# Echostar to buy Hughes Communications



## RAD (Aug 5, 2002)

From http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/02/14/hughes-echostar-idUSL3E7DE0VC20110214



> EchoStar Corp agreed to buy Hughes Communications Inc for about $1.33 billion, excluding debt, as the digital set-top box maker looks to beef up its broadband satellite services offerings.


So Charlie ends up with the company that used to own DIRECTV.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

What goes around comes around ... although Forbes puts the price higher (Forbes includes the debt).


> EchoStar (SATS) this morning said it has agreed to buy Hughes Communications (HUGH) for about $2 billion, including the assumption of debt. Satellite services provider EchoStar has been best known for its corporate ties to the satellite TV provider Dish Network (DISH), which was split off as a separate public company in late 2007. The company also owns Sling Media, maker of the Slingbox place shifting device. Hughes operates Hughes Network Systems, a provider of satellite services.


http://blogs.forbes.com/ericsavitz/2011/02/14/echostar-to-buy-hughes-communications-for-2-billion/


----------



## Nick (Apr 23, 2002)

As a younger Jake once said, _"Ironic, isn't it?"_


----------



## SayWhat? (Jun 7, 2009)

Pondering the significance (if any)


----------



## JosephB (Nov 14, 2005)

For the day to day DBS customer, probably not very much significance, other than Dish will probably at a minimum start co-selling HughesNet. Most of Hughes' business these days are to businesses and governments. I don't think Hughes has any satellites in any locations that would be much use to Dish.


----------



## SayWhat? (Jun 7, 2009)

Fine, it puts them back in the satellite market like they were when they partnered with StarBand. They can sell DBS or satellite internet or a package of both. All well and good, but there are still the latency and bandwidth issues, so it doesn't do anything for Sling or any other way of streaming or sharing video.


----------



## 356B (Oct 11, 2008)

JosephB said:


> For the day to day DBS customer, probably not very much significance, other than Dish will probably at a minimum start co-selling HughesNet. Most of Hughes' business these days are to businesses and governments. I don't think Hughes has any satellites in any locations that would be much use to Dish.


 A friend has HughesNet for internet in a extremely rural area of Nor-CAL... and hates it.......that said in their situation they tell me, they have little choice.
They've had equipment issues, service issues and limitation issues...never the less they have access.......maybe Dish will improve things.......more than likely for a price. :icon_bb:

:icon_band


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

Well that's a headshaker.


----------



## JosephB (Nov 14, 2005)

You guys are all viewing it through the shades of how they'd work Dish into it. Remember Echostar is a separate company from Dish now. A large majority of Hughes' business has nothing to do with Hughesnet. I wouldn't be a big surprised if they spun off the HughesNet business like they spun off Dish.


----------



## SayWhat? (Jun 7, 2009)

Yeah, I kinda shaking mine too. Like I noted, Dish and StarBand had partnered previously. A couple of years back, SB was in trouble and could have been had for a small fraction of the Hughes deal price.

Hughes has a terrible reputation for customer service while I've never had trouble with SB.


----------



## sum_random_dork (Aug 21, 2008)

Sounds to me this fits more with their purchase a few years back of Slingbox, looking to get totally into the set top business.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

JosephB said:


> You guys are all viewing it through the shades of how they'd work Dish into it. Remember Echostar is a separate company from Dish now. A large majority of Hughes' business has nothing to do with Hughesnet.


Agreed ... for those who like to read quarterly reports, here's the latest (pdf) from Hughes website.
Excerpts-Consolidated revenues of $266 million for a 6% growth over the third quarter of 2009; growth of 10% if revenues from the discontinued contract with Telematics are excluded.

New orders of $549 million for a growth of 164% over the third quarter of 2009, with major orders from Barrett Xplore, Rite Aid, Social Security Administration, Dillards, TJ Maxx, Buckeye Pipeline, GETN, and ConocoPhillips in our North America Broadband business; JSC Iskra, GTECH Colombia, Camelot, PrimeNet, VIVO, SEDUC, SREI and Allahabad Bank in our International Broadband business; and Glocom and Harris in our Mobile Satellite business.

