# Rumor -- Direct to Acquire Echostar



## Nick (Apr 23, 2002)

*Speculation of a merger rising at industry
conferences and in news accounts.*

Washington, D.C., July 17, 2006 -- What's the hottest rumor in television today?

Satcasters DIRECTV and EchoStar will soon announce a merger.

A deal joining the nation's top satellite TV services has been speculated about for
months. However, the rumors have suddenly escalated in the last few weeks with
reports coming from last week's Allen & Co. media and technology conference in
Idaho.

"Also floating through the mountain air was the perpetual rumor about a buyout
of EchoStar, the satellite television company owned by Charles W. Ergen, who
also attended the conference," The New York Times reported.

And a Reuters news article last week quoted Wall Street analysts as saying that
the upcoming presidential election in '08 could spur a wave of mergers (including
DIRECTV-EchoStar) due to concerns that a Democratic administration would be
less likely to approve them. ...

More @ TVPredictions.com


----------



## Richard King (Mar 25, 2002)

Yogi was right.


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

Oh boy... Here we go again.


----------



## philhu (Jun 19, 2006)

Wasn't this Kabashed a few years ago by the FTC?


----------



## Geronimo (Mar 23, 2002)

Eureka! My time machine works.


----------



## bjflynn04 (Jul 27, 2004)

philhu said:


> Wasn't this Kabashed a few years ago by the FTC?


No because D* and E* dropped it before it got to the point where the merger could be approved or not.


----------



## Geronimo (Mar 23, 2002)

bjflynn04 said:


> No because D* and E* dropped it before it got to the point where the merger could be approved or not.


Not quite. Both the FCC and DoJ had to approve the merger. The FCC which normally waits until after DoJ acts disapproved the merged. At that point DISH chose to drop the matter. That set off a round of negotiations about the penalty clause in the merger agreement.

http://www.broadbandweek.com/news/021007/021010_wireless_fcc.htm

I am skeptical that this merger will be looked at any any differently---if this report is reliable.


----------



## Chris Blount (Jun 22, 2001)

I was going to mention this on the home page but then I realized that the article was written by Phillip Swann. Mr. Swann tends to write stuff like this just to gain attention. While his analysis is interesting, it's nothing more than pure speculation at this point.

On the other hand, speculation can be fun.


----------



## Adam Richey (Mar 25, 2002)

I'm intrigued by the possibility, and if the FCC can continue to ignore the Philadelphia CSN situation, surely it can approve a buyout if the seller and buyer switch places. LOL


----------



## Bill R (Dec 20, 2002)

Chris Blount said:


> I was going to mention this on the home page but then I realized that the article was written by Phillip Swann. Mr. Swann tends to write stuff like this just to gain attention. While his analysis is interesting, it's nothing more than pure speculation at this point.
> 
> On the other hand, speculation can be fun.


I also tend to distrust anything written by Phillip Swann. He posts a lot of stuff just to drive traffic to his web site.

But, as Chris said, "speculation can be fun". Let's see if anything comes out ot this or if this is just more PS (Phillip Swann) BS.


----------



## FTA Michael (Jul 21, 2002)

The difference here would be that Fox, broadcaster to millions and proud supporter of our government and its appointees, would be in favor of the merger. Last time, Fox was dead-set against the merger.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

If the headline was "Charlie Ergen buying DirecTV" I could understand. That exclusive Sunday Ticket has lead a lot of people to buy a subscription.

I spent a day recently with a guy who was absolutely sure that D* and E* were already owned by the same people and that they used the exact same satellites. I didn't want to start a war so I let it go.

The FCC has not changed it's stance on the issue. It would be foolish to try again.


----------



## Greg Bimson (May 5, 2003)

Unlike the Adelphia situation, where hundreds of incumbent cable monopolies under the control of either Adelphia, Time Warner or Comcast, were being reorganized into two companies with monopoly franchising, any issue for a DirecTV and Dish Network merger will most likely face the same problem as it did before: lack of competition in the multichannel marketplace, and in some instances a monopoly for many rural areas.

The FCC and FTC do not like to create monopolies.


----------



## Mark Holtz (Mar 23, 2002)

It would be interesting. You could put the East Coast feeds on 101, West Coast feeds on 119, and single feeds on 110. But, I think the focus now is getting High-Def on the air.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

With the current fleet of satellites it would be a blessing and a curse. D*'s Phase III stacking trick would need to be broken if more of 110° was opened to D* customers. Duplicated spotbeams could be used for HD locals (instead of D* ka and E* 129/61.5). But who's technology wins? Do you replace millions of E* receivers with D* recievers?

It would probably be best to go full bore MPEG-4 on a combined system.


----------



## PDR (Jul 15, 2003)

Did anyone else see the story in today's LA Times business section about the Allen & Co. conference in Sun Valley? One of the active rumors is that Rupert and Charlie are negotiating the sale E* to Direct. Rupert feels that the FCC will approve this time because of the fact that Comcast and TW gobbled up Adelphia and the entry of the local telcos into the tv business. Anyone else have any knowledge on this matter.

PDR


----------



## foghorn2 (Jun 18, 2006)

If this happens, I'll go back to cable!


----------



## hankmack (Feb 8, 2006)

I doubt that will happen. I doubt the FCC would allow a monopoly control the only source of TV for rural America.


----------



## tnsprin (Mar 16, 2003)

PDR said:


> Did anyone else see the story in today's LA Times business section about the Allen & Co. conference in Sun Valley? One of the active rumors is that Rupert and Charlie are negotiating the sale E* to Direct. Rupert feels that the FCC will approve this time because of the fact that Comcast and TW gobbled up Adelphia and the entry of the local telcos into the tv business. Anyone else have any knowledge on this matter.
> 
> PDR


Since they wouldn't allow the sale of Directv to Echostar, it would be real strange if the allowed the reverse.

Sounds like a silly rumor.


----------



## Slamminc11 (Jan 28, 2005)

was enough to jump the stock $1.80+ per share. Keep the rumors coming!


----------



## Greg Bimson (May 5, 2003)

James Long said:


> With the current fleet of satellites it would be a blessing and a curse. D*'s Phase III stacking trick would need to be broken if more of 110° was opened to D* customers.


Of course, but that would only be after the winning platform would be announced and the migration takes place.


James Long said:


> Duplicated spotbeams could be used for HD locals (instead of D* ka and E* 129/61.5).


I also would think that is dependent upon the platform. I'd truly believe the investment into Spaceway would force the Ka-band satellites to be used.


James Long said:


> It would probably be best to go full bore MPEG-4 on a combined system.


If the merger were ever approved, the move to a platform which integrates all infrastructure would be imperative. This would include the ability to do MPEG4, such as the DirecTV H20 and the ViP 622.


----------



## Chris Blount (Jun 22, 2001)

I merged threads regarding this issue into one.


----------



## Jason Nipp (Jun 10, 2004)

Geronimo said:


> Eureka! My time machine works.


Best response yet! Geronimo gets my vote....


----------



## UTFAN (Nov 12, 2005)

It may indeed just be speculation. But the regulatory climate has changed a bit since the last time they tried this and cable has consolidated even more.

The economy of scale of DirecTV buying/merging with Echostar is a no-brainer.

But that's the problem with no-brainers when it comes to our government. They don't get it.

I hope against hope, that the two can merge, eliminate all the duplication when their fleets of spacecraft join to provide a ton more of bandwidth for affordable internet service etc.

Of course, a lot of folks will likely lose their jobs. That's the other part of mergers. You just don't need all the people.

But I think at least, this would be good for consumers.


