Hughes says FCC uses double standard

[platinum]

http://www.detnews.com/2002/business/0211/26/b01-20665.htm

[invaliduser88]

Makes an interesting point. The Cable companies can get as big and monopolistic as they want, but the Sat companies can't.

[Geronimo]

Of course even after those two cable giants merge tehre wil still be more than one cable company. If you let DTV and Echostar merge you really only have one viable DBS company. It is really not an apples to apples comparison. And that may be what was really wrong with E*'s arguments. They never really answered the argument that it created a DBS monopoly.

[Randy_B]

I don't see that. Saying that there are "other" cable companies out there for competition then we could say that BSkyB and ExpressVu would be competitors for the merged E*/DTV.

In very, very few places is there more than one cableco in place.

Bottom line is that E* didn't have the long standing corporate history of campaign contributions that he cable companies, their associations and the NAB have.

[Geronimo]

Since BSkyB and expressVu do not legally operate in the US no you really can't call them competitors---or you cant expect the FCC to.

It is true that there are few places with more than one cable company but the number of cable companies before and after the merger is the same. The number of DBS companies is not.

As for the political argument. I wont deny that for a moment.

[Randy_B]

7 years ago there were about 15 major cable companies, now there are about 5 and they do not compete. The number is most definitely not the same after the merger. AT&T was a sizeable cable company. It no longer exists.

I still hold that E* and DTV do not really compete. The bulk of new subscribers come from cable, not from one satellite company to the other. If that were the case, there would still be only about a 1M of us out here churning continuously.

[Geronimo]

Well you and I and the FCC view the market fifferently. I don't agree with them but even 5 companies IS more than 1.

Do D and E compete? Of course they do. I agree with you that they compete with each other and the local cable company. But waht the FCC said is that in a large portion of the country there is no cable or only one company and that this merger significantly reduced competition.


Is it a double standard. No it is consistent. It is just not the standard that you or I woudl like to see applied.

[James_F]

What does it matter if there are 15 or 1 cable companies. As long as there is 1 cable and 1 dbs you have competition. But what about people who live where cable isn't a choice? They have none. DBS has saved cable from a monopoly, but cable can't save DBS from being a monopoly.

[JohnL]

Originally posted by James_F
What does it matter if there are 15 or 1 cable companies. As long as there is 1 cable and 1 dbs you have competition. But what about people who live where cable isn't a choice? They have none. DBS has saved cable from a monopoly, but cable can't save DBS from being a monopoly.

Sure they can, if the newly merged company from Hughes and Echostar have one rate card for the entire country as planned, then DBS brings each and every Cable company into every local market since Dish will have to compete in the biggest and best Cable markets for subscribers on price and service.

This only strengthens the cause since it would require that DBS' service and price be competitive in the largest most competitive markets which would in essence place downward pressure on every DBS Subcribers rates nationwide as well as force DBS on channel availability.

I really don't see why the myopic can't see this as well. ONE DBS company with be neccesary to force adoption of HD since neither company alone can provide more than a small handful of HD and neither provider alone can improve Picture Quality to where many think it should be and neither provider will be able to do every local into local Market, technically it can be done but at extreme cost to both DBS companies but at a price point that subscribers can't or won't be able to subsidize.

John

[James_F]

OK, so what if I don't like the service the DBS company is giving me and I live in the middle of nowhere? Then what? Its not about price, its about choice. I'd rather pay more and have a choice than have only one DBS company.

BTW there is no proof that there would be any increase in PQ since most of the bandwith would go to giving all DMAs locals.

[raj2001]

I don't trust one company to maintain prices, especially since Charlie says price hikes are imminent. I like competition - that's what brings new channels, better customer service and promotions. With competition the customer always wins.

Of course, this statement by Hughes could just be the company doing the dance with Echostar so that they can ensure that Charlie pays up the $600M Echostar will owe Hughes come Jan 21 '03. Charlie has already indicated that he will try to worm his way out of paying the fee.

[jeffwtux]

What nobody mentions are the people for who Satellite is not an option. They do exist. In fact I will contend that there are WAY MORE PEOPLE WHO CAN'T GET SATELLITE FOR WHATEVER REASON(trees, tall buildings, apartment rules.....) than can't get cable How are the cable companies allowed to use their monopoly over these customers in any way they want but Dish and Direc can't even merge for one second without finding them guilty until proven innocent.

[jeffwtux]

Some people will say that it doesn't matter that some people can't get satellite. The cable companies don't charge them more. That's way to simplistic. Cable monopolies are way more strategic than that. If they know that 25% of their customer base has no choice, they can charge a higher rate than if everybody has a choice. Why does nobody mention this??? I can tell you why: SOFT MONEY BUYING THE GOP

[Geronimo]

Of course would they have one rate card. I know what Charlie said. But what about what Pegasus said?