Consumer business continues impressive growth trajectory:
- Total revenue increased by 14% and services revenue by 19% over the third quarter of 2009.
- Strong third quarter subscriber gross adds of 49,000 and net adds of 13,000.
- Consumer ARPU increased to $75 from $71 in the third quarter of 2009.
- Churn improved to 2.2% from 2.3% in the third quarter of 2009.

*About Hughes Communications, Inc.*
Hughes Communications, Inc. (NASDAQ: HUGH) is the 100 percent owner of Hughes Network Systems, LLC. Hughes is the global leader in providing broadband satellite networks and services for enterprises, governments, small businesses, and consumers. HughesNet® encompasses all broadband solutions and managed services from Hughes, bridging the best of satellite and terrestrial technologies. Its broadband satellite products are based on global standards approved by the TIA, ETSI, and ITU standards organizations, including IPoS/DVB-S2, RSM-A, and GMR-1. To date, Hughes has shipped more than 2.2 million systems to customers in over 100 countries.​
Hughes is more that just the HughesNet consumer service. http://consumer.hughesnet.com/

Echostar offers business television services ... why not offer business data services as well?



SayWhat? said:


> Hughes has a terrible reputation for customer service while I've never had trouble with SB.


Referring to the home consumer service?


----------



## ghontz1 (Mar 25, 2010)

I have Hughes net service only because nothing else is available to me because I live out of town.Dial up around here is a big joke no fiber optic lines lucky to get 28 kps. Hughes net customer service is a joke the equipment is junk. Broke down on me 3 times last summer and all 3 times I had to pay for service calls. They have a FAP that makes it impossible to have netflix or any kind of movie download service.Latency is so bad no online games or voip service is possible. as soon as I have other options I will drop this crappy service in a heart beat.That is why I have not order new 9000 because I do not want to be stuck in 2yr. contract and pay early termination fees for when I do dump this service.


----------



## Paul Secic (Dec 16, 2003)

SayWhat? said:


> Yeah, I kinda shaking mine too. Like I noted, Dish and StarBand had partnered previously. A couple of years back, SB was in trouble and could have been had for a small fraction of the Hughes deal price.
> 
> Hughes has a terrible reputation for customer service while I've never had trouble with SB.


Didn't Dish buy Starband around 2002 or thereabouts?


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

Well, at this point I'm about as confused about the 2008 spinoff of Dish Network as I was when it was proposed.

Earlier this month we had the Press Release - DISH To Purchase DBSD, Developer of U.S. HYBRID Communications System thread and Dish Network is trying to buy Terrestar.

As we all know, Echostar bought Sling Media which now has a marketing focus on Dish.

And it isn't like they both aren't in the satellite business. From the last Dish Network quarterly:


> We currently utilize 13 satellites in geostationary orbit approximately 22,300 miles above the equator, six of which we own. We currently lease capacity on five satellites from EchoStar with terms ranging from two to ten years. We account for these as operating leases. See Note 11 for further discussion of our satellite leases with EchoStar. We also lease two satellites from third parties, which are accounted for as capital leases and are depreciated over the shorter of the economic life or the term of the satellite agreement.


From the last Echostar quarterly:


> "Satellite Services" Business - which uses our ten owned and leased in-orbit satellites and related FCC licenses to lease capacity on a full time and occasional-use basis to enterprise, broadcast news and government organizations. We currently lease capacity primarily to DISH Network, and secondarily to Dish Mexico, government entities, Internet service providers, broadcast news organizations and private enterprise customers. We also deliver our ViP-TV transport service, offering MPEG-4 encoded Internet Protocol, or IP, streams of video and audio channels to telecommunication companies and small cable operators.


Now Echostar is buying a company that has a retail satellite-oriented internet service business along with satellite operations and business services .

I just don't see the point of keeping these two operations separate under essentially the same ownership. Logic says that there should be a single company with a satellite operations division/subsidiary, a business/multifamily satellite and internet services division/subsidiary, and a retail TV and internet services division/subsidiary.

What don't I understand?


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Paul Secic said:


> Didn't Dish buy Starband around 2002 or thereabouts?


