Welcome to DBSTalk
- Start new topics and reply to others
- Subscribe to topics and forums to get email updates
- Get your own profile page and make new friends
- Send personal messages to other members.
Rural monopoly arguement ?!?!
Posted 16 February 2002 - 08:43 AM
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.
Posted 16 February 2002 - 11:17 AM
Within a Big city, there is cable and DBS (even if 1 DBS provider total) so there is no monopoly, 2 choices.
But in rural areas=no cable, so if only one DBS company then 1 choice = Monopoly.
I guess it is a matter of perspective about the monopoly. Since I live in the suburbs of Atlanta a E* and D* merger is just a lessening of choice, from 3 to 2 (ED* and Cable). So I don't see it that way. But not being in a rural area I have a different perspective.
Posted 16 February 2002 - 03:52 PM
I live in the suburbs of ATL as well, and I see this as a win for the customer because of the increased services that will be possible because of all of those satellites in the sky... better pq, more HDTV (if only I had one), and yes, eventually better rates. I don't really see this as a reduction in choice because there is cable, and around here, it in and of itself isn't bad, just the rates. I would have an issue if the technical/service benefits weren't there.
Posted 17 February 2002 - 01:20 PM
Since you have to go pretty far out to not get cable in Georgia, so chances are Rural has a different definition in GA than it does in Montana, etc.. The way Atlanta is growing, Greenville SC will soon be a suburb of Atlanta
Those who live in really rural areas where there is no cable may feel different. I agree with you that the increase in services would outweigh any negatives. And the pricing in Cable included areas is the same as rural areas so the people in totally rural areas get the benefit of the competition in big cities.
But the legal fact will always turn to there will only be one provider in the area and someone can always use that for their Monopoly argument. And one the dicussion of Monopoly is raised, the process get alot more difficult.
Posted 17 February 2002 - 06:12 PM
DTV does not. NRTC members like Pegasus control rural pricing and Pegasus is claiming that thay will have exclusive rights in their territory after the merger.
Now that is far from certain. But it is clear that the merger will stifle one competitor will it be Pegasus or DISH. I dont know.
Posted 17 February 2002 - 06:33 PM
Some of you have heard from DIRECTV® and/or
DISH NetworkTM about the pending merger of
EchoStar Communications into Hughes Electronics,
DIRECTV's parent corporation. Some of you have
expressed concerns about the effects of the merger.
You, as an authorized Pegasus dealer, are particularly
well-positioned if the merger is completed.
• Pegasus owns exclusive territorial rights
to distribute DIRECTV programming.
• Once the merger is completed, programming
in packages like DIRECTV's Total Choice® and
EchoStar's America's Top 100 can only be
distributed in Pegasus service territory by
Pegasus and through authorized Pegasus dealers.
• Existing Pegasus dealers will be authorized
to sell services of the merged entity in Pegasus
service territory and will benefit from any
enhancements to those services.
EchoStar dealers will not be able to offer a competitive DISH or DIRECTV product in Pegasus service territory.
• Despite any rumors or claims to the
contrary, it is business as usual at Pegasus.
If the merger is completed, we expect your
relationship with Pegasus to be even stronger.
So you see at least according to these guys there will be one variable pricing by region.
Posted 18 February 2002 - 05:10 AM
I can't see how they could retain previous rights when the company changes, because it will be a "new" company... and although I have no experience with these folks, I can't see how they would be allowed to utilize a different pricing structure than Dish, because it doesn't cost a single penny more to service rural customers. Are their prices higher than D*'s, assuming those are standard?
Posted 18 February 2002 - 08:05 AM
It is truly bad news if Pegasus is allowed to continue to do what they are doing now. Pegasus's charges more for the same programming that regular DirecTV subs get. How much more? Three bucks more. Also, those Pegasus subs are not allowed to get into the same deals that DirecTV has for their current subs. Thus, you pay full price with Pegasus.