# DirecTV CEO: “Never Say Never” To A Merger Deal With Dish Network



## Athlon646464 (Feb 23, 2007)

DirecTV CEO: "Never Say Never" To A Merger Deal With Dish Network

This was a lousy day for DirecTV after it reported lower-than-expected earnings, with especially weak results in Latin America. But CEO Michael White gave investors at least one reason to stick with the company: He signaled in a call with analysts that he'd be receptive to the idea of a merger with Dish Network. "I don't think it's productive for me to speculate what regulators may or may not do, but the competitive landscape is very different than it was 10 years ago" when the FCC rejected a Dish-DirecTV merger plan, he said.

For one thing, "the balance [of power] between content distributors and providers is out of whack." He has long charged that programmers are demanding dangerously high new fees for their content -a position he reiterated today. "I've seen more customer complaints about the price increases," he says. "My own view is that it's not going to change in the short term. But it's clear that this isn't sustainable beyond the next couple of years. Something is going to have to give."

Full Story Here


----------



## JohnBoy (Sep 9, 2011)

Our new dvr's for 2015 will be called The Genie Hopper with a Genie coming out of a Kangaroos pouch as our new trade mark icon.


----------



## Mike Bertelson (Jan 24, 2007)

IF, something this happens I suspect they'll maintain separate products and programming...at least in the beginning.

Kinda like Sirius and XM.

Personally, I can't see it happening any time soon. Wouldn't the FCC have something to say about it? The regulatory hurdles have to be huge.

Mike


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

I don't think we'll see it anytime soon either. But a little speculation as to what would be the end result.

I would prefer to keep the Hopper/Joey hardware in a unified company. Put another couple tuners in the Hopper ideally, keep PTAT. Or at minimum allow for unified management for a dual-Hopper install.

Then merge the programming HD that is available, which should cover darned near every HD channel out there.

The downside is that a merger would not result in lower costs for the consumer, imo. Usually when companies can find a cost savings solutions, it is only a savings to them, not us!

Personally I don't want them merged, I like the idea of being able to switch when cost to me gets a little out of hand!


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

It's not the first time we've heard management say that! 
And I hope it doesn't happen. 
But if it does, Genie IV will rule!


----------



## johnp37 (Sep 14, 2006)

Can you say monopoly? Fortunately my contract is up in November and FIOS is coming. If this happens look for astronomical price increases-think you are paying through the nose now? Just wait.


----------



## Mike Bertelson (Jan 24, 2007)

johnp37 said:


> Can you say monopoly? Fortunately my contract is up in November and FIOS is coming. If this happens look for astronomical price increases-think you are paying through the nose now? Just wait.


While I don't think a merger will happen I disagree with you about prices. It would certainly not be a monopoly.

They still have plenty of nationwide competition. If there are "astronomical price increases", and the bundle pricing with cable operators, they will lose customers in huge numbers.

Not having competitive pricing would be a disastrous move.

Mike


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

Agree. It did get me wondering what percentage of folks out there are limited to satellite service. I am one.


----------



## Mike Bertelson (Jan 24, 2007)

Laxguy said:


> Agree. It did get me wondering what percentage of folks out there are limited to satellite service. I am one.


I know a couple of friends her in CT who are limited to satellite because of the cost of running the lines. One friend is one of three homes on a road in secluded area and while cable runs down a cross street they want them to pay ≈$1000 to run coax down their street.

However, I suspect there is nowhere near enough to sustain a satellite provider.

Mike


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

80.7% of Americans live in an urban area, of course a large percentage that don't still have access to other pay TV services.


----------



## JoeTheDragon (Jul 21, 2008)

Mike Bertelson said:


> I know a couple of friends her in CT who are limited to satellite because of the cost of running the lines. One friend is one of three homes on a road in secluded area and while cable runs down a cross street they want them to pay ≈$1000 to run coax down their street.
> 
> However, I suspect there is nowhere near enough to sustain a satellite provider.
> 
> Mike


comcast cable tv sucks that keeps directv and dish around.


----------



## prushing (Feb 14, 2007)

It would give them ~34 million customers, so once the contracts ended, they would have the buying power to make the channels hurt if they didn't agree on a fair deal.


----------



## Mike Bertelson (Jan 24, 2007)

dpeters11 said:


> 80.7% of Americans live in an urban area, of course a large percentage that don't still have access to other pay TV services.


Define a large percentage and what is the source?

Mike


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

I don't know the percentage that does not live in an urban area that have access to other services, but the NCTA says that 93% of us households have access to cable broadband.

http://www.ncta.com/positions/closing-the-digital-divide

The 80.7% was from the 2010 census, so it may not be correct anymore.


----------



## Mike Bertelson (Jan 24, 2007)

dpeters11 said:


> I don't know the percentage that does not live in an urban area that have access to other services, but the NCTA says that 93% of us households have access to cable broadband.
> 
> http://www.ncta.com/positions/closing-the-digital-divide
> 
> The 80.7% was from the 2010 census, so it may not be correct anymore.


Then I guess a large percentage DO have access to other pay TV services.

I have practically zero OTA but do have 4 options for pay TV.

Mike


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

Well, consider the source, which makes the 93% very suspect to me. And one has to define "broadband".


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Mike Bertelson said:


> IF, something this happens I suspect they'll maintain separate products and programming...at least in the beginning.
> 
> Kinda like Sirius and XM.


Yep ... while both systems are moving to MPEG4 receivers neither is far enough along to shut down the other system and expect to keep all of their customers. Running "competing" systems where one still has to choose DirecTV or DISH seems like the most likely way of running for a few years. Perhaps a MPEG4 only "combined" subscription could be offered but changing out the dishes would be a pain.

Too many DirecTV and DISH customers are still relying on incompatible DBS or DSS transmissions for their SD locals and SD only services. A combined company would need to support both until they could afford to upgrade everyone or afford to lose SD customers.

It is pretty much the same argument as shifting all customers off of SD on to HD services. It is expensive and the return on the investment just isn't high enough to make the change worthwhile in the short term.

It is interesting that both sides (DirecTV and DISH) think a merger might be a good idea. Both companies seem to be expressing problems with keeping their company going in the face of higher costs. I don't see any proof that a merger would lower costs for SUBSCRIBERS. And that is just business. Constantly trying to reduce costs for themselves with no guarantee of reduced costs for the people paying for the service.


----------



## boukengreen (Sep 22, 2009)

Mike Bertelson said:


> I know a couple of friends her in CT who are limited to satellite because of the cost of running the lines. One friend is one of three homes on a road in secluded area and while cable runs down a cross street they want them to pay ≈$1000 to run coax down their street.
> 
> However, I suspect there is nowhere near enough to sustain a satellite provider.
> 
> Mike


that's like me cable is on my road but they want $1800 to come up my 1000ft driiveway


----------



## russ9 (Jan 28, 2004)

Yes, let's eliminate competition, it always works out better for the consumer. :blackeye:


----------



## Mike Bertelson (Jan 24, 2007)

russ9 said:


> Yes, let's eliminate competition, it always works out better for the consumer. :blackeye:


As I've said, I don't think it'll happen but there is still plenty of competition. The top ten we could name off the top of our heads and a couple of dozen more. Competition won't be a problem.

Mike


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

Laxguy said:


> Well, consider the source, which makes the 93% very suspect to me. And one has to define "broadband".


According to this, 88% if urban households have access to cable broadband and 40% of rural. I'm sure there are areas with cable TV but not cable Internet.

FCC defines broadband as 3Mbit down I believe. They wanted to raise it to 6.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

It would take ten years or more for these two companies to merger their internal resources and get all their customers onto one system to use. All of one companies customers would have to have their entire system replaced. This would not be easy.

However, they could see cost savings in product developers and negotiating contracts. We would not see price decreases though. Just look at how many gas stations we have on corners today and where prices are today vs 20 years ago.


----------



## 456521 (Jul 6, 2007)

Mike Bertelson said:


> As I've said, I don't think it'll happen but there is still plenty of competition. The top ten we could name off the top of our heads and a couple of dozen more. Competition won't be a problem.
> 
> Mike


In my area I'm lucky with a choice of four providers. Going down to three would not be good for competition, especially when another one (Frontier FiOS) is trying to get out of the video delivery market.


----------



## JoeTheDragon (Jul 21, 2008)

inkahauts said:


> It would take ten years or more for these two companies to merger their internal resources and get all their customers onto one system to use. All of one companies customers would have to have their entire system replaced. This would not be easy.
> 
> However, they could see cost savings in product developers and negotiating contracts. We would not see price decreases though. Just look at how many gas stations we have on corners today and where prices are today vs 20 years ago.


gas prices have a lot of tax also the price of oil and other stuff drive the gas price.


----------



## TBoneit (Jul 27, 2006)

My TV Viewing choices
OTA from NYC or Philadelphia
Cable
Fios
DirecTv
Dishnetwork

Broadband Choices
Cable
Fios
DSL
Satellite Broadband


Off the top of my head that is my list of options.


----------



## sunfire9us (Feb 15, 2009)

If DTV and Dish were to merge together, the new company would have more leverage when it comes to carriage deals. It's all about numbers. I think this could cause the content providers to quit being so greedy everytime.


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

IMHO a merger would be fought tooth-and-nail at the FCC and in Congress by the content providers and the cable companies. The combined customer base would represent a too powerful force in negotiations.

That's what I would have said only a few years ago before Comcast took over NBCU. Now, who knows? Congress members aren't cheap, but that's a lot of money the two companies can leverage.


----------



## Drucifer (Feb 12, 2009)

Just how dd the XM Sirus merger work out for the consumer?


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

I'd rather see DIRECTV buy Netflix and sprint. That would be good strategic moves long term.


----------



## Mike Bertelson (Jan 24, 2007)

Drucifer said:


> Just how dd the XM Sirus merger work out for the consumer?


They didn't raise their prices for three years, a promise they made when the merger was proposed. Since the 2008 merger they have raised the base price from $12.95 to $14.49 a month. A $1.45/mo increase in five years. Not bad.

Although, I'm not sure it's a fair comparison with DIRECTV and Dish. SiriusXM has much more competition...most of which it free.

Mike


----------



## bobvick1983 (Mar 21, 2007)

Mike Bertelson said:


> As I've said, I don't think it'll happen but there is still plenty of competition. The top ten we could name off the top of our heads and a couple of dozen more. Competition won't be a problem.
> 
> Mike


Unless you live in a rural location. DirecTV or Dish is the only option where I live. No cable TV, much less cable broadband. We do have DSL from CenturyLink, when it works. So if you are in rural America, there is virtually no competition.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Mike Bertelson said:


> Although, I'm not sure it's a fair comparison with DIRECTV and Dish. SiriusXM has much more competition...most of which it free.


SiriusXM took two companies that managed to convince the government that neither would survive without a merger and let them work together as one. At this point neither DirecTV nor DISH are approaching the point of not surviving ... it is an issue where both could make more money by combining operations and reducing competition - not one of survival.

The FCC is still holding out for a new entrant in the satellite TV marketplace (something that could not have happened with Sirius and XM with the way the spectrum was assigned). A merger would probably be good for DirecTV and DISH - but it wouldn't be good for most of their subscribers.


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

James Long said:


> The FCC is still holding out for a new entrant in the satellite TV marketplace (something that could not have happened with Sirius and XM with the way the spectrum was assigned).


Not doubting you, but how do you know this?


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

The FCC still has not permanently assigned DISH the final two transponder slots on 61.5. DISH can use them only under special temporary authority. The FCC's stated reason for not making a permanent assignment was to allow for a new entrant.

What a new entrant will do with only two transponders at 61.5 is a mystery. SkyAngel operated their service off of two transponders (loaning the other six to DISH in exchange for use of the satellite). With MPEG4 someone could put up a small satellite service but with the cost of a satellite they would probably end up leasing transponders from DISH (unless they buy a used satellite).

SkyAngel moved to IPTV (trading LOS issues for lack of broadband service issues) in order to survive. GloryStar remains in business as a FTA option for people wanting that niche of programming. The last small satellite company was Voom ... who could not pull off a successful service with 13 transponders (11 licensed, 2 temporary). I don't see a two transponder operation being feasible but the FCC holds out hope.


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

Thanks. An interesting situation!


----------



## longrider (Apr 21, 2007)

One thing no one has mentioned is that pay TV is a mature market, at least in the US. Anybody who wants pay TV has it, a new entrant would only take customers from other providers. What advantage is there to anybody in splitting the pie into smaller pieces, especially considering the very high capital costs of setting up a satellite service? Even phone companies have realized that the upgrade costs to their physical plant is not cost effective, Verizon has put FIOS expansion on hold and since the CenturyLink purchase I have not heard a word about Qwest's attempt to get into the TV business.

On the competition/pricing issue I am not too concerned as the fact is the great majority of satellite customers are urban and satellite is just a choice, not necessity. As much as I dislike cable I know I would switch if it was 20 -30% cheaper and I doubt they are willing to give up that many customers


----------



## Drucifer (Feb 12, 2009)

Mike Bertelson said:


> They didn't raise their prices for three years, a promise they made when the merger was proposed. Since the 2008 merger they have raised the base price from $12.95 to $14.49 a month. A $1.45/mo increase in five years. Not bad.
> 
> Although, I'm not sure it's a fair comparison with DIRECTV and Dish. SiriusXM has much more competition...most of which it free.
> 
> Mike


And the choice to choose is gone.


----------



## TheRatPatrol (Oct 1, 2003)

longrider said:


> since the CenturyLink purchase I have not heard a word about Qwest's attempt to get into the TV business.


