DOJ Blocks Satellite TV Merger 237
EyesWideOpen writes "The Justice Department filed a lawsuit to block a merger between EchoStar Communications and Hughes Electronics that would have created the nation's largest pay-television service, stating that '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 of competition'. The FCC had already voted unanimously to oppose the merger because it would create a monopoly that would have 'adverse' effects for consumers."
What? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:What? (Score:5, Informative)
For instance, in my town of about 200,000 people, we have one cable company and one phone company - because we let them have a monopoly here in exchange for them laying down wire for the city (city owns it once they've laid it) and also making them push price changes, policy changes, important things like that before our city government - or risk losing their monopoly.
I forget the name of the type of monopoly this is, but it's perfectly legal and (arguably) better for the population of a smaller city to have a company come in and wire the entire city just for being allowed a monopoly AND for the population to have relative control over the price and content offered.
Re:What? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:What? (Score:4, Informative)
Theoretically, a "natural monopoly" was supposed to occur when a business experiences reduced marginal costs with increased production. Normally, when production increases, marginal costs increase. This, supposedly, creates a situation that would allow the company to defeat all of its competitors. For example, once the electric company has run a wire to your neighbor's house, then it's cheaper for them to run a wire to your house than it is for a competitior to do so.
Well, duh. But this doesn't lead to monopoly.
There's a lot more to electric service than a wire, and the electric company will still experience increased marginal costs in all of their other areas, whether it be power generation, transmission from generation sources, customer service, billing, etc. Yes, their average cost MIGHT decrease, but the marginal cost, the one that supposedly leads to the natural monoply, does not decrease.
Even if their marginal cost did decrease, if they tried to use that advantage to jack up prices, then they would simply make themselves more vulnerable to competitors. Despite the simplistic arguments that might fool a freshman economics student (and most Ivy League professors), there is no such thing as a natural monopoly.
But, this myth has been used to create all sorts of REAL monopolies. Wonder why there's only one electric wire coming to your house? Or only one phone line? Or only one cable line? It's because this "natural monopoly" myth has been used as an excuse to encode these monopolies into law. So now, the electric company can raise your rates, but all they have to fear is the politicans, who can be bought off much more cheaply than millions of consumers.
In some cases, I think creating public utilities has had good effects; electricity costs more than it should, but it's probably more reliable than it would be if it were delivered by market mechanisms. This shows up most after storms and other natural disasters, when repair people are dispatched far in excess of what could be justified by lost revenue. The increased costs aren't as bad as they might be in other industries, because the product is pretty simple, and it's pretty much the same thing that's deleivered to all customers.
Cable, telephone, and Internet are another story entirely, though. There's absolutely NO REASON that a second cable or local telco company couldn't be profictable in many situations, but they're prohibited from running a wire to your house in the name of protecting competition.
We've seen multiple phone companies wire the whole nation for wireless telecom over the last decade. Likewise for upcoming 3G/1XRTT services. If the "Natural Monopoly" theory were even remotely true, this wouldn't have been possible.
Re:What? (Score:2)
Wrong. Marginal costs do not always increase as production increases. In fact, in most cases marginal costs decrease as production increases. Up to a point, anyway, and marginal cost begins to increase again.
This, supposedly, creates a situation that would allow the company to defeat all of its competitors.
The point here is that there are no competitors. That is the definition of a monopoly.
For example, once the electric company has run a wire to your neighbor's house, then it's cheaper for them to run a wire to your house than it is for a competitior to do so.
No, it just doesn't make good economic sense for a competitor to run a cable to your house. Not much point in having two sets of electric wires, is there? That's a waste of resources and that translates to inefficiency.
You have to compare a monopoly with pure competition in order to discover the concept of a natural monopoly. If the costs incurred by suppliers in a competition are equal to the cost incurred by a monopolist, then a pure competitive market is more desirable because marginal cost = marginal revenue. For a monopolist, price = marginal revenue and there is inefficienct use of resources.
If there are ten companies each running wire to your house, the total cost for that is much higher than is one company ran wire to your house. This means that the marginal cost curve for a monopoly is much lower than that for a purely competitive market. It is this lowered cost curve that leads to a natural monopoly, that is to say a market that is more efficiently served by a monopoly than by competition.
