DBSTalk Forum banner

DirecTV CEO: “Never Say Never” To A Merger Deal With Dish Network

21K views 216 replies 58 participants last post by  WB4CS 
#1 ·
DirecTV CEO: "Never Say Never" To A Merger Deal With Dish Network

This was a lousy day for DirecTV after it reported lower-than-expected earnings, with especially weak results in Latin America. But CEO Michael White gave investors at least one reason to stick with the company: He signaled in a call with analysts that he'd be receptive to the idea of a merger with Dish Network. "I don't think it's productive for me to speculate what regulators may or may not do, but the competitive landscape is very different than it was 10 years ago" when the FCC rejected a Dish-DirecTV merger plan, he said.

For one thing, "the balance [of power] between content distributors and providers is out of whack." He has long charged that programmers are demanding dangerously high new fees for their content -a position he reiterated today. "I've seen more customer complaints about the price increases," he says. "My own view is that it's not going to change in the short term. But it's clear that this isn't sustainable beyond the next couple of years. Something is going to have to give."

Full Story Here

 
See less See more
1
#2 ·
Our new dvr's for 2015 will be called The Genie Hopper with a Genie coming out of a Kangaroos pouch as our new trade mark icon.
 
#3 ·
IF, something this happens I suspect they'll maintain separate products and programming...at least in the beginning.

Kinda like Sirius and XM.

Personally, I can't see it happening any time soon. Wouldn't the FCC have something to say about it? The regulatory hurdles have to be huge.

Mike
 
#4 ·
I don't think we'll see it anytime soon either. But a little speculation as to what would be the end result.

I would prefer to keep the Hopper/Joey hardware in a unified company. Put another couple tuners in the Hopper ideally, keep PTAT. Or at minimum allow for unified management for a dual-Hopper install.

Then merge the programming HD that is available, which should cover darned near every HD channel out there.

The downside is that a merger would not result in lower costs for the consumer, imo. Usually when companies can find a cost savings solutions, it is only a savings to them, not us!

Personally I don't want them merged, I like the idea of being able to switch when cost to me gets a little out of hand! :)
 
#7 ·
johnp37 said:
Can you say monopoly? Fortunately my contract is up in November and FIOS is coming. If this happens look for astronomical price increases-think you are paying through the nose now? Just wait.
While I don't think a merger will happen I disagree with you about prices. It would certainly not be a monopoly.

They still have plenty of nationwide competition. If there are "astronomical price increases", and the bundle pricing with cable operators, they will lose customers in huge numbers.

Not having competitive pricing would be a disastrous move.

Mike
 
#9 ·
Laxguy said:
Agree. It did get me wondering what percentage of folks out there are limited to satellite service. I am one.
I know a couple of friends her in CT who are limited to satellite because of the cost of running the lines. One friend is one of three homes on a road in secluded area and while cable runs down a cross street they want them to pay ≈$1000 to run coax down their street.

However, I suspect there is nowhere near enough to sustain a satellite provider.

Mike
 
#11 ·
Mike Bertelson said:
I know a couple of friends her in CT who are limited to satellite because of the cost of running the lines. One friend is one of three homes on a road in secluded area and while cable runs down a cross street they want them to pay ≈$1000 to run coax down their street.

However, I suspect there is nowhere near enough to sustain a satellite provider.

Mike
comcast cable tv sucks that keeps directv and dish around.
 
#13 ·
dpeters11 said:
80.7% of Americans live in an urban area, of course a large percentage that don't still have access to other pay TV services.
Define a large percentage and what is the source?

Mike
 
#15 ·
dpeters11 said:
I don't know the percentage that does not live in an urban area that have access to other services, but the NCTA says that 93% of us households have access to cable broadband.

http://www.ncta.com/positions/closing-the-digital-divide

The 80.7% was from the 2010 census, so it may not be correct anymore.
Then I guess a large percentage DO have access to other pay TV services.

I have practically zero OTA but do have 4 options for pay TV.

Mike
 
#17 ·
Mike Bertelson said:
IF, something this happens I suspect they'll maintain separate products and programming...at least in the beginning.

Kinda like Sirius and XM.
Yep ... while both systems are moving to MPEG4 receivers neither is far enough along to shut down the other system and expect to keep all of their customers. Running "competing" systems where one still has to choose DirecTV or DISH seems like the most likely way of running for a few years. Perhaps a MPEG4 only "combined" subscription could be offered but changing out the dishes would be a pain.

Too many DirecTV and DISH customers are still relying on incompatible DBS or DSS transmissions for their SD locals and SD only services. A combined company would need to support both until they could afford to upgrade everyone or afford to lose SD customers.

It is pretty much the same argument as shifting all customers off of SD on to HD services. It is expensive and the return on the investment just isn't high enough to make the change worthwhile in the short term.

It is interesting that both sides (DirecTV and DISH) think a merger might be a good idea. Both companies seem to be expressing problems with keeping their company going in the face of higher costs. I don't see any proof that a merger would lower costs for SUBSCRIBERS. And that is just business. Constantly trying to reduce costs for themselves with no guarantee of reduced costs for the people paying for the service.
 
#18 ·
Mike Bertelson said:
I know a couple of friends her in CT who are limited to satellite because of the cost of running the lines. One friend is one of three homes on a road in secluded area and while cable runs down a cross street they want them to pay ≈$1000 to run coax down their street.

However, I suspect there is nowhere near enough to sustain a satellite provider.

Mike
that's like me cable is on my road but they want $1800 to come up my 1000ft driiveway
 
#20 ·
russ9 said:
Yes, let's eliminate competition, it always works out better for the consumer. :blackeye:
As I've said, I don't think it'll happen but there is still plenty of competition. The top ten we could name off the top of our heads and a couple of dozen more. Competition won't be a problem.

Mike
 
#21 ·
Laxguy said:
Well, consider the source, which makes the 93% very suspect to me. And one has to define "broadband".
According to this, 88% if urban households have access to cable broadband and 40% of rural. I'm sure there are areas with cable TV but not cable Internet.

FCC defines broadband as 3Mbit down I believe. They wanted to raise it to 6.
 
#22 ·
It would take ten years or more for these two companies to merger their internal resources and get all their customers onto one system to use. All of one companies customers would have to have their entire system replaced. This would not be easy.

However, they could see cost savings in product developers and negotiating contracts. We would not see price decreases though. Just look at how many gas stations we have on corners today and where prices are today vs 20 years ago.
 
#23 ·
Mike Bertelson said:
As I've said, I don't think it'll happen but there is still plenty of competition. The top ten we could name off the top of our heads and a couple of dozen more. Competition won't be a problem.

Mike
In my area I'm lucky with a choice of four providers. Going down to three would not be good for competition, especially when another one (Frontier FiOS) is trying to get out of the video delivery market.
 
#24 ·
inkahauts said:
It would take ten years or more for these two companies to merger their internal resources and get all their customers onto one system to use. All of one companies customers would have to have their entire system replaced. This would not be easy.

However, they could see cost savings in product developers and negotiating contracts. We would not see price decreases though. Just look at how many gas stations we have on corners today and where prices are today vs 20 years ago.
gas prices have a lot of tax also the price of oil and other stuff drive the gas price.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top