CenturyLink has started advertising their new Prism TV here.


----------



## raott (Nov 23, 2005)

Mike Bertelson said:


> They didn't raise their prices for three years, a promise they made when the merger was proposed. Since the 2008 merger they have raised the base price from $12.95 to $14.49 a month. A $1.45/mo increase in five years. Not bad.
> 
> Although, I'm not sure it's a fair comparison with DIRECTV and Dish. SiriusXM has much more competition...most of which it free.
> 
> Mike


Instead of raising their prices, within a year of the merger they: began charging almost $3 a month for internet access, which was free pre-merger; raised a rates on multiple radios by about 30%; and added a "music royalty fee". Whether the base price was not changed is meaningless when the out-of-pocket cost post merger was substantially higher than pre-merger for many customers.


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

longrider said:


> On the competition/pricing issue I am not too concerned as the fact is the great majority of satellite customers are urban and satellite is just a choice, not necessity. As much as I dislike cable I know I would switch if it was 20 -30% cheaper and I doubt they are willing to give up that many customers


I doubt that even the majority of sat. subs are urban. Where does this info. come from?


----------



## longrider (Apr 21, 2007)

Laxguy said:


> I doubt that even the majority of sat. subs are urban. Where does this info. come from?


Honestly that was an assumption from my observations that I see just as many dishes in the suburbs as I do in rural areas and that 83% of the US population lives in urban areas. Reexamining it I realize my observation is biased by the fact that out west there are no real high density areas however I still would have a hard time believing that a satellite company would sacrifice a good percentage of urban customers by going crazy with pricing


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

Agree with your conclusion. When I think "urban" I exclude "suburban", so there'd be a big gap in our respective numbers. I'd still love to see definitive numbers on satellite groupings especially: Those with choices besides satellite; those with good choices besides satellite, and those who can get only satellite.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Urban has more competition and harder to place dishes. OTARD helps if the dish can be placed within OTARD's protection but otherwise one has to rely on their landlord or own the property. Suburban areas have more options for dish placements and more single family homes with exclusive use areas. But there is still competition from at least a cable company and OTA. Rural areas get away from cable competition and even OTA can be lost - and the Internet may be hard to get. There are some areas satellite has a hard time reaching and others where it seems to be the only option.

Is there effective enough competition to allow a merger between the only two satellite providers?


----------



## speedy4022 (Jan 26, 2004)

I can't stand dish if DirecTV becomes dish I will switch to cable.

Sent from my XT907 using DBSTalk mobile app


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

@ James: I say, NO!! But my voice doesn't count for much at the Justice Department....or the FCC.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

I don't think there should really be any concerns as far as competition, since satellite competes with many cable companies as well as OTA and broadband options for some people (depending on their viewing habits)

While it is true that there are some people for whom satellite is the only option, that's not really a problem because there isn't discriminatory pricing of satellite depending on where you live, as there is for cable. As an example, where I live there is only one cable company. A slightly larger city a half hour to the north has the same cable company, plus a second one. My cable company's prices are about $15 less per month for the same exact package in the other city, because they have competition and we do not.

Satellite doesn't work that way, a Directv subscriber in the middle of nowhere who has no cable or broadband option pays the same for Directv as someone in a big city who has four cable companies and a ton of broadband choices. All subscribers pay the same price nationwide, based on their package, other than a few dollars more in areas that have a lot of RSNs.

If Directv and Dish merged and then tried to raise prices because there was now no competition for "satellite TV", they'd lose a lot of subscribers in the areas where people have many options. The money that would cost them would far outweigh them being able to make more money from the people who have no or only one alternative - and obviously even they all have some point where they'd go without TV entirely if the price was increased too much.

Buying out Dish would allow Directv to either become more profitable while still charging the same prices, or become more profitable by lowering prices and adding even more subscribers. Satellites aren't cheap, but you need the same number of satellites whether you have 1 million subscribers or 100 million, so the more subscribers the better so the 'per subscriber' cost of building/launching/operating the satellites is reduced.

Obviously they'd be stuck with the cost of operating both satellite fleets for a while, since they can't switch everyone over to Directv overnight. It would take several years at a minimum. But they'd never need to launch any new satellites for the Dish subscribers, and if the Dish Network satellites still had some useful life left after they switched everyone over to Directv, they could be sold/rented to others similar to what they did with the old 72.5* satellite that Russia is leasing.


----------



## Mike Bertelson (Jan 24, 2007)

And the choice to choose is gone.

Ummm....There's a lot of choices. It's radio and while there's only one satellite source there are still plenty of choices...most of which is free.

Sent from my SGH-I777 using DBSTalk mobile app


----------



## Mike Bertelson (Jan 24, 2007)

I can't stand dish if DirecTV becomes dish I will switch to cable.

Sent from my XT907 using DBSTalk mobile app
If a merger does happen it's years, maybe even a decade out.

Mike

Sent from my SGH-I777 using DBSTalk mobile app


----------



## Mike Bertelson (Jan 24, 2007)

Unless you live in a rural location. DirecTV or Dish is the only option where I live. No cable TV, much less cable broadband. We do have DSL from CenturyLink, when it works. So if you are in rural America, there is virtually no competition.
The percentage of households whose only choice is satellite is no where near enough to sustain a DBS provider. They will have so make their money in the big DMAs...which means they will have to deal with lots of competition.

I believe their pricing will have to based on the big markets and not the little ones without competition.

Mike

Sent from my SGH-I777 using DBSTalk mobile app


----------



## bobvick1983 (Mar 21, 2007)

The percentage of households whose only choice is satellite is no where near enough to sustain a DBS provider. They will have so make their money in the big DMAs...which means they will have to deal with lots of competition.

I believe their pricing will have to based on the big markets and not the little ones without competition.

Mike

Sent from my SGH-I777 using DBSTalk mobile app

I understand that a rural only provider cannot work, however in any case, the FCC should make some provision for price controls in areas where there is no competition. Either that or the government helps to subsidize the cost where there is no competition.


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

bobvick1983 said:


> I understand that a rural only provider cannot work, however in any case, the FCC should make some provision for price controls in areas where there is no competition. Either that or the government helps to subsidize the cost where there is no competition.


I'm sorry, but those concepts are anathema to free markets- we've still got some left!


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

slice1900 said:


> If Directv and Dish merged and then tried to raise prices because there was now no competition for "satellite TV", they'd lose a lot of subscribers in the areas where people have many options.


Without knowing the absolute breakdown (not just wild ass guesses) losing a few more of the subscribers who have more choices may be made up by the extra they charge those with limited choices.

The areas with the most competition can be the hardest to serve. Areas served by multiple providers may be the hardest to find a location for a dish. So the satellite companies can write off areas that are hard to serve and make more money on the relatively easier rural installs.

Customers are expensive ... spending $800-$900 to acquire a customer who may leave you in two years for the competition. The profit per customer isn't very high. The best deal (for the company) would be to get customers who have limited options and eliminate the competition.

No more flip-flop between DISH and DirecTV in rural (non-cabled) America. A sweet dream for the owners of both companies.



slice1900 said:


> Satellites aren't cheap, but you need the same number of satellites whether you have 1 million subscribers or 100 million, so the more subscribers the better so the 'per subscriber' cost of building/launching/operating the satellites is reduced.
> 
> Obviously they'd be stuck with the cost of operating both satellite fleets for a while, since they can't switch everyone over to Directv overnight.


The savings would only come in the next round of satellite purchases and then only at the cost of replacing every receiver of the company changing technologies to match the other. New satellites might be cheaper.


----------



## raott (Nov 23, 2005)

bobvick1983 said:


> I understand that a rural only provider cannot work, however in any case, the FCC should make some provision for price controls in areas where there is no competition. Either that or the government helps to subsidize the cost where there is no competition.


I think the point is, because Directv and Dish both have "national pricing" rather than local pricing, the need to compete in areas where there is significant competition will keep the rural prices in check. Now, if they started a zip by zip pricing system, there would be an argument the customer is not protected in rural areas, but I don't see that happening.


----------



## bobvick1983 (Mar 21, 2007)

I'm sorry, but those concepts are anathema to free markets- we've still got some left!

And that is why the programmers are raising the prices of their content out of reach, and our bills have become so inflated. If the FCC and Justice Department would have stepped in over the past few years and stopped all of the mergers and consolidations of the program providers, the distributors wouldn't be scrambling to merge and continue to raise our rates out of reason. Soon there will be one distributor and one content provider called "Media." Just look at the shrinking landscape of local TV, Sinclair, Media General, Nexstar, and Gannett are buying everything up, this is going to do nothing but make the retransmission consent fees for local stations go through the roof.


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

Mike Bertelson said:


> The percentage of households whose only choice is satellite is no where near enough to sustain a DBS provider. They will have so make their money in the big DMAs...which means they will have to deal with lots of competition.
> 
> I believe their pricing will have to based on the big markets and not the little ones without competition.


 Yes, and post earlier by Slice is worth a read.


----------



## JoeTheDragon (Jul 21, 2008)

raott said:


> I think the point is, because Directv and Dish both have "national pricing" rather than local pricing, the need to compete in areas where there is significant competition will keep the rural prices in check. Now, if they started a zip by zip pricing system, there would be an argument the customer is not protected in rural areas, but I don't see that happening.


well the RSN fees in some areas change that a bit and for the most part match what the big cable co do as they price very from area to area.


----------



## wilbur_the_goose (Aug 16, 2006)

The day there's a merger is the day I switch to Verizon FiOS. I really hate Charlie- runs the meanest company in the country. http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-01-02/dish-network-the-meanest-company-in-america


----------



## gov (Jan 11, 2013)

I have Dish AND DirecTV. I would be unhappy if they mutated into a single provider unless they somehow managed to keep all the unique features each has on a combined service.

I really like having BOTH, and think more people should try it.


----------



## Diana C (Mar 30, 2007)

If there were ever a merger (and I don't think it would pass muster with the FCC and other agencies) there would be no merging of the services...DirecTV and Dish subscribers would continue to use seperate receivers and different dishes pointed at different satellites, for at least a decade, probably longer.

The days when a merged company could proactively migrate to a single transmission platform are long gone. Both subscriber comunities are way too large to make migration economically feasible. The most that would happen is that they would de-emphasize one service or the other and simply stop manufacturing that type of receiver.

The benefit to the companies from a merger would be economies of scale in accounting, legal, customer support and, most importantly, content negotiations. A DirecTV/Dish merged entity would be the largest multi-channel operator in the country and would, therefore, have more leverage with the networks.


----------



## lokar (Oct 8, 2006)

Diana C said:


> If there were ever a merger (and I don't think it would pass muster with the FCC and other agencies) there would be no merging of the services...DirecTV and Dish subscribers would continue to use seperate receivers and different dishes pointed at different satellites, for at least a decade, probably longer.
> 
> The days when a merged company could proactively migrate to a single transmission platform are long gone. Both subscriber comunities are way too large to make migration economically feasible. The most that would happen is that they would de-emphasize one service or the other and simply stop manufacturing that type of receiver.
> 
> The benefit to the companies from a merger would be economies of scale in accounting, legal, customer support and, most importantly, content negotiations. A DirecTV/Dish merged entity would be the largest multi-channel operator in the country and would, therefore, have more leverage with the networks.


I have to disagree with most of what you write here. When D* bought out Primestar in the '90s with the sole purpose of shutting it down, Primestar was gone within 6 months to a year. I know the communities are a lot larger now, but I would think the new D*/Dish companies would want to rent their excess satellite space out ASAP. I agree with your last paragraph, it would be great for the companies involved but terrible for the consumer. Customers have no reason to think that the new company would pass the savings of the economies of scale on to them, if anything less competition will result in higher rates.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

Diana C said:


> If there were ever a merger (and I don't think it would pass muster with the FCC and other agencies) there would be no merging of the services...DirecTV and Dish subscribers would continue to use seperate receivers and different dishes pointed at different satellites, for at least a decade, probably longer.


I doubt that, simply because it is unlikely that the all current Dish satellites have a useful life of a whole decade. There's no way they'd want to launch any new satellites for Dish services after they bought them. I would assume if they merged that soon all new installs would be Directv installs, and any changes that a Dish customer wanted to make that would require a new dish (HD upgrade) or adding receivers above a certain threshold would switch them to Directv. They would offer Dish subscribers the same type of Genie upgrade, free Sunday Ticket (or free movie channels for those not interested in sports) to get them to upgrade that they do with Directv customers, part of the deal would be that they had to switch to Directv receivers and packages. They'd have all the former Dish contractors to help with this process, and could step up production of HR44, C41 and SL3S dishes.

Directv could sort of slowly push the Dish upgrades in various other ways as well, by limiting access to new channels and technologies like 4K to the Directv side, and via price changes on the packages for customers they want to migrate. i.e., include something with the bill saying "in 3 months the price for your service increases by this much, if you switch to Directv dish/receivers the equivalent package is x and if you commit for 24 months we'll lock that price in for the entire time" They could encourage migration by whatever segment of customers they want by doing price increases differently for the different packages and equipment. One year maybe they target people with high end packages but using SD only, the next they target HD customers who have no DVRs, and so on. They would probably reserve the very best offers for long time Dish only subscribers because they are likely to be the most resistant to switching to Directv.


