Charlie Approaches DIRECTV about a Merger.

Can someone that have both providers Dish/Directv with Genie and Hopper switch out their cards on each other to see if it's compatible, If it holds to be true or just a myth.
 
I do not remember if I wrote in this thread before, but I remember posting a similar response. I am against it; we need competition. Otherwise, I think the prices will rise. Ugh, Charlie...just stop...
 
Don't worry. The satellite providers do not want to merge. It's their way of ensuring that Comcast does not get any bigger.....basically if you allow Time Warner and Comcast to merge, then we'll merge, You cannot deny us if you let them merge. That would upset the industry and allow for little competition.

Dish and Directv are not friends, but they are to nail Comcast.
 
Don't worry. The satellite providers do not want to merge. It's their way of ensuring that Comcast does not get any bigger.....basically if you allow Time Warner and Comcast to merge, then we'll merge, You cannot deny us if you let them merge. That would upset the industry and allow for little competition.

Dish and Directv are not friends, but they are to nail Comcast.
Sounds plausible...I think Charlie sees a full house.
 
Don't worry. The satellite providers do not want to merge. It's their way of ensuring that Comcast does not get any bigger.....basically if you allow Time Warner and Comcast to merge, then we'll merge, You cannot deny us if you let them merge. That would upset the industry and allow for little competition.

Dish and Directv are not friends, but they are to nail Comcast.
Don't kid yourself. "Friends" has nothing to do with it.

I agree a large part of this is to throw a wrench into the Comcast/TWC deal, but both companies will run with it if there is even a possibility of acceptable terms being worked out.

A merger is a virtual certainty, the only question is when.
 
Can someone that have both providers Dish/Directv with Genie and Hopper switch out their cards on each other to see if it's compatible, If it holds to be true or just a myth.

More than just swapping cards and resuming dishes would need to be done.

Sent from my iPhone using SatelliteGuys
 
C'mon, no one has said it yet??? You people are slacking. The new product will be called the... wait for it... The Plopper.

OUCH! OUCH! OUCH!

We're gonna havta hurt you for that one!

GIVE HIM A SHIRLEY TEMPLE!

Sent from my iPhone using SatelliteGuys
 
Not any more. Cable passes 96%+ of households in the US. DIRECTV and Dish have a combined market share over 30%, so less than 15% of their subs do not have access to cable.
Ok then... how about GOOD Cable. :D Not to many people have access to a GOOD cable company. :D
 
From this mornings SeekingAlpha.

Analysts weigh in on Dish-DirecTV merger talk • 9:45 AM

  • Wells Fargo thinks it make strategic sense for Dish Network's (DISH -0.3%) Charlie Ergen to be knocking on the door of his counterpart at DirecTV (DTV -0.8%).
  • Exploring a merger borders on a fiduciary responsibility given the M&A activity in the pay-TV sector.
  • It wouldn't surprise analyst Marci Ryvicker if yesterday's headline story was leaked from inside of Dish to get the due diligence discussion in overdrive.
  • If Dish and DirecTV agree to some sort of price freezes on rural regions where it will be dominant, there's a chance regulators would let the merger progress, thinks Ryvicker.
 
Sounds like the talk is picking up some real steam, I guess we shall see.

Scott I know your gut has been in overdrive with Dish/Disney but anything left of gut feelings on this :)

Sent from my iPhone using SatelliteGuys
 
If Dish and DirecTV agree to some sort of price freezes on rural regions where it will be dominant, there's a chance regulators would let the merger progress, thinks Ryvicker.
I originally thought the rural issue could be a roadblock, but the more I think about it, its an easy argument to counter.

One could argue, probably validly, the rural markets are not setting prices. National pricing is driven by the larger markets where there is competition. Even if they move to regional pricing, a mandate that "rural" (however that is defined) pricing can never be higher than the least expensive regional market, or has to be x% less, would seem reasonable.

There is still a very valid argument that even in many larger markets, it will bring the count of providers down from three to two, and two providers are not enough to make a market competitive. There are counters to that too though.

This just might get through.
 
What a nightmare for anyone who would have to adhere to price restrictions in rural markets. The city folks would be crying foul all over the place, therefore upsetting the larger markets (why do we have to pay more than they do?). I can't fathom how that could be reasonably expected or implemented.
 
What a nightmare for anyone who would have to adhere to price restrictions in rural markets. The city folks would be crying foul all over the place, therefore upsetting the larger markets (why do we have to pay more than they do?). I can't fathom how that could be reasonably expected or implemented.
Implementing would be easy. The only folks crying foul would be on boards like this, everyone else would be clueless.

I'm not saying I'm actually for such a system, just that it is just the type of arrangement the companies and regulators could sign on to. There is a long, and mostly accepted, history of subsidizing rural markets for many services.
 
Merge the providers/content owners, break up the bundles. I would not accept anything less with a merger deal.
 
I only count Senators and the rural areas have more Senators.

Oh please, Everyone with an 8th grade education knows that each state is only allowed two Senators where as the house of representatives are based upon actual population. That's why Illinois has more seats in the house than Montanna. You know because more people live in Montanna than Illinois.... :rolleyes:

Implementing would be easy. The only folks crying foul would be on boards like this, everyone else would be clueless.

I'm not saying I'm actually for such a system, just that it is just the type of arrangement the companies and regulators could sign on to. There is a long, and mostly accepted, history of subsidizing rural markets for many services.

I don't see people crying foul in rural areas when they pay higher gas cost because it costs more to ship gas out there then in the city, but then again its a two way street because your taxed more in the city. Usually the suburbs are the cheapest where rural and metro city prices are skyrocketed.
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 0, Members: 0, Guests: 0)

Who Read This Thread (Total Members: 1)

Latest posts