That appears to be a pessimistic and unfounded perspective.
A wide revenue stream and lowered operating costs (combined support and technologies just to name 2 elements) through merged operations actually would probably reduce the probability of raised rates, or at minimum stabilize them.
In addition, the potential 35 million subscriber total pales in comparison to the cable subscriber total numbers - so plenty of competition would keep an incentive to be competitive.
I don't think you can say that so categorically. Whether the merged companies would be a monopoly and capable of monopolistic pricing is certainly open to a lot of discussion. I don't think there is much question the combined company would be a monopoly in rural areas. How much of a problem that would be is the only question, at least regarding areas not serviced by cable. Whether competition in primary and secondary markets would be enough to keep a single satellite provider from being a monopoly is a very questionable issue. It was determined it would be a monopoly just 10 years ago.
Nobody responded to my analysis of exactly this issue upthread here
, who made you the profit police? Laws against making too much profit are few. There are usury laws against charging too much interest but most of those unfortunately have gone away. Usury was a sin a century ago. Now it's considered a pawn store reality TV show. There are also laws against monopolies for exactly this issue. But otherwise, if you can make something for a 10¢ and sell it for $10, more power to you.
Edited by Carl Spock, 24 September 2012 - 12:25 PM.