[James_F]

Originally posted by jeffwtux
SOFT MONEY BUYING THE GOP

Uh OK.... :rolleyes:

Thanks for getting to the bottom of this.

[raj2001]

Cable monopolies are way more strategic than that. If they know that 25% of their customer base has no choice, they can charge a higher rate than if everybody has a choice.

Not letting Echostar and Hughes merge would give MORE choice not less.

[James_F]

Exactly, cable customers always have at least 2 choices. Cable or DBS, but what does someone in the sticks have? 1 DBS?

[jeffwtux]

Originally posted by James_F
Exactly, cable customers always have at least 2 choices. Cable or DBS, but what does someone in the sticks have? 1 DBS?


THEY HAVE EXACTLY THE SAME NUMBER OF CHOICES AS SOMEBODY IN A CITY OR SUBURB WHO CAN'T GET SATELLITE: 1 !!!!!

That's my point. There probably twice as many people who can't get satellite and only have one choice: CABLE as there are who can't get cable and only have satellite. If we aren't even going to allow the Dish-Direc merger because of so-called monopoly fears, then I want to regulate or break-up the monopolies that do exist. Why the double standard?

[jeffwtux]

Originally posted by raj2001


Not letting Echostar and Hughes merge would give MORE choice not less.

It wouldn't give any more choice for the people who can't get satellite. There are probably twice as many people who can't get satellite as who can't get cable.

[jeffwtux]

Originally posted by James_F
Exactly, cable customers always have at least 2 choices. Cable or DBS, but what does someone in the sticks have? 1 DBS?

And you are wrong cable customers DON'T always have 2 choices. NOT EVERYBODY CAN GET SATELLITE. MORE PEOPLE CAN'T GET SATELLITE THAN CAN'T GET CABLE

[James_F]

Originally posted by jeffwtux



THEY HAVE EXACTLY THE SAME NUMBER OF CHOICES AS SOMEBODY IN A CITY OR SUBURB WHO CAN'T GET SATELLITE: 1 !!!!!

That's my point. There probably twice as many people who can't get satellite and only have one choice: CABLE as there are who can't get cable and only have satellite. If we aren't even going to allow the Dish-Direc merger because of so-called monopoly fears, then I want to regulate or break-up the monopolies that do exist. Why the double standard?

STOP IT!!!!! Most people can get DBS. The few that can't don't matter to the FCC. The issue is will this merger reduce competition. YES OR NO?

The answer is YES!

[James_F]

Originally posted by jeffwtux


And you are wrong cable customers DON'T always have 2 choices. NOT EVERYBODY CAN GET SATELLITE. MORE PEOPLE CAN'T GET SATELLITE THAN CAN'T GET CABLE

Says who? Your informed opinion is welcomed, but try and back it up with fact.

[James_F]

Originally posted by jeffwtux


It wouldn't give any more choice for the people who can't get satellite. There are probably twice as many people who can't get satellite as who can't get cable.

Are you bitter or something?

Twice as many people who can't get satellite as who can't get cable.:rolleyes:

[jeffwtux]

And how is this statement:

"Exactly, cable customers always have at least 2 choices"

based on fact????
Try and back that one up. NOT EVERY CABLE CUSTOMER CAN GET SATELLITE. That is a fact. My parent entire side of the street can't get satellite. Over half of the apartments in my complex can't get satellite. Go to any inner city apartment high-rise. If you're lucky, half can get satellite.

I think it's safe to say that less than half of people liviing in apartments can't get satellite. There are many pig-headed landlords who get some sort power-trip by banning dishes altogether. Cable is availble to over 80% of the populaiton. That is a fact. There is no way that 80% of the population can get satellite. Apartments alone kill that figure. The fact is that you're the one whose facts are wrong.

[jeffwtux]

Right now more people own there homes than in any time in history, and it's still less than 70%. So if 35% of the population rents, and half them can get satelite(very generous statement), the already 17.5% of the population can't get satellite. If 10% of homeowners can't get satellite, very fair statement, then about 22.5% of the population can't get satellite. That's more people than can't get cable. I'm not bitter I just don't think the FCC is being fair on this merger.

[James_F]

Originally posted by jeffwtux
And how is this statement:

"Exactly, cable customers always have at least 2 choices"

based on fact????
Try and back that one up. NOT EVERY CABLE CUSTOMER CAN GET SATELLITE. That is a fact. My parent entire side of the street can't get satellite. Over half of the apartments in my complex can't get satellite. Go to any inner city apartment high-rise. If you're lucky, half can get satellite.