"StarBand is a two-way satellite broadband Internet service available in the U.S.. StarBand Communications Inc. was initially a joint venture between Gilat Satellite Networks, EchoStar and Microsoft, and the StarBand service was launched in 2000. StarBand Communications filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in 2002 and emerged from bankruptcy in 2003. In March 2005, StarBand Communications was acquired by Spacenet, a division of Gilat Satellite Networks, which continues to operate the service. As of mid-2005, StarBand had approximately 32,000 subscribers."
Wikipedia

http://www.spacenet.com/services/starband/
"StarBand, a service provided by Spacenet Inc., is a value oriented two-way high-speed satellite Internet access service available for small office/home office (SOHO) and small business customers throughout the United States, Canada, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, and several Caribbean and Central American countries. The latest line of StarBand services - Nova 1000 and 1500 - offer reliable broadband satellite Internet with faster speeds than previous generations, PC professional support services and value-added features."


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

phrelin said:


> I just don't see the point of keeping these two operations separate under essentially the same ownership. Logic says that there should be a single company with a satellite operations division/subsidiary, a business/multifamily satellite and internet services division/subsidiary, and a retail TV and internet services division/subsidiary.
> 
> What don't I understand?


The focus of the separate businesses.

DISH Network is a consumer satellite company providing service to individual home and business customers and, like DirecTV, they own satellites. DISH leases some satellite and backhaul capacity from EchoStar.

EchoStar is a technology company providing satellite transmission, fiberoptic backhauls and points of presence plus receiver development and other products. Their primary customer is DISH Network but they also have other direct customers. Hughes is being purchased by EchoStar.

Keeping the businesses separate allows each business to concentrate on their own mission. Just because a man owns two businesses doesn't mean they have to be merged together.


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

James Long said:


> The focus of the separate businesses.
> 
> DISH Network is a consumer satellite company providing service to individual home and business customers and, like DirecTV, they own satellites. DISH leases some satellite and backhaul capacity from EchoStar.
> 
> ...


Sure. But if a man owns one business with highly interrelated activities it doesn't mean he has to split it into two businesses with activities highly interrelated between the two businesses.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

phrelin said:


> Sure. But if a man owns one business with highly interrelated activities it doesn't mean he has to split it into two businesses with activities highly interrelated between the two businesses.


But he can ... and he did. He didn't get to be a multi-billionaire by making bad decisions.


----------



## sigma1914 (Sep 5, 2006)

James Long said:


> But he can ... and he did. He didn't get to be a multi-billionaire by making bad decisions.


Counting cards wasn't a good decision. :lol:


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

For those who are interested from a retail standpoint in what Echostar is getting itself into here, I would recommend this article Satellite Internet Comparison:


> There are only a handful of satellite Internet providers in the U.S. that operate their own separate satellite systems. This comparison will focus on what I like to call the "Big Four". These four providers represent the main choices for satellite Internet service in the United States, both for residential and home/small business purposes.
> 
> HughesNet is by far the largest Satellite Internet provider in America, but they are not without competition. Wildblue, Skyway, and Starband all offer service throughout the contiguous 48 United States, and this article compares them with the popular HughesNet. We will look at price, speed, fair access policies, and other features . . .


The website provides a service comparison chart, a comparison chart of Fair Access Policies, and a "pro's and con's analysis of each service." Regarding the pro's and cons of Hughesnet it says:


> With dozens of resellers and over 400,000 customers in the U.S. alone, HughesNet is probably the first choice people think of for satellite Internet service.
> 
> *HughesNet Advantages:*
> 
> ...


One has to wonder what Echostar is going to do with "dozens of resellers and over 400,000 customers in the U.S. alone" when it currently has no retail operation of any kind other than selling a few Slingboxes on the web.

It's an odd development from my perspective. In our community, we have a Hughesnet dealer who does installs and who also used to be a dealer for DirecTV. We lost our Echostar dealer a decade ago who started out with the C-band dishes and tried in vain to make dbs Dish Network pay.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

sigma1914 said:


> Counting cards wasn't a good decision. :lol:


Sure is a lot smarter than not counting them. When the odds are against you and the house has the advantage gambling is just paying stupid tax. When one has a skill that increases the odds that you will win it is wise to put that skill to use. The only thing wrong with card counting is the casinos don't like the odds not being in their favor ... casinos don't like winners. They prefer losers. People walk out leaving their money inside.

