way to do business....looking pretty hard at this internet stream concept for service.


Until 40% of this country gets lifted from the "Internet Dark Ages", satellite isn't going anywhere. Half the people of this nation cannot get anything past 10 Mbps, and knowing that a decent HD stream is going to be around 6 to 7 Mbps, any household that wants to record 2 things and still turn on another TV in the house.... is going to need a minimum of 20 Mbps, and with internet being used by people, that is probably not going to be enough either.

For Internet delivered television to really be successful, you would need at MINIMUM a setup like U-Verse from AT&T, which is still delivered by copper lines but has a minimum profile rate of 25 Mbps on the VDSL line for television to be allowed as a service. (And again, it will still be limited to 3 HD, and it will eat in your bandwidth available for internet applications).

Internet delivered television might be a nice concept, but until everyone has 100 Mbps fiber pipes to their home, I see it as an additional service, not as a mainstream television provider. I believe Dish has a few international packages streamed via the Internet, and I see that as a great optional service. I actually would like DirecTV to do that for international news channels.

Bill Gates was already touting WebTV in the mid-90ies. But without the infrastructure, it will never replace traditional TV services. Not for decades.


----------



## RAD (Aug 5, 2002)

renegade said:


> Really? Screwed into a two-year extension of a contract just for making a phone call to ask a question ('the DirecTV way of business')? How is this going to be good for the consumer? 'HD picture quality?' Please, tell me more about pay-TV in this parallel universe YOU live in!
> 
> :nono:
> 
> /s


I've made many phone calls and e-mails to DIRECTV and NEVER have been 'screwed' into a two year extension just by asking a question. At least I haven't been conned into buying some hardware that had a new feature coming and then had DIRECTV change their minds and say it won't, like Dish did to me a couple times.


----------



## Diana C (Mar 30, 2007)

tonyd79 said:


> Do they? I don't see any model that has been proposed to replace them working economically.


I didn't say they would go away...but they will change dramatically.

Viewers (particularly young viewers) are developing direct relationships with content providers. Today, providers like HBO only offer their content to viewers with a cable or satellite subscription, but sooner or later everyone will have access to their library, either by direct subscription or PPV. While I'm not saying products like Roku is the final answer, it is an indication of where things are going.

It is economics that will drive the changes. As fewer and fewer viewers feel the need to have cable or satellite service, the costs of operating these systems will be borne by fewer and fewer subscribers. This will drive up costs to the consumer, which will drive more cord-cutting. We can see this already...if you total the subscriber numbers of all the cable and satellite companies, the total number has been decreasing...not by much, but there has been a steady erosion. The cable are companies are also seeing a sharper decline in multichannel revenue, but that is being at least partially offset by increases in internet services.

My son is a perfect example. He lives in Greenwich Village and has Time Warner Cable for internet only. He watches TV via his Xbox360 from Hulu, Netflix and Amazon.

Satellite has faired a bit better than cable, but that is only a temporary phenomenon. Satellite subscribers are a self-selected group of people for whom linear TV is important. But eventually, the trends that are driving cable will effect satellite as well.

It's not going to happen tomorrow, but it will happen. Remember that when DirecTV and Dish Network got started they weren't an "economically viabale" alternative to cable. They lost money for a decade. The same will be true for whatever comes next...maybe it won't be IPTV, but I have to give Charlie kudos for at least putting a toe in the water of the that market.


----------



## Diana C (Mar 30, 2007)

maartena said:


> Until 40% of this country gets lifted from the "Internet Dark Ages", satellite isn't going anywhere. Half the people of this nation cannot get anything past 10 Mbps, and knowing that a decent HD stream is going to be around 6 to 7 Mbps, any household that wants to record 2 things and still turn on another TV in the house.... is going to need a minimum of 20 Mbps, and with internet being used by people, that is probably not going to be enough either...


True, slow internet service is a huge obstacle to IPTV in the US. There are many reasons for this state of affairs, but the fact that we had so much pre-existing infrastructure that can't support high speeds is a big factor. I honestly don't think it will be decades before that changes, but it will take a while. However, I don't think that indicates that Echostar/Dish is making a mistake by exploring the market.


----------



## Diana C (Mar 30, 2007)

Rich said:


> Saw that he's giving up on the whole Blockbuster thing today. Says it was a bad business choice. Shocking.
> 
> Rich


Story on the decison: http://www.ecommercetimes.com/story...er-Netflix-Battle-Before-It-Begins-76337.html

Peter Koppel (industry analyst) quote:


> "I think that companies like Dish will need to offer streaming services in order to compete in the future," he said. "So they need to figure out a way to cost effectively offer those services to consumers."


The article indicates the big problem was an inability to get the rights required to support streaming.


