# My Merger Thoughts



## Scott Greczkowski (Mar 21, 2002)

There are lots of people going around who are thinking that the merger between DirecTV and Echostar are dead.

Folks, the merger is not dead until the fat lady sings. So far she is practicing getting ready but she has not sung yet.

If the DOJ does indeed deny the merger I personally think it will be a bad thing for us the consumers. However if the merger is denied I think that is bad for the consumer because of Echostar.

Why do I feel that Echostar is to blame? Ever since the merger was announced it seems as though Echostar has put all effort into the merger. Since the merger was announced the number of new channels, new products etc have greatly declined. While on the other hand DirecTV has continued operating adding new channels and features which I feel leave Dish Network behind. During this merger announcement period alls that we have heard is how great the merger is for the customer. What we have no heard is no plan B, which would be put into place if the merger is not approved.

So if we take Charlie’s words from his past “Charlie Chats” and think about it, does it mean that no more new channels are going to be added? That HDTV is dead? That Broadband not for satellite? 

If the merger is not approved does it basicly mean that DBS is dead? Is that what Charlie is going to tell us on the next chat? I can see it now…

Caller – “Will Dish Network be adding Trio?”
Charlie – “No because the government denied our merger plans we do not have the space to add any more channels.”
Next Caller – “I want to know what plans are to add HD Net”
Charlie – “When we announced the merger we planned on adding 10 HD channel, but because the merger was denied we do not have the spectrum to add any more HD.”

(Of course on the same chat they will announce 5 more foreign channels at $19.95 a month per channel, they seem to have spectrum for those channels)

So the question is, what is Dish Networks plan B if the merger is not approved? Does no merger really kill Dish Network? As a Dish Network subscriber I feel that Dish Network has become stagnant since they announced the plans for the merger. 

Am I the only one who feels disappointed by all of this? Dish should have always had a Plan B for its subscribers, Dish Network should have been operated like there was no merger, after all DirecTV did it, why didn’t they?

What becomes of DBS if the merger is denied?


----------



## Poosh (Sep 16, 2002)

For me I'm a fairly new sub of Dish. I am in my last month for my year contract. I came to dish for a few reasons. One I live in a small town in OK about 40,000 and there is only one cable co (cable One) and it sucks horribly. Their rates are high and bad PQ on most channels and didn't have many channels I wanted one main one being Comedy Central. I wanted better quality and more choices. I am able to get the top 100 and locals for less then the basic cable with a digital box. To get to the point I came into dish with high expectations. And most of them were met. At the time of sign up they did not have OKC locals but do now. I think they are number 45 on dma. This was a major major plus and kept my wife satisfied from going back to cable. However over this last year I have watched the Charlie chats and always hear the answer when the merger is approved when the merger is approved. I don't like that. Yeah i think dish is the best option for me here but at the same time you always would like more and new special features. I heard this was common place to add channels and stuff to dish. I haven't seen that really other then Much Music and Speed. I hope that if the merger is denied that they keep coming up with new things and channels. I worry about it because I have invested in this company. I bought my equipment out right and would like to enjoy it for a few years. But already in the last year my cable co yes has raised rates some but upgraded their digital system and channels and have all the channels I would want. Yes they are higher. But I don't have to worry about buying more receivers (which I do now) and new LNB's because I'm moved into a newer and bigger house. I love the idea of dish and I really like it a lot. But with Local Cable Co growing and changing if they keep doing it and Dish keeps saying when the merger happens. The cable co will be far ahead in quality and selection. I think they will loose a lot of people. But i hope they start a plan b. Because I don't really want to leave. But I will go where I have the most options and new stuff.


----------



## James_F (Apr 23, 2002)

Well maybe you'd go with DirecTV? It just sounds like sour grapes that Dish customers were sold on the merger and now realize that they might not get even equal service to DirecTV. You are right in the fact Dish has stayed put while DirecTV has added many channels, but competition will make Dish add more channels or lose customers to DirecTV.