At the end of the day Mr Ergen moved on to a much more lucrative business plan. 30 years later and he's still going strong ... and buying other companies.


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

James Long said:


> But he can ... and he did. He didn't get to be a multi-billionaire by making bad decisions.


Ah, well, he got to be a multi-billionaire by creating and operating Echostar. His net worth has dropped more than a bit since the split. I realize that has much to do with the economy, but all of Charlie's decisions over the last 30 years haven't been perfect.

Sure, he's done a bit better than me, but....:sure:


----------



## sigma1914 (Sep 5, 2006)

phrelin said:


> Ah, well, he got to be a multi-billionaire by creating and operating Echostar. His net worth has dropped more than a bit since the split. I realize that has much to do with the economy, but all of Charlie's decisions over the last 30 years haven't been perfect.
> 
> Sure, he's done a bit better than me, but....:sure:


Exactly...One good decision can make someone a multibillionaire. That doesn't mean all their decisions are good.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

sigma1914 said:


> Exactly...One good decision can make someone a multibillionaire. That doesn't mean all their decisions are good.


*ONE* good decision? That must have been a real high stakes game.


----------



## sigma1914 (Sep 5, 2006)

James Long said:


> *ONE* good decision? That must have been a real high stakes game.


I never said it was Charlie...It was a general comment on some multibillionaires.


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

He made that first good decision - going into the satellite business. Everything else derived from that.


----------



## kenglish (Oct 2, 2004)

So, how many players does this leave us in the Mega-Money Big Stakes game of "The Media"?
Motorola, Google, Microsoft, Charlie,.....?


----------



## JosephB (Nov 14, 2005)

phrelin said:


> Well, at this point I'm about as confused about the 2008 spinoff of Dish Network as I was when it was proposed.
> 
> Earlier this month we had the Press Release - DISH To Purchase DBSD, Developer of U.S. HYBRID Communications System thread and Dish Network is trying to buy Terrestar.
> 
> ...





phrelin said:


> Sure. But if a man owns one business with highly interrelated activities it doesn't mean he has to split it into two businesses with activities highly interrelated between the two businesses.


Even though the businesses are very closely related, they aren't in the same business. Echostar is in two businesses: Set top box development and manufacturing and also providing data transport and satellite leasing services to other companies. Now, for both of those businesses, their primary customer is Dish Network. However, Echostar started in those businesses before DBS existed and before they started Dish. By splitting Dish from Echostar, Echostar is now free to pursue business from other companies, whereas before it might be a conflict of interest. For example, almost immediately after they bought up Sling and spun out Dish, Echostar started marketing to cable companies. They have a cable-compatible version of their STBs. They also provide bulk programming to small cable companies and private providers for hotels/apartments/condos. Many of those things would be difficult or impossible if part of the same company was a direct competitor.



phrelin said:


> For those who are interested from a retail standpoint in what Echostar is getting itself into here, I would recommend this article Satellite Internet Comparison: The website provides a service comparison chart, a comparison chart of Fair Access Policies, and a "pro's and con's analysis of each service." Regarding the pro's and cons of Hughesnet it says: One has to wonder what Echostar is going to do with "dozens of resellers and over 400,000 customers in the U.S. alone" when it currently has no retail operation of any kind other than selling a few Slingboxes on the web.
> 
> It's an odd development from my perspective. In our community, we have a Hughesnet dealer who does installs and who also used to be a dealer for DirecTV. We lost our Echostar dealer a decade ago who started out with the C-band dishes and tried in vain to make dbs Dish Network pay.


Just because Echostar is buying Hughes doesn't mean that Hughes will go away, in terms of the businesses and the people in the company. The name on the sign may change, but I would think that as long as they stay in the businesses served by those retailers, that the people and processes in place at Hughes will remain to support them under Echostar. Either way, Echostar via Dish has experience with dealer networks, etc. And as stated before, consumer facing businesses are only a fraction of the lines of business that Hughes is involved with.


