DISH Network/DirecTV Merger?

Mike T. wrote:



OK, I'll simplify it. The average dbs bill would increase from ~50 to ~100
per month.

Bull**** scare tactics. The average bill wouldn't be anywhere near
$100. Those people will just go to cable. Here a similar cable package
is within $5 of what I pay now.

Mike T. wrote:

I don't think that it was done to raise stock prices or I would not have
posted it. By the way, if you read any of the Satellite forums you will
see that this is being discussed on all of them. There may be something to
it. The satellite companies HAVE to do something within the next few
years or they are dead.


Why do you say that? Cable is a long way (decades, minimum) from even
trying to kill dbs. So what is on the horizon that is the supposed dbs
killer, if the companies don't do something? -Dave



It is not cable (at least in the near future) that the satellite
companies are worried about. It is the phone companies. In a lot of
areas they are wiring (or planning to wire) the neighborhoods with fiber
so they can offer video services. The roll out has started in some
areas and where it is offered the prices are always cheaper than cable
or satellite and the services (like FiOS) can offer more channels than
cable or satellite. The cable companies are VERY concerned about
services like FiOS because the telcos have VERY deep pockets and can
afford to offer deep discounts to attract their customers.
--
Bill R.

Remove nospam_ in e-mail address to reply by e-mail

To me, the most interesting thing about this thread is that I cannot
access the referenced Denver Post story on my Dell PC which uses
Internet Ecplorer.

But on my Mac using Safari--there it is!

In alt.dbs.directv Bill R wrote:
EchoStar buyout weighed -- DirecTV merger seen
http://www.denverpost.com/business/ci_4063441

How do you DISH Network and DirecTV subscribers feel about this?

At this point in time, I think it will be a good thing IF and only IF they
reallocate bandwidth and force everybody over to new hardware. Failing to do
this will mean they are remaining redundant and thus, they are simply reducing
competition.

--
Thomas T. Veldhouse
Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1

Little Sir Echo wrote:

To me, the most interesting thing about this thread is that I cannot
access the referenced Denver Post story on my Dell PC which uses
Internet Ecplorer.

But on my Mac using Safari--there it is!

For those that can't access the Denver Post link here are a couple mo
http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drm...851243,00.html
http://www.multichannel.com/article/...=Breaking+News

--
Bill R.

Remove nospam_ in e-mail address to reply by e-mail

In alt.dbs.directv Little Sir Echo wrote:
To me, the most interesting thing about this thread is that I cannot
access the referenced Denver Post story on my Dell PC which uses
Internet Ecplorer.

But on my Mac using Safari--there it is!

Sounds like a local issue to me. I am able to view it with both Internet
Explorer and Mozilla Firefox.

--
Thomas T. Veldhouse
Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1

In alt.dbs.directv Mike T. wrote:
I don't think that it was done to raise stock prices or I would not have
posted it. By the way, if you read any of the Satellite forums you will
see that this is being discussed on all of them. There may be something to
it. The satellite companies HAVE to do something within the next few
years or they are dead.

Why do you say that? Cable is a long way (decades, minimum) from even
trying to kill dbs. So what is on the horizon that is the supposed dbs
killer, if the companies don't do something? -Dave


How can you say that? For the most part, DBS is only a single decade old. It
could just as easily die in the same period of time.

--
Thomas T. Veldhouse
Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1

In alt.dbs.directv Bill R wrote:

It is not cable (at least in the near future) that the satellite
companies are worried about. It is the phone companies. In a lot of
areas they are wiring (or planning to wire) the neighborhoods with fiber
so they can offer video services. The roll out has started in some
areas and where it is offered the prices are always cheaper than cable
or satellite and the services (like FiOS) can offer more channels than
cable or satellite. The cable companies are VERY concerned about
services like FiOS because the telcos have VERY deep pockets and can
afford to offer deep discounts to attract their customers.

A couple of Telcos have deep pockets, like Verizon does. However, telcos like
Qwest have shallow pockets and extremely deep debt. $15.4 BILLION and with a
market capitalization of only $14.38 BILLION ... it is worth less than its
debt! Considering that the company is not even profitable, I have my doubts
that it is a serious competitor to anybody. Comcast is stealing their
remaining thunder. The fastest DSL they can offer the vast majority of its
customers is 1.5Mbps down and 768Kbps up ... and that is the customers that
can even get DSL on their old decrepit lines in Minnesota. Their previous CEO
raided the company coffers and lives in luxury on it. I think several other
baby bells are in the same boat. I continue to have hope that they might
compete, so I am back to keeping my foot in the door and rating telephone
services [so I can check qualifications on future DSL offerings], but I am not
holding my breath currently.

--
Thomas T. Veldhouse
Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1

In alt.dbs.directv George Max wrote:

Didn't DISH try to buy DirectTV a couple of years ago and was shot
down as being anticompetitive? I certainly expect to see the same
ruling the other way too.


Circumstances have changed considerably. Their competitors are offering
bundled services that the DBS providers can not currently compete with due to
fact that they are so resource poor [said bandwidth poor]. High definition
television is an area they can compete in the short term, but over time, the
resources are already saturated and their is no room for growth, which is
required to continue to compete. High speed internet and telephone are not
viable options for the DBS operators unless they deal with a third party (say
Covad as an ILEC and use VoIP like Vonage), but the third parties can't not
compete either. The DBS operators need to be able to offer something that the
cable companies can't and I think their only hope lies with consolidating
resources to better secure low price programming and to use the resulting
bandwidth returned via consolidation will allow them to use their creativity
to offer or enhance their products. I do not believe they can do this
separately without addition bandwidth resources.

--
Thomas T. Veldhouse
Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1

OK, I'll simplify it. The average dbs bill would increase from ~50 to
~100 per month.

Bull**** scare tactics. The average bill wouldn't be anywhere near $100.
Those people will just go to cable. Here a similar cable package is
within $5 of what I pay now.

It is if you stick to the analog tier, which is quickly being phased out by
the cable companies. Where we live now, I could get analog cable service
with MOST of the channels I get through DirecTV, and that cable service
would be about $5 more per month. If I wanted the same channels in digital
(soon that will be all that is available), the cost is about twice that.
Oh, and the cable companies don't like to advertise that not all channels
are digital in the digital packages. So essentially, the "digital" package
just doubles the cost for the same channels, some of which are
igital. -Dave