----------



## Poosh (Sep 16, 2002)

James_F I agree completely with you. if the merger for sure doesn't go through and they don't do things to get better I more then likely will change. I will wait till I get a great crazy deal on equipment but I may become a Dtv sub if it keeps up. And for me it isn't really sour grapes because I didn't know what I was getting really coming in. I was just trying it out and at the time they had the better price for what I wanted. Like I said they met my expectations initially. But I also expect them to keep going and exceed my expectations. Now I know the real deal with it and heard more about Dtv If they don't change their ways they may get a new sub. But I'm still semi new at the whole dish game. But have more to go on now to look at my options more carefully this time.


----------



## Mike123abc (Jul 19, 2002)

If the merger does not go through, suddenly Dish will find all sorts of capacity. There is no excuse now except the mentality that it is better to hold off on new stuff to keep from having to change too much around in case the merger goes through.

Dish is in a far better position than DirectTV. Dish has 50 Full CONUS transponders verses DirectTV's 46. Plus Dish has 38 wing satellite transponders that DirectTV does not have. Dish does not have to point to 3 CONUS like direct, they are better off because they only have to point to 2 CONUS (via dish 500) for all 50 of their transponders. Dish currently carries all the international and HDTV on the wing satellites, giving them even more capacity on the CONUS slots.

Dish has every advantage but they have stopped trying to use the advantages any more since the merger has come up. E7 & E8 are pretty weak satellites compared to DirectTV's spot satellite. In fact the two together probably have the same spot capacity as the single DirectTV one (Direct has 26 spots, E7&8 together have 30 spots).

Of course you can look at it as Dish has used the merger to catch up to Direct. When E8 gets operational they will be able to compete again with DirectTV


----------



## drjake (Jun 12, 2002)

It seems the consensus out there is that the merger will not happen. I don't think the fat lady is even close to singing. First off, the staff recommendation is not gospel. DOJ staff level attorneys tend to be lifer's. Thus, they may predate the current Republican administration. In general, Republican administrations tend to be pro-business. It would not be unprecedented for the administration to ignore the staff recommendation. In fact, staff recommendations are often ignored. Furthermore, it is equally plausible that the DOJ staff is leaking information to force Charlie into giving up something. I think everybody is premature in thinking that the merger won't happen.


----------



## James_F (Apr 23, 2002)

Thats wishful thinking. Dish is killing their future holding on to this thing that cable companies won't let them have. Charlie Quixote needs to stop tilting at windmills!


----------



## jrjcd (Apr 23, 2002)

keep in mind that charlie ergen is a compulsive liar and that if the merger doesn't go thru, E* is quite capable ramping up whatever they want to do regardless(and on the other hand, many of the things he promised he would do if the merger happens is only just hot air also, and i am constantly surprised that people just automatically buy into it because he says it-a leopard DOESN'T change his spots)....


----------



## catman (Jun 27, 2002)

with locals you pay $41.00 plus $22 for HBO/starz this brings your bill to $63 . That is with Directv . DIsh is $5 more .


----------



## drjake (Jun 12, 2002)

My thoughts aren't wishful thinking. I don't support the merger. Nevertheless, I am a lawyer and know how Justice works. Anybody who thinks that staff opposition dooms a merger is naive. The process is far from over, but I still think it is more likely than not that the merger will happen.


----------



## James_F (Apr 23, 2002)

But you assume that the administration supports Echostar. What if they are the reason that its not approved?


----------



## cnsf (Jun 6, 2002)

Let's not forget that the Republicans are about the "heartland" and it's the "heartland" consumer that has the most concern about the merger. 

I, for one, hope it will not go through so I can finally switch from Dish to DirecTV without any concerns.....and get the YES Network next year and integrated Tivo instead of the "wonderfully designed" PVR solutions.


----------



## Karl Foster (Mar 23, 2002)

> _Originally posted by catman _
> *with locals you pay $41.00 plus $22 for HBO/starz this brings your bill to $63 . That is with Directv . DIsh is $5 more . *


Not to quibble, but the prices are:

Total Choice $31.99, w/locals - $37.99
Total Choice Plus $35.99, w/locals - $39.99

Premium packages are

1st - $12
2nd - $10
3rd - $9
4th - $8
5th - $7

Total Choice w/locals and HBO/STARZ, your bill would be $60.