----------



## UTFAN (Nov 12, 2005)

tnsprin said:


> Since they wouldn't allow the sale of Directv to Echostar, it would be real strange if the allowed the reverse.
> 
> Sounds like a silly rumor.


The same political clout Rupie had to help quash the orginal deal, will serve him well if indeed, he is trying to buy Echostar.

You really don't think this whole "government of the people, by the people" etc is really true do you?


----------



## Greg Bimson (May 5, 2003)

The actual problem was the statement that DirecTV and Dish Network don't compete against each other. This led the FCC to do some fact-finding. The FCC felt not only would the reduction from two to one DBS provider be monopolizing the DBS spectrum, it would leave much of rural America without any real competition.


----------



## Chris Blount (Jun 22, 2001)

Added poll.


----------



## mwgiii (Jul 19, 2002)

Rocky Mountain News Article:

http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/tech/article/0,2777,DRMN_23910_4851243,00.html

_Some top money managers attending the annual Allen & Co. media mogul conference in Sun Valley, Idaho, last week "were convinced (DirecTV Chairman Rupert Murdoch) was close to making a deal" to buy EchoStar, the Los Angeles Times reported. The paper also said that EchoStar CEO Charlie Ergen told guests at the conference that a merger could save $3 billion each year in expenses._


----------



## rabit ears (Nov 18, 2005)

Why would any of us want to see these two merge?

For most of us, the competition between the two sat carriers is the only thing keeping pricing and service at a reasonable level. I would hate to see a situation where I had only one choice.

For instance, I've already talked to Dish about acquiring their HD package for my home if I get one of the dreaded "August 2nd no HD DNS letters".

I can pull my D* HD service and go to a single Dish environment for about $60/mo + the $199 lease upgrade fee. If I'm willing to take a 18 month commitment, I get installation, etc. for free or I pay $49 and have no commitment. With a merger I'd be hosed.

My family works from 4:00 AM to about 4:00 PM and to do that we have to be in bed by 7:30 every night. Without an HD DVR we would never watch prime time TV. We're in a very up close and personal business and the whole world talks about what happened on this or that show. At a minimum we record every show on the four majors every night from 8 to 11 so we can respond when our customers ask "Did you see such and such?" 

Competition has been good for every business but the airlines. I just can't imagine Rupert or Charlie saying "Gosh, we're saving $3 million a year, let's give that back to our subscribers."


----------



## djlong (Jul 8, 2002)

To me, the only real difference is still off in the future.

Verizon's FiOS TV service becomes a real competitor with their huge FTTP (Fiber To The Premesis) project that they are doing in all their territories. They're applying for statewide FiOS franchising agreements so they don't have to negotiate "cable tv" agreements with each and every town.

*if* that becomes ubiquitous and other telcos do it, THEN rural addresses have another choice everywhere - but that's off in the future.


----------



## Paul Secic (Dec 16, 2003)

Bill R said:


> I also tend to distrust anything written by Phillip Swann. He posts a lot of stuff just to drive traffic to his web site.
> 
> But, as Chris said, "speculation can be fun". Let's see if anything comes out ot this or if this is just more PS (Phillip Swann) BS.


I don't read Swann's stuff often & take it with a grain of salt, but this nonsnse is from far left field!


----------



## Paul Secic (Dec 16, 2003)

UTFAN said:


> The same political clout Rupie had to help quash the orginal deal, will serve him well if indeed, he is trying to buy Echostar.
> 
> You really don't think this whole "government of the people, by the people" etc is really true do you?


Sure! Like flying pigs.


----------



## AllieVi (Apr 10, 2002)

The arguments against the merger that was proposed a few years ago are still valid. I doubt that any new attempt would be successful.

Competition forces each of these companies to work hard to satisfy us/lure us to their service. I like that.


----------



## ebaltz (Nov 23, 2004)

AllieVi said:


> The arguments against the merger that was proposed a few years ago are still valid. I doubt that any new attempt would be successful.
> 
> Competition forces each of these companies to work hard to satisfy us/lure us to their service. I like that.


The point is, the competition isn't between to sat companies, but rather a sat company and a cable company and a telephone company. Plenty of competition to go around, and with the fact sat can't deliver certain things the others can, sat needs some other edge.


----------



## foghorn2 (Jun 18, 2006)

ebaltz said:


> The point is, the competition isn't between to sat companies, but rather a sat company and a cable company and a telephone company. Plenty of competition to go around, and with the fact sat can't deliver certain things the others can, sat needs some other edge.


How much of our media are we going to allow%^$%^%& to own? :nono2: 
Ergen, stand your ground and give Murd Doc the finger, please!!!


----------



## Jhon69 (Mar 28, 2006)

The idea of a merger is not so crazy if someone needed the price of their stock to go up before they sold it.Yea crazy like a fox!.


----------



## AllieVi (Apr 10, 2002)

ebaltz said:


> The point is, the competition isn't between to sat companies, but rather a sat company and a cable company and a telephone company. ...


That's true only if you live in an area where all those options exist. I don't expect satellite to be competitive with cable and phone companies as they install fiber systems that also can bundle phone and (very) high-speed broadband. Satellite will thrive in areas that don't offer those choices, and that will be mostly rural areas. Those folks will be happy to have an option.


----------



## Alan Gordon (Jun 7, 2004)

AllieVi said:


> That's true only if you live in an area where all those options exist. I don't expect satellite to be competitive with cable and phone companies as they install fiber systems that also can bundle phone and (very) high-speed broadband. *Satellite will thrive in areas that don't offer those choices, and that will be mostly rural areas. Those folks will be happy to have an option.*


I'm one of "Those folks", and I'm excited by the idea. I've also told several people about this rumor, and while they're hesitant to believe the government will allow it since it didn't happen the last time, they're for it also.

~Alan


----------



## Brad Martin (Feb 7, 2006)

http://www.denverpost.com/business/ci_4063441

My thoughts are this article is on a more realistic target.


----------



## restart88 (Jun 18, 2006)

Personally I think it would make better sense for them each to buy up cable providers to increase their purchasing power. Not necessarily saying they should, but it makes better sense to me than a merger.

Both E* and D* bring their own strengths and weaknesses to the table. My D* equipment has always been rock solid and I've only needed a small 18" round dish. But because of the E* equipment situation I have a Dish 500 coupled with an 18" via an SW21 and this setup always gives me fits, especially during Florida's rainy season and fears during hurricanes. And my signal loss time even depends on which receiver I'm using! The 301 is almost as good as the DTivo, but the 508 goes out early and often. And obviously the E* problem is partly in having channels scattered all over the place (from an antenna standpoint). 

My fear is that a merger would bring us the worst of each service, not the best. But with packaged savings becoming more common in the cable industry DBS is losing ground fast despite having a much better product in general, warts & all.

I also have a worry about E* as a problem on an old bird knocked out 3 major Sky Angel channels and they refused to provide those channels anymore by other means, which is about as much as Sky Angel is willing to say about it due to the NDA. Meanwhile my SA Tivo goes nuts when E* does their almost daily channel swaps in the program guide. If it wasn't for Sky Angel I'd write off E* entirely even though I have other programming with them!


----------



## jpl (Jul 9, 2006)

I really don't see this happening. Last time out, both DirecTV and Echostar made the claim "there won't be a monopoly... our REAL competition is cable..." The FTC didn't buy it then and nothing's really changed in the satellite marketplace since (a couple years ago they could have made a case with Voom coming on line - but since they're gone, there really isn't a case to be made). They would have to convince the FTC that there really would be no monopoly if this deal went through. The ONLY way the FTC will allow a merger/buy-out resulting in only one player being in a market is if the market place has shrunk to the point where, if the merger/buy-out DOESN'T happen, one of the two companies will go belly-up. That happened several years ago in the commercial airframe world, when Boeing was allowed to buy up, I believe it was, McDonnell-Douglass. Boeing and MD were the only two US commercial airframe players still in the market, and they were able to convince the FTC that, if this deal doesn't go through, MD goes out of business (they were losing money hand over fist). The FTC decided that the public's interest would be better served by allowing the buy-out to occur. With both D* and E* expanding like they are, they would have a heck of a time making that case. The government sees satellite very different from cable. I think the communication laws are sadly out of date and need some serious reform.

