So what happens when the Deathstar takes over Time Warner?

Discussion in 'DIRECTV Support Forum' started by Dee_Ann, Oct 23, 2016.

  1. rvvaquero

    rvvaquero SatelliteGuys Pro

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2012
    Posts:
    1,430
    Likes Received:
    1,253
    Location:
    Wanderer
    Good point.
     
  2. comfortably_numb

    comfortably_numb Dogs have owners, cats have staff
    Pub Member / Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2011
    Posts:
    4,564
    Likes Received:
    4,132
    Location:
    Missouri/Kansas
    primestar31, jerryez and JSheridan like this.
  3. EarDemon

    EarDemon SatelliteGuys Pro

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2014
    Posts:
    989
    Likes Received:
    315
    Location:
    USA
    Not totally true. Verizon carries CSN Philadelphia on Fios in the Philly market, and I believe cable overbuilder and direct competitor RCN does as well. It's just the two satellite providers that don't carry it, Not sure if the terrestrial loophole is still a thing, or if it has been closed and Comcast is no longer grandfathered, but you can bet if Dish was given the opportunity to pick up CSN Philly, you know that they wouldn't.
     
  4. SamCdbs

    SamCdbs SatelliteGuys Pro

    Joined:
    May 7, 2008
    Posts:
    1,341
    Likes Received:
    148
    The "loophole" has been closed.

    My theory is that not having CSN-P (and T-W Dodgers channel and Pac 12 Network) serves a purpose for DirecTV. We do not, but DirecTV and Comcast certainly do, know how much less the DBS to cable ratio is in Philly (where there is no local RSN) contrasted to some other city with one. When the time to renew RSN deals comes up, knowing that if you walk away it will cost you only X number of customers is a good thing to know.
     
  5. AZ.

    AZ. SatelliteGuys Pro

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2011
    Posts:
    827
    Likes Received:
    207
    Location:
    crazy
    The large just keep getting larger.....will it ever stop?

    AT&T-Time Warner merger approved, setting the stage for more consolidation across corporate America
     
  6. mdonnelly

    mdonnelly Supporting Founder
    Supporting Founder

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2004
    Posts:
    6,428
    Likes Received:
    297
    Location:
    Mustang, OK
    whitewolf8214 and TheKrell like this.
  7. comfortably_numb

    comfortably_numb Dogs have owners, cats have staff
    Pub Member / Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2011
    Posts:
    4,564
    Likes Received:
    4,132
    Location:
    Missouri/Kansas
    Yes. Let’s keep politics out of it
     
  8. dare2be

    dare2be SatelliteGuys God
    Lifetime Supporter

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2011
    Posts:
    11,347
    Likes Received:
    5,345
    Location:
    FL
    Except that this situation is fully political. Can't remove the baby from the bathwater in this case. :)
     
    MikeD-C05 likes this.
  9. JSheridan

    JSheridan Full Time Resident
    Pub Member / Supporter Lifetime Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2008
    Posts:
    6,968
    Likes Received:
    5,881
    Location:
    USA
    Unfortunately politics seems to have taken over the issue but IMHO the merger would simply be anti-competitive. It just seems like common sense to believe that if AT&T (DirecTV,UVerse) owns HBO, CNN and the rest of the Turner channels then they will provide them cheaper to their customers than they will provide them to customers of other providers, like Dish. And that doesn't sound fair at all.
     
    osu1991 likes this.
  10. SamCdbs

    SamCdbs SatelliteGuys Pro

    Joined:
    May 7, 2008
    Posts:
    1,341
    Likes Received:
    148
    Nope, just the opposite. Combinations of content makers and content deliverers is very pro-consumer. If AT&T holds up Comcast on the T-W channels, then Comcast holds up DirecTV on the NBC channels. So, it is in everybody's interest to be reasonable with one another.

    Great day for the consumer.
     
    RaiderPower likes this.
  11. JSheridan

    JSheridan Full Time Resident
    Pub Member / Supporter Lifetime Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2008
    Posts:
    6,968
    Likes Received:
    5,881
    Location:
    USA
    That sounds like it comes from an AT&T subscriber and/or share holder.

    What does Dish and the rest of the providers who don't own channels do? Oh yea, their customers will have to pay more. Sounds like some pretty bad days for all those consumers.
     
