Sounds good to me. 
(snobbish DirecTV sub)
(snobbish DirecTV sub)
Interesting merger discussion...
http://www.thedeal.com/NASApp/cs/Co...1&Box2=Variables.Box2&banner=Variables.banner
From the perspective of the investment market. "All indications are that the staff wants to block the deal, he said."
From the perspective of the investment market. "All indications are that the staff wants to block the deal, he said."
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
1 - 20 of 56 Posts
I would like to see it happen, but I doubt very much that it will for the reasons expressed in the article. The spread between Dish and GMH stock is just too wide at this stage. No one on Wall Street believes that it will happen. A real gamble for anyone interested would be to buy some GMH calls expiring right after the time of the announcement. If the announcement is a go ahead, these will probably more than double in short time. Pretty good theory coming from a bad capitalist.
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.
D* also has the current problem that E* has a lot more transponders. E* has 85 transponders, D* has 46. While one can argue that D* has done a lot better managing transponders than E* has done in the past (better spot sattelite, etc), eventually D* will have a problem.
D* also has the current problem that E* has a lot more transponders. E* has 85 transponders, D* has 46. While one can argue that D* has done a lot better managing transponders than E* has done in the past (better spot sattelite, etc), eventually D* will have a problem.
My arguement is more with choice than management. I think that two DBS providers allows both subs of Dish and DirecTV to gain.
Choice is why I am in favor of the merger, more choices on one platform. I want to have the choice of getting my locals on satellite. With the merger I would expect to eventually have a choice of core, NFLST and other sports packages, my locals, broadband, SA, Supers, all on a single platform. With the merger and the eventual consolidation to one platform I would also expect to see more channels to choose from then what is currently available on a bandwidth limited E* and D* separately or on cable and for a better price then cable.
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.
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.
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.
Well one really cannot count Sky Angel as competition to the other DBS markets. Unless they suddenly decide to change their programming, they will remain a specialty DBS provider in a narrow market.
SES and R/L DBS are much strongest potential, but both would have trouble competing against a combined E*/D*.
DirectTV has the problem now of having a great system, but lack of commitment of their parent company. They need someone to buy them to keep them going for the future. If not E* then maybe FOX or other comitted company. If the merger does not go through at this time, DirectTV runs the risk of losing its market leadership as it casts about for a buyer. Nothing like uncertainty for the next few years to keep management from spending the tons of capital needed to stay ahead.
SES and R/L DBS are much strongest potential, but both would have trouble competing against a combined E*/D*.
DirectTV has the problem now of having a great system, but lack of commitment of their parent company. They need someone to buy them to keep them going for the future. If not E* then maybe FOX or other comitted company. If the merger does not go through at this time, DirectTV runs the risk of losing its market leadership as it casts about for a buyer. Nothing like uncertainty for the next few years to keep management from spending the tons of capital needed to stay ahead.
NewsCorp is the other suitor, unless one of these newcomers is a sleeper.
I find it hard to believe that new interests are getting involved in the basic DTH market. Standard Def locals are the bane of DTH satellite TV. Maybe the move to D(igital)TV will force the locals off satellite again. Since it's digital, couldn't the signal be delivered via a fat (wired) pipe like DSL? I think one of the Canadian providers has considered a combo satellte/DSL box. That would fit well with DirecTV's DSL unit here in the states. I even bought my first PVR, a first-gen ReplayTV, because it could handle multiple sources out of the box. (I had both DirecTV and Comcast cable due to the Comcast Sportsnet screwjob.) But it did the job of getting me both my local TV and all the best of satellite via one device.
Locals on satellite just chew up precious hardware (in space) and bandwidth, largely repeating the same programming over and over again. The PVR has got to fit in here somewhere to solve the problem. Just pre download separate advertising by market, then broadcast the same programs nationwide to PVRs and insert separate local ads as needed. Easier said then done, but there's currently a ton of money floating 22K miles up that can 'see' the whole country but only 'talks' to a small part of it. Seems to be a big waste to me.
How could any newcomer possibly see vast profit in repeating the same-same. In this market, the market shapes the business model. The market wanted locals, we got locals.
I find it hard to believe that new interests are getting involved in the basic DTH market. Standard Def locals are the bane of DTH satellite TV. Maybe the move to D(igital)TV will force the locals off satellite again. Since it's digital, couldn't the signal be delivered via a fat (wired) pipe like DSL? I think one of the Canadian providers has considered a combo satellte/DSL box. That would fit well with DirecTV's DSL unit here in the states. I even bought my first PVR, a first-gen ReplayTV, because it could handle multiple sources out of the box. (I had both DirecTV and Comcast cable due to the Comcast Sportsnet screwjob.) But it did the job of getting me both my local TV and all the best of satellite via one device.
Locals on satellite just chew up precious hardware (in space) and bandwidth, largely repeating the same programming over and over again. The PVR has got to fit in here somewhere to solve the problem. Just pre download separate advertising by market, then broadcast the same programs nationwide to PVRs and insert separate local ads as needed. Easier said then done, but there's currently a ton of money floating 22K miles up that can 'see' the whole country but only 'talks' to a small part of it. Seems to be a big waste to me.
How could any newcomer possibly see vast profit in repeating the same-same. In this market, the market shapes the business model. The market wanted locals, we got locals.
G
TARBS is already testing on the ku part of G10R. They have 32 foreign language FTA until January. They will then launch up to 40 US channels and encrypt. Price $34.95/month with TARBS receiver
Why would DirecTv say something against the merger after wanting the merger? This is defeating the purpose and/or just does not make sense whatsoever. It contradicts itself.
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.
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!
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!
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 ******* townOriginally 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.
. Just because some of us live in the sticks does not make us a *******.
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.
1 - 20 of 56 Posts
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
DBSTalk Forum
A forum community dedicated to digital bit streaming enthusiasts. Come join the discussion about programming, content, and reception, home theaters, displays, models, styles, satellites, reviews, accessories, classifieds, and more!
Full Forum Listing
Recommended Communities