----------



## RAD (Aug 5, 2002)

lokar said:


> I have to disagree with most of what you write here. When D* bought out Primestar in the '90s with the sole purpose of shutting it down, Primestar was gone within 6 months to a year. I know the communities are a lot larger now, but I would think the new D*/Dish companies would want to rent their excess satellite space out ASAP. I agree with your last paragraph, it would be great for the companies involved but terrible for the consumer. Customers have no reason to think that the new company would pass the savings of the economies of scale on to them, if anything less competition will result in higher rates.


I've lost track how many subs Dish has now, but lets just say 14M. If you say $800/sub to convert them between hardware and truck rolls that's $11,200,000,000, they'd have to make a ton of money renting out transponder space and they wouldn't be able to do that until all the subs on at least one of the arc's had been converted. Yes I could see new subs being forced on one or the other system but not a wholesale conversion ASAP.


----------



## cypherx (Aug 27, 2010)

Sharing IP would be nice. Getting the Dish engineers to make DirecTV receivers fast, and getting the DirecTV graphic designers to make Dish receivers look aesthetically pleasing.

But I don't think its a good idea. That would become a monopoly in some area's where dbs is your only choice. Or what if you can only get DirecTV obstructions to Dish Eastern Arc.. or vice versa (only can get Dish because obstructions in DirecTV's skyline).

IPTV providers via BYOA won't work great either. Not with all the excessive caps ISP's are using. Especially those in the sticks stuck with 4G LTE... or even if they have capless DSL, its DSL... what's that in the sticks... 3 mbps? Not enough for HD video on multiple TV's.


----------



## Diana C (Mar 30, 2007)

RAD put the numbers to what I said.



slice1900 said:


> I doubt that, simply because it is unlikely that the all current Dish satellites have a useful life of a whole decade. There's no way they'd want to launch any new satellites for Dish services after they bought them...


The age of the satellites is irrelevant - the merged company would never surrender licenses that can serve the Western Hemisphere. While, in the extreme long run, Dish's eastern arc slots might be reallocated to latin America, they will still need functioning satellites there. Therefore, old satellites WILL be replaced, merger or no.

As I said, they would probably deprecate one receiver architecture or the other, but it would take a VERY long time before the number of "legacy" customers reached a number small enough to make the wholesale conversion feasible. When aquired Primestar had only about 2 million subscribers. Dish has 14 million, and the cost of current hardware and labor is much higher than when those 2 million Primestar subscribers were migrated (there were no DVRs back then, for example).

Another factor is that if they were going to do such a migration, it would probably involve, at a minimum, an LNB like the Slimline 5 (supporting Ku at 101/110/119 and Ka at 99/103) which has not even been the DirecTV standard for a couple of years. It would make sense to also include the Dish Ku and Ka capacity at 121 in a new ODU. Dish leases the capacity on Ciel-2 at 129, so that is a non-issue. In the end, this means an ODU capable of receiving Ka from 99/103/121, RDBS from 99/103/121 and Ku from 101/110/119/121. This would require a new switching architecture as well, supporting at least 9 or 10 bands (depending on whether RDBS is available at 121) and maybe triple stacked from dish to switch across 3 or 4 cables. This would not be not cheap to design and build.

Someday they would have a single platform, just like someday XM and Sirius will be a merged service, but it would take a very long time.


----------



## Mike Bertelson (Jan 24, 2007)

> I doubt that, simply because it is unlikely that the all current Dish satellites have a useful life of a whole decade. There's no way they'd want to launch any new satellites for Dish services after they bought them. I would assume if they merged that soon all new installs would be Directv installs, and any changes that a Dish customer wanted to make that would require a new dish (HD upgrade) or adding receivers above a certain threshold would switch them to Directv. They would offer Dish subscribers the same type of Genie upgrade, free Sunday Ticket (or free movie channels for those not interested in sports) to get them to upgrade that they do with Directv customers, part of the deal would be that they had to switch to Directv receivers and packages. They'd have all the former Dish contractors to help with this process, and could step up production of HR44, C41 and SL3S dishes.
> 
> Directv could sort of slowly push the Dish upgrades in various other ways as well, by limiting access to new channels and technologies like 4K to the Directv side, and via price changes on the packages for customers they want to migrate. i.e., include something with the bill saying "in 3 months the price for your service increases by this much, if you switch to Directv dish/receivers the equivalent package is x and if you commit for 24 months we'll lock that price in for the entire time" They could encourage migration by whatever segment of customers they want by doing price increases differently for the different packages and equipment. One year maybe they target people with high end packages but using SD only, the next they target HD customers who have no DVRs, and so on. They would probably reserve the very best offers for long time Dish only subscribers because they are likely to be the most resistant to switching to Directv.


What would it cost to replace all the Dish hardware with HR44s? Probably billions of dollars in hardware and manhours.

It just doesn't seem economically feasible to completely eliminate Dish or DIRECTV.

Mike


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

A merger would be about everything that happens before the signal gets to the satelites. It would have little to do with what happens with the satelites and in customers homes for a very very long time. 

I can see them saying all new customers will get one platform and not a choice of both, after many years and getting both companies to have the exact same costs of and packages for programming. That would take many many years by itself. Probably close to seven years I'm guessing if that fast. One must take in to consideration current contracts lifespans.

I still say a merger with Netflix and or sprint or other similar companies if a horizontal nature makes far More sense than with dish for directv or dish. Vertical integration for then would not offer as many benefits as horizontal expansion.


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

I'm all for what ever makes these increases STOP!. Period!


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

Diana C said:


> Another factor is that if they were going to do such a migration, it would probably involve, at a minimum, an LNB like the Slimline 5 (supporting Ku at 101/110/119 and Ka at 99/103) which has not even been the DirecTV standard for a couple of years. It would make sense to also include the Dish Ku and Ka capacity at 121 in a new ODU. Dish leases the capacity on Ciel-2 at 129, so that is a non-issue. In the end, this means an ODU capable of receiving Ka from 99/103/121, RDBS from 99/103/121 and Ku from 101/110/119/121. This would require a new switching architecture as well, supporting at least 9 or 10 bands (depending on whether RDBS is available at 121) and maybe triple stacked from dish to switch across 3 or 4 cables. This would not be not cheap to design and build.


Why would they try to combine the two? With two new satellites going up already, what could Directv possibly use all the combined capacity for? I'd think they'd keep the two systems separate, and try to eventually retire one. Even if that takes a decade it still results in some significant long term savings. If they design a new ODU that uses both then they see no future savings in satellite build/launch costs, and have more bandwidth than they could ever use except in the unlikely event that 4K upgrades are as popular as HD upgrades (I think its popularity will be much closer to 3D, because the visible improvement between HD and 4K is very difficult to see, whereas it was massive going from SD to HD)


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

lokar said:


> I have to disagree with most of what you write here. When D* bought out Primestar in the '90s with the sole purpose of shutting it down, Primestar was gone within 6 months to a year.


Primestar was 2.3 million customers (April 1999). DirecTV managed to get 600k to convert by the end of the year and operated the Primestar network well in to 2000 (completing the conversion in the third quarter). It was a very expensive conversion.

DISH lost $690 million in 2002 in merger termination costs. It seems that it is also expensive to try a merger - even if it does not complete.


----------



## Diana C (Mar 30, 2007)

slice1900 said:


> Why would they try to combine the two? With two new satellites going up already, what could Directv possibly use all the combined capacity for? I'd think they'd keep the two systems separate, and try to eventually retire one. Even if that takes a decade it still results in some significant long term savings. If they design a new ODU that uses both then they see no future savings in satellite build/launch costs, and have more bandwidth than they could ever use except in the unlikely event that 4K upgrades are as popular as HD upgrades (I think its popularity will be much closer to 3D, because the visible improvement between HD and 4K is very difficult to see, whereas it was massive going from SD to HD)


I think that in the coming decade (which is how long a hypothetical phase out of one platform would take) you'll see not only 4K, but 8K video take hold. Not to mention "glasses-less" 3D. Many people questioned the adoption of HD with the same "it is not THAT much better" argument because they were thinking in terms of the 36" CRT TVs of the period. While I can't imagine devoting a 10 foot wall to just a TV, I suspect that once the prices get into 4 significant digits you'll see lots of 10, 12 and even 14 foot screens getting installed. Technologies like OLED will even make such large screens easy to install.

For these and many other reasons I can't imagine a hypothetical merged company giving up ANY satellite capacity. If they don't need it, they can always lease it out. But they WILL replace the current satellites, no matter what else happens.


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

James Long said:


> Primestar was 2.3 million customers (April 1999). DirecTV managed to get 600k to convert by the end of the year and operated the Primestar network well in to 2000 (completing the conversion in the third quarter). It was a very expensive conversion.
> 
> DISH lost $690 million in 2002 in merger termination costs. It seems that it is also expensive to try a merger - even if it does not complete.


Is that another way of saying they wrote down Good Will? (The amount paid for the purchase less net asset value).


----------



## 456521 (Jul 6, 2007)

Diana C said:


> For these and many other reasons I can't imagine a hypothetical merged company giving up ANY satellite capacity. If they don't need it, they can always lease it out. But they WILL replace the current satellites, no matter what else happens.


Unless as a condition of merger they are required to give up some amount of capacity by a certain date in the future.


----------



## Diana C (Mar 30, 2007)

pdxBeav said:


> Unless as a condition of merger they are required to give up some amount of capacity by a certain date in the future.


True, but there would be little in the way of benefit to the public interest in doing so. A new DBS operator appearing is unlikely. In all probability I think the FCC would take the position that since the merged entity would already have all the infrastructure in place to use these assets, it would be in the public interest to allow them to keep them, and find new applications for the capacity. At a minimum, an argument could be made that the extreme eastern and western assets could be used to enhance service to US territories in the Pacific and Caribbean, as well as Alaska and Hawaii (although the eastern assets would make more sense to be used for Latin American service). IMHO it is more likely that these sorts of service enhancements would be made a condition of the merger, rather than a divestiture.


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

I just did a quick google (using Google) on Chinese TV, and see Dish prominently mentioned. Do their feeds into China come from their sat. or is it linked by other means. And if by sat, is it "direct" (no pun intended) or bounced to another sat.?


----------



## Diana C (Mar 30, 2007)

Laxguy said:


> I just did a quick google (using Google) on Chinese TV, and see Dish prominently mentioned. Do their feeds into China come from their sat. or is it linked by other means. And if by sat, is it "direct" (no pun intended) or bounced to another sat.?


Are you sure that was delivery of programming INTO China? Dish distributes lots of Chinese channels here in the US - both by satellite and via IPTV (DishWorld).


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

No, not sure, but I asked to see what sat. services there were in China, and the Dish logo showed up.


----------



## Diana C (Mar 30, 2007)

damondlt said:


> I'm all for what ever makes these increases STOP!. Period!


I'm afraid the only way to make the price increases stop is to cancel service.


----------



## Diana C (Mar 30, 2007)

Laxguy said:


> No, not sure, but I asked to see what sat. services there were in China, and the Dish logo showed up.


I just googled "satellite service in china" and sure enough, Dish Network does come up, but the links are to the US service that provides 20 Chinese channels to US customers.


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

Gosh, what a surprise, something misleading on the 'Net! 

Thanks for the followup.


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

Diana C said:


> I'm afraid the only way to make the price increases stop is to cancel service.


Well that may be the case, I don't think customers will put up with this for ever.


----------



## wilbur_the_goose (Aug 16, 2006)

Sirius killed XM, even though XM was by far larger when they merged. Most XM employees (and all related to the programming) were fired, and we're left with Sirius.

Knowing Charlie, he'd kill D* in a merger. Both services would offer 99% of the same programming, I fear.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

slice1900 said:


> Why would they try to combine the two? With two new satellites going up already, what could Directv possibly use all the combined capacity for? I'd think they'd keep the two systems separate, and try to eventually retire one. Even if that takes a decade it still results in some significant long term savings. If they design a new ODU that uses both then they see no future savings in satellite build/launch costs, and have more bandwidth than they could ever use except in the unlikely event that 4K upgrades are as popular as HD upgrades (I think its popularity will be much closer to 3D, because the visible improvement between HD and 4K is very difficult to see, whereas it was massive going from SD to HD)


You know how much space Directv uses to push movies right now? They could at the bare minimum use them to push all their on demand content to give people full access to all on demand content without needing internet connections. They could also carry every local and sub channel. And they'd have plenty of room for ultrhd channels. Theres lots of ways to use it.


----------



## Athlon646464 (Feb 23, 2007)

Will Dish Network And DirecTV Resist Wall Street's Pressure On Them To Merge?

Investors are becoming so obsessed with the idea of a DirecTV-Dish Network merger that it seems to be just a matter of time before the companies succumb. Questions about the possibility kept popping up in Dish Network's quarterly earnings call yesterday. Company watchers "seem to be fixated" on the subject, Brean Capital's Todd Mitchell says.

And execs don't seem to mind. Last week DirecTV CEO Michael White said he'd "never say never." And Evercore Partners' Bryan Kraft says he has "never heard [Dish Network Chairman Charlie Ergen] speak as openly and positively regarding the possibility of a combination with DirecTV" as he did yesterday. The FCC blocked a satellite TV merger in 2002 on the grounds that it would leave many rural subscribers, who don't have cable, with just one pay TV provider.

But Ergen says that the business is "materially different" than it was then. Verizon FiOS and AT&T U-verse serve many markets. "And then of course, you have almost an unlimited number of people now on digital Internet getting into the business, whether it be from Netflix to Hulu to Amazon to everything else that you can do on the Internet," Ergen says. "And that's only going to grow." Later he added that "there's not any question that putting Dish and DirecTV together makes a lot of sense&#8230;. If you just wanted to create short-term value, that would be probably your No. 1 option."