What are your credentials, anyway? You say "simplistic arguments that might fool a freshman economics student (and most Ivy League professors)," as though you have a PhD in Economics. Sounds to me like you didn't finish the chapter on monopolies.
Re:What? (Score:2)
None. You either think I make sense, or you don't.
>> Sounds to me like you didn't finish the chapter on monopolies.
Well, if you mean the chapters in Das Kapital and Mein Kampf, you're right, I haven't.
I repeat my earlier example... If there were such a thing as natural monopolies, there would be only one cell phone company by now. But in the last ten years, several of them have wired the whole nation.
It's one of those ideas that makes some sense until you step back and think about it. The argument could be applied to any business, from a corner store to a car company... whoever is already established has an advantage, and therefore should be able to lock out all competitiors. Doesn't work that way, it turns out.
Re:What? (Score:2)
Natural monopolies *do* exist, but essentially only in cases where the good/service provided is a public good or a necessity. Cell phones are considered a luxury and certainly don't fall into either of the two aforementioned categories.
Just because a company is established doesn't give it an advantage. Having a good reputation might, and better advertising might, along with other variables, but being established does not in and of itself give an advantage, and certainly not a monopolistic advantage at that. You are trying to apply arguments for one market configuration to a different market configuration. A corner store is likely part of a pure competition. An automobile manufacturer is part of an oligopoly. So is a cell phone provider. Neither are monopoly markets and neither works the same. You are comparing apples and oranges.
Could you explain this more? (Score:2)
Drinking water is a human necessity. Is there room in the water market for a natural monopoly?
Cable internet is not a human necessity. Is there room in the cable internet market for a natural monopoly?
Why or why not? I am not well versed in finance, so maybe you could explain a little bit more.
Re:What? (Score:2)
Re:What? (Score:2)
Yes, but a government enforced monopoly is when the government prevents would be competitors from even considering the idea.
Name a government enforced monopoly. Come on, show me one. Just one. No, I won't wait for it. The only type of monopoly enforced by the government is the age-old bane of
Why don't you let the potential competitors decide what's wasteful and what's not.
Guess what? THAT IS HOW A NATURAL MONOPOLY FORMS. It's called barrier of entry.
The additional start up costs of laying telecommunications wire does limit competition in these industries, but it doesn't eliminate it.
The startup costs are the barrier. Once those wires have been paid for by one company, their cost curve drops drastically.
I suspect that also means two sets of cables.
Have a look at your cable and phone jacks, the ones that are connected directly to the poles or the underground network. How many do you have? Is there one labelled "AT&T" and one labelled "RCN?" I didn't think so. You can bet that one company (or government, even) owns those cables and the other is paying for their traffic to run on them.
BS indeed. Read an economics textbook and see just how misguided most of the bullshit on this website really is. A monopoly is not always bad, no matter what common sense or public opinion tells you. Here's one that will blow your mind: It actually makes *more* sense for the government to tax necessities rather than luxuries. Another one: A flat tax actually costs poor people more than rich people.
I anxiously await your misguided and likely incorrect response.
Re:What? (Score:2)
Excuse me? (Score:2)
Re:What? (Score:2)
natural = de jure
government enfored != natural
uh oh... i fell for the troll (Score:2)
de jure = enforced by LAW
de facto = just a general rule, not enforced by life
natural = de facto
government enforced = de jure
de jure != de facto, obviously
Re:uh oh... i fell for the troll (Score:2)
I do have a limited understanding of cable companies. However, the basic point I was trying to make is that natural monopolies do exist, and a clearly incorrect post got modded up. That incorrect post will just go to further the economic ignorance of the majority of
Thanks for correcting me.
Re:What? (Score:2, Insightful)
Cable, telephone, and Internet are another story entirely, though. There's absolutely NO REASON that a second cable or local telco company couldn't be profictable in many situations, but they're prohibited from running a wire to your house in the name of protecting competition.
Local governments grant regulated-monopoly status to one cable company, one telco, etc. simply to avoid having dozens of competing companies string wires all over the place creating an eyesore, or blocking traffic by constantly digging up roads to bury their own cables.