  12. theBruce

    theBruce Supporting Founder
    Supporting Founder

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2003
    Posts:
    3,823
    Likes Received:
    2,491
    Dish had the same chance as Comcast and AT&T to buy channels / content but they choose not to do it, heck they could of produced their own ( Netflix has become a monster company because of their content ).

    I find it hard to go after Comcast and AT&T because they made smart business decisions.
     
  13. navychop

    navychop Member of the Month - July 2014!
    Pub Member / Supporter Lifetime Supporter

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2005
    Posts:
    45,087
    Likes Received:
    10,128
    Location:
    Northern VA
    I recall the “fine” production values of the Charlie Chats. I’d be concerned about PQ on any Dish produced content.
     
  14. JSheridan

    JSheridan Full Time Resident
    Pub Member / Supporter Lifetime Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2008
    Posts:
    6,968
    Likes Received:
    5,881
    Location:
    USA
    Tell that to all the little cable companies and other providers. Hell, the local cable company here could barely afford to buy new trucks much less drop billions of dollars on content.

    It's like if Ford owned the roads and charged extra if you wanted to drive a Chevy on their roads. Does that sound fair? Of course it would be a good business decision for Ford but would it be right?
     
    Sean Mota, Jillian2, HIFI and 4 others like this.
  15. ChadT41

    ChadT41 THE BEST THERE HAS EVER BEEN

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2014
    Posts:
    9,931
    Likes Received:
    3,317
    Location:
    Mesa, Az
    Correct... but that doesn’t support the pro consumer point, at all.
     
    joewhite57 and JSheridan like this.
  16. bobvick

    bobvick Pub Member / Supporter
    Pub Member / Supporter Lifetime Supporter

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2006
    Posts:
    4,242
    Likes Received:
    1,960
    Location:
    Northwest Alabama
    I am usually for less regulation by the government. However, I think that MPVD’s should be prohibited from owning content producers and Congress should address this issue. I.E. if your the cable, satellite, or OTT provider, you should be prohibited from owning the channels you offer. Seems like we’re going back to the old days of ‘ma Bell.’
     
    JSheridan, osu1991 and MikeD-C05 like this.
  17. comfortably_numb

    comfortably_numb Dogs have owners, cats have staff
    Pub Member / Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2011
    Posts:
    4,564
    Likes Received:
    4,132
    Location:
    Missouri/Kansas
    If things go awry, hopefully the market will correct itself. I feel strongly that consumers vote with their wallets, and it's becoming easier and easier to shift from service to service. That's how T-Mobile was able to resurrect itself from being a miserable 4th tier carrier to what it is today. Speaking of which, I support the T-Mobile/Sprint merger, even as a resident of Sprint's hometown region. But I digress. If people get fed up and feel they are being overpriced, then I think they'll vote by switching to service providers that offer different and/or new types of channels and programming. It may mean that new channels emerge to fill the void and separate themselves from carrier-owned content, like this merger is creating.

    How's that for a non-political approach to the subject? ;)
     
    Jillian2, ChadT41 and MikeD-C05 like this.
  18. joewhite57

    joewhite57 SatelliteGuys Guru

    Joined:
    May 7, 2009
    Posts:
    130
    Likes Received:
    96
    Location:
    Indiana
    My consumer action is to pay the least for better. Last year I dumped AT&T wireless for T-mobile. Last month I Dumped AT&T u-verse home phone and internet. Went to no home phone like many have, and switched to Comcast internet for higher speed(6vs25) same price. In both cases it was better infrastructure at lesser or equal price.
     
    comfortably_numb likes this.
  19. Jimbo

    Jimbo SatelliteGuys Master
    Lifetime Supporter

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2005
    Posts:
    59,370
    Likes Received:
    2,142
    Location:
    NW Ohio - Buckeye Country
    More than likely that will happen ....
     
  20. ChadT41

    ChadT41 THE BEST THERE HAS EVER BEEN

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2014
    Posts:
    9,931
    Likes Received:
    3,317
    Location:
    Mesa, Az
    Yes, your consumer action... that is not the same as these mergers being consumer friendly. Let’s say other providers get knocked out, and that leaves a smaller handful. They raise the prices on channel costs, on channels they own... there is no recourse for you to go to another provider. It’s either download illegally, or don’t have TV at that point. Now, this is a stretch, but the point remains the same. It is NOT consumer friendly. I am a fan of less regulation though, and was only pointing out that the statement made was far from accurate
     

Separate names with a comma.

More...