----------



## tonyd79 (Jul 24, 2006)

"Diana C" said:


> I didn't say they would go away...but they will change dramatically.
> 
> Viewers (particularly young viewers) are developing direct relationships with content providers. Today, providers like HBO only offer their content to viewers with a cable or satellite subscription, but sooner or later everyone will have access to their library, either by direct subscription or PPV. While I'm not saying products like Roku is the final answer, it is an indication of where things are going.
> 
> ...


I totally disagree. The economic forces are working against it. As streaming gets heavier, the caps and cost will skyrocket. The Internet method of television delivery will not be able to get to a point where it is enough to make a difference. I've had this discussion over and over here. For years and years.

For every student I know who uses Internet access primarily, I know several who watch shows when they air on liner channels. The stories of the new generation of tv watching and direct relationships to networks are overblown.


----------



## Diana C (Mar 30, 2007)

tonyd79 said:


> I totally disagree. The economic forces are working against it. As streaming gets heavier, the caps and cost will skyrocket. The Internet method of television delivery will not be able to get to a point where it is enough to make a difference. I've had this discussion over and over here. For years and years.
> 
> For every student I know who uses Internet access primarily, I know several who watch shows when they air on liner channels. The stories of the new generation of tv watching and direct relationships to networks are overblown.


I guess you know different people than I do.  I don't know ANYONE under the age of 30 that subscribes to satellite, and those that are cable customers are almost all internet only subscribers.

My experience with internet speed and cost is also, IMHO, informative. 10 years ago I paid around $80/month for 768Kbps SDSL. Today I pay about $40/month for 75Mbps FiOS. That's about 100 times the throughput for half the price.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Hoosier205 said:


> Imagine how poorly they'd perform without stealing patents and screwing content providers!


So now you're saying these activities helped DISH? Normally when people make these accusations they say DISH would be better off (financially) if they had not done what they are accused of doing.



maartena said:


> If these two companies ever merge, I would see it much more likely they will go the route of SiriusXM, with a merged name.
> 
> "DirecDish" is probably not an unlikely choice. Or a completely new name.


I expect the merged name would stay in the background and the two brands would continue. If the systems were ever physically merged one name might be used.


----------



## rmmccann (Apr 16, 2012)

Diana C said:


> I guess you know different people than I do.  I don't know ANYONE under the age of 30 that subscribes to satellite, and those that are cable customers are almost all internet only subscribers.
> 
> My experience with internet speed and cost is also, IMHO, informative. 10 years ago I paid around $80/month for 768Kbps SDSL. Today I pay about $40/month for 75Mbps FiOS. That's about 100 times the throughput for half the price.
> 
> It will be interesting to see how this plays out.


I think it depends on area - I'm 28 and live in a more rural area and although I have access to high speed (50Mbps or better), I don't stream much of anything. I find that DirecTVs linear programming fits my viewing habits better. I tend to watch different things (plus I watch sports), so trying to determine what I want to watch beforehand just doesn't work for me.

One thing I fully expect to see over the next few years, especially as streaming becomes more the norm is that all (or most) ISPs will go to a usage based system - especially the larger ones.

They won't be able to make the kind of margins they are now with unlimited usage services and eventually their facilities will start to get bogged down with excess traffic. Bandwidth may be cheap, but the infrastructure to deliver it is most certainly not. Also as they see their costs for peering creep up for off-network content, something will have to change.


----------



## RAD (Aug 5, 2002)

Diana C said:


> My experience with internet speed and cost is also, IMHO, informative. 10 years ago I paid around $80/month for 768Kbps SDSL. Today I pay about $40/month for 75Mbps FiOS. That's about 100 times the throughput for half the price.


Wish had an option like that. My only for wired are TWC and I'm paying $56/month for 15Mbps/2Mbps, the alternative is AT&T DSL at 6Mbps/768Kbps and I'd also need to pay for a landline from them to get those speeds. And to top if off both of those provides want to implement caps which will make streaming something that many won't be able to afford.


----------



## Mike Greer (Jan 20, 2004)

Diana C said:


> I didn't say they would go away...but they will change dramatically.
> 
> Viewers (particularly young viewers) are developing direct relationships with content providers. Today, providers like HBO only offer their content to viewers with a cable or satellite subscription, but sooner or later everyone will have access to their library, either by direct subscription or PPV. While I'm not saying products like Roku is the final answer, it is an indication of where things are going.
> 
> ...


Very well said. I do expect the cost of Internet bandwidth to increase but I expect to come out ahead.

As more and more programming goes to 'reality' type shows the less likely I am to pay for DirecTV or Dish or Cable for that matter. I'd be more than happy to stop being forced into paying for the crap TV and move to steaming..... Even if I end up paying a little more - at least my money wouldn't support the crap!

Dish Network is smart in looking to the future. Hopefully DirecTV is also making some plans that include something other than the current model. The current model can't survive forever as-is. Soon the cost is going to be so high more and more people are going to drop the traditional version of pay-TV. Even if dropping it means going old school with an antenna and nothing else.