Full Story Here









_DeadLine.com_


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

Wall Street knows nothing about the technologies involved. Mr. White and Mr. Ergen are free to pose "what-if" scenarios but the delivery systems are so different (about as different as two DSS systems can be) and so are the corporate philosophies. I just don't see it.


----------



## PCampbell (Nov 18, 2006)

Stuart Sweet said:


> Wall Street knows nothing about the technologies involved. Mr. White and Mr. Ergen are free to pose "what-if" scenarios but the delivery systems are so different (about as different as two DSS systems can be) and so are the corporate philosophies. I just don't see it.


Well put. It would be a bad deal for us at our place up north, Dish is the only option to Directv.


----------



## Athlon646464 (Feb 23, 2007)

Stuart Sweet said:


> Wall Street knows nothing about the technologies involved. Mr. White and Mr. Ergen are free to pose "what-if" scenarios but the delivery systems are so different (about as different as two DSS systems can be) and so are the corporate philosophies. I just don't see it.


I agree, Stu.

Sometimes, however, the dollar seems to trump all and things just seem to happen as a result. Sirius/XM for example.


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

But the Sirius-XM situation was different in many respects. For one, there were financial imperatives there, where there are not with DIRECTV® and Dish. The technologies at least seemed easier to merge, though that may never happen it seems.


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

I don't think the financial imperatives are there now, but at some point that could very well change as the younger viewers move away from sat/cable.


----------



## Athlon646464 (Feb 23, 2007)

^^^

Exactly - there is a sea change afoot. I'm guessing cord cutting will accelerate over the next 12 to 36 months, an eternity with technology. 
It will be interesting to watch how it all shakes out. There is a battle already going on between content providers and content deliverers. It seems most deliverers are looking to satisfy their customer's demands with new tech while the old guard at the providers like the status quo. 

I'm thinking the latter is not as into technology as they should be, nor do they understand it. They see it as a threat rather than an opportunity. :bang

Again - it is fun to watch......... :eek2:


----------



## nmetro (Jul 11, 2006)

Even if both companies used the same technologies, had the same offerings, etc.; the government will not let a merger happen. First, because it will create a satellite provider monopoly Second, satellite is the only option in most rural areas, as they may be too distant from over the air or geography limits over the air as an option. Third, rural areas have limited options in regards to network connectivity. Fourth, cable may be available, but it is very expensive for rural homeowners to run the cable from the street to their homes.

Then there is politics. As we have seen by our dysfunctional Congress, Congressmen, and Senators, from rural states will block this; even if a merger gets government approval. Even though things have changed since the last time a merger came up; not much has changed in many rural areas. So, the investors can talk all they want; but they will be fighting an uphill battle.


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

_*Especially*_ if they used the same tech!

And the points you raise are good ones, but competition in urban and suburban areas will keep prices in check, and the Mega-Sat company will not be allowed to gouge those who have no choice but sat. In that I am confident.

That said, I don't want a merger.


----------



## meldar_b (May 16, 2006)

I sure hope then do not merge! we need competition to keep prices down. prices shot up right after the take over. also look what happened to XM after the merger they killed the best part of satellite radio commercial free. Siriusxm is not by any means commercial free with all the dj chater and channel cross promotions I'm better off listening to local radio now.


----------



## Mike Greer (Jan 20, 2004)

Yep - a merger would be a bad thing for consumers and a good thing for stock holders. Worst part is rather than getting the best of both companies we would get the worst of both companies because that will make the stock holders the most money.

If the government was crazy enough to allow such a thing I suspect that would speed up the cord-cutting....


----------



## wilbur_the_goose (Aug 16, 2006)

Wall Street analysts are a very odd lot. They're like "TMZ" for the stock market. No wonder they're fixated.


----------



## Diana C (Mar 30, 2007)

I seriously doubt that were we to have only one satellite option (and in most places subscribers have, at most, only one cable option) we would not see Hoppers or Genies, wireless set top boxes, or even the amount of HD we have now.

Ergen is right though...the market is "materially different" than it was 2002. In 2002 neither company was making a profit. In 2002 both companies were struggling with capacity limits. But these are factors that go against a merger, not in favor of one.

The reason investors like the idea is that it would instantly create the largest linear TV distributor in the country. The combined company would leapfrog in front of Comcast (and between the Dish/DirecTV combo and Comcast, they would serve about half the nation's households). A merger at that scale would generate vast money making opportunities for investors and bankers. It would, however, not be such a boon to these companies' customers.

Hopefully, the regulators would continue to see that a Dish/DirecTV merger is not in the public interest.


----------



## PCampbell (Nov 18, 2006)

Diana C said:


> I seriously doubt that were we to have only one satellite option (and in most places subscribers have, at most, only one cable option) we would not see Hoppers or Genies, wireless set top boxes, or even the amount of HD we have now.
> 
> Ergen is right though...the market is "materially different" than it was 2002. In 2002 neither company was making a profit. In 2002 both companies were struggling with capacity limits. But these are factors that go against a merger, not in favor of one.
> 
> ...


+1000


----------



## Mike Greer (Jan 20, 2004)

Diana C said:


> I seriously doubt that were we to have only one satellite option (and in most places subscribers have, at most, only one cable option) we would not see Hoppers or Genies, wireless set top boxes, or even the amount of HD we have now.
> 
> Ergen is right though...the market is "materially different" than it was 2002. In 2002 neither company was making a profit. In 2002 both companies were struggling with capacity limits. But these are factors that go against a merger, not in favor of one.
> 
> ...


Well said.


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

Sirius/XM was mentioned, and just looking at how those technologies have never merged, and how satellite radio has become marginalized in favor of internet radio... that should tell you right there why the two companies won't merge.

Technologically, Sirius/XM had two much more similar technologies, and the ability to merge the channel structure was there in a much more similar way, and yet it's still an issue. The companies only merged, only were allowed to merge, because they convinced regulators that neither would exist unless they did.

Mr. Ergen could theoretically tout his losses and declining customer base (although I doubt he would) but DIRECTV's numbers are far too good to claim that they would fail without DISH.

We're also talking about changes in everything here. Both companies would have to revamp literally evey bit of their operations. In the meantime, the competition wouldn't be resting, they would be innovating. That's what allowed Spotify to overtake Sirius/XM.

Say for example it worked this way: A combined company decides to use DIRECTV's satellites purely for downstream signal, in other words signals to the home. This gives them twice the capacity to the home. They use DISH's fleet for backhaul, in other words signals between content providers and the broadcast centers. Now, let's put aside that it's possible the satellites couldn't even be configured for those roles.

At that point you're talking about a program to refit 14 million subscriber homes with DIRECTV equipment. At an average $500 cost to do that (remember equipment costs, labor, parts, promotional programming writeoffs, etc.) that's $7 billion out of pocket. $7 billion that doesn't get passed along to the customer, since the costs are already near the top of what people will take. So it comes out of program acquisition, research and development, etc. End of story, DIRECTV loses.

On the other hand, if you continue to operate the systems in parallel for several years, where's the cost savings? Where's the synergy? That doesn't make sense either.

Underying this whole argument is the fact that residential pay-TV is a zero-sum business at this point. Any growth by one company means a loss by other companies. If you factor in cord-cutting and streaming, it's possible that pay-TV isn't even that. It doesn't make sense for DIRECTV and DISH to combine for a temporary bump in market share just so they can dominate a market where no further growth is possible.

Long-term, it would be better for both companies to work on delivery systems for the US market that address the growing market desire for a la carte and on-demand. DISH has been doing this so far by borrowing a lot of money and trying to buy wireless companies. DIRECTV has been doing this so far by building out emerging markets which leaves them both profitable and low on debt.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Diana C said:


> Ergen is right though...the market is "materially different" than it was 2002. In 2002 neither company was making a profit.


The last year DISH posted an annual loss was 2002 when they had $690 million in merger termination costs. DirecTV has been profitable every year since at least 2002 (I don't have annual figures for 2000 and 2001 for DirecTV).

It seems that things got better when they stopped worrying about merging and got on with running their own companies.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Stuart Sweet said:


> They use DISH's fleet for backhaul, in other words signals between content providers and the broadcast centers.


FYI: DISH uses a fiberoptic network to connect all markets in the US to their uplink centers. That network is available to broadcasters who wish to tie in and share programming. The economy of using that network to feed both DISH and DirecTV uplink centers instead of each running their own points of presence would be helpful.

Anything in MPEG4 should be able to be shared ... although dish upgrades would be needed to receive the other feeds. It would be trivial on the DISH side to allow tuning of the rest of 110 and 119 (going from 82 to 96 transponders on western arc). I do not know how easy it would be to open up DirecTV receivers to receiving the rest of 110 and 119 along with 101.

Of course it would never happen ... but the techie in me wants to see how well the two systems could share feeds despite remaining separate. SiriusXM is finally doing that on their newest radios.


----------



## Diana C (Mar 30, 2007)

James Long said:


> ...SiriusXM is finally doing that on their newest radios.


And the market is staying away in droves. It it wasn't for all the Sirius radios that are pre-installed in vehicles, satellite radio would be dead. Both of our cars (a Ford and a VW) have Sirius radios, but both also have iPod jacks. Guess which one is used more often?

Stuart got right to the point. Wall Street has the future outlook of a fly. While a DirecTV/Dish merger would be great for the investment bankers and some investors, it would leave a company that is best characterized as a "dead man walking." The time and money a merger would consume would prevent the company from taking the steps it needs to take to survive in the long term.

The most attractive part of merger is that it would give the current owners of the two companies a very profitable exit strategy.


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

Diana C said:


> And the market is staying away in droves. It it wasn't for all the Sirius radios that are pre-installed in vehicles, satellite radio would be dead. Both of our cars (a Ford and a VW) have Sirius radios, but both also have iPod jacks. Guess which one is used more often?
> 
> Stuart got right to the point. Wall Street has the future outlook of a fly. While a DirecTV/Dish merger would be great for the investment bankers and some investors, it would leave a company that is best characterized as a "dead man walking." The time and money a merger would consume would prevent the company from taking the steps it needs to take to survive in the long term.
> 
> The most attractive part of merger is that it would give the current owners of the two companies a very profitable exit strategy.


Couldn't agree more.
People are crazy if they think a merger would benefit anyone other then a stock holder.

Directv should tell Dish get bent.


----------



## Milkman (Dec 6, 2006)

I would not like the idea of this at all simply from a satellite competition stance. No competition = bad for us.

Sure they would still have to compete with traditional providers, but nothing for satellite.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Diana C said:


> And the market is staying away in droves.


SiriusXM has 25 million subscribers. If that is "staying away in droves" I hope people stay away from DISH and DirecTV in droves. 

BTW: I bought a car with a broken built in radio ... and ended up replacing it with a modern Sirius radio with the ability to do a la carte. I probably should have just followed the cancel every six months for a discount plan but I decided to pick my favorite 50 channels and pay a fixed fee instead of playing games. I am one of the 25 million subscribers.


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

James Long said:


> . I am one of the 25 million subscribers.


I am too, but they suck IMO.
iheart, Pandora, Slacker are much better cheaper options then Sirius.

As more and more cars get usb ports and more and more 4 G service. It will be the end !

Remember too James , Just about every New car sold in the USA comes with 1 free year of satellite radio.


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

Sniff.... I got six months on one car, three on another. If I renew, it'd be on a re-up lo-cost deal.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

damondlt said:


> iheart, Pandora, Slacker are much better cheaper options then Sirius.


So where is NASCAR on those services (or Stern or Oprah or whatever else one wants to listen to)? SiriusXM is more than "Musak" - and it works without burning up my data plan and in areas with limited cell phone coverage. You're only lying to yourself if you think their 25 million subscribers come from new car sales. Most of their customers are retained customers.


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

James Long said:


> So where is NASCAR on those services (or Stern or Oprah or whatever else one wants to listen to)? SiriusXM is more than "Musak" - and it works without burning up my data plan and in areas with limited cell phone coverage. You're only lying to yourself if you think their 25 million subscribers come from new car sales. Most of their customers are retained customers.


I bet out of the 13 million in car sales last year at least half came with Free Sirius or XM for one year.

Nascar really?

Since there are over 300,000 million people in the USA, 25 million isn't that big. Satellite radio can be had Everywhere.


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

25 million subscribers is indeed a force, a quantity worth reckoning. Larger than any sat or cable service.....


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

By the way Pandora alone have over 200,000,000 registered users, with 66 million active users far more then Sirius XM.


----------



## sigma1914 (Sep 5, 2006)

damondlt said:


> By the way Pandora alone have over 125,000,000 users, far more then Sirius XM.


Probably because it's free, for the most part. Also, not all are even using it... they just signed up to try it.


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

> Probably because it's free, for the most part. Also, not all are even using it... they just signed up to try it.


http://investor.pandora.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=227956&p=proxy
Read above, From Pandora investor relations April 2013.

66 Million Active users!

Also Pandora stock is almost $20 a share not $4 like Sirius XM


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

damondlt said:


> Since there are over 300,000 million people in the USA, 25 million isn't that big. Satellite radio can be had Everywhere.


It isn't a personal subscription. Trying to minimize the reach of SiriusXM by using the wrong index (population of the US) is like saying DirecTV sucks because they only have 20 million subscribers out of 300 million people in the US. (Or worse yet, further padding the number of DirecTV subscribers to create a fictitious number of estimated "people".)

