DBSTalk Forum banner
Status
Not open for further replies.
1 - 16 of 16 Posts

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,199 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·

·
Hall Of Fame
Joined
·
5,345 Posts
This is one story that just WILL NOT GO AWAY!

A merger between Dish and Direct TV was already soundly rejected by the FCC and the Justice Dept! I don't see how a merger between DirecTV and Dish would be any different especially considering the new owner of DirecTV!

See ya
Tony
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
614 Posts
TNGTony said:
This is one story that just WILL NOT GO AWAY!

A merger between Dish and Direct TV was already soundly rejected by the FCC and the Justice Dept! I don't see how a merger between DirecTV and Dish would be any different especially considering the new owner of DirecTV!

See ya
Tony
A few months back Murdoch spoke about the possibility with Charlie Rose from PBS. Murdoch said he thinks that if Dish and DirecTV decided to merge this year or next, it's likely they could this time around. The reason being is that there is more competition from Verizons FiOS TV services. If the companies merged it would save them 3 billion dollars in operating costs. Ergen came up with the cost savings figure, not Murdoch. So it's clear both have been rethinking the possibility. Just do a google on the topic and you will see what I mean, alot of articles were written about this.
 

·
Icon
Joined
·
832 Posts
I figure it ain't over until it's over. I live in San Antonio and in just the 4 years we've been here we've seen Southwest Bell take over a couple of regional phone companies that were created out of the Ma Bell break up of several years ago. They're now AT&T and have applied to gooble up one or two more regionals. Won't be long until we're back to Ma Bell again so I don't believe it's over concerning a "merger" of E* and D* regardless of previous FCC and Justice rulings.
 

·
Godfather
Joined
·
262 Posts
Much different TV landscape over several years ago...You now have Verizon with FIOS in their phone markets and ATT with LightSpeed in their phone markets.

Plus, cable has prolifereated further out to the boonies.

My guess is it would probably be approved ...and boy, wouldnt that be something...
 

·
Mentor
Joined
·
33 Posts
FIOS is nowhere near a competitor to DBS or cable, yet, and any merger would not be approved based on FIOS' potential market. The fact is that it is not available in most of the country, and there are many areas which will likely never see it.
 

·
Legend
Joined
·
219 Posts
I think it could happen this time around because Murdoch has some pretty powerful friends in Washington. Especially among the Republican party. Last time around, he wasn't too happy about losing out to Ergen on the bid to buy D*. Who knows, he may have influenced Washington in the negative back then, and then ended up with D*. Who know how this fits into the possible Liberty Media sale.
 

·
Hall Of Fame
Joined
·
4,873 Posts
If it meant we'd have all the satellite bandwidth and all the channels of both companies, it could be good for the consumer.

I would hope the company would be more like D* than E*, however, when it came to equipment acquisition cost and customer service.
 

·
Beware the Attack Basset
Joined
·
25,422 Posts
cybrsurfer said:
The reason being is that there is more competition from Verizons FiOS TV services.
What does the presence of the land-based FIOS service in a very few US markets have to do with DBS competition? FIOS is a small player in the cable and telephone market, not the satellite market.

Rupert can be a real rube when it comes to DirecTV.
 

·
Hall Of Fame
Joined
·
6,226 Posts
monetnj said:
I think it could happen this time around because Murdoch has some pretty powerful friends in Washington. Especially among the Republican party. Last time around, he wasn't too happy about losing out to Ergen on the bid to buy D*. Who knows, he may have influenced Washington in the negative back then, and then ended up with D*. Who know how this fits into the possible Liberty Media sale.
It will never happen because Charlie wouldn't give up his power..Plain & Simple!
 

·
Hall Of Fame
Joined
·
1,765 Posts
SBC bought ATT so they (SBC) could, once again be ATT. I think anything out there is possible.

Paul Secic said:
It will never happen because Charlie wouldn't give up his power..Plain & Simple!
 