Re:What? (Score:2)
Re:What? (Score:2)
Looking at your comment history tells me that you are either a troll or have a habit of posting when you know nothing about the subject.
The whole point of this discussion is that it is sometimes in the public interest for a monopoly to exist. Clearly we are far off-topic, but I'm going ahead anyway. Such a monopoly is called a "natural monopoly," meaning the natural form for that market is a monopoly.
In a pure competition, the firms do not have enough control over the market (they actually have no control) to set the price. They are price-takers and not price-makers. They see one price for their good or service and their only variable is cost. The more goods they provide, the higher their revenue.
In a monopoly, the firm has complete control over price. The firm is the market. This firm sees the entire demand curve, not just the equilibrium point (the price at which buyers are willing to buy and sellers are willing to sell) as the firms in a pure competition do. This complete control over price means that the firm in a monopoly is free to set the price at whatever it chooses. Bring able to set that price means that the firm can earn a pure profit (pure profit is defined as the profit over and above the break-even point; note that breaking even actually means covering all costs including wages). That price (and by definition, the supply of good/service in the market) is set such that the firm maximizes its revenue.
This means that people who want the good/service are going to have to pay for it. Unfortunately, this means that some people will not be able to afford the good. Not all resources are used, since some of the good/service is held off the market in order to maximize the firm's revenue. This is the economic definition of inefficiency. This is not necessarily a bad thing, but it does encourage the firm to stop innovating and produce only what is necessary to maximize that revenue. Most would agree that lack of innovation is a bad thing, however. This is why, in most cases, government discourages monopolies.
The above paragraph is easier to understand graphically, so I will try to explain that graph. At the point where the marginal cost for a good (the extra cost for the next unit of a good) is equal to the marginal revenue earned from the sale of that good (which in the case of a monopoly is the same as the demand for the good), the firm is maximizing its resources. Move up the graph to the average revenue curve and you see that the average revenue at the MR=MC point is higher than the average total cost. This leads to pur profit. However, the monopolist can move that price back up the marginal revenue curve (which is equal to demand, remember) and finds that he makes even *more* profit by holding goods off the market.
Now let's look at the situation where the good/service is what is called a public good. A public good is a good/service that benefits everyone. Once produced it cannot be taken back. An example of this is a lighthouse. The lighthouse benefits the oil tanker just as much as it benefits the small fishing boat. The light from the lighthouse cannot be taken back. You also cannot charge the fisherman a different price to use the lighthouse than you charge the oil tanker captain. That light is out there for both to use, and can't be shut off if the fisherman doesn't pay.
In reality, there are very few purely public goods. Most are a combination of public as well as private goods. An example of this is electricity. It benefits everyone. It is in the public interest to have electricity. However, it is not in the public's interest for a monopoly to exist on the electricity supply. Or is it? Clearly we don't want the electric company to hold back its supply of electricity and only give it to those who can afford it. Everyone needs to have electricity.
Once company A lays wire and has covered the cost (no need to get into a discussion of amortization or depreciation here please) of that wire, it has dramatically lower costs than company b, which has to either lay its own wire or lease the wire from company a. Once the cost curve has dropped below the demand curve (as it does for a public utility), the monopolist no longer has an incentive to hold goods off the market. The maximum profit can be made where the marginal cost = marginal revenue. So in this case the monopoly is no longer a bad thing. Sure, the company can still charge whatever price it wants, but that is where regulation comes into play.
I'm sure this has been exteremly boring. Seriously, do yourself a favor and pick up a book on economics. It will enlighten you to a great many things about the way the world works.
Relax (Score:3, Interesting)
It means you won't be facing a monopoly in the sky just like the one you've currently got on the ground. I think the companies involved will muddle on through to providing the services you desire without merging into a mega-corp.
Re:Relax (Score:2)
It means that you will only get a few local markets off the bird(s). Quite frankley, that sucks. Without this merger, you only have one choice if you are not in one of the few local markets served by DTV or DN, your local cable company.With this merger, there will be enough bandwidth to serve many more local markets.Cable and DBS are after the same customer base.
