Next Wave Mergers: DBS Buys Cable?

[Steve Mehs]

Can you see a future where DBS platforms own cable systems? Where the cable is devoted to two-way services while satellite offers all the broadcast video consumers could want?

That's a good possibility, according to an interview with SES Americom President and CEO Dean Omlstead in the latest issue of Satcoms Insider.

Says Omlstead, whose company continues to seek a foothold in U.S. home satellite markets: "The current equation is going to change. Cable will continue to move towards broadband solutions and allocating bandwidth to two-way. The economics of satellite for broadcast are incredibly imperative and the only reason there¹s a separation now is because there¹s a separation in ownership, and we may see that change."

From SkyReport (http://www.skyreport.com/skyreport/jan2003/010903.shtm#three) (Used with Permission)

[Mike123abc]

Well if R/L DBS goes up it will be a cable company/DBS combination. It will be very interesting to see how it all works... will R/L DBS undercut its own cable rates?

[RichW]

Seems to me that the FCC would step in to prevent any significant mergers between cable and DBS - unless the cable part was not related to anything DBS provides.

I really think the far future holds for some kind of hybrid system where digital services, including TV, are provided by "last mile" copper wire. Each neighborhood would be served by a DSL-Style hub.
Essentially you would get video/channel on demand with whatever bandwidth you are willing to pay for and with whatever channel selection you are willing to pay for. The "hub" could be fed by fiber backbones and DBS. You could use your bandwidth to watch TV, watch PPV, surf the net, play intereactive games, or make phone/video calls to friends. The infrastructure would essentially look like the Internet today, except for much higher bandwidths along the backbones.

[cnsf]

I disagree. I think wireless technology is the future. As it keeps expanding in bandwidth and distance, it will make for a preferred medium. Hardwires are less flexible (but beat the pants off wireless right now for bandwidth and security).

Security will just continue to improve to accomodate. Figure in 5-10 years, all your communications needs could be fulfilled by wireless technology (including satellite as a wireless medium). Get your upload and download in Gigabit wireless technology for voice and data. Video can be broadcast via satelitte to wireless routing stations for those with obstructed views.

Just a thought....

[Jacob S]

I agree, wireless is the wave of the future, not wired, in some aspects. In other ways fiber is going to be served in more areas as well.

They could sell the satellite service cheaper as it is cheaper for them to do i wirelessly than with it wired.

[RichW]

As someone who made his fortune in wireless years ago, I am not about to pooh-pooh wireless technology. But "hardline" (copper or cable) has an inherrent advantage of allowing unlimted user bandwidth. Wireless, when it comes to bandwidth, is akin to the old "party line" telephone service.

It is true that wireless has a better and more flexible infra structure cost, but it is limited. For example, I have both wireless and copper networking in my home the copper runs Gigabyte ethernet while the best I can hope for with Wi-Fi is 54 Mbps under ideal conditions.

Futhermore, wired systems are far more amenable to network-switch technology - another way to maximizing bandwidth.

Wireless has its place in mobile apps, but wired "nodes" will alway offer better performace for fixed locations.

[Jacob S]

But wireless can also always be upgraded as technology advances, just as wired can.