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

Directv CEO Says Possible Merger with Dish "Could Be Pro-Consumer"

Discussion in 'DIRECTV General Discussion' started by DMRI2006, Sep 21, 2012.

  1. Sep 21, 2012 #21 of 226

    hdtvfan0001 Well-Known Member

    Jul 28, 2004
    All true.

    That said, I suspect that part of the significant return on investment for such a deal is leveraging the satellite bandwidth from a combined organization as well as transmission facilities/resources. That would bring substantial operating cost reductions like most other tech mergers.

    The changes to make that happen, however, would involve some major modifications to a wide range of components in the ecosystem.
  2. Sep 21, 2012 #22 of 226

    MysteryMan Well-Known Member DBSTalk Club

    May 17, 2010
    A merger would be like a double edge sword. The con would be the creation of a monopoly but the pro would be the formidable negotiation power of that monopoly with content providers.
  3. Sep 21, 2012 #23 of 226

    nmetro Godfather

    Jul 11, 2006
    One of the biggest issues with merging DirecTV and DISH is that both companies use two different DBS technologies. While yes, one would be able to eliminate duplication and maximize bandwidth it would take a very long, and expensive, time to see one technology emerge. Depending on which technology is chose, 20 million or 14 million Dish's ans receivers would have to be changed out for the favored technology. As there is no gain operating two technologies as a permanent solution.

    A merger also depends which company is stronger. 10 years ago DISH thought they were the stronger, attempted to merge and were denied. Now, DirecTV is the stronger of the two. Yet, like 10 years ago, it will be a financial challenge to absorb customers from the other company, as noted above.

    As for "better fro consumers" when was the last time that a monopoly every offered an advantage to the consumer. So far, electric, gas, water and cable tv have proven that the consumer does not win. If this is approved by regulators, they may insist that another company step in to provide DBS. I cannot see this being approved for the same reasons it wasn't 10 years ago; a monopoly in rural areas.
  4. Sep 21, 2012 #24 of 226

    skoolpsyk Mentor

    May 24, 2007
    It would be great for consumers! Consumers that have a dream of 10,000 shopping and pay-per-view channels!
  5. Sep 21, 2012 #25 of 226
    Go Beavs

    Go Beavs Hall Of Fame

    Nov 18, 2008
    Well, it wouldn't have to cover all the slots. Doesn't DISH have assets at 110 and 119?

    You're right though, it's probably not very practical. On the surface, it does sound cool though. :)
  6. Sep 21, 2012 #26 of 226

    mrro82 Legend

    Sep 11, 2012
    Astoria, OR
    As posted before, Sirius and xms merger is a good reason not to. When they merged certain channels went bye bye. I don't want to see that happen to DirecTV. How would DirecTV customers benefit from this and please please please don't say the P12N. I don't see anything Dish has thatt DirecTV doesn't offer.
  7. Sep 21, 2012 #27 of 226

    antzona AllStar

    Sep 23, 2007
    If someone uses "could be" and "perhaps" in the same sentence, I don't trust them.
  8. Sep 21, 2012 #28 of 226

    JoeTheDragon Hall Of Fame

    Jul 21, 2008
    Well a merger can give the room to add WEST HD feeds as well

    more NHL CI HD feeds?

    more mix channels?
  9. Sep 21, 2012 #29 of 226

    espnjason Armchair Referee

    Sep 30, 2008
    If it is done in an effort to keep subscription prices at bay, I wouldn't mind. But I think a hundred would suffice given the amount of duplications.

    I sense that is a distinct possibility. There are quite a handful of west feeds of basic cable channels like TNT and TBS.

    We shouldn't get too carried away with this. Like many others, the SiriusXM merger is still fresh in my memory. I was an XM sub from March '03 til the merger when XM's creativity pretty much went out the window in favor of Sirius' business model and from what I understood, things haven't been the same since.