·
Hall Of Fame
Joined
·
2,777 Posts
Regardless of how many friends Murdoch has in Washington, I just don't see this happening. As things stand right now in Washington DBS is different than cable is different than phone service. There is a real need to reform telecom legislation in this country - it's been happening, but it's been way too slow. It leaves things in a very interesting state. For example, one argument that Comcast uses in trying to stop Verizon from implementing FiOS TV is that they're not allowed to, by law, to carry TV programming - that it's unfair to Comcast because Verizon, not being a cable company, is not beholden to the same laws that Comcast is (they make this argument in court - and they fight Verizon in every possible venue - which is probably the reason that we've had FiOS internet in our area for over a year now, but there has yet to be any TV programming available). Of course the irony is just incredible - Comcast now offers phone service, but because they're not a phone company they aren't required to follow many laws that are foisted on companies like Verizon.

Until the laws change, there will always be a legal separation between cable, satellite, and phone companies. That's why companies like Comcast and Time Warner can buy up cable companies like they're going out style (when Adlephia went belly-up both companies divided the spoils), but companies like DTV and E* are prevented from merging. So, if the dbs companies merge, you have one dbs supplier. I believe that's how the law sees it.

Also, there's the fact that if DTV and E* merge, you end up with a behemoth of what, 25 - 30 million subscribers. Given how the laws are structured, and given the size of the resulting company, I just don't see it happening. There is ONE way it could happen, actually. Generally when you have 2 large companies merging like that the government will require that you divest a good chunk of the resulting company - to reduce the footprint that your new company would create. That is a possibility. But then the question that both companies would have to ask is - would the merger be worth the cost?
 

·
Hall Of Fame
Joined
·
2,777 Posts
Oh, and as for FiOS, I agree with the notion that it's just too small to make a difference right now. It's only available in parts of a handful of states - they have to fight court battles in every state where they want entry - and then there's the issue of actually laying the cable. Around here, Verizon had to work with every township individually in order to secure the rights to lay down the new cable. Not sure why, since it just runs right along with the phone lines, but that's the way of it. It's also very expensive to lay down - it's very expensive to produce - and very expensive to install (the install for my FiOS internet service took longer than my DirecTV dish install did), although the additional volume, plus the ability to handle things like broadband and TV service are what Verizon is banking on in terms of making up that cost. But because of those costs, Verizon is going to be limited in terms of roll-out.

You can see it around here. One ad, apparently, that Comcast has been throwing out there says, to the effect, that FiOS is "elitist." Why? Because Verizon is hitting the up-scale neighborhoods first, and are ignoring other neighborhoods. While it's true that Verizon has been hop-scotching around this area in terms of laying cable, and while it's true they've largely ignored most of Philly right now, instead hitting the suburbs, I don't believe the reason is elitism - one would be hard-pressed to call my neighborhood "wealthy". It's basic economics of internet service - many of the burbs (my area included) have no access to DSL. Heck, the phone lines in my neighborhood were so old that when we had dial up, I NEVER got a speed higher than 14k on my 56k modem. Areas like Philly have DSL readily available. By laying FiOS first in areas that have no access to DSL, Verizon is expanding it's broadband base.

But that being said, it shows just how expensive it is to lay the cable, and the truth is that there are areas that will never see FiOS. Either way, Verizon is, right now, a very tiny player. There's even some question as to how viable it'll be in the near future for providing TV service. I believe the potential is huge... but just not yet. Not for a number of years yet.
 

·
Icon
Joined
·
914 Posts
Paul Secic said:
It will never happen because Charlie wouldn't give up his power..Plain & Simple!
He did over DirecWay.
 

·
Godfather
Joined
·
260 Posts
FiOS (and the AT&T version) is going to become a competitior to cable/satellite, it may not have much market penetration at this time but that is about to change rapidly. Burbs are also easier to lay the lines in than urban areas, so just like with how cable started they are going from the outside in, eventually FiOS is "envisioned" to replace copper POTS although that is probably way out into the future. Most of the people that I know who have it (in the Dallas burbs) are very happy with it.

As for the arguement of the cable companies theat they have different regulation, the phone companies have lost the arguement about cable companies being able to provide VOIP, so I would image the cable companies would lose that arguement (over time) to Verizon/AT&T.
 
1 - 16 of 16 Posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top