Would I have a problem with the merger? No, I wouldn't. As for who's technology wins out, well that all depends on who buys whom, and who's technology is better/more scalable. Still, I agree that this is probably a silly rumour, and if it were true, it ain't going anywhere.


----------



## Richard King (Mar 25, 2002)

Someone is taking this talk very seriously:

EchoStar Upped To Buy At Citigroup
http://www.amtddj.inlumen.com/bin/djstory?StoryId=Crl2UqaebqLqWmde0nJe


> Citigroup upgraded satellite TV company EchoStar Communications Corp. (DISH) to buy from sell, citing a possible merger with DirecTV Group Inc. (DTV).
> 
> Citigroup said a merger could result in cost savings of up to $3 billion a year.
> 
> "Our change in rating does not reflect a change in our fundamental view," Citigroup said. "We're still bearish on fundamentals."


----------



## ebaltz (Nov 23, 2004)

AllieVi said:


> That's true only if you live in an area where all those options exist. I don't expect satellite to be competitive with cable and phone companies as they install fiber systems that also can bundle phone and (very) high-speed broadband. Satellite will thrive in areas that don't offer those choices, and that will be mostly rural areas. Those folks will be happy to have an option.


Do they want an option or lower prices? Sad to say, that the rural areas that make up that market of can't get cable or other provider probably aren't statistically significant in terms of grand scheme of things. At present fully 80% of all people in the US live in areas considered "urban". So its likely that any decision will be based on what is best for the majority of the people, the vast majority. And it is kind of a joke too, because in my city there is only one cable provider, so how is that not a monopoly already, you only have the choice of one cable company. Maybe they could split the country in half and give Dish one half and DirectTV the other.


----------



## jpl (Jul 9, 2006)

ebaltz said:


> Do they want an option or lower prices? Sad to say, that the rural areas that make up that market of can't get cable or other provider probably aren't statistically significant in terms of grand scheme of things. At present fully 80% of all people in the US live in areas considered "urban". So its likely that any decision will be based on what is best for the majority of the people, the vast majority. And it is kind of a joke too, because in my city there is only one cable provider, so how is that not a monopoly already, you only have the choice of one cable company. Maybe they could split the country in half and give Dish one half and DirectTV the other.


I seem to remember that D* and E* sold their last merger attempt by talking about how it would benefit rural customers. They would be able to carry all the programming that they currently do, but because of the increased bandwidth (resulting from getting rid of redundant channels) they would be able to carry locals for everyone around the country. I also seem to remember them offering to upgrade hardware for all customers who needed it, free of charge. Still the FTC wouldn't bite.

I agree about the cable monopoly as it stands. I live near Philly, and Comcast really rules the roost around here. They had limited competition from Adelphia - and they don't anymore - but only in the city. In the burbs it was Comcast or nothing. And Verizon is laying fiber around here like crazy. They're very serious about competing, primarily, with Comcast. Until Comcast is forced to give up it's iron grip on CSN Philaldelphia, D* and E*, and even Verizon, are going to just be minor players around here.


----------



## HD_Wayne (May 23, 2006)

Direct to Dish, well if you think that prices are too high just wait. With no satellite competition except C band prices are bound to go up. Personally I like choice and with a merger there will be less choice I am sure.

Wayne


----------



## russ9 (Jan 28, 2004)

I suppose if they merge the new corporate slogan could be..

Dishing out DirTV


----------



## AllieVi (Apr 10, 2002)

> Citigroup said a merger could result in cost savings of up to $3 billion a year.


That's great, but who or what reaps the rewards?

Satellite company shareholders will salivate over the prospect. They expect the savings to pass to the bottom line of the balance sheet and increase share value. Satellite customers expect to see the same money reduce bills.

Assuming a total of about 30 million satellite customers (just a guess, but it makes the math easy), that's about $100/customer/year. If half went to the bottom line and half to the customers, we'd theoretically see a benefit of about $4-5 a month. Maybe.

The cost and time required to consolidate the services and replace customer equipment would push any advantages years into the future.

I still prefer to have two companies trying to out-do each other for my business.


----------



## directvfreak (Feb 1, 2006)

I hope not. There needs to be competition.


----------



## treiher (Oct 24, 2002)

NO! NO! NO! I hate the idea of a merger! The more competition the better. D* and E* complete nationally for the same customers, along with whatever cable company happens to be in a specific region. In general, our choices will go down from three to two if this happens - cable or satellite. That will result in higher prices, lower quality hardware, and perhaps even less HD channels. I know some our thinking more satellites means more HD, but I'm not so sure it will play out that way. As long as they have more choices than cable, well then thats good enough. Maybe if we had 12 choices or even 6 choices, but today we only have 3. Lets not go down to 2! Even after some of the phone companies roll out their fiber TV, that's still only 4 choices. Ofcourse if you're in a rural area, your choices are 2 going to 1. I hate the idea!


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

I'm on the fence. IF a merger happened (like the one proposed a couple of years back)... then suddenly the new combined company would have a bunch of satellites in orbit that are duplicating efforts... that could be repurposed (with some upgrades to customer equipment) so that more bandwidth would be immediately available to launch the rest of the local markets, more local in HD, and pretty much any other existing national HD at the time.

The downside is the lack of competition of course... so I'm not sure what that would mean down the road.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

HDMe said:


> The downside is the lack of competition of course... so I'm not sure what that would mean down the road.


Cable rates for satellite programming.


----------



## restart88 (Jun 18, 2006)

HDMe said:


> I'm on the fence. IF a merger happened (like the one proposed a couple of years back)... then suddenly the new combined company would have a bunch of satellites in orbit that are duplicating efforts... that could be repurposed (with some upgrades to customer equipment) so that more bandwidth would be immediately available to launch the rest of the local markets, more local in HD, and pretty much any other existing national HD at the time.
> 
> The downside is the lack of competition of course... so I'm not sure what that would mean down the road.


Actually, that's not entirely true. It would open room for new channels through the removal of redundant space. OTOH, can you imagine what a mess your antenna setup would be trying to bring in all those different birds? :nono2:

BTW, I love that Citigroup quote that they moved it to a buy but were bearish on the "fundamentals." What utter nonsense! :lol: I think someone's just trying to make a quick buck and absolve themself of any blame when it fails to materialize.


----------



## ReuvenNY (Jun 16, 2006)

What will be the impact on the users? Cheaper service (ha-ha), better service?
Any opinions?

Excerpt:


Weighing A Potential EchoStar-DirecTV Merger
R.M. Schneiderman, 07.19.06, 4:09 PM ET

Citigroup upgraded shares of DISH Network provider, EchoStar Communications, to "buy" from "sell," following media speculation about the increasing possibility that the company could merge with rival DirecTV Group, according to a Wednesday report.

Research analyst Jason Bazinet said shares of the number two direct broadcast satellite TV provider have performed "reasonably well" in a difficult market since he downgraded the stock to "sell" in January.

"In large part, we believe the strength is due to investor enthusiasm for a potential merger between DirecTV and EchoStar ," said the analyst. "It is unclear whether a merger between EchoStar and DirecTV will be approved by the Department of Justice or the Federal Communications Commission," he said.