Re:Relax (Score:3, Interesting)
Your point is a assinine as wanting only Microsoft to produce software. Where would that leave us?
Re:Relax (Score:2)
I wasn't aware that cable TV companies were allowed to expand into satellite TV. As long as that's the case, your scenario is impossible.
Incidentally, you only get a choice if you're fortunate enough to live in an area with cable TV. Explain to the rest of the country how lucky they are to get the "choice" of a single satellite TV provider.
Your point is a assinine as wanting only Microsoft to produce software. Where would that leave us?
What??
It's all a sham. (Score:5, Insightful)
(BTW: another brain-dead, protectionist aspect of the legalities surrounding satellite TV - unless you're in a particular local broadcast market, you're not allowed to receive channels in it - even if the equivalent channel doesn't exist in your area, or no local service is available for your area! I.E. I can't get UPN nor WB via satellite, despite the fact that they are actually broadcasting it off the same bird I would receive from. )
Re:It's all a sham. (Score:2)
This brings up a good point that I've wondered about. Obviously, there is a lot of redundancy between the two companies. They broadcast many of the same locals, hbos, shotimes, ect. If the two companies were planning on merging, you have to believe they had some plan to condense all the hardware so they'd all work with the existing satillites eventually. There have been a number of theories on how they might do this, I'm not sure if any of them are true, but I believe it is a reasonable assumption that the hardware would be consolidated somehow so everyone used the same satillites.
So, if I'm Dish and DTV and I can't merge (which I believe is a good thing), why not sell off the satellites to an independent company that can keep up their maintance and charge the two companies fees for using the signals? Another idea might be to somehow create an organization funded by both companies that runs the satellites, oversees the creation of new birds, and keeps the ones up there already in good working order. In this way all the satallites can be used together to avoid redundancy and provide more local coverage. Also, both companies could remain independent competitors and sell their own packages and hardware to work the with independent satillite providers. In this way, some sort of competion is maintained between the two and the unnecessary redundancy can be avoided.
Just a thought. I'm sure there are some flaws in it, but it is worth consideration.
puck
Re:What? (Score:2, Insightful)
Quote from article:
They need to realize that the small 18" dish no-moving, mono-satallite (yes I do realize some are larger and do receive from 2 or 3 at once) dishes would be all under one company, but an option does exust for the people who have the big dishes, which likely would include "rural" customers that don't get cable.
<RANT>
I also know that cable in some areas is to the point where they are ripping you off. My family swapped to DirecTV (choice because of what they offered channel wise that I got from their website, and the fact we could go to RadioShack and get all the stuff), because the local cable, after taxes, was going up to $40/month for the expanded service (no HBO, showtime, cinemax, encore, ect in that. News, General Family Entertainment, local channels, things like that). The satallite ended up being $32/month. We got one of the amplified antennas on the dish and we got the local channels. We don't get Northwest Cable News which we wish we did, but that wasn't even in the cable basic package at $25 a month. In fact the basic package included 24 channels, 2 were shopping, the ABC/NBC/CBS/PBS affilites (WB was in the expaned, as was UPN), community channels, CSPAN[1-3].
</RANT>
Ok, now that my rant about my local cable system is gouging me is over, let me just say that there are options besides DirecTV and Dish for getting digital satallite TV, but if one focuses on urban areas they may be the only choices.
Re:What? (Score:2, Redundant)
Three words: AOL Time Warner.
Two more words: Clear Channel.
Re:What? (Score:2)
Three words: AOL Time Warner.
Two more words: Clear Channel.
Note that this occurred during the Clinton Administration. Along with the 3 largest ever Oil Company Mergers, other huge media mergers, Daimler/Chrysler, the list goes on and on.
And the Bush Administration, with all the scare tactics about how the Government would be sold off to powerful interests at the expense of the consumer blocks this Satellite merger.
People need to wake up, the Democrats are not, and never have been, for the little guy and anti big business. Because they have sold themselves as being anti-corporate to a stupid electorate, they can get away with a lot more of the selling out of America without serious scrutiny. Ever wonder why Democrats are so heavily supported by Corporate America when they want to raise Corporate taxes?
