I just finished reading an article from a smaller local paper in my community and it raises a question. I do not understand the rural monopoly argument people are using against the merger. I do not believe Dish current prices are based on geographic location. If you go to their website there is one price, regardless of where you live. Other than Alaska and Hawaii, does anyone know why this is? I think the rural customers of Dish are benefiting from the competition that Dish experiences in the urban markets with cable companies. Is there an expectation or concern that this pricing model would change in the future if the merger went through? If so, it seems the concession is simple; guarantee that you will not charge rural customers at different rates than urban customers. Seems like that would actually increase the impact of competition in the rural markets. I'm sure there are points of this im missing. This monopoly argument sounds very convincing, but just because it sounds good doesn't make it true.The fact remains that the merger will be beneficial to rural consumers. This is not my opinion - this is established fact. The merger brings locals and fast internet service to the rural customer. Without the merger, the rural customer gets to choose between 2 services which offer neither. Which way do you think they'd rather have it? DISH has already submitted to a uniform pricing commitment, which is utterly rediculous because they ALREADY HAVE UNIFORM PRICING! Who is looking out for the rural consumer? Obviously not any opponent to the merger. I'm just rambling on here, kind of curious what other people think. I'm sure there are points I'm not seeing.