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

JosephB said:


> By splitting Dish from Echostar, Echostar is now free to pursue business from other companies, whereas before it might be a conflict of interest. For example, almost immediately after they bought up Sling and spun out Dish, Echostar started marketing to cable companies. They have a cable-compatible version of their STBs. They also provide bulk programming to small cable companies and private providers for hotels/apartments/condos. Many of those things would be difficult or impossible if part of the same company was a direct competitor.


Yeah, I get all that. I'm just not sure I'm comfortable with the whole idea. If Comcast started making ViP722k's available with the Sling adapter, it takes away what I consider the one significant advantage Dish Network can offer.

But who am I other than a customer. I haven't been a shareholder since the split.


----------



## JosephB (Nov 14, 2005)

phrelin said:


> Yeah, I get all that. I'm just not sure I'm comfortable with the whole idea. If Comcast started making ViP722k's available with the Sling adapter, it takes away what I consider the one significant advantage Dish Network can offer.
> 
> But who am I other than a customer. I haven't been a shareholder since the split.


Well, as a Dish shareholder, that's a negative. As an Echostar shareholder it's a positive. Since I'm neither, I can be somewhat objective. The advantage for Dish is that they become much more nimble--they can take on more debt and focus all of their resources towards their individual business. Before, any debt that was applied to the Echostar side would have weighed down Dish. Same thing for Echostar. It probably would have been tougher to do a deal like this had Echostar and Dish still been under the same company.


----------



## Satelliteracer (Dec 6, 2006)

356B said:


> A friend has HughesNet for internet in a extremely rural area of Nor-CAL... and hates it.......that said in their situation they tell me, they have little choice.
> They've had equipment issues, service issues and limitation issues...never the less they have access.......maybe Dish will improve things.......more than likely for a price. :icon_bb:
> 
> :icon_band


Definitely some latency issues with the satellite broadband stuff...at least today. That's going to change next year.


----------



## RAD (Aug 5, 2002)

Satelliteracer said:


> Definitely some latency issues with the satellite broadband stuff...at least today. That's going to change next year.


Unless they change to a LEO constellation or hybrid with one path terrestrial don't see how that can change, unless someone figured out how to make radio signals go faster the the speed of light


----------



## JosephB (Nov 14, 2005)

There will always be latency with satellite internet as long as they use geostationary satellites. There is a minimum 500ms round trip delay built in due to the distance from Earth station to space station and back to Earth. That doesn't factor in actual internet latency either.


----------



## mashandhogan (Dec 21, 2010)

:I know I usually stay on the other side of the forums, but I just HAVE to comment about Hughes (hughesnet)

Well, their FAP really gets on my nerves (225MB/day). They do make decent equipment, but it is barely "high speed" Maybe E* will fix things with this company, but I think D* would do better:lol:


----------



## Satelliteracer (Dec 6, 2006)

RAD said:


> Unless they change to a LEO constellation or hybrid with one path terrestrial don't see how that can change, unless someone figured out how to make radio signals go faster the the speed of light


Let's just say there are other ways to skin that cat. :lol:


----------



## JosephB (Nov 14, 2005)

Satelliteracer said:


> Let's just say there are other ways to skin that cat. :lol:


What exactly does that mean? Are you trying to be sly about some new technology that can send radio waves faster than the speed of light? The original point stands..as long as satellite internet services use geostationary satellites, they can't overcome the 500ms ping problem. Otherwise they'll have to use something that RAD mentioned like low Earth orbit or terrestrial connections (wired or wireless)


----------



## Newshawk (Sep 3, 2004)

phrelin said:


> I just don't see the point of keeping these two operations separate under essentially the same ownership. Logic says that there should be a single company with a satellite operations division/subsidiary, a business/multifamily satellite and internet services division/subsidiary, and a retail TV and internet services division/subsidiary.
> 
> What don't I understand?


Perhaps there are tax considerations that come into play? I would believe it could also isolate Echostar from any penalties imposed on DishNetwork from the legion of lawsuits against the latter (however, IANAL.)


