1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

E* Thinking Merger Again?

Discussion in 'DIRECTV General Discussion' started by VegasDen, Aug 5, 2008.

  1. highheater

    highheater Legend

    204
    0
    Aug 30, 2006
    Its amazing that all the fanboys here are analyzing this from the standpoint of what good it would do for Direct TV ...

    instead of looking at what good (or bad) it would do for the consumer.

    I thought we all were consumers first, not Direct TV field marshalls. But the true stripes are showing here.
     
  2. Alan Gordon

    Alan Gordon Chancellor

    9,094
    100
    Jun 7, 2004
    Dawson, Georgia
    There is a LOT of good it would do for Dish Network. The amount of good it would do for DirecTV is debatable.

    As for the consumers, I can think of SEVERAL good things, but very few bad things.

    ~Alan
     
  3. DCSholtis

    DCSholtis Up The Irons!

    5,775
    6
    Aug 7, 2002
    If this merger ever went through, NFL Sunday Ticket would go bye bye, Cheap Charlie would find a way to weasel out of the MLB Extra Innings deal and replace it with Cricket or some other crap. He is well known for hating sports (at least American sports that he has to pay the big bucks for). I'm fine with Directv as is and want NO part of Charlie or his cheap attitude. I'd rather go back to cable if he ever took control.
     
  4. Alan Gordon

    Alan Gordon Chancellor

    9,094
    100
    Jun 7, 2004
    Dawson, Georgia
    Last time a DirecTV/Dish merger was talked about, Charlie had all the power as GM wanted to get rid of DirecTV.

    This time, DirecTV had all the power as Dish is the one needing the merger.

    Yes, people can point to the fact that Charlie appears to LOVE the business, and the fact that a lot of people felt Malone was only wanting DirecTV to get rid of it, BUT I wouldn't be so quick to assume Charlie would have much to do with the company.

    ~Alan
     
  5. gregjones

    gregjones Hall Of Fame

    1,333
    0
    Sep 20, 2007
    Here, I agree with Alan. I think the only thing Charlie would have an opportunity to say in the new company would be, "yes sir."
     
  6. DarinC

    DarinC Hall Of Fame

    1,183
    0
    Aug 31, 2004
    I don't see it that way at all. I think most of us are looking at it from OUR perspective, as consumers (personally, I think it would be bad for the consumer, if for no other reason, reduced competition). We are looking at how good or bad it is for DirecTV/Dish not because we are concerned for them, but rather, to determine what we think the chances are. Personally, I don't think DirecTV gains much here, unless they get a really good deal out of Dish. So *I'm* looking at the fact that DirecTV doesn't need a merger as consolation that perhaps it won't happen. I also don't think there are any major changes that would make approval any more likely than before.
     
  7. hdtvfan0001

    hdtvfan0001 Well-Known Member

    32,456
    258
    Jul 28, 2004
    In the end...no such merger will take place, unless there is a compelling financial and business reason to proceed. Unlike the last time, DirecTV is now in the drivers seat. In their financial results call, the question came up, and there does not seem to be any strong reason to move on this for the time being.
     
  8. gregjones

    gregjones Hall Of Fame

    1,333
    0
    Sep 20, 2007
    Is DirecTV being in financial shape good for consumers? It is nice that they have the financial bearing to be able to launch more HD capacity. Because companies without cashflow generally have a hard time staying in business.

    It is a little much to think that every good thing that happens to a company is a bad thing for a consumer. Right now, I can see no real advantage for DirecTV merging. I think they should let Dish's attrition run its course and wait for the price to fall lower. In this regard the deal is far from the Sirius/XM model.

    DirecTV is gaining subs, Dish losing them. DirecTV has much more national capacity than Dish due to the last two satellites. Dish is having to rely on some fairly odd orbital positions that don't have a good LOS for the entire country. Sirius and XM were actually in very similar positions relative to each other. They were both overspending in roughly equal amounts.

    Were it my call, I would advise DirecTV to wait it out for a cheaper price. When and if Dish gets there, buy them. But buying them should be about acquiring customers more cheaply than current efforts. If the cost per subscriber for the merger is higher than the current cost to acquire new subscribers, walk away.
     
  9. bonscott87

    bonscott87 Cutting Edge: ECHELON '07

    9,809
    2
    Jan 21, 2003
    Yea, he chuckled and almost laughed at the question and pretty much said no way, this isn't anything they are looking at.

    Kinda like Chase was saying that his little brother Charlie is a bit loopy. :lol:
     
  10. 1948GG

    1948GG Icon

    952
    8
    Aug 4, 2007
    BINGO
     
  11. evan_s

    evan_s Hall Of Fame

    2,136
    0
    Mar 3, 2008
    I'm not sure even that makes sense. To convert the acquired customer over to DirecTV service is still going to require a dish, receiver switch and probably cost just as much as any other new install. Add to that the complications and complaints that always come with forced transitions for customers and I think DirecTV is better off just picking up Dishes customers the old fashioned way.
     
  12. gregjones

    gregjones Hall Of Fame

    1,333
    0
    Sep 20, 2007
    And that cost to transition them would be considered a cost of the merger. That is why it is so unlikely.

    Like you said, it is so much cheaper for them to decide to convert themselves...
     
  13. ATARI

    ATARI Hall Of Fame

    1,876
    0
    May 10, 2007
    I'm sure D*s accountants could find a way to make the merger into a huge tax write-off, and thus actually make money on the deal.
     
  14. rudeney

    rudeney Hall Of Fame

    4,266
    1
    May 28, 2007
    It’s more content and it’s a better picture, but I just don’t see it as a huge leap in technology. In fact, it’s much the same technology. I will concede that the DVR has been a huge leap in the way we watch, but that’s it. Here’s a thought, and this isn’t mean to be the “one thing I want”, but just an example of where the technology *could* go. Let’s say I’m watching a movie and I see an actor that I like, but can’t remember the name. I press pause, and then mouse over and click on the actor’s face. I get a IMDB-style bio, but not only that, I can click on any link for any of that actor’s movies and be taken to watch that movie, TV show, interview, etc. Now, that is a huge technology change in the way I watch TV.

    Yeah, I know the Bells can’t really do this, but even the computer implementations are clunky. I want the 2001:ASO version, dangit!

    The problem I see is that we went through a lot of technology to get to the late 1980’s and then *BOOM* corporate American decided to take control of it and now, instead of true innovation, we only get what is deemed “profitable”. Instead of companies seeing some new technology and saying, “Wow! We need to put that into our customer’s hands! They’d love it and we’d sell millions!” They say, “OK, let’s see if we can figure out a way to turn this into a long-term revenue so we can fund our next big breakthrough, and also, make sue this thing has planned obsolescence so the customer will need to our next big thing!” I’m not saying a company should do something for no profit, but I believe our technological breakthroughs have been severely stifled due to corporate greed.
     
  15. IcedOmega13

    IcedOmega13 Legend

    163
    0
    Mar 3, 2008
    I'd love to see the face of the csr in the cancellation department of D* right before it happens. "Ya sure cancel, we'll just buy the company your going to and you''ll be back"
     
  16. highheater

    highheater Legend

    204
    0
    Aug 30, 2006
    Which is exactly the problem.
     

Share This Page