Consumers Oppose DISH/DirecTV Combo

The National Association of Broadcasters said it has data suggesting consumers are overwhelmingly opposed to the merger of DirecTV and EchoStar's DISH Network.

According to the organization, 71 percent of respondents said they agree with the statement that, "television providers are too important to allow the elimination of competition. The federal government should not allow the only two satellite television companies to merge into just one."

The survey was conducted in November by Luntz Research Companies and has a margin of error of 3.1 percent.

"Consumers are clearly worried that the merger of the nation's only two satellite television providers will negatively impact the choices available to them," said NAB President and CEO Edward Fritts. "However the antitrust lawyers choose to define the market, an overwhelming majority of consumers believe that the creation of a single satellite TV service will leave them with no choice at all."

The NAB also said the survey found 84 percent of respondents agree that having three choices of television providers is better for consumers than having two. In addition, 76 percent of respondents agreed that there would be greater choice of television programming and better service if consumers had more cable and satellite TV choices, the survey data said.

EchoStar reacted to the NAB survey pointing out that the merger would help with the delivery of all local stations in markets served by satellite TV under must-carry mandates, something the broadcast organization has pushed in Washington, D.C. "The NAB is on the record demanding that satellite TV providers offer local TV channels and comply with must carry. With the merger, we can do both," EchoStar spokesman Marc Lumpkin said.

Lumpkin added, "So why would they oppose our merger? Because they're getting free digital TV spectrum from the government which could allow them to start their own pay TV services. Their actions clearly demonstrate they don't want competition in the MVPD market."

In addition, EchoStar said the merger of DBS platforms would build a better competitor to cable. "The survey hardly reflects the reality facing millions of Americans - that there is currently no effective competition to entrenched cable monopolies." Lumpkin said. "The broadcasters failed to ask in their survey if consumers want local channel choice, HDTV, high speed Internet access, or advanced services such as video on demand. These are important choices that only the merger can provide."

From <a href="http://www.skyreport.com" target=none>SkyReport</a> (Used with permission)

I am really beginning to opose this merger myself.

We see Charlie playing hardball already with folks like Disney (on the ABC Family and ESPN Classic) with Rupert Murdochs FOX Sports Networks. (I am in agreement with Disney in their lawsuit)

Charlie has been pumping out nothing but crap in ths equipment department, and his software upgrades usualy introduce more bugs then they fix.

Charlies attitue is "if you don't like the way I am playing go find somewhere else to play" if this merger goes through there will be no other satelllite source to turn to.

I would love to hear other members opinions on this!

Scott

There are good arguments for and against a merger, but I don't think the first point about progamming with ABC is valid. Somewhere down the road, every signal provider is going to have to take a stance on these issues. There are several well written articles in past Wall Street Journals and in the Washington Times that I have seen. The progam providers are in a position to favor one signal provider over another, and for the popular channels keep raising prices as they wish, thus possibly determining who survives and who goes out of business. I believe Charlie has to stand up now and not be pushed around by them. I don't think we have enough information on what some of the demands of the progam providers are to decide that Charlie is wrong. (or I guess to determine that he is wright.) Unless some of you have the contract for the FAMILY CHANNEL, how can we know what it says and that Charlie doesn't have a point on this one?

The second point about equipment has alot of merit. With only one provider you must use their equipment unless other companies make competing/better boxes to buy. People who have the dishplayer have for the most part been Scr--ed. On the other hand however, the recent upgrades for the 4700-4800 have been welcomed, and the 4900 works quite well. While I do beleive the real competition is with the cable industry, there is room for concern about having only one satellite provider. But with must carry, and the outcry I see from some about PQ, a merger may be the only way to survive. By the way, Charter cable has a promo in this area on how customers want their locals and only Charter has them. This resonates with most people I'm sure and is one reason why satellite service here is so scarce here.