For example, in SEC documents DirecTV reports 20.021 million US subscribers - on their US website DirecTV reports 30 million customers strong (including Latin American customers). And then there are the "commercial equivalent viewing units" that make up an unreported portion of the subscriber count. 20 million looks good against 100 million US TV households but that number is NOT US households - and it is not even a count of accounts. It is a calculation. 30 million looks even better against 100 million US TV households ... but again it is a bad number. If one uses the 30 million number one must compare it against the greater number of TV households in ALL of the areas served.



damondlt said:


> 66 Million Active users!


Not bad ... but what is the basis? Worldwide?

Find a basis and stick with the same basis. Don't compare subscriptions which can be multiple device/multiple radio with a total population count that includes infants and children. It just makes you look bad.

BTW: Yes, NASCAR. Don't insult other people's listening/viewing choices unless you are willing to have your own choices ridiculed.


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

> It isn't a personal subscription. Trying to minimize the reach of SiriusXM by using the wrong index (population of the US) is like saying DirecTV sucks because they only have 20 million subscribers out of 300 million people in the US. (Or worse yet, further padding the number of DirecTV subscribers to create a fictitious number of estimated "people".)
> 
> For example, in SEC documents DirecTV reports 20.021 million US subscribers - on their US website DirecTV reports 30 million customers strong (including Latin American customers). And then there are the "commercial equivalent viewing units" that make up an unreported portion of the subscriber count. 20 million looks good against 100 million US TV households but that number is NOT US households - and it is not even a count of accounts. It is a calculation. 30 million looks even better against 100 million US TV households ... but again it is a bad number. If one uses the 30 million number one must compare it against the greater number of TV households in ALL of the areas served.
> 
> ...


I didn't say they sucked because they have only 25 million customers , they suck cause all you need is 4 hours and you just heard then entire library.
Nascar on radio is bad. Its auto racing its meant to be watched.

You can claim what you want , but for the fact there is only one source for satellite radio, 25 million is weak for a service that's available everywhere.
Directv is not available everywhere. Many factors effect Directv service.

Also Sirius XM require separate subscriptions per device. So how strong are you going to standby that 25 million

Our Grand Garavan and Charger are in my name, Our Ram Truck and Darango are in my wifes name , all have Sirius, That count as one?

NOPE!


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

damondlt said:


> Nascar on radio is bad. Its auto racing its meant to be watched.


That is your personal preference. I'm sure that many of the 313 million other people in the US disagree with you. 

There is more to NASCAR than the weekend races. Just like people come to this site to discuss television, NASCAR radio provides a place where people can listen to the latest news and commentary on the sport. They can hear interviews with the drivers, crew chiefs, owners and others in the NASCAR community that simply are not available on TV. And like other talk radio, they can call in and join the conversation (or tweet, email, Facebook, etc.) When race time comes, they can listen to coverage from MRN or PRN (depending on track) and hear every race. There are even people who PREFER the MRN and PRN announcers describing the action (some of the voices one will even hear on TV in their reviews of the races). People who prefer radio coverage to the point where they turn down the sound on their TV and listen to SiriusXM while they watch.

And that is just NASCAR. There are other sports channels and non-sports channels on SiriusXM that people can choose. Content that one CANNOT get on Pandora or other music services.

Dig deeper. 25 million isn't shabby.


----------



## sigma1914 (Sep 5, 2006)

damondlt said:


> http://investor.pandora.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=227956&p=proxy
> Read above, From Pandora investor relations April 2013.
> 
> 66 Million Active users!
> ...


66 million < 125 million ... Thanks for proving how the 125 million number is an exaggeration and not indecisive of much.


----------



## trh (Nov 3, 2007)

damondlt said:


> Also Sirius XM require separate subscriptions per device.
> 
> Our Grand Garavan and Charger are in my name, Our Ram Truck and Darango are in my wifes name , all have Sirius, That count as one?


I don't understand what you're trying to say here.

'...require separate subscriptions per device...' seems to mean that with your four vehicles, you should have four accounts.

But you only have two.


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

trh said:


> I don't understand what you're trying to say here.
> 
> '...require separate subscriptions per device...' seems to mean that with your four vehicles, you should have four accounts.
> 
> But you only have two.


I'll let you know when my 2 free accounts are up on my Durango and Charger. As of now my wife and I each have an account for the Grand Caravan, and the Ram Truck. But more then likely won't renew since the new cars can use smartphone apps.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

damondlt said:


> I'll let you know when my 2 free accounts are up on my Durango and Charger. As of now my wife and I each have an account for the Grand Caravan, and the Ram Truck. But more then likely won't renew since the new cars can use smartphone apps.


So you'll be down to two paid accounts ... not bad for someone who hates the service. :sure:
(See above for negative comments about SiriusXM including "all you need is 4 hours and you just heard then entire library".)

There are individuals with more than one DirecTV account. I suppose we should divide their subscriber count in half to account for the few that have more than one account. NONE of the accounting is 100% accurate when one does not have a base for the figures.


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

James Long said:


> So you'll be down to two paid accounts ... not bad for someone who hates the service. :sure:
> 
> There are individuals with more than one DirecTV account. I suppose we should divide their subscriber count in half to account for the few that have more than one account. NONE of the accounting is 100% accurate when one does not have a base for the figures.


Got 6 months on each since I pre paid. After that I will have no paid accounts!


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

I find it funny how the Sirius XM merger always comes up.
Look at the stock prices. Enough said!


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

damondlt said:


> I find it funny how the Sirius XM merger always comes up.
> Look at the stock prices. Enough said!


It is a natural part of the discussion when one is talking about merging the two primary satellite television providers. The SiriusXM merger was allowed and it created a sole satellite radio provider. It was a case of taking two struggling companies and combining them so as one they could survive. I don't believe either DirecTV or DISH need to merge with each other to survive ... and I wish they would stop entertaining the idea.

It used to be we could dismiss the annual merger rumors that have come every year since 2002. But when CEOs are saying "never say never" it deserves some discussion.


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

> It was a case of taking two struggling companies and combining them so as one they could survive. I don't believe either DirecTV or DISH need to merge with each other to survive ... and I wish they would stop entertaining the idea.
> 
> It used to be we could dismiss the annual merger rumors that have come every year since 2002. But when CEOs are saying "never say never" it deserves some discussion.


Agree.
By the way Sirius XM has 19 million PAYING subscribers
Year end report 2012.


----------



## Diana C (Mar 30, 2007)

There are at least 50 million vehicles on the road with Sirius or XM radios builtin (according to the Sirius XM annual report and 10k). Add in another 20 million or so stand alone radios sold over the last decade and there are 70 million radios but only 20 million active subscriptions. If you've ever tried to cancel a subscription with Sirius/XM you'll wonder how many of those 20 million are even being used. (Sirius/XM customer service is among the worst I have ever dealt with).

In any event, what I actually was referring to with the "staying away in droves" comment was the dual service radios. Other than the MLB play by play coverage, I'm not sure what you can get on a XM radio that you can't get on a Sirius radio and since the majority of subscriptions are for vehicles with Sirius only radios, the uptake on the hybrid radios is quite small.

And if you want to compare companies, look at market capitalization. Sirius/XM has a market cap of $24B as of Friday...DirecTV's market cap is $34B and Dish Network's is $20B. This is what the market says each company is worth.

And for a preview of what a Dish/DirecTV merger would mean for subscribers, an annual SiriusXM subscription today costs between $150 and $200 (list price) which is between 50 and 100 percent more than the pre-merger cost (depending on the pre-merger service and package being compared).


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

Diana C, you bring up an important difference between the Sirius/XM merger and a hypothetical Dish/Directv merger. All those vehicles that have XM only or Sirius only receivers built in. Sirius/XM didn't have any real choice but to leave both systems in both, because there isn't any practical way to convert XM only vehicles to Sirius or vice versa. Given the average life of a vehicle, there will be many pre-merger cars on the roads for years to come, so if they switched off one of the two systems they'd lose many current customers, and far far more _potential_ customers.

The concerns for a Directv/Dish merger are somewhat different. There is no "potential customer" base with built-ins to be concerned about, since the only built-in some new customers have is an existing dish. Most of the acquisition cost for new customers is not the dish and its installation, but the free receivers and free/discounted programming. If a merged company decided to use Directv technology going forward, a new customer with an old Dish Network dish would still get a Directv install, whereas a new Sirius XM customer with a Sirius radio pre-installed must get Sirius service. There's no way they could eat the hundreds of dollars to retrofit it unless they could sign the customer up to a very lengthy contract to make it worth it.

The existing Dish Network customer base would still be a big concern, and very expensive to migrate. However, I believe those using the "new customer acquisition cost" as the figure to convert them are on the wrong track. Certainly they get a new dish and new receivers, and that costs a lot of money, but unless they're going to be given all the discounts, free NFLST and so on that new customers get (which would piss off pre-merger Directv customers) it might only cost half the figure being thrown around. That still adds up a few billion dollars, so it would just be a matter of whether the savings in doing so (selling off or re-purposing the Dish Network satellites/bands) allows them to come out ahead.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Diana C said:


> In any event, what I actually was referring to with the "staying away in droves" comment was the dual service radios. Other than the MLB play by play coverage, I'm not sure what you can get on a XM radio that you can't get on a Sirius radio and since the majority of subscriptions are for vehicles with Sirius only radios, the uptake on the hybrid radios is quite small.


SiriusXM probably should have done more to split the services and not duplicate so much on XM. This many years after the merger why are they selling anything other than dual service radios? They should have stopped selling single service radios as soon as they could after the merger ... then they could use one service's bandwidth to compliment the other. Every new Sirius only or XM only radio they sell is just another roadblock to a combined service.

Hopefully DISH and DirecTV would not make that mistake. There would be years that they would need to continue to support DBS and DSS transmissions but hopefully a combined company would cut the cord on any equipment that was not MPEG4 compatible. It is something both companies need to do even if they don't merge: stop placing obsolete equipment!


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

The last four or five cars I bought have come with Sirius. No mention of XM, no fliers received on that. So, one way to get everyone on one system is to promote, produce and install just one of the systems. From my tiny data point, that's what they are doing.


----------



## toricred (Feb 12, 2004)

The Prius I bought last summer and the one I bought in 2010 both came with XM only. The one my father bought in December was also XM only. Therefore I don't think you can say they're pushing Sirius all that hard.


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

Well, all righty, then! Puts my theory waaaaay out there in Left Field.


----------



## JohnBoy (Sep 9, 2011)

Laxguy said:


> Well, all righty, then! Puts my theory waaaaay out there in Left Field.


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

Diana C said:


> There are at least 50 million vehicles on the road with Sirius or XM radios builtin (according to the Sirius XM annual report and 10k). Add in another 20 million or so stand alone radios sold over the last decade and there are 70 million radios but only 20 million active subscriptions. If you've ever tried to cancel a subscription with Sirius/XM you'll wonder how many of those 20 million are even being used. (Sirius/XM customer service is among the worst I have ever dealt with).).


I've never had a real issue with the gran I had it, though thud activation process was bizarre! had a three minute window to have the car on. But they certainly keep sending me offers to cone back.


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

JohnBoy said:


> [video] << Snipped bits out >>


Yer don't hasta rub it in!!


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

I think Sirius and XM still have specific contracts in place for each brand seperatly, and ill bet they cant renegotiate and get as good a terms, so they are leavening it as is.


----------



## gpg (Aug 19, 2006)

inkahauts said:


> I think Sirius and XM still have specific contracts in place for each brand seperatly, and ill bet they cant renegotiate and get as good a terms, so they are leavening it as is.


You're right. Here's the link to which auto manufacturers offer which service:

http://www.siriusxm.com/automakers/vehicle


----------



## Athlon646464 (Feb 23, 2007)

*Update: **Dish-DirecTV Merger 'Makes A Lot Of Sense,' Says Ergen*

DirecTV's CEO may believe regulators would never allow a merger of the two big American satellite TV companies, but Charlie Ergen's ardor for such a deal remains undimmed.

"There's obviously a business case that [consolidation] makes a lot of sense in the satellite industry," Ergen, the billionaire chairman and founder of Dish Network, said on the company's third-quarter earnings call. "Whether it ever comes to fruition is another story. But both Dish and DirecTV realize that it could make a lot of sense."

Full Story Here


----------



## JosephB (Nov 14, 2005)

A DirecTV/DISH merger has a lot more hurdles to overcome than satellite radio or US Airways and American Airlines.

USAir and AA had to give up significant slots at airports where they had 80% share (like DCA). That increases competition for those routes. There's no way to increase competition in the satellite industry, unless the FCC requires that they give up some of their licenses. Even then, that doesn't guarantee new competition because the barrier to entry is significant. To realistically ensure another party could enter the market would require that a combined DirecTV/DISH also give up physical assets at a reasonable cost, like hardware on orbit and ground stations. Even though USAir/AA will be the biggest carrier, they still have significant competition. In many areas of the country, Dish and DirecTV are the only two MVPDs available.

Sirius/XM also were in a situation where they have other competition. They have FM, AM, iPods, Spotify, Pandora, CDs, Music Choice/Sonic Tap/DMX all competing with them. Combining Sirius and XM did not meaningfully reduce the number of options available in the music market, even if you take out internet based solutions. There is not such a robust marketplace in the video market at this time, even if you consider Netflix and Hulu, since in most of the areas where DirecTV and Dish are the only options, internet access is likely insufficient for an IP-based over the top provider to be viable.