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

Well whatever my thoughts about Charlie's organizations organization, The Morning Bridge offered this observation today:


> EchoStar's~ $2B (including debt) bet on Hughes Communications will create "a powerful leader in video and data transport." said EchoStar CEO Michael Dugan on making the announcement yesterday.
> 
> That "video and data transport" has, of course, been at the core of much of EchoStar honcho Charlie Ergen's wheelings and dealings of late. Also on his plan-to-buy plate are two bankrupt, but rich in spectrum companies, DBSD North America and TerreStar. Why does Charlie want all this satellite spectrum?
> 
> ...


So I guess I have to say: "Go Charlie!"


----------



## JosephB (Nov 14, 2005)

The terrestrial acquisitions are by Dish, though, not Echostar. I'd expect two different plans.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

JosephB said:


> The terrestrial acquisitions are by Dish, though, not Echostar. I'd expect two different plans.


Spectrum and assets are easily leased or transferred between the two companies. DISH's satellite business relies on leased satellites and orbitals controlled by EchoStar and EchoStar leases space in DISH owned buildings. (I believe there is at least one case of a DISH owned satellite being leased to EchoStar and then leased back to DISH for their use.)


----------



## Satelliteracer (Dec 6, 2006)

JosephB said:


> What exactly does that mean? Are you trying to be sly about some new technology that can send radio waves faster than the speed of light? The original point stands..as long as satellite internet services use geostationary satellites, they can't overcome the 500ms ping problem. Otherwise they'll have to use something that RAD mentioned like low Earth orbit or terrestrial connections (wired or wireless)


Nope, not trying to be sly at all.


----------



## lee635 (Apr 17, 2002)

I can't figure out what satelliteracer is alluding to either. 

Anyway, several years back I read that Cisco was looking to reduce some of the satellite latency by putting more "intelligence" in the satellite. For example, if you request a webpage, a server on the satellite starts requesting the webpage and caches the data it receives. Then, as your computer requests each part of the webpage, you are only having to go up to the satellite and back, instead of up to the satellite, back to the ground station, out to the website, and all the way back. This doesn't fix the initial latency required to get the first part of your request, but it reduces the amount of time from your computer's first request, until the entire page loads.

Second, they talked about the server on the satellite estimating when you will need the next packet and sending it to you, rather than waiting for your pc to request it. Again this would reduce the time to load a complete page, but not the initial delay in getting the first reply.

Anyway, maybe Hughes and others are already doing this sort of thing? Of course, neither of these advances helps with something like VOIP, or online gaming.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

lee635 said:


> Anyway, maybe Hughes and others are already doing this sort of thing? Of course, neither of these advances helps with something like VOIP, or online gaming.


Satellite Internet's biggest problem is managing expectations. This isn't a one gig ethernet connection between two computers in an office. Even "traditional" connections with low lag times have problems with advanced uses.


----------



## JosephB (Nov 14, 2005)

James Long said:


> Spectrum and assets are easily leased or transferred between the two companies. DISH's satellite business relies on leased satellites and orbitals controlled by EchoStar and EchoStar leases space in DISH owned buildings. (I believe there is at least one case of a DISH owned satellite being leased to EchoStar and then leased back to DISH for their use.)


Yes, but if Charlie has some grand scheme to assemble all of these assets together and use them cohesively, then what would have been the point of splitting up Echostar and Dish? Or, at a minimum, what would be the point of having Hughes in one company and the DBSD/terrestrial stuff in another? This is just me talking out of my rear end, but I think Echostar buying Hughes is pretty simple and just meant to bulk up Echostar's satellite business. I think Dish buying the terrestrial stuff is the more interesting part. I think that is meant to possibly make Dish more attractive to someone like AT&T. I haven't seen many CEOs who are at two companies keep that arrangement for long.



lee635 said:


> I can't figure out what satelliteracer is alluding to either.
> 
> Anyway, several years back I read that Cisco was looking to reduce some of the satellite latency by putting more "intelligence" in the satellite. For example, if you request a webpage, a server on the satellite starts requesting the webpage and caches the data it receives. Then, as your computer requests each part of the webpage, you are only having to go up to the satellite and back, instead of up to the satellite, back to the ground station, out to the website, and all the way back. This doesn't fix the initial latency required to get the first part of your request, but it reduces the amount of time from your computer's first request, until the entire page loads.
> 
> ...