Re:What? (Score:2)
BUT, Some Democrats are for the little guy, believe it or not. I suggest anyone who's really interested in finding out who all those people are should watch C-Span every now and then. It's not that hard to spot the passionate people who mean what they say, or the drawn out partisan speakers who are only concerned with towing the party line. Paul Wellstone was one of the people who fought for the little guy, so is Russ Feingold. Some (not all) Democrats are heavily supported by corporations (and I'm the first to say, cause I've been saying it for a long time, that those 'contributions' come from market driven entities who don't just throw away money, it IS a bribe, and they're getting enough of a return on their investment to keep giving every election year) but some Democrats are more heavily supported by unions. Personally I think bribes are undemocratic no matter who they come from, but that's another post all together.
Re:What? (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm extremely disappointed with the FCC's decision in this matter, one that I feel was probably influenced by back door dealing at the behest of the current cable conglomerates.
This was a deal that made sense for consumers, and made good business sense for the companies involved. It's also unfortunate that consumers are being denied Canadian competition in this market as well. (Maybe...but I doubt it, a NAFTA challenge will correct that last item.)
I had a friend that a few years ago bought a house on the edge of what in 10 years will be suburbia, but it isn't yet. They are still getting things like water treatment, gas service, and the like wired up. Every year for 10 years the cable company here has promised to connect this community. Every year for 5 years the phone company has said "we're going to roll out DSL in your area soon". Every year the federal government gives them a ton of money in subsidies to 'wire up rural areas'. Nothing happens.
Echostar has done more for rural communities in terms of offering service than cable ever has. At least they provide a choice. This deal would of allowed them to combine resources, have the bandwidth to offer additional services (and local channels) to just about every area of the US. It would of lowered the cost bar for the service as well. This is a slap in the face to every American living in rural communities and in communities that cable will never be available in.
Re:What? (Score:2)
That's a good chunk of where all those surcharges on your phone bill are going....
Re:What? (Score:2)
A satelite monopoly is not a TV monopoly. Why don't the boneheads in gov't realize that? Make them share their bandwidth like the phone companies if that's what they feel compelled to do, but damn, they don't need to be duplicating effort.
Re:What? (Score:2)
I'm not sure what you mean by free channel listings over the dish. The DirecTivo unit will pull guide information from the sat. When I first plugged mine in, it got the current listings in a minute, the days listings in about 15, the next week's over a couple hours, and so on. Using the DirecTivo is not free unless you buy their platinum package. But this month they dropped me to $5/month for service. The unit itself cost me $99 at Circuit City a year ago (sadly I don't think you can get this good a deal anymore).
DirecTivo does have two tuners, but requires you to run two wires from the satellite to the unit or buy a digital signal stacker/destacker. That stacking hardware isn't cheap though. It was cheapier and more convenient for me to just run a second cable.
I'm not sure there's a tivo unit that compares.
That's possible, but I'm not sure what features yours has that you're not sure Tivo has too. If you list them someone could give you a yes/no.
The one thing I saw in the link you gave that I would say the DirecTivo does not have (at least not the first generation one I have) is speed. Compared to my RCA DirecTV receiver, the DirecTivo is sluggish.
The dbstalk reviewer also mentioned he wished there was an easy way to jump between the two receivers. I'm not sure if Dish PVR has this yet, but DirecTivo does - you press "down" then "right" and you'll be looking at the second receiver's feed.
Re:What? - It means that Murdoch won (Score:3, Informative)
It means that Rupert Murdoch and News Corp won in its battle to keep the US satellite market open for them to try and dominate as they do in Europe.
Look for News Corp to snap up one of these payers within a year or so at firesale prices.
Re:What? (Score:2)
I hate cable (Score:2, Insightful)
This year DirecTV added channels AND dropped my rates.
DirecTV and DishNetwork compete with the cable companies more than they compete with each other. This is beacuse they don't have the bandwidth to serve local channels to all the DMAs (designated market areas). They have to make themselves extremely atractive to the potential cable refugees--the new sat customer has to install an antenna to get local service or pay the cable company for "lifeline" service.