----------



## woj027 (Sep 3, 2007)

After reading this whole thread (and the Sirius/XM subthread :sure: ) I was thinking when I was reading Stuarts Post http://www.dbstalk.com/topic/206837-directv-ceo-%E2 What if the merger did happen, but the hardware changeover started with 4k distribution? Essentially DirecTV and Dish say we run parallel until everyone is switched over to 4k? Long term plan of 2020 conversion?


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

Athlon646464 said:


> *Update: **Dish-DirecTV Merger 'Makes A Lot Of Sense,' Says Ergen*
> 
> DirecTV's CEO may believe regulators would never allow a merger of the two big American satellite TV companies, but Charlie Ergen's ardor for such a deal remains undimmed.
> 
> ...


Of course the merger makes sense in Charlies eyes,
He's the one who desperately needs it.


----------



## JosephB (Nov 14, 2005)

woj027 said:


> After reading this whole thread (and the Sirius/XM subthread :sure: ) I was thinking when I was reading Stuarts Post What if the merger did happen, but the hardware changeover started with 4k distribution? Essentially DirecTV and Dish say we run parallel until everyone is switched over to 4k? Long term plan of 2020 conversion?


To make it work economically, they'd essentially have to pick one existing platform or the other and standardize on it. That's what SiriusXM is doing. While you can still buy Sirius radios, over the next year everything will be on the "XM 2.0" platform which is essentially standardizing on the XM platform and then letting Sirius shut down through attrition.

For it to be economical on a DirecTV/Dish system, it would need to work on one of the two systems now. They don't have the capacity to broadcast in triplicate. Given that DirecTV has significantly more subscribers, it would make sense that they'd standardize there. That means every DISH customer would need to have every box and dish swapped out.

However, a complication comes into play that makes it not so simple: What would they do with all of the orbital slots they have? Would they continue the WA/EA paradigm that they have now? With their combined licenses at 99/101/103/110/119, they could standardize on that arc of satellites but doing that would essentially waste 129, 61.5, 72, and 77 (though, I suppose 129 is close enough maybe they could squeeze that into a 99-thru-129 dish?) If they went with a nationwide 99-119 or 99-129 arc, they could just swap out all DISH customers for DirecTV equipment, giving them the latest and greatest hardware and dish, and then pick off DirecTV customers with the new "bigger" dish much more slowly.


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

I said it once and I'll say it again.

Dish will be gone if a merger happens.
Charlie will get a Big check, Directv will gain 13 million customers.

Just the same as PrimeStar take over.


----------



## cmoss5 (May 26, 2006)

When I go on vacations,usually in the mountains, Dish is there, not Directv....I personally do not like the remote controls nor how their stations are set up with the Dish network...if goes together, lets hope and pray it goes the way of Directv!!! I hate Dish remotes and their programming!!


----------



## JosephB (Nov 14, 2005)

damondlt said:


> I said it once and I'll say it again.
> 
> Dish will be gone if a merger happens.
> Charlie will get a Big check, Directv will gain 13 million customers.
> ...


DirecTV will also get a ton of spectrum and hardware. I have to think Charlie would have something else up his sleeve, though, because if it were basically a DirecTV takeover and replacement of Dish with DirecTV (which is the way I would see it happening), Echostar would be almost worthless


----------



## RAD (Aug 5, 2002)

JosephB said:


> To make it work economically, they'd essentially have to pick one existing platform or the other and standardize on it. That's what SiriusXM is doing. While you can still buy Sirius radios, over the next year everything will be on the "XM 2.0" platform which is essentially standardizing on the XM platform and then letting Sirius shut down through attrition.
> 
> For it to be economical on a DirecTV/Dish system, it would need to work on one of the two systems now. They don't have the capacity to broadcast in triplicate. Given that DirecTV has significantly more subscribers, it would make sense that they'd standardize there. That means every DISH customer would need to have every box and dish swapped out.
> 
> However, a complication comes into play that makes it not so simple: What would they do with all of the orbital slots they have? Would they continue the WA/EA paradigm that they have now? With their combined licenses at 99/101/103/110/119, they could standardize on that arc of satellites but doing that would essentially waste 129, 61.5, 72, and 77 (though, I suppose 129 is close enough maybe they could squeeze that into a 99-thru-129 dish?) If they went with a nationwide 99-119 or 99-129 arc, they could just swap out all DISH customers for DirecTV equipment, giving them the latest and greatest hardware and dish, and then pick off DirecTV customers with the new "bigger" dish much more slowly.


If I had to guess they'd centralize on the 99/101/103 and maybe include 110/119. So they'd have to give up the other slots but it costs a log of bucks to put satellites up there.


----------



## JosephB (Nov 14, 2005)

RAD said:


> If I had to guess they'd centralize on the 99/101/103 and maybe include 110/119. So they'd have to give up the other slots but it costs a log of bucks to put satellites up there.


99-119 makes the most sense, especially considering that dishes and LNBs already exist to handle that.

I wonder how feasible a 61.5-101 dish would be as well as a 101-129 dish. They could put all the core programming at 99/101/103 and use birds east and west of those for locals and other data services. With that much bandwidth they could put up every local channel + subchannel + low power + localized weather/cable news channels. Especially if they used the event of swapping everyone out as an opportunity to get all HD capable equipment out there and killed SD.


----------



## nmetro (Jul 11, 2006)

Considering what happened with American Airlines and US Airways; it is quite possible that a DirecTV/DISH merger would be approved. Despite screams from rural interests. For a while, though, there will be two distinct systems, but it would eb less expensive to merge DISH subscribers into DirecTV, then vice versa. If it is possible to use the combined fleets of DirecTV and DISH satellites, this would provide a great deal of capqcity. If the FCC alos it, even oribital slots could be slightly changed so the most LNBs anyone needs would be three or four. Though, I do remember reading, in these forums, that DirectTV and DISH use different technology to beam satellite signals to receivers. Hopefully, newer receivers could be manufactured which receive both technologies, thus rediucing a satellite fleet to space junk.


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

JosephB said:


> 99-119 makes the most sense, especially considering that dishes and LNBs already exist to handle that.
> 
> I wonder how feasible a 61.5-101 dish would be as well as a 101-129 dish. They could put all the core programming at 99/101/103 and use birds east and west of those for locals and other data services. With that much bandwidth they could put up every local channel + subchannel + low power + localized weather/cable news channels. Especially if they used the event of swapping everyone out as an opportunity to get all HD capable equipment out there and killed SD.


LIL must be received with one dish, according to the FCC


----------



## JosephB (Nov 14, 2005)

peds48 said:


> LIL must be received with one dish, according to the FCC


Right. That's why I was wondering about the feasibility of a dish that could get 61.5 all the way to 101 (or 103), and then a dish that could get from 99 or 101 all the way to 129.

Then you could still have eastern and western arcs and continue to use the bulk of the licenses that both providers have while minimizing duplication.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

JosephB said:


> Right. That's why I was wondering about the feasibility of a dish that could get 61.5 all the way to 101 (or 103), and then a dish that could get from 99 or 101 all the way to 129.
> 
> Then you could still have eastern and western arcs and continue to use the bulk of the licenses that both providers have while minimizing duplication.


Directv is already licensed for enough capacity to double their current bandwidth, and that's before licenses they could potentially try to obtain like Ku from 99 & 103 (if/when the FCC approves 2* spacing for Ku) and RDBS from 101 (if they ask the FCC for a waiver for the 4* spacing requirement, since they already hold RDBS licenses for 99 & 103 and would only interfere with themselves) Those would add another 30% on top of the doubling if they obtained them, and everything they have could be served from 99/101/103 alone. The 61.5 and 129 sats are really only useful for part of the country, so using them for anything other than spotbeams is a waste of resources/money. If Directv owned them they'd never replace those, unless they could use them for PR and Latin America.

Basically, Directv doesn't need Dish for capacity, they already have more than enough. Yeah, "it would be nice" if they offered every local, but where's the market for that? How many people really care if they get every subchannel from their local market? Not enough to make it worth acquiring Dish if that's what it took to provide it.

I also don't think a dish with a wider arc than the current 5LNB Slimline is likely to be too feasible, and even the possibility depends on some other factors. For instance, there is some technical reason I'm not too clear on why it wouldn't have been possible to add another LNB to receive the 95* on the Slimline, and that always required a separate dish.

No, the only reason Directv would want to buy Dish would be to get a better bargaining position with providers, and to eliminate their biggest competition. That's not good for consumers. Even those for those who wish they could get all their subchannels. That's easy enough to fix, change the software so the receiver can scan for channels like every other ATSC receiver out there. That's much cheaper to fix than buying Dish!


----------



## JosephB (Nov 14, 2005)

slice1900 said:


> Directv is already licensed for enough capacity to double their current bandwidth, and that's before licenses they could potentially try to obtain like Ku from 99 & 103 (if/when the FCC approves 2* spacing for Ku) and RDBS from 101 (if they ask the FCC for a waiver for the 4* spacing requirement, since they already hold RDBS licenses for 99 & 103 and would only interfere with themselves) Those would add another 30% on top of the doubling if they obtained them, and everything they have could be served from 99/101/103 alone. The 61.5 and 129 sats are really only useful for part of the country, so using them for anything other than spotbeams is a waste of resources/money. If Directv owned them they'd never replace those, unless they could use them for PR and Latin America.
> 
> Basically, Directv doesn't need Dish for capacity, they already have more than enough. Yeah, "it would be nice" if they offered every local, but where's the market for that? How many people really care if they get every subchannel from their local market? Not enough to make it worth acquiring Dish if that's what it took to provide it.
> 
> ...


I don't think a purchase/merger of Dish would be based purely on bandwidth, or a desire to be able to offer subchannels or 100% local coverage. It's obvious that most of the benefits of the merger come from a larger customer base and eliminating duplicative backend services, install networks, etc.

However, those orbital slots are very valuable as are the satellites on orbit. If they could do it with minimal cost, it would close some of the gap between satellite and cable. Honestly I'm just curious at a technical level if you could have a dish spaced out that far and make it work. I thought 95 wasn't on the Slimline dishes because it's FSS or whatever the lower power Ku services are and requires a bigger dish. All of the core licenses and satellites at 61.5 through 129 (except for 95 of course) are high power DBS.

A merged DirecTV/Dish would have an insane amount of spectrum, both land based (the LTE network Dish wants to build) along with space spectrum. They could absolutely kill any and all terrestrial services with the number of channels they'd have the capacity for.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

What is the "gap" between satellite and cable you're talking about? They are two different technologies, each with their own limitations, and more capacity won't eliminate limitations like rain fade or allow them to offer internet comparable to cable or DSL.


----------



## JosephB (Nov 14, 2005)

slice1900 said:


> What is the "gap" between satellite and cable you're talking about? They are two different technologies, each with their own limitations, and more capacity won't eliminate limitations like rain fade or allow them to offer internet comparable to cable or DSL.


The gap in local channel capacity. Many cable systems carry every local subchannel, and of course have a localized version of The Weather Channel.

I'm not talking about non-video services, so internet etc is not part of the discussion. And, I am fully aware that rain fade isn't something that can be fixed by more capacity.


----------



## lugnutathome (Apr 13, 2009)

Actually maintaining the separate business units as distinct subscriber services while leveraging the combined "headcount" for content pricing leverage with the network providers could in fact work out in favor of the consumer. In "metro" areas there is still cable and of course the internet is becoming a player in the realm rapidly. A two brand product line with one catering to the masses and another to the more affluent (or tech minded consumers) might in fact be a great move for all involved.

Empowering the two business units to compete could improve both brands and either way the parent company wins.

With 2 distinct technical infrastructures in play it would be cost prohibitive to roll all of one into the other however new subscribers in the future could benefit from equipment that would work on either (not because they they used the services of "A" or "B" but because future roll outs could leverage the same sats and tech with only branding variations). I could see through time leveraging economies of scale throughout the technical and network content realms as driving down costs (or at least keeping them stable). Sure its a breeding ground for greed and investor showboating but properly and responsibly managed (yeah there might be the problem) it could in fact benefit the consumers and the industry.

Don "Yeah I'm still optimistic despite being old enough to know better" Bolton


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

> A merged DirecTV/Dish would have an insane amount of spectrum, both land based *(the LTE network Dish wants to build) *along with space spectrum. They could absolutely kill any and all terrestrial services with the number of channels they'd have the capacity for.


LTE is not cheap by any means for home internet use.

If that's the route Dish wants to go, the people might as well subscribe to Satellite internet.
I will never drop my Cable company for LTE service from ATT or Verizon. That's NUTS!
Unless Dish and Directv want can sell LTE for a quarter of the price and triple the allowance then Verizon and Att. Maybe I would think about it.

$335 per month just for a 50 GB data service with Verizon.

I have a 250 GB peak time unlimited non peak per month for $60


----------



## medziatkowicz31 (Dec 16, 2012)

I hope they do merge and use the extra capacity to maybe offer local interest channels and ota sub channels. Maybe a local version of the weather channel for each dma?
They would have to consolidate satellites or else people will be having BUDS all over the place. I don't think home owners associations or landlords would like those huge satellite dishes everywhere.


----------



## wilbur_the_goose (Aug 16, 2006)

What's that phone number for Verizon FiOS?