"Our change in rating does not reflect a change in our fundamental view. We're still bearish on DBS fundamentals," noted Bazinet. "However, in the intervening months -- between a potential merger announcement and the subsequent regulatory review -- EchoStar's shares could outperform."

The analyst added that by merging, the two companies could fight off mounting competitive threats and rely on merger synergies to bolster growth in cash flow.

The analyst raised the price target on EchoStar to $39 from $26.


----------



## jpl (Jul 9, 2006)

ReuvenNY said:


> What will be the impact on the users? Cheaper service (ha-ha), better service?
> Any opinions?
> 
> Excerpt:
> ...


Sometimes I just don't get what goes through the brains of financial analysts (my apologies if there are any out there reading this), but many decisions are for very short-term gains. It almost sounds, by this report, that they think that D* will buy out E* (the stock of the company being bought generally goes up in a buy-out, while the company doing the buying will see their stock take a hit). I also don't understand the bearishness of DBS fundamentals. I mean, come on, D* just announces a 14% increase in revenues for the Q1 2006, and E*, from what I can see, has added so many customers lately that their closing the gap with D*.


----------



## Mike D-CO5 (Mar 12, 2003)

IF Dish and Directv don't merge they still could form limited partnerships to do the same thing as a merger to fight the cable enemy. They are already doing this for wireless broadband. They could do other partnerships to do the best hd and have more hd at better resoultions than cable . They could agree to do all the sd and hd locals in the country so they could really fight cable. They could partner do do the best video on demand features with deals with other companies like Att with homezone or the other version . 

These limited partnerships could be easily done if they spin off a company that does the above features with a 50/50 co owned third companies that is exclusive to both Dish and Directv. This would give satellite customers , both dish and directv , the best picture quality on hd and hd locals, the fastest wireless broadband and the most video on demand features using the internet. 

All this could be done without a merger if they wanted to. A merger is going to cost everyone all over again in new receivers that will have to work with either service and all of us paying to upgrade again. 

I hope they don't approve the merger. I want Dish to stay independent or partner with ATT or any other company rather than Murdoch and New Corp. In my opinion he is taking Directv in the wrong direction and I really don't want Dish pulled down with them. 

Directv has less hd channels than Dish. Still no mpeg 4 hd dvr- Dish has had them since February of this year. THe Directv picture quality is pretty poor and they love hd lite - Where Dish has better over all picture quality and their hd lite is like 1480 x 1080 and Directv is like 1280 x 1080. Dish's 622 works well now and is faster than tivo with a lot of tivo like features. Directvs new receivers don't work well compared to Dishs version . Again no directv hd mpeg4 receiver.

IF Dish had got control of Directv I would have been happy. But I am not in favor of any merger with Rupert in control of my sat provider. IF this happens I would have to think about going to either cable or ota by itself. Unless Charlie could still have some say so in what is being done with the new created company. It would most likely stay Directv since even Charlie was going to rename the company that ,if he bought Directv back 3 years ago.


----------



## Jim5506 (Jun 7, 2004)

The bearishness comes from the market being saturated, there are very few "new" customers to be had out there.

A lot of energy now must be expended stealing customers from cable, etc. to make any numerical headway.

Yes, profits may be up, but the prospects for continued growth are not there.


----------



## Greg Bimson (May 5, 2003)

Mike D-CO5 said:


> I hope they don't approve the merger. I want Dish to stay independent or partner with ATT or any other company rather than Murdoch and New Corp. In my opinion he is taking Directv in the wrong direction and I really don't want Dish pulled down with them.


Funny...

DirecTV started leasing receivers. Dish Network has done so for a long time.
DirecTV started branding receivers within their own nameplate. Dish Network has done so for a long time.
DirecTV has moved to a version of DVR that was internal. Dish Network has done so for a long time.

So, DirecTV is becoming more like Dish Network all the time. Yet you have a problem with this?


----------



## jpl (Jul 9, 2006)

Jim5506 said:


> The bearishness comes from the market being saturated, there are very few "new" customers to be had out there.
> 
> A lot of energy now must be expended stealing customers from cable, etc. to make any numerical headway.
> 
> Yes, profits may be up, but the prospects for continued growth are not there.


Ok, let's say that's true (I don't think it is... I think there are other subscribers to be signed up), I'm still not sure how that equates to bearishness. Bearish means that you believe the market will take a down-turn. Let's say that D* and E* don't sign up anyone else... what does that do to their profitablity? Nothing, really. Granted, they won't grow at 14% per year, but they won't drop either. And they can also increase revenue via other means (apart from raising rates) - getting more people to sign up for premium packages, e.g. I just don't see the satellite market taking a down-turn (a major bank wouldn't have a reco of a "sell" on a stock unless they see trouble on the horizon for the future profitability of the company).

Besides, that type of saturation happens in all other markets too, but that doesn't drive bearishness in those markets (e.g. banking stocks are doing pretty well right now, and I'm pretty sure that that market's not growing in the sense that lots of new customers are coming on line).

The one area where I could see that would cause that kind of bearish perspective on satellite is if other types of providers come on line - e.g. Verizon starting to carry TV via FIOS, or people scrapping subscriptions altogether and getting all their programming via purchased DVDs, or via the internet -- those activities could, and probably will, put pressure on the satellite TV market - but to be honest, I don't see them as having much of an impact right now, or in the near future.

I guess, from my perspective, believing that the market is saturated would tend to make an analyst "neutral" on the market - bearish implies something more.


----------



## BaldEagle (Jun 19, 2006)

I think a merger would be very positive in the long run. Would allow more bandwith for HD.

Satellite is competing with cable and the cost savings of a merger would make it easier to compete. If a merger goes through cable would be forced to be more competitive and/or limit future increases.


----------



## jpl (Jul 9, 2006)

Of course, the more cynical side of me says that Citigroup upgraded the stock because they have alot of it, and they're trying to off-load some... but I don't think that's the case. Making general recommendations for a stock based on your current position like that would cause your reputation to go down the toilet pretty fast (e.g. if Citigroup were to actually reco buying the stock just so they could get rid of what they have, not only would the have the SEC breathing down their necks in very short order, but it would cause investors to take future recommendations with a large grain of salt).

Still, I stick with what I've said before - I really don't see this merger/buy-out happening. And I really don't see the FTC granting it if they tried.


----------



## thopki2 (Mar 29, 2006)

HDMe said:


> I'm on the fence. IF a merger happened (like the one proposed a couple of years back)... then suddenly the new combined company would have a bunch of satellites in orbit that are duplicating efforts... that could be repurposed (with some upgrades to customer equipment) so that more bandwidth would be immediately available to launch the rest of the local markets, more local in HD, and pretty much any other existing national HD at the time.
> 
> The downside is the lack of competition of course... so I'm not sure what that would mean down the road.


Being on the "selfish" side, without locals in northern Maine, I am for it. I still have the map from the prevoius attempt at a merger that promised us the locals.


----------



## billpa (Jul 11, 2003)

thopki2 said:


> Being on the "selfish" side, without locals in northern Maine, I am for it. I still have the map from the prevoius attempt at a merger that promised us the locals.


Dish should just do it already. They already have MPBN up for the Portland locals...then it's just a case of channel 8- seems like it would be easy.


