EchoStar asks govt to stop Murdoch's DirecTV bid

[platinum]

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?storyID=2945635


Gee big surprise...Charlies scared of old Rupert..:D

[Scott Greczkowski]

This COULD mean bad news for the Dish Network / F/X talks.

If I were echostar I would have waited until they had renewal of FX before making a public statement about the owners of F/X

[Jacob S]

Thats a stupid move this time. They talk about how bad a monopoly is then they talk of a merger with DirecTv then they talk about how bad it is for a different satellite company to buy them? Going to be bad when and if Rupert does get DirecTv. Will be on bad terms with him and if in the future they need to help each other on bandwidth among other things its not going to happen if Dish is going to try to pull things like this.

Perhaps Dish wants to wait until Rainbow and SES Americom gets started that way they have better odds of merging in the future as they said the time would come again to try again in the future.

[bills976]

Taking off F/X from Dish would be the most boneheaded move on the part of Rupert. Need I say more?

[Chris Freeland]

This won't effect FX, totally separate issue's, if Ruport got tough with FX this would just prove E* and others concerns. This move on E* part is just a tic for tat business move.

[tampa8]

Jacob S (and maybe some others)

There is a very important point you are missing. This is very different than Dish buying into Direct. And perhaps if you do not run a business it isn't too obvious. This would be someone who can control (to at least some extent) everything from the production of some shows, to the network they are carried on, and now to distributing that show and network. That is exactly as Dish is suggesting - a recipe to higher costs - not for Direct or Murdoch, but to everyone else. And also it is exactly because of the present problem with FX that Dish should now bring this objection up. What better than to have an actual example of what Dish is saying could happen. If Murdoch decides to raise the cost sharply of Fox News and FX - he can say, so what if Dish and Comcast won't pay. I can tell you, for me I would have to seriously consider switching to Direct if Dish was to no longer carry Fox News. And I assure you I am not alone. Dish is doing the right thing here, to at least bring it up now. It can only help later if problems arise.
I do have to add, it would generally not be in the interest of Murdoch to have less outlets for his networks, and I do not think that is his goal, but things change over time and a strategy as noted above certainly is possible.

[Timco]

This is just business folks. Charlie would be a fool not to try and block this purchase. Huge media corporations controlling all the content is not good for ANYBODY. Consumers, stockholders, and employees all lose in the end.

[Casey]

Tampa is correct. Its apples to oranges. This is about VERTICAL integration, not HORIZONTAL consolidation (the DTV/E* merger). Totally separate set of business issues. Couldn't be more different in substance.

Anyway, its virtually impossible to imagine a scenario where Rupert does not use DTV's national footprint as a lever to extract higher programming costs from his competitors. Its a "heads I win, tails I win" situation for him. If the price of Fox News doubles, Comcast will either pay him what he wants, or they risk losing customers to the DTV platform. [...and Wall Street values each DTV sub at ~$1,200] Very, very powerful leverage. Again, Rupert is a lot of things, but he ain't stupid! There is no way on God's green earth that he isn't planning to use that leverage to send his programming revenues through the roff...or, gain customers for DTV.

The good news is that Powell's "cram through" of FCC rules, despite massive and overwhelming resistance from both the right and the left, has created a groundswell of anti-big media feelings in this country. The backlash may, in fact, adversely affect chances of this merger succeeding. Powell, with his tin ear, may have done an incredible disservice to Rupert.

The question is, do we, the people of the United States, want to put more power in the hands of one man...someone who isn't even an American? Sorry to sound xenophobic, but this is a somewhat scary situation. We've never allowed a foreign interest to so completely dominate the public dialogue...

[raj2001]

Originally posted by Casey
The question is, do we, the people of the United States, want to put more power in the hands of one man...someone who isn't even an American? Sorry to sound xenophobic, but this is a somewhat scary situation. We've never allowed a foreign interest to so completely dominate the public dialogue...

Is Murdoch an American Citizen? If he is, I don't see why it's wrong for him to run a successful media business. The only thing you need to be a natural born citizen for is the office of President (and vice President).

[Chris Freeland]

Whether Murdock is a US citizen or not it is still a scary thought that one man will own production of the programs, tv stations, a broadcast network, cable networks and a large distribution platform, like the point Casey made so well, I am afraid if this News Corp purchase of D* is allowed to happen, it will be more costly to us consumers, not less. Murdock will be in a win win position and we the consumer will be in a lose lose situation if he gains control of D*.

[Mike D-CO5]

" Big Brother is watching you " and he's has Steve Irwin's accent. Goodaye mate!

[bogi]

Is Murdoch an American Citizen? If he is, I don't see why it's wrong for him to run a successful media business. The only thing you need to be a natural born citizen for is the office of President (and vice President).


Yes he is. He lives in California mostly now but he still owns houses in Australia.

[Mike123abc]

One could be cynical and say he became a US citizen just to get around the ownership rules.

[markh]

Rupert asked the gov to stop charlie, too. He just didn't do it in public. I saw several stories that said Rupert worked behind the scenes in Washington to stop the E*/D* merger.

[Karl Foster]

Whether Murdock is a US citizen or not it is still a scary thought that one man will own production of the programs, tv stations, a broadcast network, cable networks and a large distribution platform, like the point Casey made so well, I am afraid if this News Corp purchase of D* is allowed to happen, it will be more costly to us consumers, not less. Murdock will be in a win win position and we the consumer will be in a lose lose situation if he gains control of D*.

So let me get this straight. It is perfectly legal for Time Warner/AOL to control a huge media empire to include production and distribution to millions of households, but it is not o.k. for News Corp to have production and distribution to millions of households? Why the double standard? :shrug:

How is it a lose-lose for the customer? I am a D* subscriber, and if D* was to degrade to a point that I didn't want to keep it, or got too expensive, I'd change to cable or Dish Network. He must deliver a product that customers think is a good value, or they'll leave and the money stream will cease. Pretty simple business plan. It will be good to have someone at the helm who has some sort of a plan and the whole sale thing can go away. The sale of Directv has been a shadow over the company.