I know inner city apartments will always not be able to get satellite. But how is that over half of the total population of the US?

I think it's safe to say that less than half of people liviing in apartments can't get satellite. There are many pig-headed landlords who get some sort power-trip by banning dishes altogether. Cable is availble to over 80% of the populaiton. That is a fact.
I will agree with that assesment. Many apartments here in Phoenix are offering DBS as a bonus rather than cable, but on the whole, most apartment complexes don't have access to DBS. But again, how is that half the population of the US?
There is no way that 80% of the population can get satellite. Apartments alone kill that figure. The fact is that you're the one whose facts are wrong.
See now you killed your argument by dropping in a percentage.

Here are some facts for you. There are 104,705 households in the US in 2000 according to the 2000 US census (which includes Apartments).

http://www.census.gov/population/socdemo/hh-fam/p20-537/2000/tabH1.txt


Now lets assume there are approximately 20 million Satellite subscribers in the US (12 million DirecTV, 8 Million Dish) and divide that by the total households in the US you get 19.1%. That doesn't even count those using C-Band or Canadian DBS. So what you are telling me is that no more people can get DBS in the United States? Please think before you type. :nono:

[jeffwtux]

I never said that half of the entire population couldn't get satellite. I said less than half of the apartment population. The approximation I gave was aroung 22-25% that couldn't get satellite. The fact is that those 22% don't have less options today than people in rural America. They already have a monopoly. Why aren't people concerned with these people.

[jeffwtux]

Would you like me to explain my math again?

[James_F]

Originally posted by jeffwtux
I never said that half of the entire population couldn't get satellite.
Originally posted by jeffwtux

There is no way that 80% of the population can get satellite.

No you said 80% couldn't get satellite. I just proved above that already 20% of all households have DBS already. You are all over the board with the numbers.

[James_F]

Originally posted by jeffwtux
Would you like me to explain my math again?

Yes, please tell me which numbers you are going by. And how you came up with the number of apartments in the United States.

[James_F]

Originally posted by jeffwtux
Why aren't people concerned with these people.

Because they aren't owners of the property. The fact that the owner of an apartment complex won't allow people to install a dish on the roof doesn't affect the ruling.

[jeffwtux]

I don't want to get into a semantical arguement. "There is no way that 80% of the population can get satellite" means that I think the percentage of people that can get satellite is less than 80%. I figure around 75%. If I meant that only 20% could get satellite,. I would've said that there 80% "could not" get satellite. I said "there's no way 80% can get it. The fact is you're nitpicking details when you know what I mean. Clearly, a merged Dish-Direc couldn't be any worse than what 22-25% of the population faces and that's only 1 choice.

[jeffwtux]

Learn how to parse a sentence

[gowilk]

using apartment dwellers in this argument is nonsensical ... renters have the ultimate choice (mobility) ... if their landlord chooses to have cable and they don't like it, they can move somewhere that has satellite or nothing at all or choose not to have cable in their apartment ... renting is the ultimate in free enterprise choice.

It is PATENTLY obvious to anyone with half a brain that combining the satellite companies reduces competition for satellite nationally at least for a period of time ... the question that the FCC should be concentrating on is whether that's an unacceptable reduction or whether the modifications proposed by E* create an environment of greater overall competition or a lessening of competition.

Personally I believe that the FCC action is shortsighted and inconsistent with their stated longer term goals but it is predictable and NOT relative in any sense to their review and approval of cable companies (who don't compete with each other) mergers.

Maybe a little common sense should be exercised in this area.

[James_F]

Originally posted by jeffwtux
Learn how to parse a sentence

Oh now you've dropped to petty anger? Please... OK how about this?

There is no way 100% of all people will die. :rolleyes:

[bryan27]

There is no way 100% of all people will die

That's actually a true statement. 100% of all people will not die. Elijah didn't die, he was taken up to Heaven in a whirlwind. So it is true that there is no way 100% of all people will die :D

Anyway this is the way I see it. The FCC decision to block the merger of D* and E* ensured that the maximum amount of dwelling units that currently have a choice would still have a choice.

Yes, there are those that will always, because of circumstances not have a choice, but a merger would have increased the number of dwelling units that don't have a choice. Instead of just those in apartments or those in detached housing not able to see the satellites being tied to one provider all the areas without cable access would be tied to only one provider, thus increasing the number of dwelling units without competition.

[belsokar]

i hate to beat a dead horse...whatever the percentage of houses/apartments/etc that have access to DBS/Cable/Whatever, the truth of the matter is that Cable has a monopoly, and there is no enforcement...and there is a double standard in the regulation of the situation...the main competitor to cable (i.e. the main choice other than cable) is DBS. Before DBS ever was, if you lived in a rural area where there was no cable...you basically had no affordable choice. Was cable required to provide service to these people? NO! Then DBS comes along, and provides an affordable, superior service to cable in all areas that have a line of site....meaning if you lived in a rural area with no cable service, you suddenly had affordable service....and now, DBS is getting punished for it.

