DISH Network/DirecTV Merger?

wrote in message
...

I'm getting the idea you just like to argue.

No he doesn't. ;-)

Now you're just being contrary...

Thomas T. Veldhouse wrote:
How would Echostar/Dish be degraded by the merger? Why would prices
"inevitably" go up? Personally, I think DirecTV was cheaper ... my bill went
up when I switched to Dish ... in fact I pay $10 for the same programming I
had with DirecTV [and two receivers and a DVR].

Depends on the packages you get. For us, the price for DirecTv would be
$11.50 higher per month than with Dish (mainly because DirecTv does not
have an equivalent package to Dish's AT60 - yes DirecTv would have more
channels, but channels we are not interested in and rather not be paying
for).

I disagree with this.

Fair enough.

For the most part, the picture quality of the two is
about equal.

I can agree with that, wholeheartedly. They are both distorted, but in
different ways, and I don't consider one to be better than the other. I'd
just suggest DirecTV for most, and Dish if you only use your television for
one source (dbs).

Some channels on Dish are better and some on DirecTV are better.

I haven't noticed a difference from one channel to another with either
provider.

What I liked about DirecTV is that if one channel had good quality, it
usually
always has good quality.

Well, it is consistently fuzzy, for sure.

It seems that with Dish the quality changes from day
to day and hour to hour. Having said that, when a channel is over
compressed
on DirecTV, the artifacts are easier to see, however, edges remain sharp.
On
Dish, the picture first gets quite soft and the picture develops a sort of
"foggy" look to it. That is followed by artifacts that appear in moving
areas
of the image and the artifacts tend to have less contrast then those
produced
by DirecTV, so they are less "noticable" but they are actually more
annoying
to me [I hate a soft image].

I'm surprised you could stomach DirecTV at all then, as every channel has a
soft image, consistently. Note that I don't have HD, but many visitors to
my house think that I do.

I had DirecTV for many years up until May of
this year, and by the beginning of June I picked up Dish Network. So, I
have
recent experience with both.

As far as your indication that Dish is "Darker" than DirecTV, I have to
answer
that with an outright NO.

Tell ya what . . . I've got professional video test patterns on DVD, and I
calibrate CCTV equipment, as part of my job (so I know how to use them).
Come on over to my place and bring your Dish Network Receiver with you.
I'll show you how to properly adjust contrast and brightness (among other
settings). You will see -with your own eyes- that my monitor is perfectly
calibrated. (But my monitor only has one memory setting, so the ONE group
of settings is used for every source.) After YOU have verified that my
monitor is properly calibrated, we'll hook up your Dish receiver to my A/V
receiver so we can bounce back and forth between Dish and DirecTV -on the
same channel-. You will swear that there is something wrong with my video
equipment as the video will be extremely dark when I switch over to the Dish
Network input on the A/V receiver. But if you bypass the A/V receiver and
hook it up directly to my monitor (or any other monitor ***properly
adjusted***), the result will be the same . . . the video will look
surprisingly dark.

But on most television/monitors, Dish Network looks fantastic, as the
factory settings of the television have both brightness and contrast cranked
up way too high, so the dark video from Dish receiver looks about
ight. -Dave

"Bob" wrote in
y.net:

There was no option for who was installing the coax. Their guy was
doing it. Period. End of speculation.


Then that is his option, not necessarily an imposition by building codes,
as electrical and likely plumbing is.

"Gary Tait" wrote in message
...
"Bob" wrote in
y.net:

There was no option for who was installing the coax. Their guy was
doing it. Period. End of speculation.


Then that is his option, not necessarily an imposition by building codes,
as electrical and likely plumbing is.


I never said it was an imposition by building code.

I said it was the developer's restriction compounded by the trades not
allowing non-union workers on the job site.

George Max wrote in
:


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.


In a nutshell, Echostar was poor at convincing them they should merge (and
AFAIK, Newscorp behind the other way, so they could buy DirecTV.)

"Thomas T. Veldhouse" wrote in
:

How would Echostar/Dish be degraded by the merger? Why would prices
"inevitably" go up? Personally, I think DirecTV was cheaper ... my
bill went up when I switched to Dish ... in fact I pay $10 for the
same programming I had with DirecTV [and two receivers and a DVR].


No new hardware/ software/programming. Essentially left to stagnate and die
off. If you want new hardware or channels, you get a DirecTV system.

Bill R wrote in :

EchoStar buyout weighed -- DirecTV merger seen
http://www.denverpost.com/business/ci_4063441

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

I think:


On one hand no.

On the other hand, yes, with conditions:

The hardware platforms eventually be merged.

Open CE market for hardware, like it used to be for DirecTV.

In article , John
Wonderly wrote:

"Dr. Personality" wrote in message
...
In article , ****dick
wrote:

If this deal would be approved by the regulators now, why didn't they
approve the Dish takeover of DirecTV a couple years ago? Has the
landscape
really changed that much???

Murdoch didn't want that deal to go through. Things are different now.
You run a faux-news propaganda service for the incumbent government for
a few years, and they owe you. The excuse for approving the takeover
will be that "the industry landscape has changed."

OK, if eventually the government disapproves this, will you come back here
and eat crow?


Oh, sure, just like everybody else here does.

In alt.dbs.directv Bob wrote:


I never said it was an imposition by building code.

I said it was the developer's restriction compounded by the trades not
allowing non-union workers on the job site.


You indictated that it was industry standard and that it wasn't allowed in
Chicago. I dare say you could have told that builder it is no deal unless you
are doing the coax and you would have been gold. Also, I am confident that
there are plenty of other builders in Chicagoland that will not put up a fuss
if you ask them to tell you before the dry wall goes up so that you can jump
in and install you coax.

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