Hughes had that technology in the Spaceway satellites that ended up staying with DirecTV when they split. The SW sats can route traffic between them, so if you were communicating with a host that was also on spaceway, you could eliminate some of the space to ground trips. Of course for general internet usage that wasn't really going to help that much. In the end the satellites are being used for HD service for DirecTV now anyway.


----------



## SayWhat? (Jun 7, 2009)

James Long said:


> This isn't a one gig ethernet connection between two computers in an office. Even "traditional" connections with low lag times have problems with advanced uses.


Except that somebody on this thread seems to be trying to evasively elude to something along those lines possibly being possible sometime in the future.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

JosephB said:


> Yes, but if Charlie has some grand scheme to assemble all of these assets together and use them cohesively, then what would have been the point of splitting up Echostar and Dish? Or, at a minimum, what would be the point of having Hughes in one company and the DBSD/terrestrial stuff in another?


DBSD already had a financial relationship with DISH Network. This relationship simply goes to the next level - buying the company that owes you money.

The split of DISH and SATS has already been explained. DISH focuses on consumer services, SATS focuses on bulk distribution services and technology.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

SayWhat? said:


> Except that somebody on this thread seems to be trying to evasively elude to something along those lines possibly being possible sometime in the future.


I don't believe the technology Satelliteracer is alluding to is to the level of connecting two one gig ethernet cards ... and he never claimed it was. All he noted was a marked improvement.


----------



## s57061b (Jan 8, 2007)

Is'nt Via Sat 1 suposed to hold Two Million Customers and do VOIP and Gameing.


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

"JosephB" said:


> This is just me talking out of my rear end, but I think Echostar buying Hughes is pretty simple and just meant to bulk up Echostar's satellite business. I think Dish buying the terrestrial stuff is the more interesting part. I think that is meant to possibly make Dish more attractive to someone like AT&T. I haven't seen many CEOs who are at two companies keep that arrangement for long.


one of the things that surprised me when the split occurred was that Charlie remained CEO of Dish, but not Echostar. He is Chairman of the Board at Echostar, but not CEO.

So I find nothing about this simple. I'm sure I'm making it more complicated than it is. But James's description above about Dish leasing a satellite to Echostar and then leasing back transponder space seems all too complicated and unnecessary.

In the end I didn't see any benefits from the split that were obvious. But maybe Comcast or TWC will buy equipment from Echostar like they have from TiVo....


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

phrelin said:


> one of the things that surprised me when the split occurred was that Charlie remained CEO of Dish, but not Echostar. He is Chairman of the Board at Echostar, but not CEO.


Charlie remained CEO of EchoStar for 11 months until he named former president and COO of EchoStar (1990-2004) Mike Dugan to the role:
In a statement, Ergen called Dugan "the chief architect behind the technological foundation for EchoStar and DISH Network," adding that this appointment "establishes a highly seasoned team for leading EchoStar's endeavors in deploying advanced set-top box technologies and delivering satellite services worldwide."
source​


> But James's description above about Dish leasing a satellite to Echostar and then leasing back transponder space seems all too complicated and unnecessary.


I believe the lease back was an odd situation where a satellite that went to DISH in the split was needed at a location licensed to SATS. SATS leased the DISH owned satellite to use with the SATS owned license. DISH is leasing that location from SATS for Eastern Arc. (DISH got the WA orbitals and satellites, except 121, SATS got the EA orbitals and satellites plus 121 and unbuilt locations. When satellites move between arcs the line gets blurry.)

A similar situation existed when DISH leased EchoStar 5 to Ciel for Ciel to provide licensed services from Canadian slot 129 which DISH turned around and leased back in order to provide DISH Network service. Complicated ... but just a normal part of business.


----------



## JosephB (Nov 14, 2005)

James Long said:


> DBSD already had a financial relationship with DISH Network. This relationship simply goes to the next level - buying the company that owes you money.
> 
> The split of DISH and SATS has already been explained. DISH focuses on consumer services, SATS focuses on bulk distribution services and technology.