    Pardon my ignorance but I wonder how much it would cost to replace all the individual satellite dishes and to make interoperable receivers that would access both sets of programming? Aren't we having enough trouble with migrating customers from SD to HD as it is?
  10. Sep 21, 2012 #30 of 226

    lokar Icon

    Oct 7, 2006
    If allowed, I bet it would go down like D*'s Primestar acquisition in the '90s. Primestar was completely shut down within 6 months and existing customers got a bit of a break on D* equipment if you transitioned over. I think it would probably take a few years but the same principle would apply here, Dish would get shut down.

    This merger would be disastrous for rural customers now just as much as it was 10 years ago when Dish tried to buy D*. Cable in many smaller areas either does not reach rural houses and/or doesn't come close to the HD offerings of either D* or E*. Unfortunately what is best for the consumer doesn't often enter into these things...
  11. Sep 21, 2012 #31 of 226

    HoTat2 Hall Of Fame

    Nov 16, 2005
    I took that into consideration;

    But its still a total on 9 slots to accommodate --- 61.5, 72.7, 77, 99, 101, 103, 110, 119, 129.

    Now I understand that 77 is not necessary in most cases for Dish's EA, so an eight feed horn LNB might suffice as a minimum.

    And even if one could build it to any practicality, how many regions of the U.S. have good LOS to all those slots? :)
  12. Sep 21, 2012 #32 of 226

    espnjason Armchair Referee

    Sep 30, 2008
    Pretty much all of the Southwest? Florida? Tornado Alley?
  13. Sep 21, 2012 #33 of 226

    Shades228 DaBears

    Mar 18, 2008
    You can't compare it to Sirius XM because that was done out of necessity.

    I would compare it more to the Sprint/Nextel merger where it was in name only really for many years because it wasn't worth swapping out the equipment.

    While less competition would impact rural people from being able to jump back and forth it would allow them to not have rate increases as high as before because of the negotiating power. Both companies use national pricing so therefor the rural markets wouldn't be "singled" out because they could be.
  14. Sep 21, 2012 #34 of 226

    Hoosier205 Active Member

    Sep 3, 2007
    Just so long as Dish sheds their lawsuits prior to being taken over by DirecTV.
  15. Sep 21, 2012 #35 of 226

    davidatl14 Icon

    Mar 24, 2006

    People comparing this to Sirius-XM are way off base IMO.

    Apples and Oranges.

    Long way down the road if ever, but I can't see much downside from the financial aspect for consumers in this particular case.
  16. Sep 21, 2012 #36 of 226

    Satelliteracer Hall Of Fame

    Dec 6, 2006
    The key is to contain costs, doesn't mean it will lower them. In other words, retard the rate of increases.

    When you have 35 million customers you have that much more buying power than if you have 20 million. No different than a WalMart, etc. You can get better pricing.

    It's inevitable prices are going to continue to go up because the content providers are not going to take cuts there. The next question, however, is whether that rate of increase can be slowed which would benefit consumers. Now, there is no doubt consumers will say their prices are still going up, so where is the benefit. That's not the way to think about it in my opinion. No different than the Viacom DIRECTV situation. At the end of the day, Directv is still having to pay Viacom about 20% increase which means customer bills are going up, but they would have gone up more if Viacom got their way.
  17. Sep 21, 2012 #37 of 226

    Satelliteracer Hall Of Fame

    Dec 6, 2006
    I would argue it did work out for the customer. Without the Sirius-XM merger, likely neither company is around right now. If they are both gone, how does that benefit the consumer?

    It's more than just dollars and cents, it's the bigger picture.
  18. Sep 21, 2012 #38 of 226

    Satelliteracer Hall Of Fame

    Dec 6, 2006
    The bandwidth would be huge...think 4K on a LOT of channels. Not just HD, but 4K.
  19. Sep 21, 2012 #39 of 226

    damondlt New Member

    Feb 27, 2006
    I agree, but those customers that only have satellite as an option will be forced into a single provider. Thats not good, since there is no competition then in those areas, so I see HUGE price increases, maybe even regional prices. Look at Wild blue, even Directway.

    Those prices are nuts for those pethedic internet speeds.
  20. Sep 21, 2012 #40 of 226

    WebTraveler Icon

    Apr 9, 2006
    I call bull**** on this. CEO White is already in over his head. A deal like this would give him the perfect exit strategy and coverup his horrendous management skills.

Share This Page