[Guest]

I've been optomistic all along that this merger would happen.....now I'm starting to wonder, especially after reading all this media the last couple of days.

How do the rest of you feel, Like it or not, do you think it will happen. Wasn't it 600 million Ergen will have to pay to Hughes if the merger fails ?

 

[Guest]

I think it will. Getting Broadband to rural America is very important to the Bush administration, and would be a very attainable goal if the merger happens. If it doesn't, not only will rural America be left in the cold, but must-carry will be impossible, and I wouldn't be surprised if it could then be sucessfully overturned.

 

[Guest]

"I think that (DirecTV) was on the market for four years and only attracted two potential buyers, E* and News Corp. News Corp. would be a more dangerous company to protect consumers against as they control both programming AND distribution. News Corp.'s main interest would be in sending programming costs higher and passing it onto consumers. E* does present concerns, but I feel that this merger stands to damage consumers less than a News Corp./DirecTV combination would."

 

[Guest]

Regarding Satellite Broadband :
EchoStar chief executive Charles Ergen has said the monthly charge for satellite service would drop from about $70 to $35 if the deal is approved.

 

[Guest]

I still fail to see the logic in any argument against the merger. Yes there will be only one multi-channel provider in the sky for the U.S. But that has never stopped Cable on the ground. There are only 4 major companies that control 100% of their territory with no other competition on the ground.

One company owning all the ConUS assets has the oportunity to provide local channels nationwide (including Alaska and Hawaii). They have the capability to offer all the channels available to ground based monopolies. With national pricing (which already exists with Dish) would ensure that the rural customer doesn't get the shaft that they get with Cable (if available). A customewr base of over 18 million now would ensure that they have the barganing power to make sure the program provider doesn't try to strong-arm the carrier (a la Rainbow or Disney).

The downside is that some customers (Less that 10% of TV households) will go from having two options for multi-channel platform to one. The rest of the country will go from three options (two of which are losing out due to technical limitations--no locals in particular) to two more competative options.

The question I always ask people I talk to about this when they have the knee-jerk response "monopoly--bad" is: "Did you get Dish or DirecTV because you wanted something other than what cable was offering?" We already know that the vast majority of new Dish/DirecTV subscribers are coming from cable and not the other DBS provider. The competition is (and always has been) DBS v Cable.

See ya
Tony

 

[Guest]

There are times when you just make too much sense Tony

I agree with you on all points but honestly, my heart is just not in this merger. I'm pretty much sitting on the fence. I don't really care one way or the other mainly because you are right. Merger or no merger we are still left with two choices: Cable or Satellite.

 

[Guest]

My concern in the merger is that there will no longer be incentive for DBS providers to improve their equipment. When competition exists, you get a better product. While I think programs like the $9 program that E* offered recently will still exist to lure customers away from cable, I am not sure that equipment development will go as quickly as it has recently. As long as E* is proprietary in their receiving equipment, there will be no incentive to make a product that is new, or more advanced. With competition on the D* side between Sony, RCA, Hughes, Philips, and Mitsubishi, they must always be on their toes to make sure their equipment works, or customers will move to another brand. If only one brand is offered, equipment will stagnate.

That is my only concern in the merger.

Karl

 

[Guest]

Dish has already announced a deal with Thompson (RCA/GE) to make IRDs for Dish. And not just carbon copies like the JVC and Phillips receivers of old. Also I forger wish IRD manufacturer threw in 2 billion dollars into the merger pot so they have an "in" to the new company as well.

I agree that one of the conditions to the merger approval has to be opening up the IRD market to whomever wishes to enter. Of course this is a pain in the but for E*. The problems multiply multiple manufacturers and warranties that the customer beleives come from the program provider instead of the receiver manufacturer. And lets not forget loss of cost control on the IRDs.

See ya
Tony

 

[Guest]

Merger or no merger, I dont know how their competition with cable will really change.

DBS may grab a few more subs in rural areas where locals werent available before, and offer high speed internet possibly there (in rural markets, DBS penetration is already high),

but areas like New Jersey, PA where you have cable-only channels, low DBS penetration, whats a merger of DBS providers going to do to compete with cable? Rates are likely to continue increasing on both cable and satellite.

Most the cable companies (Cablevision, Comcast) are satisfied being local monopolies, and not concerned serving the "rural" areas (North Dakota). Some big cable systems have upgraded to digital cable in the rural areas, but most cable companies would rather have high cable penetration near the cities, and leave the rural areas unserved.

When there is loss of one DBS provider by merger, the consumer in rural market loses out. They'll have option to locals, but most already have a solution for locals already as DBS penetration is already high in some markets.

Vermont for example has the highest DBS penetration but locals arent available. The people in VT must have some solution to get locals, or else would be bound with cable.