----------



## foghorn2 (Jun 18, 2006)

Mike D-CO5 said:


> IF Dish and Directv don't merge they still could form limited partnerships to do the same thing as a merger to fight the cable enemy. They are already doing this for wireless broadband. They could do other partnerships to do the best hd and have more hd at better resoultions than cable . They could agree to do all the sd and hd locals in the country so they could really fight cable. They could partner do do the best video on demand features with deals with other companies like Att with homezone or the other version .
> 
> These limited partnerships could be easily done if they spin off a company that does the above features with a 50/50 co owned third companies that is exclusive to both Dish and Directv. This would give satellite customers , both dish and directv , the best picture quality on hd and hd locals, the fastest wireless broadband and the most video on demand features using the internet.
> 
> ...


Exactly my thoughts! 100% on the spot!


----------



## foghorn2 (Jun 18, 2006)

Greg Bimson said:


> Funny...
> 
> DirecTV started leasing receivers. Dish Network has done so for a long time.
> DirecTV started branding receivers within their own nameplate. Dish Network has done so for a long time.
> ...


Thats also saying that Murd Doc is becoming like Ergen all the time.

Imaginge what would happen to Free Speech TV if Murd Doc got a hold of Dish.
It would be replaced by free speech tv brought to you by Faux Networks.


----------



## Greg Bimson (May 5, 2003)

You do realize that Mr. Murdoch does fundraising for the honorable female senator from New York, the ex-First Lady?

The executives running DirecTV now see how Dish Network's business model is successful, and are copying it. Yet I am still trying to see the problem with becoming more like Dish Network, even if it is Mr. Murdoch and Mr. Carey at the helm.


----------



## jpl (Jul 9, 2006)

I'm not a shill for Murdoch or for Fox, but regardless of what people think about his politics, or his network, the truth is he's a very savvy businessman. When CNN was top dog, Murdoch complained to Ted Turner that their news was too slanted. Turner brushed him off. Murdoch then told Turner: ok, if you're going to disregard my criticism, I'll just have to start my own cable news network, and bury CNN. Turner laughed at him. Now FNC is on top (they have something like 7 of the top 10 rated cable news shows every week, including, I believe, 4 of the top 5). Oh yeah, and Turner is now gone. Murdoch knows how to make a media business successful. Personally, that's something I really care about when going with a service like DirecTV. I don't want to be part of something that's going to disappear in 6 months.

As for the comment that free speach is limited... I have a hard time seeing how Murdoch owning a satellite TV provider limits anyone's free speach... If anything, I've seen DirecTV's programming lineup expand during his tenure - he's interested in making DirecTV successful. If he wanted to make a political point he could have cut the channel that became Current when Gore bought it out.

As for Direct becoming more like Dish, I can't really speak to that. I think a good business learns to cross-polinate - take what works from a competitor and make it your own. Businesses do that all the time - they look in industry to see what's working and what's not, and incorporate it into their "best practices." And frankly, some of the changes really make sense to me. For example, having instead of having the receiver manufacturers decide the user interface, they now have a consistent one. I never understood why they would create a situation where the functionality that you got depended on which company's equipment you bought.


----------



## AllieVi (Apr 10, 2002)

jpl said:


> Ok, let's say that's true (I don't think it is... I think there are other subscribers to be signed up), I'm still not sure how that equates to bearishness. Bearish means that you believe the market will take a down-turn. ...


Long-term, I believe that's exactly what the analysts see.

Cable and phone companies aren't standing still. They're rolling out fiber optic services that are very reliable and have a ton of bandwidth for TV, phone and broadband. As they move into neighborhoods, satellite dishes will be coming down.

The change won't happen overnight, of course, so satellite companies have a few years (a decade?) to be profitable. But satellite delivery simply can't compete with the service bundle fiber provides. And fiber doesn't require dishes, switches, a view of the right part of the sky and concern about how many/what type of cable runs to install...


----------



## jpl (Jul 9, 2006)

AllieVi said:


> Long-term, I believe that's exactly what the analysts see.
> 
> Cable and phone companies aren't standing still. They're rolling out fiber optic services that are very reliable and have a ton of bandwidth for TV, phone and broadband. As they move into neighborhoods, satellite dishes will be coming down.
> 
> The change won't happen overnight, of course, so satellite companies have a few years (a decade?) to be profitable. But satellite delivery simply can't compete with the service bundle fiber provides. And fiber doesn't require dishes, switches, a view of the right part of the sky and concern about how many/what type of cable runs to install...


That's all true. But most stock analysts don't look out 10 years when making stock recommendations. They look very near term (I used to work - as a programmer - for a Wall St. bank, and got some up-front experience with how the Street sees these things). They may look 6 - 12 months down the road, but beyond that is generally beyond their perview. As an example (something outside the field of entertainment) take a look at oil prices. They're high not because of current supplies (we're running near record surplusses) but they're not looking 10 years out either (that's enough time for new technologies to override any concern in disruption of oil). They're afraid of a possible disruption 6 - 12 months out. The reason is because 6 - 12 months is how long it generally takes for good or bad business decisions to manifest themselves within a company.

As for the service that can be provided by fiber, that's very true. But what you're listing as a negative for satellite is actually a positive for most of the country. I can state it this way -- ALL you need to get satellite service is a dish and a clear view. You don't need to rely on the cable or phone company to run lines in your neighborhood. I saw this first-hand when we went to visit family out in Western PA - a very rual section. There were dishes EVERYWHERE - probably every other house. Why? Because OTA reception was horrible (due to the mountains) and cable isn't available.

Even in my immediate area you can see the effect. I live in a Philly suburb, and Verizon has been laying down fiber like crazy (we have their FIOS internet service). They're going to start carrying TV service in the area pretty soon... but they have yet to hit the largest part of the population - Philly itself. There are folks around here just waiting for fiber to make it into their neighborhood so they can get the internet service... but, even in a dense area like Philly, they have yet to get the service. I can imagine there are large sections of the country that will NEVER see fiber.

Then there is the competition angle. Cable is essentially a monopoly whereever you go. Also, as for not needing special equipment for fiber - that's not true. The install for my FIOS took twice as long as the install for my DirecTV. They run fiber from the poll to your house (and if they have to go underground, it gets even better). Then they give you a new junction box (which is about the size of my dish - ok, not quite that large, but pretty big). Then they have to route a separate power-supply in the house, along with a backup. It took them nearly 6 hours to complete the install.


----------



## Mike D-CO5 (Mar 12, 2003)

Greg Bimson said:


> Funny...
> 
> DirecTV started leasing receivers. Dish Network has done so for a long time.
> DirecTV started branding receivers within their own nameplate. Dish Network has done so for a long time.
> ...


Exactly! Directv is just now trying to become like Dish . They seem to be following everything that Dish is doing - a little to late for me.

Their latest sd Directv branded receivers are very bad according to every thread I 've read on this and other web boards. They don't even have a mpeg 4 hd dvr yet till maybe the fall where Dish has had one since February.

I don't want a company that doesn't value cutting edge technology or one that doesn't value PICTURE QUALITY to be in charge of my tv experience. Dish has the best over all pq on sd and even better on Hd , in my and other opinions. Directv is always HIGHER in price than Dish and in some places even cable.

I like Dishnetwork because they actually care what you think and answer your emails , especially on picture quality issues. I don't see any links for this with Directv. I want a company that actually cares about what I want and responds to my concerns. Dish has responded to my emails over the 10 years I've been with them.

I even got a phone call the other day from the vice president of programming for Dish - I think he said his name was Jeff Mc Schooler, Thanking me for my email that complimented their engineers for fixing Starz hd and my local Cbs hd station. I even got a Dish branded watch from Dish - for telling them about the picture quality problems with the Discovery Hd channel a few years back. It seems that my emails and calls made Dish bring the Discovery hd channels engineers to Dish to watch for themselves and they confirmed that they had some problems on their end . MY emails alerted them to fix the picture quality problems.

