Dish Discussing Merger With DirecTV > Strong opposition in 2001

Strong opposition in 2001

I agree, if satellite radio can merge then why not satellite television - honestly it's all about the dollar anyway - the merge most likely was shot down because the people in certain seats where not going to get as big of a share as they wanted.
--
Visit my homepage »thinkequality.net

reply to MrMoody
Neither satellite radio provider was profitable and both could have gone under. Meanwhile satellite radio has audio competitors out the ass in every market they serve. Not so for television service.

Meanwhile despite the subscriber losses, Dish Network's profits were up 50%.

There is no comparison between satellite radio and DBS other than birds in the sky.

reply to MrMoody

Cable TV isn't a universally deployed service, especially in rural areas where satellite is the ONLY provider of television services.

OTA broadcasts still work wonderful with a decent antenna. People in the middle of nowhere were watching TV long before DirecTV or Dish came along.

The gov't didn't consider 3-4 fuzzy OTA channels to be a competitor of DBS. BOTH the FCC (unanimously) and DOJ rejected the merger stating the new entity would be a monopoly power in many markets. What was true then is true now, made worse by increased profits for both companies and both companies leading the video industry in new HD content, customer service ratings and often price.

said by FCC Chair Michael Powell :

---

The case against approving the (deal) is particularly compelling with respect to residents of rural America who are not served by any cable operator. Those Americans would be left with only one choice for their subscription video service, now and in the foreseeable future.

---

said by Charles A. James, assistant attorney general in charge of the Antitrust Division :

---

This merger would give Echostar control of the skies for the provision of video programming by satellite, leaving customers to suffer from the resulting reduction in competition. This merger would create a monopoly in those areas where cable television is not available, thereby eliminating the only competitive choice for millions of households. It would leave tens of millions of households -- for whom DirecTV, DISH Network, and cable now compete to provide multichannel video programming distribution service -- with a reduction from three to two competitive choices.

---

After Feb 09, full power channels won't be fuzzy anymore. Also, there's no difference between 3 or 4 OTA TV channels competing with sat TV and 3 or 4 radio stations competing with Sirius/XM. The environment is different now and the merger may just happen.

Both DBS providers are profitable with those profits increasing and both are leading the industry in content, price and customer service. There is no compelling reason to permit the merger while all of the reasons for not still exist. And with their advancements in HD delivery the case against a merger is even more compelling. This merger is dead before it started. In a lot of rural markets a single DBS provider would be a monopoly.

We can continue to disagree on this matter. Profitability is irrelevant IMO. I'm not sure why you believe the advancements in HD delivery makes the merger any more or less compelling. HD content delivery should not be a factor in any merger decision if you're strictly talking about competition. And you still won't have a monopoly in a vast majority of the rural markets if two of the sat TV providers merge.