----------



## markh (Mar 24, 2002)

Of course they have put effort into the merger, but I don't think E* has stagnated.

Since the merger was announced they have launched 2 satellites, given WE and IFC their own channels instead of splitting one, added muchMusic, Hallmark, National Geographic, and probably a shopping channel or 2 .

Also they introduced the 721 and the 921 is coming.

As far as pricing, for me AT150 beats TC+. $40.99 and I get TMC-W, TMCX-W, ENCORE-W and the Encore themes. My Dad has D* with TC and Starz, it costs him $43.99. He is mostly interested in the theme channels (Western). When D* reorganized their pricing his cost went up. If you buy a lot of programming then D* is cheaper. I can't convince him of that, all he saw was a $2 increase.

If the merger doesn't happen, I look for both companies ending up bought or partnering with other companies.


----------



## Randy_B (Apr 23, 2002)

> _Originally posted by jrjcd _
> *keep in mind that charlie ergen is a compulsive liar *


Back that up with facts and examples of intentional lies please. Except for failing to sell a combined IRD/DVD (thank goodness!!) Ergen has been forthcoming and straight.


----------



## DarrellP (Apr 24, 2002)

They also added Discovery HD. Why would they want to disclose their Plan B anyway? Wouldn't that signify that they are losing? Heck, if I were Charlie, I would keep up the appearance of the merger going through until it didn't then disclose my Plan B. I think it's a smart move on his end.


----------



## drjake (Jun 12, 2002)

I don't assume the administration supports Echostar. The fact is, the administration's is pro-business, not pro-heartland. Bush wants less regulation of business operations (as opposed to financial accounting). Stopping the merger will not play well among the powers that be at most big business (excluding cable operations). Those same big corporations and their executives are the biggest donors to the Republican Party. Consequently, as a rule, Republican administrations are very lax in the enforcement of antitrust laws and this administration has done nothing to indicate that it will be different than previous Republican administrations.


----------



## jeffwtux (Apr 27, 2002)

Yes they support the pro-business position. However, not much soft money was given to them from the satellite business whereas tons of money from cable lobby is given to the Republicans who have a monopoly to protect. Republicans will never get the majority of the satellite soft money as the satellite industry benefits from more pro-consumer policies than pro-business. The cable industry benefits much more from a pro-business stance thus Republicans will support the wishes of the cable lobby over satellite. This merger is thus dead.


----------



## Scott Greczkowski (Mar 21, 2002)

Ok let me clarify a little more here.

The way Charlie is playing his cards is that he is telling everyone that he can add anything or improve his service if the merger is not approved.

Of course with E8 about to come into operation we KNOW this is not true, more bandwidth will be available.

If the merger is denied then how will Charlie "pull a rabbit out of his hat" to the customers to continue adding and improving things?


----------



## Randy_B (Apr 23, 2002)

In the end, this is not about competition in the satellite market (that's small potatoes right now), this about the bigger market of distribution. The gov't should be concerned about mergers that bring content and distribution into the same HQ. They didn't seem to care about AOL/ TW, why should E*/DTV be threat?


----------



## JBKing (Mar 23, 2002)

> _Originally posted by jeffwtux _
> *Yes they support the pro-business position. However, not much soft money was given to them from the satellite business whereas tons of money from cable lobby is given to the Republicans who have a monopoly to protect.*


I'll agree with that but I believe the merger is far from dead. I don't think Charlie made too many political friends before the merger talk started. Just like Bill Gates, he didn't play the political game. Look what happened to Microsoft, with the government all over them the last several years. Billg didn't play ("donate" to the politicians) until he *had* to. It caused him a lot of grief, but you'll notice he started contributing after all of this started.

Agreed, the cable companies are pouring mucho dinero into the politician's pockets. This *has* to cause for an uphill battle for Charlie and Co.


----------



## drjake (Jun 12, 2002)

Bear in mind that Charlie isn't the only one with a hand in this. Even if the people at DirecTV don't want it to happen, GM/Hughes, DirecTV's parent wants the deal done. GM wants its money and stock. Unlike Charlie, GM is a big contributor to Republican causes. I'm not sure that the administration wants to tick off GM.