----------



## FLWingNut (Nov 19, 2005)

And soccer will take over the American sports scene. Been hearing that one since the 70's. How's that working?

Linear TV will be around for a good long time.


----------



## Bambler (May 31, 2006)

I know for a lot of you this sounds intriguing, but it's really not if you think beyond the here and now.

People may think, "hey, I'm a DirecTV customer, if they merge things will improve for me!" Or, "DirecTV needs more power to negotiate better tv deals."

That's a deadly misconception. 

First, for a lot if people around the country, satellite is their only choice. Second, what is to prevent DirecTV from raising rates to whatever they want after they've gobbled up their only non-terrestrial competition? Good faith and good will towards us? Wishful thinking. 

Remember, DirecTV not wanting to take on these deals (no matter how they spin it) is due, in part, not so much us complaining of the "price hikes," but the risk of us leaving to the "cheaper" Dish side. Remove that side of the equation, and believe me, duopolies--which most of us will be stuck with--are horrible, and customers tend to get worked over unchecked, at least with Dish, there is a third alternative keeping the others inline.


----------



## Hoosier205 (Sep 3, 2007)

"renegade" said:


> Screwed into a two-year extension of a contract just for making a phone call to ask a question ('the DirecTV way of business')?


Do you have any proof of this happening?


----------



## studechip (Apr 16, 2012)

renegade said:


> Really? Screwed into a two-year extension of a contract just for making a phone call to ask a question ('the DirecTV way of business')? How is this going to be good for the consumer? 'HD picture quality?' Please, tell me more about pay-TV in this parallel universe YOU live in!
> 
> :nono:
> 
> /s


There have been too many occasions where csrs incorrectly extended or started a new commitment when they shouldn't have. I don't think it's ever happened because someone called in and asked a question, though. You, of course, have proof of this claim, yes?


----------



## Mike Greer (Jan 20, 2004)

FLWingNut said:


> And soccer will take over the American sports scene. Been hearing that one since the 70's. How's that working?
> 
> Linear TV will be around for a good long time.


I don't think it will happen tomorrow... But things are changing and the higher the prices go the quicker changes will come.


----------



## Diana C (Mar 30, 2007)

FLWingNut said:


> And soccer will take over the American sports scene. Been hearing that one since the 70's. How's that working?
> 
> Linear TV will be around for a good long time.


I could be totally off base, but on the other hand, in 1995 a lot of people thought satellite TV would never succeed - "it goes out when it rains", "it too expensive to install", "they'll never turn a profit", etc. Nobody in the cable industry ever expected satellite to have about a third of all households.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> Is this the point where some of us get to tell Charlie "We told you so"?
> 
> A number of financial market pundits saw that acquisition as questionable right out of the gate. Those are just the kind of business decisions Charlie Ergen makes that render doubt about any merger actually happening.


These are the kinds of decisions that wrecked Union Carbide and resulted in its demise. Having stood by and watching one bad decision after another destroy a corporation, I couldn't help but wonder what the hell Ergen was doing (or dreaming of doing) when he took over Blockbuster.

Rich


----------



## TBoneit (Jul 27, 2006)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> Is this the point where some of us get to tell Charlie "We told you so"?
> 
> A number of financial market pundits saw that acquisition as questionable right out of the gate. Those are just the kind of business decisions Charlie Ergen makes that render doubt about any merger actually happening.


I believe That Charlie has said that at worst they will break even on the Blockbuster purchase and probably make some money.

Switching to a different item
Those that are watching things only from streaming, The content they are watching is coming from the same places as Satellite and Cable Tv. Premiums for movies, Networks for shows.

So when they go to Hulu for example what made them decide to go there and decide what to watch if they have no regular TV service? 
One reason I might check out a new show is the advertising for it during other shows, And I sample all the new shows whose description looks interesting when the season starts.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

Diana C said:


> Story on the decison: http://www.ecommercetimes.com/story...er-Netflix-Battle-Before-It-Begins-76337.html
> 
> Peter Koppel (industry analyst) quote:
> 
> The article indicates the big problem was an inability to get the rights required to support streaming.


You'd think he would have acquired those rights before acquiring Blockbuster. I dunno, I was horrified that the company (corporation) I worked for could make so many terrible mistakes and I really don't like to see that happen to a company that could affect our viewing pleasures.

But, what can you do? In the big picture, we're the little people.

Rich

PS...What's with the name change?


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

tonyd79 said:


> I totally disagree. The economic forces are working against it. As streaming gets heavier, the caps and cost will skyrocket. The Internet method of television delivery will not be able to get to a point where it is enough to make a difference. I've had this discussion over and over here. For years and years.
> 
> For every student I know who uses Internet access primarily, I know several who watch shows when they air on liner channels. The stories of the new generation of tv watching and direct relationships to networks are overblown.