Have you ever had a Vice President call you to thank you personally? I don't think I would get that from old Rupert or Directv. A big merged company run by Rupert would eliminate the personal small town approach that Dish has always had . I don't want that.


----------



## AllieVi (Apr 10, 2002)

jpl,

I agree with you about the analyst projections. I didn't intend to suggest they look 10 years into the future.

Roll-out of fiber will be slow. It's costing Verizon a fortune and years will pass before it's widely available. Rural areas will probably never see it and will remain satellite. But in areas where where fiber *is* available, satellite dishes will be coming down.

The phone companies currently have to negotiate with each jurisdiction to allow installation. Proposed state and federal legislation would streamline the process.

My experience is with Murrieta, CA. The city encouraged Verizon to install fiber in order to lure people and businesses. Instead of trying to extract large fees, the city essentially greased the skids. As a result, little Murrieta was among the first cities in CA to have fiber. In contrast, most jurisdictions see the coming of fiber as a way to enrich the coffers. In your area, Philly may be an example.

Fiber certainly requires the special equipment and installation you mentioned. But once it's installed, the customer doesn't have to be concerned about how the signal gets to the receivers.

Also, phone companies aren't the only ones installing fiber. Cable companies are, too...


----------



## audiomaster (Jun 24, 2004)

I think it would make sense for both to form a third, jointly owned company that would design, launch, and operate the satellites. Then they would have the benefit of coordinated frequencies and transponders, but could still market programming and build receivers separately. I would think the FCC would buy that idea.

And if they merge, what happens to that town that changed its name to DISH?


----------



## kstuart (Apr 25, 2002)

A few small points:

- AT&T(SBC) also wants to provide TV service via the Internet (I believe their program is called "Lightspeed").

- Fiber per se may not be necessary all the way to the home. Parts of Australia, and some cities in the Far East make use of "Wimax", which is the new much longer range version of WiFi. Intel will be supporting Wimax by building it into their "Centrino" concept which currently provides built-in WiFi to devices like laptops.

So, satellite and cable will certainly not be the only way of providing TV service in the near future.


----------



## cheer (Nov 9, 2005)

kstuart said:


> A few small points:
> 
> - AT&T(SBC) also wants to provide TV service via the Internet (I believe their program is called "Lightspeed").


Actually it's called U-Verse. Lightspeed is the network U-Verse (and other services) are riding on.

And it's not 10 years into the future. It's commercially available in San Antonio and is supposed to be in roughly a dozen markets by year's end.

And to the comment that even if there's no growth there's no impact on profits...nonsense. You can't stand still. Everyone else will add more and more programming. Satellite has the toughest time here, because they have to launch new birds, deploy new dishes, etc. to increase capacity.

IPTV has the easiest time, because bandwidth is irrelevant in terms of number of channels carried. U-Verse can offer 100 channels or 10000 channels; doesn't matter.


> - Fiber per se may not be necessary all the way to the home. Parts of Australia, and some cities in the Far East make use of "Wimax", which is the new much longer range version of WiFi. Intel will be supporting Wimax by building it into their "Centrino" concept which currently provides built-in WiFi to devices like laptops.


Also, there's fiber-to-the-node, which AT&T and others are doing. They've been criticized in comparisons to FIOS, which is a bad comparison since FIOS isn't IPTV.

AT&T's already getting 25-30mbit/sec on VDSL as part of Lightspeed. They can pair bond and double it.

I'd be bearish on DBS too. Growth is getting harder, not easier for them, and no growth means death.


----------



## Paul Secic (Dec 16, 2003)

cheer said:


> Actually it's called U-Verse. Lightspeed is the network U-Verse (and other services) are riding on.
> 
> And it's not 10 years into the future. It's commercially available in San Antonio and is supposed to be in roughly a dozen markets by year's end.
> 
> ...


----------



## tnsprin (Mar 16, 2003)

I noticed nothing on the DIRECTV forums mentions the possibility of a merger. Assuming the merger possibility is not dead, shouldn't something be there, preferably pointing to the same thread as on in the Dish forum. 

If such a merger is real it effects both companies.


----------



## Richard King (Mar 25, 2002)

http://www.denverpost.com/business/ci_4076289
Merger talk a steaming dish of snippets


> Anybody who believes EchoStar and DirecTV are about to merge should remember the forgotten tome "The Essential Guide to the Echo- Star/DirecTV Deal."
> 
> Australian media mogul Rupert Murdoch had his team of lobbyists canvass Washington with this 123-page diatribe in 2002.
> 
> It argued, in exhaustive detail, why Douglas County-based EchoStar should not be allowed to acquire DirecTV from Hughes Electronics.


----------



## Jhon69 (Mar 28, 2006)

Mike D-CO5 said:


> Exactly! Directv is just now trying to become like Dish . They seem to be following everything that Dish is doing - a little to late for me.
> 
> Their latest sd Directv branded receivers are very bad according to every thread I 've read on this and other web boards. They don't even have a mpeg 4 hd dvr yet till maybe the fall where Dish has had one since February.
> 
> ...


Directv's D11 is a better receiver than DISH's DP311 better features.TheRC23 remote is a better remote the D11 PQ is the same as the DP311's at least on my
professionally adjusted 50" TV it is.Total Choice with locals package is the same 
price as AT120 with locals Total Choice with locals has national channels that
Dish has in their AT180.If you had to buy a D11 or a DP311 the D11 is cheaper.
Dish charges 2 months to start then keeps you 1 month ahead when you quit they
won't give you a final statement.D* is only 1 month.Wake up people! I did!


----------



## Jhon69 (Mar 28, 2006)

Oh I forgot the benefits of a secure encryption system no ECM's and no BSOD! which means no receiver resets.Directv also fixes some items on the receiver without a software upgrade.Oh and all I know about Directv's HD is 2007.


----------



## Nick (Apr 23, 2002)

*"...it would be much harder
for the government to turn
down (a merger) today."*

Those who believe recent rumors that EchoStar and DirecTV are ready to merge
would be well-advised to remember a couple-years old report on the subject
written by Rupert Murdoch himself. That's the message from a recent Denver
Post report that said "The Essential Guide to the EchoStar/DirecTV Deal" -
scattered across Washington in 2002 - is 123 pages of why a fusion of the
country's two satellite TV companies is a bad idea.

At the time, the Post reminds, EchoStar fairly outbid News Corp. to acquire DirecTV
from Hughes Electronics. But Murdoch took his report - and legions of lobbyists - to
Capitol Hill saying the deal was anti-competitive and would result in higher rates
for customers.

Ultimately, both the Federal Communications Commission and the Justice
Department blocked the deal.

Fast forward to 2006: EchoStar and DirecTV are working on several joint endeavors
involving two-way communications. "But if Murdoch were to bid on EchoStar,
he'd have to argue against his previous arguments. Or he'd have to argue that
the satellite-TV business has changed significantly over the past four years".

But, on The Charlie Rose Show late last week, Murdoch hinted at just that saying
today's marketplace was, indeed, different. With broadband internet service
gaining momentum - Murdoch reportedly used the word "revolution" - and the
array of alternatives consumers can receive information, News Corp.'s ringleader
said he thought "it would be much harder for the government to turn it down
today."

And what about the LA Times article quoting third-party comments about Ergen
looking to save $3 billion via a merger? And some investment analysts upgrading
EchoStar stock on the rumor?

All Wall Street talk, said the Post, successful at nothing but pushing EchoStar's
stock to a 17-month high to more than $33 last week. Said Murdoch, "We'd have
to get through the negotiating stage, which would be very painful..."

