Sounds good to me. (snobbish DirecTV sub)
Mike, I agree with you that, if the merger is blocked, the next suitor could be worse than E*. But, my reason for continuing my opposition to this merger is that a merger with E* is the only one that will, basically, reduce the number of viable small dish DBS providers to one. IMHO that is an unacceptable situation. Not too many years ago this merger would not even have been attempted because it would have, almost automatically, been rejected because it removes all viable competition.Originally posted by Mike123abc
A blocked merger does not mean good news for D* subscribers. GM wants to get rid of Hughes, the next person to bid on it may not be better than E*. Sometimes the devil you know is better than the devil you do not know.
And D* subs would not benefit from more bandwidth? D* subs would not benefit from better pq and more premium movie channels then what D* and E* currently offer separately? In order to stay competitive with cable DBS needs more bandwidth which cable has more of. Are you telling me that their are not D* subs that live in small markets who will never get their locals on satellite unless their is a merger? Don't tell me they can simply put up an antenna, that is the equivalent as saying they can eat cake. Many people, myself included already have an antenna and still can not receive a decent picture or receive waivers from some stations. As far as the Supers go, they are a major reason that I have E*, many of us can not receive these WB and UPN stations ota and the Supers have lots of syndicated programing and sports that are not available other then the expensive sports packages. Are you telling me that their are not D* subs out their that wold would not purchase the Supers if they where made available on the same platform. It seams to me that it is vary arrogant for some D* subs to claim that this merger would only benefit E* subs. :shrug:Originally posted by karl_f
The only people who will benefit are the E* subs who want sports subscriptions. They can keep WB and UPN supers, I get them locally. Other than supers, E* doesn't offer D* subs anything they don't already have.
Yes you might have every channel you want now, but what about the future? With both DBS company's close to being maxed out on bandwidth and cable having an abundance, to stay competitive with cable in the future not only in price but also in the number of channels and services we need the merger. If bandwidth were not at such a premium and if I thought their was a snowballs chance of my area, dma #85 getting its locals on satellite, I too would prefer having the additional competition. I just feel because bandwidth is so tight that the merger is the best way for satellite to stay competitive with cable in the future.Originally posted by James_F
How do you figure thats choice???? I have every channel that I need. Yea, I'd like more HDTV, but what does Dish bring to the table that would help me? Raise in subscription fees? Crappy hardware? Idiotic Chucky chats? Come on, its a joke for the consumer.
You are missing the point. I have my locals, why do I need some crappy Super? Don't waste bandwith. As I said, DBS is only going to be for people in the sticks. Why do they need to add locals for every ******* town. Keep it at the to 25 markets and let everyone else get it OTA or get the NY/LA nets.Originally posted by Chris Freeland
It seams to me that it is vary arrogant for some D* subs to claim that this merger would only benefit E* subs. :shrug:
Easy, once everything is on one platform the duplicate channels will be eliminated providing more bandwidth for additional national channels. Granted this will may take 3 or 4 years to accomplish but it will happen. The 210 dma's will be handled easily by re-useing the same set of frequency's with the spot beam satellites already up and planned for in the future. With platform consolidation cities currently using up 2 TP's because of separate DBS company's will only need 1 TP freeing up one for another dma. Once the platform is consolidated and every DMA's locals are on on satellite their will be enough cable subs willing to make a switch for more channels at a lower cost to make it work. If the merger is blocked, then I agree with your final statement that now is the best DBS will ever be. If the merger is approved however I believe DBS has a brighter future indead.Originally posted by James_F
How do you figure they will be able to add any new channels. Bandwith is always going to be a problem with DBS. Bandwith is tight no matter what. They are going to waste any of that bandwith gains by offering locals to 210 markets. Net result, no new channels, no new HDTV channels.
DBS is destined for people who don't have availabity of Digital Cable. Digital Cable is offering HDTV, PVRs and more channels than DBS. There will always be people leaving for DBS that are pissed with their cable companies, but not the millions that this new company will need to make it work.
Look around guys, this is as good as DBS will ever get. Mark my words!
No I did not miss your point, my point is that many of us in the smaller DMA's would like to have are locals on satellite too. As I stated earlier that not all channels can be received clearly ota but still can not qualify for distant nets. It is very arrogant on your part that only people in the large metro areas deserve to have their locals on satellite. I also resent you calling smaller DMA's as a ******* town. Just because some of us live in the sticks does not make us a *******.Originally posted by James_F
You are missing the point. I have my locals, why do I need some crappy Super? Don't waste bandwith. As I said, DBS is only going to be for people in the sticks. Why do they need to add locals for every ******* town. Keep it at the to 25 markets and let everyone else get it OTA or get the NY/LA nets.
I disagree, why shouldn't I get better service than you if I live in a bigger city? Large markets drive everything. You can live with the NY/LA locals and let us have our HDTV. How can you have that kind of attitude? You are ruining it for us in large markets... :nono:Originally posted by Chris Freeland
It is very arrogant on your part that only people in the large metro areas deserve to have their locals on satellite.