I posted a article similar to this in the pub 2-3 months ago where Directv basically said the same thing..I was "harassed" LOL by the OP and was generally chided and told that this would never happen...hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
Ergen touts chances of a DirecTV-Dish Network merger winning approval
- Thread starter Scott Greczkowski
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 121
- Views 20K
Of course, therein lies the "big win" for the SAT companies...they save a ton of money on churn and new customer deals. Who loses? The customer.
I hope they are right, because a merger would be detrimental to the customer and would be the impetus for me cutting the cord.
Last edited:
First there was some benefit from the Sirius/XM merger in the Ala-Carte packaged from Sirius mandated by the merger approval. I use that in the truck for only $7.75 a month for up to 40 channels.
As for a DirecTV/Dish merger, the main benefit would be the negotiating power with content providers. Even combined, DirecTV/Dish would only approach the blocks of subscribers that Comcast has. The FCC worried a lot about monopoly with a DirecTV/Dish merger and never even consiudered the monopoly that cable companies have in most areas.
The bigger the blocks of subscribers, the better the rate from the content providers.
This country worked well for years with monopolies as long as they are monitored. Look how the phones bills were kept low when there was Ma Bell and Ma Bell. Same with local utilities, like gas. The great savings of "competition" hasn't come about.
The main disadvantage of a monopoly is that it kills the jumpers that bounce between services counting on the welcome discounts back and forth.
As for a DirecTV/Dish merger, the main benefit would be the negotiating power with content providers. Even combined, DirecTV/Dish would only approach the blocks of subscribers that Comcast has. The FCC worried a lot about monopoly with a DirecTV/Dish merger and never even consiudered the monopoly that cable companies have in most areas.
The bigger the blocks of subscribers, the better the rate from the content providers.
This country worked well for years with monopolies as long as they are monitored. Look how the phones bills were kept low when there was Ma Bell and Ma Bell. Same with local utilities, like gas. The great savings of "competition" hasn't come about.
The main disadvantage of a monopoly is that it kills the jumpers that bounce between services counting on the welcome discounts back and forth.
There's always Apple vs Android. I'm sure you've seen what those idiots post around the interwebs.
Even within a specific technical standard, I see fanboy wars. Olympus vs Panasonic in the Micro 4/3 forums is rampant. It's insane.
People seem to need to take sides, and form bonds with brands and entities. Historically, it was mostly limited to sports teams. But, now we see it with corporations and political parties/candidates. It has gone way beyond traditional brand and party loyalty. It has become a mental and emotional illness of epidemic proportion.
Which is probably why it's being discussed. Full time RSNs, everything in HD, etc
Geronimo said:::hbirthday:
:
:
:
You have just won the post of the day award.
Yeah!
GaryPen said:
You are 100% correct. I was simply speaking of Sat Guys. People fight over which brand of underwear is better.
If it happens, you can bet your bottom dollar that Charlie will be very highly placed.
I'm leaving Direct and having Dish installed real soon. I would hate it if that happened. They could raise prices and fees just like Sirius did. Sirius said they would not raise prices but they ended up taking away the free Internet listening and started charging more fees. Thank God I bought 2 lifetime subscriptions back when Stern said he was joining.
A merger could create a company that serves around 40% more subscribers than Comcast. Comcast leads DIRECTV by a little over 2 million subscribers.
http://www.ncta.com/Stats/TopMSOs.aspx
When there's competition, they can price fix. i.e. when it was just CPL, electricity prices were consistent. Now they are all over the place.
Both D* and (especially) E* should settle all the lawsuits they have before talks of or a merge happen. I as a D* sub don't want to pay for the TIVO, VOOM and the other lawsuits E* has had. As I'm sure you E* subs don't want to pay for D*s lawsuits.
Who would run the company, Charlie, Mike or some other third party? And would we want that person running this new sat co?
Who would run the company, Charlie, Mike or some other third party? And would we want that person running this new sat co?
Last edited:
Yea monopolies such as AT&T were all peaches and cream.
Right, people apparently forget that you were forced to lease those high-tech rotary phones and pay up the rear for long distance service.
You'd be surprised how many people still do...never bothered to get themselves "un-grandfathered". After my father died last year, took a look at my Mom's AT&T bill...knocked it down nearly $100.00 per month. They just kept paying.
I'm amazed that people still don't fathom the dangers of monopolies or oligopolies...oligopoly ownership of content and channel providers are part of the problem, and we think that a satellite oligopoly will fix that?
Well, I haven't yet read through this whole thread to see if somebody else already said this, but I believe Charlie just said this stuff about a merger as a "strategic gossip leak". Probably hoping it would either jack up his stock price for a bit at least, or maybe just deflect bad press from the Voom vs Dish lawsuit.