We report, you decide. Yuck.

www.SkyReport.com - used with permission


----------



## narnia777 (Mar 28, 2003)

My main tv subscription is through Directv I switched from Dish three years ago mainly due to the Tivo DVR. I still have a Dish Network 301 and a standalone Tivo for Sky Angel and a few waivered and superstations.

I am concerned how a merger or buyout would affect Sky Angel, they have to run the two companies on the seperate systems they can't really merge them.

There are advantages pro and cons to each system.

Con for Directv: doesn't allow "no package" subscriptions like Locals or distants or movie channels only like Dish does.

Con for Dish Network: $5 downgrade fee, $5/month fees for suspending your account. $25 reactivation fee if you cancel it. Directv has no such fees for connects/reconnects/suspending or downgrading.

Jim


----------



## jpl (Jul 9, 2006)

AllieVi said:


> jpl,
> 
> I agree with you about the analyst projections. I didn't intend to suggest they look 10 years into the future.
> 
> ...


Sounds like we're in agreement on much of this. I think there are a couple things that you've said that are correct with regard to fiber. First, it can carry a boat-load of bandwidth. And the appeal to bundle tv with internet and phone will be very real to customers who can get it. Second, there are cable companies that are moving toward fiber as well - I know of one in the NY area that was built totally around fiber... however, in this area, the big dog is Comcast and, around here at least, they're still relying on good 'ole copper. They may be making moves toward fiber in other areas, but it doesn't sound like they are (personally, I think Verizon is giving Comcast more fits than they're giving to either D* or E*).

Third, what you said about the price of fiber is also true - it's very efficient and reliable when laid down. But it's very expensive getting there. The cost to produce is much higher than standard copper, and laying it in areas takes a while to accomplish. When the trucks rolled into our neighborhood to lay down fiber, it took them a couple weeks to get the work done. Half our neighborhood has underground phone lines, and it was clear that that took the lion's share of time. So, it's also expensive in terms of time. But it's also expensive, as you rightly mentioned, due to legal wranglings.

I use Verizon as the example because they're the ones laying fiber in this area. Comcast has been trying to stop the inflow of Verizon tv into several areas, taking the company to court in FL, and attempting to in NJ. Obviously they feel threatened by Verizon. As an aside, I find Comcast's view on this laughable - they claim that because Verizon isn't a cable company, they're attempting to skirt around laws that protect cable monopolies in various areas. Comcast is crying foul - but that doesn't seem to stop Comcast from getting into the telecom market via VOIP, which allows them to skirt various federal telecommunications laws. Overally, fiber will be a long time coming. I'll restate what I've said before (and I believe it was on this thread) -- the federal telecom laws need serious revamping. The government is always quick to regulate, and slow to deregulate. Regulations can have their place, but when the world has moved on, those same laws become a hinderance, making for some very bizarre situations (the one example is of VOIP companies not being held to the same laws that telephone companies are).

I'll go back to my original question, however - why the bearishness on E* by the stock analysts. We also agree that the analysts aren't looking 10 years out, so what gives?

Oh, and one last issue with this - customer service. Although many have complained how much D*'s CS has slid in recent years, it is still lightyears ahead of other companies. Verizon, e.g., has to do a much better job before they'll get my business for carrying TV content. We do use them for phone and internet (the latter mainly because of their FIOS service), but I'm very reluctant to switch from D* to them for TV. When we came back from vacation, we had issues with our phone service. I tried calling several numbers for Verizon before I could get through. One of those numbers is on the back of the most recent bill we got from them - and it was discontinued! I got that annoying "the number you have tried to reach is no longer in service" nonsense. It was their "repairs" number. So, I tried their general number (also on the back of the bill) only to be told that their offices are closed and to try calling back during normal business hours. I call D* for a problem and I get a rep on the phone within 2 minutes. I have a problem with my phone, and I can't find a stupid number to call!


----------



## jpl (Jul 9, 2006)

Oh, one last thing. From what I see around here, D* and E* aren't going to be the hardest hit by the coming of Verizon tv. In this area there really aren't all that many satellite dishes. We may be the only ones in our entire neighborhood (of a couple hundred houses) that have one. The same is true of other neighborhoods in the area. You have to drive around quite a bit before you'll see even a dozen dishes on people's houses. One reason I'm bullish (or at least neutral) on DBS is because it has it's greatest appeal in rural areas, and that's just not all that likely to change, and I think (I have no knowledge of this, it's just a guess) that D* and E* get most of their business from more rural areas. I can't tell you how many people I know who, when the see the clarity of my TV (some are convinced that I have HD), come back with the response "yeah, I've thought about getting a dish, but..." It generally comes down to inertia. Cable is already in their neighborhood, and in their house - it's just easier to stick with they already have than to switch. Doesn't stop them from complaining about Comcast, though  So, in an area where the cable company is reviled, where a dish is the only competition (currently), cable is still huge. The company that stands to lose the most around here when Verizon starts carrying TV is Comcast. And the switch to Verizon FIOS won't be as much of a leap for many customers around here, as it would be to switch to the dish. Verizon is the big player in phone service, so for most people it would be just a matter of increasing a service they already have.


----------



## AllieVi (Apr 10, 2002)

jpl said:


> ... I'll go back to my original question, however - why the bearishness on E* by the stock analysts. We also agree that the analysts aren't looking 10 years out, so what gives? ...


I think the analysts see little potential for growth or optimism for increase in share price from current levels.

The satellite companies rule in rural areas that are unserved by cable. It's hard to imagine that a large growth potential remains there, though. The people I know who live in rural America all have satellite and so do their neighbors.

Urbanites and suburbanites who left cable for satellite years ago are being lured back by improved cable systems that provide HD and bundle broadband/phone service at attractive prices. Satellite simply isn't competitive. The cable system in my area lured many customers back when it began offering broadband. I doubt many people in similar cities will be initiating satellite service while many will be abandoning it. The availability of FIOS will cause more defections.

The costs involved in launching satellites (new ones and and replacements) are very high. So is the cost of upgrading customer equipment (dishes, switches, etc.) in a constant attempt to push more channels through a relatively small pipe.

Satellite had an advantage when it was the only digital game in town, but times they are a changin'.


----------



## tsmacro (Apr 28, 2005)

AllieVi said:


> Urbanites and suburbanites who left cable for satellite years ago are being lured back by improved cable systems that provide HD and bundle broadband/phone service at attractive prices. Satellite simply isn't competitive. The cable system in my area lured many customers back when it began offering broadband. I doubt many people in similar cities will be initiating satellite service while many will be abandoning it. The availability of FIOS will cause more defections.
> 
> The costs involved in launching satellites (new ones and and replacements) are very high. So is the cost of upgrading customer equipment (dishes, switches, etc.) in a constant attempt to push more channels through a relatively small pipe.
> 
> Satellite had an advantage when it was the only digital game in town, but times they are a changin'.


I'm not sure how many people are really too interested in the new "so-called" deals being offered up by cable actually, it seems to be more hype than substance, but then that's usually true with most promotions I guess. For example in my area the "big" promo these days is get phone, internet, and tv all for $99, $33 for each service. Well looking into it I see that the tv package you get is their basic line up of about 70 channels with locals so the about the same as Dishes AT60 with locals. $33 for phone service, granted with all the goodies and it's Voip not land-line based, but still I pay just about that for my traditional at&t with all the goodies. And $33 for internet? Ummmm a little high as far as I can tell even for broadband. And all of this is just a promotional rate according to the little asterisk, with of course no mention what it's going to cost after the promo is over, at least on Dish's literature I can tell what the price is going to be once the promo is over. I guess I don't understand how that's "attractive" to most people. The only people I can see that appealing to are either people convinced that their life really would be just so much easier to have all of that on one bill or just people who don't take time to think before they just jump at the lastest promo that comes their way.