True enough on DBSD, but Echostar could have bought DBSD out of bankruptcy instead of Dish anyway. Instead of Dish converting its debt into equity, Echostar would have paid Dish off.

I'm aware of why the companies were split, but if they are to be run in a coordinated fashion then they shouldn't have been. As a matter of fact in certain situations it could be illegal.



phrelin said:


> one of the things that surprised me when the split occurred was that Charlie remained CEO of Dish, but not Echostar. He is Chairman of the Board at Echostar, but not CEO.
> 
> So I find nothing about this simple. I'm sure I'm making it more complicated than it is. But James's description above about Dish leasing a satellite to Echostar and then leasing back transponder space seems all too complicated and unnecessary.
> 
> In the end I didn't see any benefits from the split that were obvious. But maybe Comcast or TWC will buy equipment from Echostar like they have from TiVo....


I had forgotten that Charlie turned Echostar over to Dugan. Either way, Charlie could still be lining up Dish for a sale to AT&T or another telco. The terrestrial spectrum is much more valuable to someone like that than Dish, to be perfectly honest. Dish doesn't run and hasn't run an ISP and would have to build one from scratch--including the customer base. AT&T or Verizon could take that spectrum and add to existing capacity. And it would be a waste to use that spectrum for broadcast video services when all of the Dish customers already have dishes on their roofs.

The benefits from splitting Echostar and Dish have been discussed before. It frees up capital between the two businesses that can be focused. Echostar debt spent to put satellites in space don't bog down Dish, and Dish debt spent to build customer service centers or whatever don't bog down Echostar. They're two different businesses. I'd suppose that before the split they were probably already billing each other as different departments, so the split probably wasn't that difficult to pull off.


----------



## ruralruss (Feb 5, 2010)

Satelliteracer said:


> Definitely some latency issues with the satellite broadband stuff...at least today. That's going to change next year.


Ah, quantum entanglement!


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

JosephB said:


> The terrestrial spectrum is much more valuable to someone like that than Dish, to be perfectly honest. Dish doesn't run and hasn't run an ISP and would have to build one from scratch--including the customer base. AT&T or Verizon could take that spectrum and add to existing capacity. And it would be a waste to use that spectrum for broadcast video services when all of the Dish customers already have dishes on their roofs.


Not in the mobile/portable future. DISH Network customers can already enjoy DISH Online which gives access to free streamed content, subscription based content tied to one's DISH account and (for those with a 922 or 622 or above with a SlingBox) access to content on their own receiver. These are being delivered by other people's network's now ... why not deliver it via EchoStar's future network?

While DISH Customers already have a dish they are not always home connected to that dish.


----------



## JosephB (Nov 14, 2005)

James Long said:


> Not in the mobile/portable future. DISH Network customers can already enjoy DISH Online which gives access to free streamed content, subscription based content tied to one's DISH account and (for those with a 922 or 622 or above with a SlingBox) access to content on their own receiver. These are being delivered by other people's network's now ... why not deliver it via EchoStar's future network?
> 
> While DISH Customers already have a dish they are not always home connected to that dish.


Yes, but duplicating their channel offerings on a terrestrial network would be a total waste. And starting an ISP simply to do TV Everywhere doesn't make sense either. Sure Sling does a good business, but not the billions required to get into that business. It's just not worth it. It's better to let customers use their existing ISPs. I guess the only thing that is for certain is that Charlie is the only one who knows what he's doing.


----------



## jacmyoung (Sep 9, 2006)

"JosephB" said:


> As a matter of fact in certain situations it could be illegal.


If anything we learned Charlie will test the legal limitations more so than anyone else dares to.


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

JosephB said:


> I guess the only thing that is for certain is that Charlie is the only one who knows what he's doing.


You've got that right!

But its fun to speculate.


----------



## jacmyoung (Sep 9, 2006)

"JosephB" said:


> I guess the only thing that is for certain is that Charlie is the only one who knows what he's doing.


A lot of times he doesn't know either, one thing for sure he is a risk taker. By definition a risk taker do things that are to certain extent unknown to everyone including oneself.


----------