DBS is already at a disadvantage to cable...if you want it, you have to put up a dish, run new cables to your house, have a telephone line hooked up...this is enough to turn off many people to the "easier" alternative in cable which is usually already available by just plugging into your existing cable outlet. On top of that, if you don't have a line of site, then you can't get it. If you rent and don't have "exclusive areas" to put up a dish, then you can't get it. With all these obstacles, DBS still competes with Cable...and now, the FCC is adding yet another obstacle...it is saying that DBS must continue to provide a competitive market in rural areas and Cable must not...this is a double standard. It reaks of political lobbying and dirty money. And thats what makes me sick more than anything. In the end, the consumer truly loses because of corrupt politics, and no one can argue any differently. I don't mind DBS being held to a high standard, just apply that same standard across the board. Require cable companies to get their service out to rural areas to compete with DBS.

DBS used to be a niche service, and yes, Directv and Echostar battled with one another to get more subscribers...to the tune of about 19 Million now. For the most part, you get similar features on each, with varying PPV/Sports packages making up the difference. But the truth is, for most of us, DBS is a competitor with Cable to provide the public with television services. The reason we go through the pains of owning a satellite system as opposed to the ease of a cable system, is the improved quality and choices offered. Does anyone think that Cable companies would have gone digital as fast as they have if not for the availability of DBS? NO WAY! Cable may have more eyeballs, but they know that DBS has the edge in quality and choice. They compete with one another, and the FCC should treat it as such...

[normang]

There is a clear double-standard. Cable Monopolies are largely ignored.

Comcast merges or buys out ATT Cable. The ink is barely dry and they are in court suing and raising rates.

If Echostar and Dish had merged, I could see the ad's now.. Want better quality, more HD, more choice than cable, get Dish now..

People in positions where they cannot get DBS because of Line of sight or where they live is where the FCC should create regulation for those that live in those situations to be able to gain access. I suspect that line of sight problems are easily overcome if rules provided for common Dish signal distribution in complexes (similar to cable)

Actual line of sight issues, ie you live in a hole and cannot get signal, I suspect are truly rare and could be overcome at some community cost if this were actually someplace where a community is surrounded by hills or mountains that eliminate line of sight.

Rate increases are inevitable unless program providers start reducing their costs. Rates go up everytime a provider contract is re-negotiated. However cable increases its rates everytime someone sneezes it seems. and if cable does save some $$ somewhere, we'll never see it..

The bottomline, competition is of course good, however in this case, cable is clearly the competition to DBS, someone said it early on that DBS takes cable customers and while actual switching from Dish to Direct and vice-versa does occur, I suspect the percentage is minimal. Most people are converting from cable, which is now even more of a monopoly than before.

[Geronimo]

again not a doubke standard. Just a standard we don't like. It's over. Dela with it. Move on.

[zumahans]

Who cares what set of numbers? We're talking which set of hypothetical numbers to make guesses about possibilities - bad data, very bad data ...

Most apartment dwellers either (a) can get DBS or (b) have a non-cable, private cable system. There are rows of apartment buildings with rows of DBS dishes all over America.

The actual number of apartment dwellers who have only 1 pay-TV alternative is very low, certainly not significant in this discussion.

[belsokar]

Geronimo, I respectfully disagree with your statement that its no double standard, and just a "standard we don't like." If you have two competing entities(Cable, DBS) in a given market (transmission of television services), and the federal government requires specific standards (competition in rural areas) for one entity (DBS) and doesn't require those same standards for the other entity (Cable)...THAT is a double standard...plain and simple...is it a standard I don't like...YES...but that doesn't deny the fact that its a double standard...again, there is just no way you can argue that Cable Companies do not carry favor with the federal government....

[Geronimo]

Belso that is the standard you want and the standard I want. The one applies is that they will allow mergers if they do not reduce the number of competitirs in markets. THe DBS merger would have dione that the cable one does not.

I don't agree with it. But it is their standard.


But if you want to characterize it as a double standard go ahea. The bottom line is that this merger is dead. Caharlie will fight till the Jan deadline but it is dead.

[jeffwtux]

zumahans: You have got to be kidding. That is by far the biggest inaccurate statement that has ever been written in the history of human communication.
Most apartments have windows on only 1 or maybe 2 sides. Many apartment owners ban satellites altogether. Plus, apartmets still have to deal with trees.

[James_F]

But they are renters. They give up many rights, including the right to DBS in some cases.