----------



## DmitriA (Aug 6, 2002)

I bet there are just as many companies who are opposed to this merger (News Corp for one) that have also contributed to the Republican party (and Democrat since all these companies like to hedge their bets) , so I doubt very much that anyone from the White House or RNC is going to be calling up the DOJ staff members and telling them how to write their legal briefs


----------



## drjake (Jun 12, 2002)

Again, the staff can write all the legal briefs they want. They don't make the decisions. The head of DOJ is appointed by the President. Republican administrations tend to loath antitrust enforcement. Thus, forgetting whether they like Charlie or who has donated more money, the real question is whether a Republican administration will enforce the antitrust laws. As I said, staff position doesn't amount to anything, if the administration follows standard Republican positions against getting involved in mergers.


----------



## James_F (Apr 23, 2002)

Yea, dubbya is going to call someone at the DOJ because of some little merger.  Just because there is an administration that is more sympathetic to business doesn't mean they'll support this merger. Thats the dumbest reason I've heard. DOJ will decide what is up with this merger and dubbya is worried about Iraq, not some stupid little merger.


----------



## mnassour (Apr 23, 2002)

Agreed - this thing is SO far off of dubbya's radar that it might as well be on Pluto.

He's to busy taking his veep's orders on Iraq, while Rice and her cohorts continue to whip the flames.

If we make it to the next election without a major economic and military disaster, it will be a miracle.


----------



## drjake (Jun 12, 2002)

JamesF, as for saying that's the dumbest thing you've ever heard, read the post; I never said Bush would have anything to do with this. I said Bush Administration. The head of DOJ is a Bush appointee. That makes him part of the Bush Administration. As I said before what the Staff recommends is not necessarily what the "Bush Appointee" will do. Bush is not the relevant person here, his appointees at DOJ are. I still don't know how the merger is going to come out, but making conclusions based upon news reports on how DOJ staff is leaning ignores the fact that DOJ staff do not make the final decision.


----------



## James_F (Apr 23, 2002)

Look the only think we think we know is the the staff is recommending that the merger be blocked. That is it. 90% of the time, I'm sure the DOJ listens to the staff. Can you imagine morale, especially in this time of going after terrorists if the head of the DOJ ignores the staff? And you do you know that Bush wants to overturn the decision, if its even been made? Look the DOJ wouldn't overturn a decision by its staff without talking to Bush. Don't you think the media would have a field day with this? Come one, don't assume that a Bush appointee would go against his staff just because he is a republican appointee. Why even have a staff if they will be ignored. Look that ain't going to happen. Wishful thinking that the staff recommendation will be overturned. Why would they overturn it? Clerical error? Unless its a technicality the staff recommendation will be accepted.


----------



## Randy_B (Apr 23, 2002)

> _Originally posted by James_F _
> *Look the only think we think we know is the the staff is recommending that the merger be blocked. *


BALONEY! You KNOW squat. You have read what the papers are speculating, period. At least Scott prefaced this thread with the words "his thoughts" Let's keep it that way. Making statements AS facts is ridiculous.



> _Originally posted by James_F _
> *90% of the time, I'm sure the DOJ listens to the staff*


Please back up that assertion (with anything other than pure speculation  ).

Many of you folks are making the same ridiculous sweeping statements I heard you make when you said locals in to locals "WOULD NEVER HAPPEN". Your "facts" make you look stupid.:lol:

Stick with opinions, you'll look less foolish when it is all done.:blush:


----------



## James_F (Apr 23, 2002)

> _Originally posted by Randy_B _
> *
> 
> BALONEY! You KNOW squat. You have read what the papers are speculating, period. At least Scott prefaced this thread with the words "his thoughts" Let's keep it that way. Making statements AS facts is ridiculous.*


Uh, read my post. I said the only thing we think we know is that merger is blocked. Notice the word think? That means that we dont' know ****! Where do you see anywere in that statement that has anything to do with facts? I said that you can't assume anthing is going to happen. Why don't you read before posting and YOU might not sound like an idiot. 