----------



## JoeTheDragon (Jul 21, 2008)

JosephB said:


> 99-119 makes the most sense, especially considering that dishes and LNBs already exist to handle that.
> 
> I wonder how feasible a 61.5-101 dish would be as well as a 101-129 dish. They could put all the core programming at 99/101/103 and use birds east and west of those for locals and other data services. With that much bandwidth they could put up every local channel + subchannel + low power + localized weather/cable news channels. Especially if they used the event of swapping everyone out as an opportunity to get all HD capable equipment out there and killed SD.


also maybe even have all east HD and west HD feeds


----------



## RasputinAXP (Jan 23, 2008)

damondlt said:


> LTE is not cheap by any means for home internet use.
> 
> If that's the route Dish wants to go, the people might as well subscribe to Satellite internet.
> I will never drop my Cable company for LTE service from ATT or Verizon. That's NUTS!
> ...


Dish's LTE network is not Verizon. Dish owns a significant portion of LTE-ready spectrum to build out their own network.

See this article among others.


----------



## Curtis0620 (Apr 22, 2002)

Anybody tries to replace my Genie with a Hopper and it's hello cable and a brand new TiVo.


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

> Dish's LTE network is not Verizon. Dish owns a significant portion of LTE-ready spectrum to build out their own network.
> 
> See this article among others.


Well again not really sure what to make of it. If its towers, it still sounds like its mobile based to me.


----------



## DawgLink (Nov 5, 2006)

I hope they do merge and use the extra capacity to maybe offer local interest channels and ota sub channels. Maybe a local version of the weather channel for each dma?

If they did merge, there is no doubt in my mind that we would see less choices at more expensive prices. Yeah!


Sent from my iPhone using DBSTalk


----------



## APB101 (Sep 1, 2010)

slice1900 said:


> *No, the only reason Directv would want to buy Dish would be to get a better bargaining position with providers, and to eliminate their biggest competition. That's not good for consumers.* Even those for those who wish they could get all their subchannels. That's easy enough to fix, change the software so the receiver can scan for channels like every other ATSC receiver out there. That's much cheaper to fix than buying Dish!


If it keeps programming, and subscriber, costs in better control ... it may be a win/win.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

Athlon646464 said:


> *Update: **Dish-DirecTV Merger 'Makes A Lot Of Sense,' Says Ergen*
> 
> DirecTV's CEO may believe regulators would never allow a merger of the two big American satellite TV companies, but Charlie Ergen's ardor for such a deal remains undimmed.
> 
> ...


Acquiring Blockbuster made a lot of sense to Ergen too.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

JosephB said:


> To make it work economically, they'd essentially have to pick one existing platform or the other and standardize on it. That's what SiriusXM is doing. While you can still buy Sirius radios, over the next year everything will be on the "XM 2.0" platform which is essentially standardizing on the XM platform and then letting Sirius shut down through attrition.
> 
> For it to be economical on a DirecTV/Dish system, it would need to work on one of the two systems now. They don't have the capacity to broadcast in triplicate. Given that DirecTV has significantly more subscribers, it would make sense that they'd standardize there. That means every DISH customer would need to have every box and dish swapped out.
> 
> However, a complication comes into play that makes it not so simple: What would they do with all of the orbital slots they have? Would they continue the WA/EA paradigm that they have now? With their combined licenses at 99/101/103/110/119, they could standardize on that arc of satellites but doing that would essentially waste 129, 61.5, 72, and 77 (though, I suppose 129 is close enough maybe they could squeeze that into a 99-thru-129 dish?) If they went with a nationwide 99-119 or 99-129 arc, they could just swap out all DISH customers for DirecTV equipment, giving them the latest and greatest hardware and dish, and then pick off DirecTV customers with the new "bigger" dish much more slowly.


I can't think of anything worse that a merger and Ergen somehow taking charge. Just because someone has a lot of money and a high level job doesn't mean they know what they're doing.

Rich


----------



## JosephB (Nov 14, 2005)

Rich said:


> I can't think of anything worse that a merger and Ergen somehow taking charge. Just because someone has a lot of money and a high level job doesn't mean they know what they're doing.
> 
> Rich


In the business world, that's exactly what it means. Just because you personally don't like the choices Charlie would make doesn't mean he isn't smart. At any rate, though, I would expect that a merger would result in DirecTV being the surviving entity, and Charlie exiting the business. DirecTV is just so much bigger I don't see Charlie being able to come up with the cash to buy them out. It's more likely now that Malone is no longer in charge of DirecTV, and there's not a single guy with an ego in charge like there is at Dish, but I still don't see it being a high likelihood.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

JosephB said:


> In the business world, that's exactly what it means. Just because you personally don't like the choices Charlie would make doesn't mean he isn't smart. At any rate, though, I would expect that a merger would result in DirecTV being the surviving entity, and Charlie exiting the business. DirecTV is just so much bigger I don't see Charlie being able to come up with the cash to buy them out. It's more likely now that Malone is no longer in charge of DirecTV, and there's not a single guy with an ego in charge like there is at Dish, but I still don't see it being a high likelihood.


Having watched our CEO participate in the ruination of the corporation I worked for and knowing him personally, I'll stand by my statement.

Rich


----------



## gov (Jan 11, 2013)

I LOVE having both DirecTV and DISH at my house.

If one bought out the other I would be really disappointed


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

JosephB said:


> In the business world, that's exactly what it means. Just because you personally don't like the choices Charlie would make doesn't mean he isn't smart. At any rate, though, I would expect that a merger would result in DirecTV being the surviving entity, and Charlie exiting the business. DirecTV is just so much bigger I don't see Charlie being able to come up with the cash to buy them out. It's more likely now that Malone is no longer in charge of DirecTV, and there's not a single guy with an ego in charge like there is at Dish, but I still don't see it being a high likelihood.


Perhaps you should google "peter principle" if you think that reaching a certain level in the business world means you know what you're doing.

It is doubly true if you have a lot of money and can buy businesses. Donald Trump could buy the New York Yankees, for instance, but that doesn't mean he'd do a good job of running them.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Rich said:


> Acquiring Blockbuster made a lot of sense to Ergen too.


I filter the attacks on Ergen through the thread title and starting post. DirecTV's CEO would not say never to a merger. And Mr White's view of the problems facing the cable/satellite industry: "My own view is that it's not going to change in the short term. But it's clear that this isn't sustainable beyond the next couple of years. Something is going to have to give."

The point of the purchase of Blockbuster was not to keep the brick and mortar stores and DVD mailing service open. DISH is getting what they want out of the Blockbuster deal.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

slice1900 said:


> Perhaps you should google "peter principle" if you think that reaching a certain level in the business world means you know what you're doing.


Considering he started the company and was its CEO until just a couple of years ago Mr Ergen was already at the top of the ladder. And while there he grew the company from a C-Band distributor to the the company it is today. DISH had assets of $17 billion at the end of last year and has ended every year with a profit since 2002.

If that is "incompetent" what is competent? Having assets of $20 billion but negative equity of over $5 billion?


----------



## JosephB (Nov 14, 2005)

A lot of people feel that if a company doesn't cater to exactly what they want, then the whole company is worthless and a failure.

Obviously, since this is in the DirecTV forum, most people are not customers of Mr. Ergen. That's perfectly fine, and I too do not subscribe to DISH. However, he obviously knows what he is doing and is a competent businessman as evidenced by the size of the two companies he founded.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

James Long said:


> Considering he started the company and was its CEO until just a couple of years ago Mr Ergen was already at the top of the ladder. And while there he grew the company from a C-Band distributor to the the company it is today. DISH had assets of $17 billion at the end of last year and has ended every year with a profit since 2002.
> 
> If that is "incompetent" what is competent? Having assets of $20 billion but negative equity of over $5 billion?


I wasn't arguing whether or not Ergen is competent, I know nothing about him.

Just arguing against the general idea that because someone reaches a high level in a company or becomes a CEO that he knows how to do his job.


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

slice1900 said:


> Just arguing against the general idea that because someone reaches a high level in a company or becomes a CEO that he knows how to do his job.


As a general idea, such a person will know how to do the job.

I am certain there are glaring exceptions; perhaps you could start a list of them? Please.


----------



## DawgLink (Nov 5, 2006)

APB101 said:


> If it keeps programming, and subscriber, costs in better control ... it may be a win/win.


Why would a significant rival being bought bring lower costs to consumers?

Does anyone here think that DirecTV would lower their prices and therefore not have the same amount of income brought in as previous years?

I loved my years with DirecTV & will sign up with DirecTV in the future but this company will not lower prices whatsoever especially with less competition.



Laxguy said:


> As a general idea, such a person will know how to do the job.
> 
> I am certain there are glaring exceptions; perhaps you could start a list of them? Please.


Depends on the specific business but I would say generally that the CEO's of companies that I worked with (I am an attorney dealing with many companies) are far from the most qualified for their job.

Sent from my iPhone using DBSTalk
Sent from my iPhone using DBSTalk


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

Guess some of you didn't see undercover bosses when Michael White was on. 

He didn't have the first clue on how to install a satellite dish? 
So I agree with the comments about CEO being clueless. 

All you need Is money and you can own a company. 

Sent from my PantechP8010 using DBSTalk mobile app


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

damondlt said:


> Guess some of you didn't see undercover bosses when Michael White was on.
> 
> He didn't have the first clue on how to install a satellite dish?
> So I agree with the comments about CEO being clueless.


Most CEOs do not have training in every field position; some have no field training whatsoever. That is no proof that they are ignorant about running a large company. None.


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

Laxguy said:


> Most CEOs do not have training in every field position; some have no field training whatsoever. That is no proof that they are ignorant about running a large company. None.


This is not a court room,
Its ignorant not knowing your field.

When you are One of the Board of Directors of a company, you should have some field knowledge of the company you own.

At least Charlie self made his company, by starting at the bottom.


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

damondlt said:


> He didn't have the first clue on how to install a satellite dish?


That is not his job, his job is to make sure that process runs smoothly. that is why he has someone in charge for this


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

peds48 said:


> That is not his job, his job is to make sure that process runs smoothly. that is why he has someone in charge for this


Running a satellite company is his Business.
That's the problem with corporate America,
Lets just pay someone else to do it!


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

DawgLink said:


> Depends on the specific business but I would say generally that the CEO's of companies that I worked with (I am an attorney dealing with many companies) are far from the most qualified for their job. Sent from my iPhone using DBSTalk Sent from my iPhone using DBSTalk


Agree. Its based on Money not qualifications.


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

damondlt said:


> Running a satellite company is his Business.
> That's the problem with corporate America,
> Lets just pay someone else to do it!


So according to YOUR thinking, he should be able to install a satellite dish just in case an installer calls out sick!!!! REALLY????


----------



## DawgLink (Nov 5, 2006)

Agree. Its based on Money not qualifications.
And that can always put the company in danger when it goes through rough times.




Sent from my iPhone using DBSTalk


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

No. PEDS. He should be able to install and identify the equipment that of the company he owns, so he would know first hand what's really involved. 

Instead of listening to yes men who may not know what their talking about blowing smoke up the CEO a##. 

It's called knowing your company. 

Sent from my PantechP8010 using DBSTalk mobile app


----------



## DB Stalker (Aug 22, 2013)

So by that logic, the President a country should have a working knowledge of everything that is created in that country?

#)


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

damondlt said:


> This is not a court room,
> Its ignorant not knowing your field.
> 
> When you are One of the Board of Directors of a company, you should have some field knowledge of the company you own.
> ...


You have never been a manager of anything with a very deserve set of skills needed on the front lines then.. CEO has nothing to do with how to install a dish...


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

damondlt said:


> Guess some of you didn't see undercover bosses when Michael White was on.
> 
> All you need Is money and you can own a company.


Michael White OWNS DirecTV??? That's news. Most of us thought he was a CEO hired to run the company. (His compensation includes stock, but a little company called Berkshire Hathaway Inc and other institutions own 86% of DirecTV.)



damondlt said:


> At least Charlie self made his company, by starting at the bottom.


Yep ... he started at the bottom as president and co-founder.


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

So, the president of, say, El Paso NG Co. should know how to replace a defective section of pipeline? Know what compressors to run and when? The head of Ford should know how to operate a foundry? How to speed up a production line (well, yeah, probably that one.) The President of FedEx should know how to fly a jumbo jet? A million examples are there. 

You haven't produced one compelling one showing specifically where it's brought a company down.


----------



## JosephB (Nov 14, 2005)

The idea that Mike White or Charlie Ergen are bad CEOs because they couldn't install a dish is as silly as expecting an installer to know the orbital mechanics behind keeping the satellites in space.

A CEO does not necessarily need to know how to do every job in the company. If you think that, then you obviously have no idea what it takes to run a company the size of DirecTV or DISH shouldn't be spouting off about it.


----------



## JWKessler (Jun 3, 2004)

JosephB said:
 

> The gap in local channel capacity. Many cable systems carry every local subchannel, and of course have a localized version of The Weather Channel.
> 
> I'm not talking about non-video services, so internet etc is not part of the discussion. And, I am fully aware that rain fade isn't something that can be fixed by more capacity.


I can't speak for other cable operators, but I switched from Cable to Dish because my cable was so unreliable. Between the frequent dropouts and longer total outages - sometimes lasting days, cable was just one big pain. Yes, we occasionally experience brief periods of rain fade, and I occasionally have to brush the snow off the dish in the winter, but I can live with those annoyances for the overall improvement in reliability.


----------



## cypherx (Aug 27, 2010)

JosephB said:


> The idea that Mike White or Charlie Ergen are bad CEOs because they couldn't install a dish is as silly as expecting an installer to know the orbital mechanics behind keeping the satellites in space.
> 
> A CEO does not necessarily need to know how to do every job in the company. If you think that, then you obviously have no idea what it takes to run a company the size of DirecTV or DISH shouldn't be spouting off about it.