I think that programming IS a valid issue, Charlie will be able to MAKE or break any channel at will. Look at the Universal Deal, it mentions that Charlie will Carry 5 NEW Channels from Universal, when these channels go on the air instantly they will have 8 million people able to watch.

As far as the Family Channel goes, charlie tried getting rid of it when FOX purchased it but it stayed. In my book if you have a contract you honor that contract.

You could bet that when ABC was thinking of buying Family from FOX they counted the number of possible viewers from Dish Network. With Charlie mentioning that they are dropping FOX family due to poor raitings is a very poor excuse as the channel ranks 13th out of all the cable channels. Does Charlies explanation mean that we can expect all the rest of the top 150 dropped and that he will only offer a top 12 pack? I don't think so.

Having 2 seperate companies gives the consumer the choice to decide the programming they want, they are not forced into this "take what we give you and like it" attitude.

And dont even let me get into customer support.

Scott

I am opposed to the merger as well. Matter of fact moreso now than in the beginning as they have given absolutely no compelling reasons for me to support the merger. Certainly there is the potential for positive growth and change but the odds are much more in favor of this negatively impacting the consumer.

I think that Scott and others have provided sound reasons for concern.

E* has over the past 2 years provided products that have clearly not delivered typical Consumer Electronics performance. The products have suffered from bugs that are clearly not acceptable in this market or any other save for pcs and internet related products.

You name a product ranging from everything to kitchen appliances to home theater products, they HAVE to perform at a certain level ie do exactly what they are supposed to do because the consumer DEMANDS it. Satellite receivers have worked that way in the past but E* has truly spearheaded a movement away from stability with several of their receivers.

E* is not alone though as DTV has had problems with UTV as well, and TiVo hasn't been without problems either as was reported back in April and May. Still DTV appears the more serious of the two when it comes to ensuring stability in their products. The merger could not possibly be a good thing in that regard.

Carriage is another issue. It was stated here recently that the number of channels provided had a good deal of importance in the growth of dbs. That is true...more like was true when new QUALITY channels were emerging that dbs companies were snapping up and providing at a price that was less than that of cable offerings...if cable provided the channels at all. That is no longer the case.

We have seen a distinct shift away from providing quality and value. What we have seen instead is rifts and feuding that has cost the consumer. The additions of channels that are plainly crap provided simply to enhance the hype over the number of channels and promote packages to further tax our wallets.

We lose channels like ESPN Classic and ABC Family to which there is no comparable channels to replace them, we lose half of our Fox Sports Channels due to a rift. We lose all that and will see no lessening of the charges for programming but WILL see increases. We are also not being told the truth. The Family Channel is NOT being canned because of poor viewership as Charlie claims. Channels like ESPN Classic cannot be replaced and will be sorely missed.

Individually each channel or groups of channels may not cause subscribers to leave but collectively over time, couple with a loss of value, and an addition of crap programming, I believe that people will leave.

Rifts between companies hurt the consumer but also hurt the companies involved. We've seen WebTV hurt because of MS's poor relations with Sun and Real Networks. WebTV peaked at 1.1 or 1.2 million subscribers and has dramatically dropped in the past year or so. E*s relations with companies are already negatively affecting us. We've already heard him make mention of the possibility of the loss of even more programming should the merger take place. He clearly doens't have warm fuzzies over the Sunday ticket.

Last but not least we've seen dbs go from being a simple plug and view concept to one of nightmarish and hellish proportions that tax both peoples patience and wallets. Switch problems, buggy receivers or poorly manufactured receivers, crap picture quality, the need for added equipment to even take advantage of many packages.

All that and people actually want to support this merger?! All that and people want Ergens concept of what dbs should be to be the ONLY concept?! Sorry folks I just can't agree to that. J

The NAB is TRYING to protect rural tv stations. The merger will futher increase the number of channels available to folks and this expaned number of channels will hurt lcal stations.

The NAB claiming to be pro-consumer is really the epitome of hypocrisy. If the truely were pro-consumer, they wouldn't have gone to court to turn off distant locals for many of you folks.