My son does the same thing Diana's son does. So do all his friends. It's a whole new generation out there, Tony. Here's a *link* to an article that addresses "screen addiction" that points to the usage of so many devices that it's actually affecting the health of that generation.

Rich


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Diana C said:


> "it goes out when it rains", "it too expensive to install", "they'll never turn a profit", etc.


In 1995, if you had rain fade, it was probably your own fault for not being careful with your self-installation. You're probably more likely to experience rain fade today on DIRECTV than you were back then. Cost was not an impediment unless you paid someone else to do it on your behalf.


> Nobody in the cable industry ever expected satellite to have about a third of all households.


Many entrenched industries are like that. The telephony industry is a grand example of join or die. Nobody thought that the US auto industry could fail back in the early 40s when there were no less than 15 auto companies [obligatory car comparison].


----------



## Paul Secic (Dec 16, 2003)

sdirv said:


> You're telling me......I signed up with XM in mid 2005. I was paying about $140 a year. I got my bill last month, it's up to $220 a year. I canceled.
> 
> Of course my use has changed too. I was using mine mainly on my motorcycle and I was doing MANY long distance trips which I'm not doing very many now at all. The other impact has been that back in 2005 my cell phone was just a cell phone. Today my cell phone has every record and CD I've ever owned loaded into it....LOL. Why do I need XM....LOL


Stern is an a**.


----------



## Bambler (May 31, 2006)

People talk about direct Internet "sales" to the public. Well, based upon what I've seen DirecTV doing, that possibility is being squashed with each new contract. These people aren't dumb; they saw what we see long ago probably. 

Comcast, DirecTV and other distributors are pretty much saying: if you want us to carry you, you'll have to grant us semi-exclusive distribution rights, regardless of where it's at. 

Just another reason that, no matter if you're a DirecTV or Dish customer, this merger will never happen.


----------



## Paul Secic (Dec 16, 2003)

DMRI2006 said:


> Interesting?? (Bold is my emphasis):
> 
> _DirecTV CEO Michael White kept the ember of this long-standing idea burning this morning at the Goldman Sachs Annual Communicopia Conference. *"Consolidation could be pro-consumer, perhaps,"* he told investors citing, among other things, the soaring programming costs for DirecTV and other pay TV providers.
> 
> ...


Mike is day dreaming. End of story.


----------



## Bambler (May 31, 2006)

Paul Secic said:


> Mike is day dreaming. End of story.


He's not day dreaming, he's applying what he learned in school and his past experiences (whatever they may be) to DirecTV. His mantra: cut costs and merge to grow. Yeah, that works in this confined model...


----------



## acostapimps (Nov 6, 2011)

The rich CEO's trying to get more richer,that's all that is.


----------



## Bambler (May 31, 2006)

acostapimps said:


> The rich CEO's trying to get more richer,that's all that is.


As shallow as that may sound, you're actually not far off base. Only problem is that there are many ways to achieve that goal.

Too many short-minded people look at the books and get greedy instead of having long-term vision.

But hey, some lessons are better learned the hard way.


----------



## acostapimps (Nov 6, 2011)

"Bambler" said:


> As shallow as that may sound, you're actually not far off base. Only problem is that there are many ways to achieve that goal.
> 
> Too many short-minded people look at the books and get greedy instead of having long-term vision.
> 
> But hey, some lessons are better learned the hard way.


Just like politicians


----------



## lipcrkr (Apr 27, 2012)

acostapimps said:


> Just like politicians


Yep, and i have one in mind.....LOL.


----------



## Xsabresx (Oct 8, 2007)

_That long-debated question on Wall Street took on new urgency today after Bernstein Research's Craig Moffett bet that the companies will make a deal, and that it will be approved by the FCC and antitrust officials. This morning he raised his target stock price for each company by $9 (to $72 for DirecTV and $37 for Dish) "to reflect the increased probability of a merger." Why now? Dish seems to have leverage over the FCC, which wants to promote competition in broadband and telephony more than it wants to block media mergers. Charlie Ergen's company has been amassing wireless spectrum that "offers the prospect of either a fixed wireless broadband network to compete with cable, or, alternatively, a new competitor for mobile wireless to compete with Verizon and AT&T," Moffett says. "Either would be a tremendous regulatory (and political) win" for the government. By year-end regulators likely will help their cause, and Ergen's, by giving Dish permission to use its spectrum for terrestrial services. But the approval will include a timetable requiring Dish to deploy its services quickly. That gives Ergen the opportunity to tell regulators that he'll proceed - but only if they enable Dish to combine with DirecTV, Cost savings and other benefits could amount to $3.5B a year, which Moffett says is "a staggering sum."_

http://www.deadline.com/2012/11/directv-dish-network-possible-merger/


----------