And Mike White did just that on an episode of Undercover Boss. It was a pretty cool episode actually.


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

James Long said:


> Yep ... he started at the bottom as president and co-founder.


Really?

Figured you of all people would have known this. 
"In 1980, he founded EchoStar with his wife and friend Jim DeFranco.[ He started selling satellite dishes door to door in Colorado"

Sounds like the bottom to me.

Most CEO's are Majority Share holders.
We know its a Publicly traded company.

If Mr. White is President and CEO I want to see proof that he is not majority share holder.


----------



## JosephB (Nov 14, 2005)

damondlt said:


> Really?
> 
> Figured you of all people would have known this.
> "In 1980, he founded EchoStar with his wife and friend Jim DeFranco.[ He started selling satellite dishes door to door in Colorado"
> ...


"Most" CEOs are not necessarily majority shareholders. Many are, but it's not a rule. Most CEOs get a significant portion of their pay from stock options and grants, but that doesn't make them majority owners. Tim Cook at Apple? Not a majority shareholder by a long shot, for example.

Mr White worked for Pepsi before DirecTV. Now, I'm sure he's a wealthy man, but he didn't make enough money at Pepsi to buy most of DirecTV and take it over. The DirecTV Board of Directors hired him, just like a company hires an accountant or an HR manager or a janitor, they also hire CEOs who report to the Board of Directors.


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

Laxguy said:


> So, the president of, say, El Paso NG Co. should know how to replace a defective section of pipeline? Know what compressors to run and when? The head of Ford should know how to operate a foundry? How to speed up a production line (well, yeah, probably that one.) The President of FedEx should know how to fly a jumbo jet? A million examples are there.
> 
> You haven't produced one compelling one showing specifically where it's brought a company down.


Now your all Grasping at straws.

You Own/Run a Billion Dollar Satellite TV company , you should know something about it. 
After all you are in charge of everything.

Henry Ford is Dead, by the way, and knew a few things about cars LOL
Also for Never took a bail out from the government, Which tells me, there is a lot more knowledge in that Company then, the Just Huge investors that know nothing about cars.

Fed ex doesn't build Jets , So the CEO wouldn't need to know how to fly.

And I bet the President of EL Paso NG would know how to change a section of pipeline.


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

DB Stalker said:


> So by that logic, the President a country should have a working knowledge of everything that is created in that country?
> 
> #)


The president of the United states doesn't make nearly the pay Mr White does.

The President Of the United States of America.
*The President of the United States of America (POTUS)is the head of state and head of government of the United States. The president leads the executive branch of the federal government and is the commander-in-chief of the United States Armed Forces.*

The President Knows his Business.

CEO

A *chief executive officer* (*CEO*) is the highest-ranking corporate officer (executive) or administrator in charge of total management of an organization.
Not so sure he knows all aspects of his business.

But when your loaded and can pay someone else to do it , I guess your all right it doesn't matter.


----------



## JosephB (Nov 14, 2005)

What does the amount of money they make have to do with it?

A CEO need not and does not know how to do each and every job within the company. Does he need to know concepts? Yes, absolutely. But Mike White and Charlie Ergen don't know the intricate details of how everything works within their systems. Charlie probably couldn't install a Dish 1000.2 and Mike White couldn't install a Slimline dish. Charlie probably has a good grasp on the concepts of geostationary orbits, but I guarantee you he doesn't know the math involved. If you put Mike White inside the LABC, he probably couldn't tell a demodulator from an encoder, but he doesn't need to. That's why companies hire experts that know what they're doing. Mike and Charlie are *businesspeople* who know how to *run a business* and those skills include how to hire people that know things they don't.


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

I finished my Rant.

I still don't think its right, and that the root of our economy problems.
Our country is getting like the rest of the world Your Rich or your Poor.

And as long as these Billion dollar companies keep merging and rates keep rising and Profits keep rising . We suffer .

Directv Dish, ATT Verizon, are no better then the Government.


----------



## Diana C (Mar 30, 2007)

damondlt said:


> ...You Own/Run a Billion Dollar Satellite TV company , you should know something about it.
> After all you are in charge of everything...


I can tell you for a fact that Steve Jobs, while he knew how to USE an iPhone, had no clue how to write an app for it. Likewise, I expect Mike White can USE a DirecTV system, and can talk about the technology, but I am not at all surprised he couldn't install a dish. Apple's business is electronic devices and the software to operate them, however Jobs was neither an engineer nor a programmer. While as a young man he was a self-taught circuit designer, he could not have personally designed, built or repaired a Mac, iPhone, iPad or iPod. He was not a programmer and could not write code for ANY of his company's products. What he *was *capable of was seeing market direction before anyone else and effectively managing a group of people to achieve a goal that exploited his vision of the market. It was that ability, not a hands-on knowledge of the technology, that made him an incredibly successful businessman.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

damondlt said:


> I finished my Rant.


Sounds like your rant is more about the haves and the have-nots than the job of a CEO.

Personally, I believe a CEO should be working on vision/direction rather than relatively mundane tasks. What purpose does that serve when hard-working people are already employed to do that?

A good CEO doesn't have to have started at the ground and worked his way up and someone who started at the ground and worked their way up doesn't necessarily make a good CEO.

I think the reality here is very simple: You can't see the forest for the trees.


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

Finally (oh, not really, I am sure more will post....  ), I bet Mr. White could install a dish correctly. Might take him a while, esp. pointing it just right. Just as most here _*could.*_.. but I don't have the patience, or inclination to learn then do a job that'd take me 10+ hours when it could be done by a pro in an hour.

And I am sure neither Mr. Watson of IBM soldered anything to a board, or programmed Watson the computer.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

slice1900 said:


> Perhaps you should google "peter principle" if you think that reaching a certain level in the business world means you know what you're doing.
> 
> It is doubly true if you have a lot of money and can buy businesses. Donald Trump could buy the New York Yankees, for instance, but that doesn't mean he'd do a good job of running them.


Excellent post! I actually read that book and watched many managers rise to the upper level of their competency and get promoted and fail miserably. The thought of Trump buying my beloved Yankees is enough to turn my stomach. Very good example of the Peter Principle.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

Laxguy said:


> As a general idea, such a person will know how to do the job.
> 
> I am certain there are glaring exceptions; perhaps you could start a list of them? Please.


How about Union Carbide? Totally ruined by mismanagement. And their CEO that I knew is still wanted by India for murder.

And JC Penny comes to mind, too.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

damondlt said:


> Guess some of you didn't see undercover bosses when Michael White was on.
> 
> He didn't have the first clue on how to install a satellite dish?
> So I agree with the comments about CEO being clueless.
> ...


Could not agree more.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

Laxguy said:


> Most CEOs do not have training in every field position; some have no field training whatsoever. That is no proof that they are ignorant about running a large company. None.


If you had a dress company and you were threatened by a takeover would you sell off your most profitable dress stores to make the takeover less attractive? Our CEO and his staff panicked when GAF, a much smaller company with a lot less assets, threatened to take over UCC. So, what do they do? They sell off our Prestone anti-freeze business along with our Eveready battery business. Our most profitable businesses.

A couple years later our CEO was interviewed by the WSJ and admitted that was the stupidest mistake he had ever made.

Rich


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

Rich said:


> How about Union Carbide? Totally ruined by mismanagement. And their CEO that I knew is still wanted by India for murder.
> 
> And JC Penny comes to mind, too.
> 
> Rich


That list would be endless. We better not get into that. LOL!

I'll admit Mr White is doing a fine job of keeping Directv on the level for NOW. But sooner or later people will cut back.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

Rich said:


> If you had a dress company and you were threatened by a takeover would you sell off your most profitable dress stores to make the takeover less attractive? Our CEO and his staff panicked when GAF, a much smaller company with a lot less assets, threatened to take over UCC. So, what do they do? They sell off our Prestone anti-freeze business along with our Eveready battery business. Our most profitable businesses.
> 
> A couple years later our CEO was interviewed by the WSJ and admitted that was the stupidest mistake he had ever made.
> 
> Rich


The problem there was that it was a bad thing for your company, but not for your CEO. He was afraid he'd lose his job if the company was taken over, so he did whatever he could to make it less attractive.

Back in the 80s when there were a lot of leveraged buyouts being done with junk bonds, one of the strategies companies used to try to prevent being taken over like this was the "poison pill strategy". They'd set things up in their charter so in the event of being taken over some (presumably bad) things would happen to make the company less attractive. One of them was typically large cash payments made to the CEO and senior leadership - ostensibly to avoid the kind of bad decisions your CEO made. The problem there was that it gave CEOs incentive to want to get bought out, even if the deal was bad for shareholders, because they'd personally benefit.

Now such "golden parachute" clauses seem to be the norm for CEO contracts, which goes against everything I was taught in business school about how compensation should be designed to align the employees' interests with that of the corporation. For the CEO, who has the most control over the fate of a corporation, that alignment should be maximized, but golden parachutes go the other direction.

Never understood why giving a lot of money to the CEO was supposed to be a tough pill for the company doing the buyout to swallow. Might as well put in the corporate charter that in the event of a buyout, we'll withdraw $5 million in ones and have a big bonfire in the parking lot. It would be the same for the company doing the buyout, the same from the rank and file employees perspective, but not give the CEO incentive to make his company an attractive takeover target.


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

Yes, but one has to show that, for example, the chief of Penney's knew nothing about retail sales, or the UC man knew nothing of chemical processes.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

Laxguy said:


> Yes, but one has to show that, for example, the chief of Penney's knew nothing about retail sales, or the UC man knew nothing of chemical processes.


I believe he was an engineer and had overseen chemical processes. Kinda hard to be a drunk and a CEO at the same time, no?

Rich


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

In general....I see little value to DirecTV for a merger, but plenty for Dish.

For that reason...I suspect any deal of this nature (if it ever happens at all) will be a major sticky wicket in terms of the financial arrangements. We'll see what the future brings...but hopefully no one holds their breath.


----------



## longrider (Apr 21, 2007)

damondlt said:


> That list would be endless. We better not get into that. LOL!
> 
> I'll admit Mr White is doing a fine job of keeping Directv on the level for NOW. But sooner or later people will cut back.


I would not say just for now. I have read quotes where Mr. White absolutely realizes the current trend of annual price increases is not sustainable long term. Whether or not anything can be done about it before all providers start seeing major subscriber cutbacks is still to be seen


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

I'm not convinced that Directv being bigger by virtue of adding Dish's customer base would improve their negotiating position all that much. They're already negotiating for 20 million people. The more customers they have the more people there are to ***** if you don't carry Pac 12, some minor RSN that basically serves a couple pro sports terms in a single city, or locals held hostage by owners who want a 300% fee increase because they overvalue their network's content.

What would be more interesting is if Dish held out against ESPN/Disney, and to the point of being willing to drop it for a time, to put all sports programming on a separate tier. Directv obviously could never do that given their customer base, but if there is any major provider out there who would potentially be in a position to do this, it would be Dish. That could set a precedent for Directv and the cable companies to follow later. If they merge, that can't happen.


----------



## Curtis0620 (Apr 22, 2002)

No ESPN would significantly reduce DISH's customer base. In effect, it would amost be like a merger with the rush of people switching to Directv.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

damondlt said:


> "In 1980, he founded EchoStar with his wife and friend Jim DeFranco.[ He started selling satellite dishes door to door in Colorado"
> 
> Sounds like the bottom to me.


Founding a company is not starting at the bottom and working your way up. It is starting at the top and filling in the lower levels. Not the "Peter Principal" of rising to one's level of incompetence. (Which is what was being discussed when I made that statement.)



damondlt said:


> If Mr. White is President and CEO I want to see proof that he is not majority share holder.


Pick your favorite financial site and look it up. I noted that DirecTV was 86% institutional owned with the majority of that being Berkshire Hathaway. Mr White is NOT the majority share holder.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

Curtis0620 said:


> No ESPN would significantly reduce DISH's customer base. In effect, it would amost be like a merger with the rush of people switching to Directv.


Not suggesting they get rid of ESPN, just that they hold out and force it off the basic tiers. Then they could offer lower prices for people who don't want sports and take away some Directv/cable customers, and make up for any losses they suffered if they didn't have ESPN for a short time during negotiations.


----------



## comizzou573 (Aug 6, 2007)

i think that could benefit some dish customers, we would be able to get distants through directv again, I have waivers with dish network.


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

i think that could benefit some dish customers, we would be able to get distants through directv again, I have waivers with dish network.
What's wrong with All American Direct? 


Sent from my PantechP8010 using DBSTalk mobile app


----------



## comizzou573 (Aug 6, 2007)

Many things are wrong with all american direct, I have them and they are expensive...they should be giving us HD for the price we are paying.


----------



## Athlon646464 (Feb 23, 2007)

*Update: **Dish and DirecTV stocks surge on merger reports*

Shares of Dish Network and DirecTV soared higher Wednesday following reports that the two satellite television companies are considering a merger.

Bloomberg broke the news. Dish shares surged 9% following the report, while DirecTV rose 7.5%.

Dish Network Corp. Chairman Charlie Ergen recently contacted DirecTV Chief Executive Officer Mike White to discuss a merger of the two satellite television companies, according to several people with knowledge of the matter.

Dish and DirecTV declined to comment.

From Bloomberg

From CNNMoney


----------



## WB4CS (Dec 12, 2013)

Athlon646464 said:


>


All I see in this picture is "Between DIRECTV and Dish, more birds choose to poop on Dish Network than DIRECTV."


----------