As far as equipment costs I think that ends up being a wash when you consider the miles upon miles of cable that cable companies have to maintain and they also have to upgrade their equipment as improvements and advancements occur so they can remain competitive. So I don't see where cable has any real advantage there either.

I guess I don't see the decline of satellite anytime real soon. Maybe when I see either satellite company end up with a net loss of subscribers at some point (it's never happened so far) I might think things might be taking a downturn for them. That and Echostar has been making $$$ hand over fist for quite a while now and even DirecTv has been joining the profit-making game lately so I think Satellite is looking pretty healthy actually. Sure satellite does have some limitations but so does every technology, cable's being the actual length of where their lines run.


----------



## jpl (Jul 9, 2006)

tsmacro said:


> I'm not sure how many people are really too interested in the new "so-called" deals being offered up by cable actually, it seems to be more hype than substance, but then that's usually true with most promotions I guess. For example in my area the "big" promo these days is get phone, internet, and tv all for $99, $33 for each service. Well looking into it I see that the tv package you get is their basic line up of about 70 channels with locals so the about the same as Dishes AT60 with locals. $33 for phone service, granted with all the goodies and it's Voip not land-line based, but still I pay just about that for my traditional at&t with all the goodies. And $33 for internet? Ummmm a little high as far as I can tell even for broadband. And all of this is just a promotional rate according to the little asterisk, with of course no mention what it's going to cost after the promo is over, at least on Dish's literature I can tell what the price is going to be once the promo is over. I guess I don't understand how that's "attractive" to most people. The only people I can see that appealing to are either people convinced that their life really would be just so much easier to have all of that on one bill or just people who don't take time to think before they just jump at the lastest promo that comes their way.
> 
> As far as equipment costs I think that ends up being a wash when you consider the miles upon miles of cable that cable companies have to maintain and they also have to upgrade their equipment as improvements and advancements occur so they can remain competitive. So I don't see where cable has any real advantage there either.
> 
> I guess I don't see the decline of satellite anytime real soon. Maybe when I see either satellite company end up with a net loss of subscribers at some point (it's never happened so far) I might think things might be taking a downturn for them. That and Echostar has been making $$$ hand over fist for quite a while now and even DirecTv has been joining the profit-making game lately so I think Satellite is looking pretty healthy actually. Sure satellite does have some limitations but so does every technology, cable's being the actual length of where their lines run.


I'm in agreement with all of this. I'm not sure of the value of cable. Comcast is offering the same promo in this area. Sorry, but it's not all that appealing for a promo. The price of cable around here is atrocious. For the same price I'm paying, you get 70 channels of analog cable. I have two receivers with I don't know how many channels, all in digital, and a DVR to boot. I also agree with the cost of upgrading equipment for cable. One of the main problems that Comcast had around here, when they went digital, was a large subscriber base that didn't want to upgrade. They spent an unreal amount of money in this area bringing in digital cable, and they had a heck of a time getting people to upgrade. The way that they did it was by squeezing those who wanted just basic cable - making it more cost effective to upgrade. Also, as for the bundling (again, this is from personal experience) Comcast can't touch my FIOS connection for speed. Plus I'm not sharing a trunc line with anyone. I know lots of folks who have a cable modem because that's the only broadband available to them (aside from satellite), and a majority hate it.

And yeah, it costs quite a bit of money to build and launch a satellite - but that's really a fixed cost. Once it's up, you service millions of people with it. To get the equivalent with cable or fiber I believe costs a heck of alot more. Plus, if the cable company wants to upgrade (say, switch to fiber) they would have alot of cable that they would need to replace. Pretty much what Verizon is doing in this area now. I think there is a limited appeal to bundling, but not that much. The one area where I agree that satellite doesn't appear to be able to compete is in internet connectivity. It's way too expensive for the hardware, and the monthly fee is horribly high. In terms of TV programming, though, I think satellite is a bargain. To get the equivalent of what I have now with cable I'd be shelling out over $100 a month.


----------



## Paul Secic (Dec 16, 2003)

tsmacro said:


> I'm not sure how many people are really too interested in the new "so-called" deals being offered up by cable actually, it seems to be more hype than substance, but then that's usually true with most promotions I guess. For example in my area the "big" promo these days is get phone, internet, and tv all for $99, $33 for each service. Well looking into it I see that the tv package you get is their basic line up of about 70 channels with locals so the about the same as Dishes AT60 with locals. $33 for phone service, granted with all the goodies and it's Voip not land-line based, but still I pay just about that for my traditional at&t with all the goodies. And $33 for internet? Ummmm a little high as far as I can tell even for broadband. And all of this is just a promotional rate according to the little asterisk, with of course no mention what it's going to cost after the promo is over, at least on Dish's literature I can tell what the price is going to be once the promo is over. I guess I don't understand how that's "attractive" to most people. The only people I can see that appealing to are either people convinced that their life really would be just so much easier to have all of that on one bill or just people who don't take time to think before they just jump at the lastest promo that comes their way.
> 
> As far as equipment costs I think that ends up being a wash when you consider the miles upon miles of cable that cable companies have to maintain and they also have to upgrade their equipment as improvements and advancements occur so they can remain competitive. So I don't see where cable has any real advantage there either.
> 
> I guess I don't see the decline of satellite anytime real soon. Maybe when I see either satellite company end up with a net loss of subscribers at some point (it's never happened so far) I might think things might be taking a downturn for them. That and Echostar has been making $$$ hand over fist for quite a while now and even DirecTv has been joining the profit-making game lately so I think Satellite is looking pretty healthy actually. Sure satellite does have some limitations but so does every technology, cable's being the actual length of where their lines run.


Plus Comcast charges $10 for digital box for each room. That's a deal breaker for me right there!


----------



## jpl (Jul 9, 2006)

I don't want to make this a bash Comcast thread, but I agree with their deceptive practices. About 4 1/2 years ago, when I was considering switching to DirecTV from Comcast basic cable, I also considered going with digital cable. I called, just to check it out. I was astounded by the price. I forget the actual amount quoted - I think it was like $27 a month. My response "wow, that's cheaper than my standard cable bill - so I'll get more for less?" Her response: "no, that's the fee for the digital cable - you need standard cable in order to get the digital package..." Then I was really astounded - I got the very real impression (and I'm not the only one - I have a family member who believed the same) that the total cost was $27 a month. When I did the math, I hung up.

I became really disillusioned with them. I thought the information that they were pushing on how bad satellite was in comparison to cable was, well, dishonest. Then when I switched to the dish, I knew how deceptive they really were. Before the satellite companies could carry local channels, I remember seeing a commercial by Comcast to the effect "see, we care... we give you local channels... those big bad satellite companies don't want to give you local channels..." I knew that was bunk - the satellite companies COULDN'T offer locals at the time due to federal law, and Comcast tried like crazy to stop the change in legislation. It was the satellite companies that were pushing Congress to make the change in the law.

And their little commercial about how sketchy the reception is with satellite "this is what can happen when it rains..." Again, pure nonsense. I've never lost my signal due to rain, wind, or even snow (and I've had an inch of snow sitting in my dish after getting a foot and half fall on us). I only ever lose it due to REAL bad weather - severe cloud cover due to a major storm system. Ok, off my soapbox now


----------



## sat tech (Jan 16, 2006)

fcc thru it out before. they will do it again unless E* might go under because of the tivo thing


----------



## Greg Bimson (May 5, 2003)

Dish Network won't go under because of the TiVo thing. DirecTV was just successfully sued for patent infringement, and the judgement against them was for just over $100 million.


----------

