Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'DIRECTV General Discussion' started by DMRI2006, Sep 21, 2012.
DirecTV + Dish =
Revs Did Itch
Sir Did Vetch
or my favorite
Red Itch Vids
Agree it was necessary, here's why. It was necessity because of stupid business practives because Sirius offered Howard Stern $.5B (yes Billion) and then XM countered with $.7B for Major League Baseball.
And now there is one and may subs will tell you service did suffer with big rate increases after the 2 year moratorium.
Sometimes its OK for the government not to bail out the companies as a reward for stupid business decisions mentioned above. The sats would not have fallen from the sky. Once bankruptcy would have been declared, courts and creditors would have had to deal with the company. They would have emerged as a much leaner more efficient company. This way the creditors get to foot the bill, not the subs.
Yes Quality has suffered. Many more channels with commercials now. They also made their traffic channels less useful. Before the merger, two cities shared a channel with traffic every 3-4 mins back to back. Now 3 cities share a channel with traffic for your city every 10 minutes. At 65mph one covers alot of roadway in 10 mins making the traffic reports useless.
In general, reduced choice usually hurts consumers.
The loss of customers is because of a planned pullback of going after certain customers. This had been signaled to the street for more than 2 quarters. If D* wanted to have positive numbers in the last quarter, EASILY could have done it by letting customers on the platform and juicing marketing. The issue is that with subscriber acquisition costs as high as they are, it makes no sense to go after some customers that aren't credit worthy.
There is a reason why Warren Buffet and others have bought so much stock in D* in the last year, because it is a well run company. The days of growing, growing, growing subscribers at any costs are over. Don't let the drop in subs fool you, that was planned...there's a reason why D* hit it's all time high in stock price only two weeks ago. They are playing it smart, trying to reign in costs and keeping the customers that make the most sense in the long run.
Directv has already absorbed other technologies over the year, including Prime Star, etc.
Canada....meh....way too many regulations up there including what programming you can offer. The other problem is all the cost to go into a market with only 35 million people, most of them entrenched with another provider.
I would be stunned if D* and Dish haven't looked at Canada and both come to the conclusion that you just can't be profitable up there with the current setup.
I would also note that Dish's technology advances have, at times, come by the way of stolen patents and alongside hefty lawsuits.
And I and many others would be gone and quick.
There is competition with SiriusXM outside of satellite. Local terrestrial radios still tend to rule the air ... plus there are streaming options via data networks that give people who want to pay an option.
Satellite radio simply is not as big of a deal as pay television. Sure there are ~21 million subscribers to SiriusXM, but many of them did not choose to subscribe (service came with their new cars) and SiriusXM practically gives away subscriptions to people who have cancelled their service.
With a lot more regulation than they had in the 80s. Back in the day Ma Bell controlled their networks and could tell people what they could or could not connect to a phone line. A series of court victories and the breakup of AT&T opened the door to competition that still exists today (even with the merger of the bells). While the ILEC in a community may be a reconstituted AT&T, the CLECs live and can compete with AT&T by reselling AT&Ts own lines at a government regulated cost.
AT&T T-Mobile fell through ... not all mergers will be approved.
As long as DirecTV takes the loss when it falls through I don't see the harm in trying. DISH's attempt to buy DirecTV ended with a huge loss ... but it did mark the beginning of never posting a negative year again.
I am surprised to have people at that level talk of a merger. I don't see it as pro-consumer.
What makes people think D* would be the surviving entity? From where I sit, E* would be chief in charge.
Bigger doesn't usually mean the survivor.
I went through this 2 times in the last 8 years at work. In both cases, the smaller entity ended up ruling the roost (and, IMHO, killing the combined company)
For me...it's because DirecTV is the only one that deserves to survive. It had better survive.
For one, those shared satellite locations, at 119 and 110 would be an increase. Dish also has a Ku band bird at 118.9. So now you've added those transponders. That would be quite a boost and not having to change the LNB to do it!
Why would Directv want to merge with anybody when they're already making record profits? Is there any end to their greed?
Directv's profit margin is not that large, very much in line with other companies and industries. 9.84% the last quarter and has been between 7.5% and 10.3% the last three years.
In fact, Directv's profit margin is in the 68th percentile and ranked 1391 out of 4,420 companies. In the CATV systems sector, ranked 11th out of 20.
Apple, is at 25.1%. THOSE GREEDY BASTARDS!!
Yahoo at 18.61%
Google at 22.8%
Folks....I think we all know that any time any CEO says that a merger involving his company will be "good for the consumer" you need to seriously watch your wallet.
Then point the dish straight up and use it as a birdbath. That's the only thing that could make me run screaming back to Time Warner.
Charlie in charge? Pay more for less as he drops channel after channel, screaming about how he's saving us money while charging us the same rates for less programming. My God, how stupid does he think we are?
Goldman Sachs is not an example of capitalism at work. Corporatism, folks. And what does that have to do with communications anyhow? The customer is only a revenue stream. What benefits the customer is not necessarily beneficial to the business, especially when government is involved. Centralization equally harmful to the consumer and the citizen. Competition in a free market is most beneficial.
You're telling me......I signed up with XM in mid 2005. I was paying about $140 a year. I got my bill last month, it's up to $220 a year. I canceled.
Of course my use has changed too. I was using mine mainly on my motorcycle and I was doing MANY long distance trips which I'm not doing very many now at all. The other impact has been that back in 2005 my cell phone was just a cell phone. Today my cell phone has every record and CD I've ever owned loaded into it....LOL. Why do I need XM....LOL
One thing that hasn't been mentioned is how many people are going to lose their jobs because of the redundancy between the two companies? This reminds me of our Auto industry back in 2008 when they were talking of the GM/Chrysler Merger which would have been detrimental to the local economy and the jobs lost.
Of course, this could be different, but i'm sure there would be some job losses.
I've been hearing about this merger for years now... is it ever going to happen?
I don't see huge cuts but I could see a reduction at higher levels. The amount of calls and customers wouldn't change so therefor call centers, installers, and support staffs would probably increase, which make up the bulk of employees of both companies, distribution and warehouses would possibly be impacted depending on redundancy.
However even if it happened today the consumer aspects wouldn't change for at least 2 years just due to the sheer volume of technology aspects. I would bet it would take at least 6 years for existing customers to even start to see technology changes one way or the other. If one company had a stockpile of cash like Apple does it might be faster because they could just eat the loss easier of a more aggressive change but it still wouldn't take more than a year or two off at most.
Neither company has the money to change all of their older receivers over to receivers that would be compatible with the other company. The customers with MPEG4 receivers would be a step ahead but there are millions of older receivers that would need to be replaced to take advantage of the extra satellite space. The two systems would remain separate for years.
Even if DISH MPEG4 customers were migrated over to DirecTV satellites it would mean a new dish. It isn't an impossible task, but it is an expensive one. Such a massive change will either cut into the profits of the combined company or lead to higher rates. As long as cable keeps raising their rates "DirectDISHTV" could raise rates and still be competitive. But it still seems like a formula for higher rates for all. Not "pro-consumer".