Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'DIRECTV General Discussion' started by DMRI2006, Sep 21, 2012.
Wow. Did he run over your dog or something?
Wow. Did he run over your dog or something?
I guess you haven't taken notice of their unprecedented success under his leadership.
Must still be raw about White not falling on his knees and acknowledging the deity that is Larry Scot.
On a more serious note in the Pac 12 network saga I do wish both sides could come to an agreement for the National feed at the very least.
Gonna miss a few of the games they have upcoming.
Always enjoyed watching PAC 12 gridiron late Saturday Nights/Early Sunday Morings during CFB season.
Satelliteracer, you are exactly right. A monopoly does have the power to lower their own costs, or retard the rate of increase, as you point out.
As a customer, that's not the first cost I'm worried about. It's the cost of the service to me that is primarily on my mind.
A monopoly has the ability to set prices. They are outside of the standard competition model. OPEC in the 1970s was the classic monopoly. They controlled the majority of the world's oil supply and they could set the price. We saw gas go from 29¢ a gallon to over $1.50 in just a few years.
A monopoly has the best of both worlds. They can lower their own costs because, as you point out, they have more leverage as a buyer, and they can raise the price to their customer since the customer has no where else to go.
This is why monopolies are so profitable.
The question is, would a merger of DirecTV and Dish be viewed as a monopoly? Could they pull off both of these tricks, lowering their costs and setting their price?
Certainly, as you say, they can do the first. They will have greater buying power. But will there still be competition, with other television choices for the consumer that will keep the price they can charge in check?
In many rural markets, this will certainly not be the case. There is no alternative for television beyond OTA, DirecTV or Dish, and in some of those markets, OTA doesn't work, either. In terms of geography, this could be half the country, if not more. A person more knowledgeable than me would have to determine how much of the population this would cover. My guess would be around 10%.
I am discounting the Internet for a source for rural cable television because for those folks, their Internet is probably still dial-up. If they could hook up a cable modem, they could also hook up cable TV. DSL doesn't work well when run miles from a substation.
The more populated parts of the country could have alternatives to a DirecTV/Dish merger, and more than they did in 2003. The idea that there is one cable system for each town yesterday's concept. Often the local phone company is offering TV. There can be other landline providers of television. This might keep a DirecTV/Dish merger from being viewed as a monopoly. We'll see. That's a call for folks a lot more swift than an old stereo salesman on an Internet board.
For the life of me I don't know why people keep bringing this up. Satellite radio is far different than TV. For starters there is tons of competition for most of what Sirius XM offers and more importantly is the fact that without that merger one or both of them would have gone out of business in short order anyway leaving us in the same situation.
And for what it's worth, subscribers are now able to subscribe to a limited number of stations for a reduced fee. I took advantage of that myself. I don't need Howard Stern, Playboy, Martha Stewart, etc. I just listen to music and a few news stations as well as weather and traffic.
And that ends my off topic rant.
Sirius vs. XM was always a race to the bottom. Neither company was making money. The question was: who would run out of money first?
We found out the answer. It was XM.
I agree only one would survive. It doesn't make it a better deal for the consumer. I used to have 4 radios on my XM account. I gave them away for Christmas presents to nieces and nephews, with the agreement I'd continue to pay for their service as long as their grades stayed up. Now I have two radios on my account, one for my home and one for my car, and the money I pay to SiriusXM is about the same.
Yes, the merger kept the company alive and for that I'm grateful. I was a great deal for the listener but no, it was not a boon to the consumer.
Yea he is pumping some short term profits at the expense of customers to drive stock price. It will all come crashing down. A net 52,000 loss of subscribers last quarter and profits are up....so you spend less on sign up promotions this quarter and get a profit. That strategy can work in the short term, but in the long term you cannot ignore this.
Being king of soda pop does not mean you will be king of tv
Want to post this same dribble a third time to make even a bigger point?
Oh yeah...this thread is about the idea and potential of a merger of DirecTV and Dish some day...it was getting hard to tell there for a bit...
Much as they now do as individual companies, a post-merger DIRECDish® will have to keep prices at a level that allows them to remain cost-competitive with cable and fiber in (sub)urban areas, and, hence, rural consumers will continue reap the benefits of that competition.
What exactly has he done at the expense of customers? They've added content, features, and products. They completed 39 retrans deals in 2010, most if not all of 80 in 2011, and the numbers for 2012 will be very high as well.
My biggest fear is a lesson from the XM/Sirius "merger". XM was MANY times bigger than Sirius, but Sirius' management essentially ended XM forever. There's zero XM left now, and it's a real shame.
Therefore, my fear is that Echostar would rule the merged company - we'd lose our sports, our DVRs - all the stuff we like about D*, and it'd be replaced by a no NFLST, cheapened version of D* with crappy DVRs. But at least we'd get the Water Channel
To be somewhat fair Sirius/XM has to negotiate rates with the RIAA and the RIAA raked them over the coals last time. Sirius can't afford to be without music so they had no leverage. They had no choice but to raise rates.
Don't get me wrong I think the merger wasn't that great and I think Sirius/XM quality has suffered because of it.
DirecTV was the only company to have something like 16+ straight quarters with net growth. Every other big provider was losing quarter after quarter...
You've got to get past your personal anger over Pac12 Network and look at the big picture.
I lived through the Sirius-XM merger mess and would be first to say that the potential writing is on the wall here, but I would suggest that DirecTV look elsewhere beside Dish for merger bait. Think outside the box -- perhaps a Fios/Uverse element? How about going REALLY radical and merging with someone north of the border -- see if Bell or Rogers would spin off their satellite services into a truly North American service?
I'll admit it's pie in the sky, but radical things come from radical ideas....
Something D* doesn't do well.
Really? I'd say just the opposite.
I was kind of thinking this too, instead of the two satellite providers merging, what would happen if one of the major cable companies bought one of the satellite companys? Then that cable company could be "everywhere".
The Thing is that Dish has been acquiring lots of wireless bandwidth and Blockbuster, that may make them a more attractive merger partner, than just as a satellite TV provider.
Not to mention that adding the dish transponders on 110 & 119 (?) would give DirecTV a whole of of quick bandwidth with a relatively easy to make dish. Then add in the Dish satellites as in orbit spares and ...............
Put all foreign channels on the Dish Eastern Arc and in HD. Right Now I believe Dish is way ahead of DirecTV in foreign language channels. That seems to be a growth market.
Much easier to carry all channels in HD for all markets from one company with more transponders.
To me it looks like a merger could be a good deal.