> *
> Many of you folks are making the same ridiculous sweeping statements I heard you make when you said locals in to locals "WOULD NEVER HAPPEN". Your "facts" make you look stupid.:lol: *


Again where are you reading this? The facts are nothing has be decided. Any other assuptions are just that.

Here is a hint for you Randy, you are not funny and you look like an idiot posting like that.


----------



## James_F (Apr 23, 2002)

Oh and you changed you post now. Smart move!


----------



## James_F (Apr 23, 2002)

> _Originally posted by Randy_B _
> *
> Please back up that assertion (with anything other than pure speculation  ). *


Gee maybe the "I'm sure" is a speculation. 

Jackass!


----------



## thomasmaly (Jul 7, 2002)

I can feel the love in this thread.......


----------



## Scott Greczkowski (Mar 21, 2002)

Folks remember this is a forum were members can express their OPINIONS. An opinion is one persons feeling, and because it is an opinion it does not mean that what the members says is true or not true.

My grandmother always said that Opinions we like rear ends, everyone has one.  

Let's all try to get along and respect each others opinions.

If we had no opinions this place would be a dull place. 

Thanks all for your understanding!


----------



## cnsf (Jun 6, 2002)

Scott, I also feel the same way. 

One way to respect one another is also watching the language. 

I believe there are younger kids on this forum too.


----------



## drjake (Jun 12, 2002)

> _Originally posted by James_F _
> 90% of the time, I'm sure the DOJ listens to the staff. Come one, don't assume that a Bush appointee would go against his staff just because he is a republican appointee. Why even have a staff if they will be ignored. Look that ain't going to happen. Wishful thinking that the staff recommendation will be overturned. Why would they overturn it? Clerical error? Unless its a technicality the staff recommendation will be accepted. [/B]


Understand something about govenrnmental agencies: Staff Level employees are not political appointees; rather most are employed from one administration to another. 90% is wishful thinking. Government Dept. Heads ignore staff much more than 10%. Staff recommendations are just that "recommendations". They are not gospel. In addition, in the past, the leaking of alleged positions against mergers has often been a scare tactic designed to get the merger partners to give up something to the government.


----------



## James_F (Apr 23, 2002)

> _Originally posted by drjake _
> *
> 
> Understand something about govenrnmental agencies: Staff Level employees are not political appointees; rather most are employed from one administration to another. 90% is wishful thinking. Government Dept. Heads ignore staff much more than 10%. *



OK your ignorance here is appalling. How big is the DOJ? You think the handful of bush appointees has time to look at the millions of cases that pass though the DOJ? I think the 90% figure is low...


> *Staff recommendations are just that "recommendations". They are not gospel. *


No they are not. I never said it was. I responded to your statement that "*In fact, staff recommendations are often ignored.*"


> * In addition, in the past, the leaking of alleged positions against mergers has often been a scare tactic designed to get the merger partners to give up something to the government. *


Now that is a great point. I'm sure that is why this has been leaked.


----------



## drjake (Jun 12, 2002)

> _Originally posted by James_F _
> 
> OK your ignorance here is appalling. How big is the DOJ? You think the handful of bush appointees has time to look at the millions of cases that pass though the DOJ? I think the 90% figure is low... [/b]/QUOTE]
> 
> You misunderstand me, I am sorry if I wasn't clear. I am not talking about the litany pf cases that flow through DOJ. Staff do not make recommendations on all the cases that pass through the DOJ. In most legal cases, the staff handles them without assistance from higher-ups. There is no final decision by administration appointees. My point on the 90% relates to the situations where the ultimate decision is made by the political appointees. A major merger is one such thing. Very few mergers are ever reviewed by the DOJ. Maybe a couple of hundred each year. The final decision on a high profile merger is made by the political appointees. The percentage of times these political appointees have ignored staff recommendations is higher than 10%, I assure you.


----------



## James_F (Apr 23, 2002)

Well I doesn't matter since we both don't have any numbers to back up our stances. We both agree that the reason it was leaked was for a deal to be made. I guess that is enough.


----------



## drjake (Jun 12, 2002)

Its up to Charlie now. If he is belligerent, a deal won't get done. If he gives something up, a deal will get done.


----------