The cable companies went to court and got the FCC to force the Sats to follow the same must carry provisions that the cables follow. That is if they carry one local channel they have to add ALL the local channels. That amounted to about 1600 channels nationwide. That put an end to my hope of getting local channels from the Sats. They just can't individually carry all of these channels.
I live in Little Rock AR and as the 56th (I think) DMA in the nation the sats were about to add LR to the system when cable companies got the lawyers involved.
If the merger had been approved, I would have gotten my local channels from DirecTV, as the merged company would have been called. The combination of the two would have the bandwidth to carry ALL THE DMAs.
Screwed by the cable company and I don't even have cable anymore.
Re:I hate cable (Score:2, Interesting)
Business perspective (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Business perspective (Score:2)
Re:Business perspective (Score:2)
Well, yeah. I don't know about Dish, but the fine print for the DTV installation deal says as much - you don't pay up front for the installation, but you agree to a one year commitment to the Total Choice package, and if you cancel service or are disconnected for non-payment before the end of the year, you have to pay a prorated installation fee ($200, IIRC).
It's just another version of a loss-leader - they've been selling the decoder boxes the same way for years now. It's really no different than a game company selling the system at a loss and making it up on game sales.
And it's not a bad deal for most people - aiming the dish can be a real hassle sometimes, and in exchange for a service I was going to buy anyway, I get to avoid hanging my ass out in the breeze for an hour while listening to the TV beep, in favor of a guy coming out who has a signal meter and can aim the dish in 2 minutes flat.
Besides, nothing is forcing you to take advantage of the installation deal - if you're so inclined, you can always DIY...
Re:Business perspective (Score:2)
Also, on the cost of installation posts, we got our equipment this summer on a "free equipment" deal. We walked into a local retailer, asked for a kit, they asked if we wanted self-install or free pro install (I installed it myself), they handed us the box and the install kit, and we went home. They never even asked our names. I seriously considered going back a few times to get more sets & selling them on eBay, but decided not to. Subscribing to service was a 3-minute phone call away, and required no credit card or minumum subscription length. A friend who went with the pro install had essentially the same experience. On a side note, compare these prices ($24+free) to local cable, which is $53/month plus taxes for expanded basic (analog, digital is another $2/month) plus a $70 "installation fee" (for our prewired townhouse), plus another $30 if you get digital, plus $10/month extra for each digital box, which you must get from the cable company. No thanks.
Re:Business perspective (Score:2)
No, the question, slave, is why SHOULDN'T.
The purpose of the government is to protect human rights. So when they violate them, then they need a damn good reason.
Or do you want to live in russia where you have to get government approval to have a car?
Sheesh. The owners of these businesses have the unequivocal right to merge.
The government has NO RIGHT to prevent it-- and in this case is even violating their own illegal guidelines.
It never ceases to amaze me how willingly so many americans just want to be enslaved-- you want that, go live in russia and see the results of what you advocate first hand.
One way only (Score:2)
*longs for a time when all internet boxes were peers rather than AUP and TOS slave clients which connect to the wealthy "servers"*
Seriously (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Seriously (Score:2)
That was my thought exactly. The FCC is "voting" to disallow competitors access to cable lines, but they won't allow the merger of two satellite networks who could combine their resources to offer even better alternatives to the greedy cable companies.
Erf? Why bad? (Score:2, Funny)
Surely a merger is good for consumers?
Say EchoStar carries 'Friends' and Hughes carries 'Who wants to be a millionaire'.
If they merge then I get both my favourite shows from 1 company; this is much easier for the TV viewer, they get more choice and it is probably cheaper too.
Re:Erf? Why bad? (Score:2)
I get both shows on cable and watch niether.
When will I be able to get the /. channel?
Re:Erf? Why bad? (Score:3, Insightful)
Exactly the opposite, actually.
A merger does not mean that every channel on each existing service automatically gets pulled on to the new service
Let's take SlashDotters' favorite content niche, Porn, as an example. (L33T HAxx0Rs and other fourteen-year-olds, please note the correct spelling).
Let's say the New Merged Company (NewCo) decides they want to charge a higher premium for Porn. Not pay the content provider (e.g., Playboy) any more, just charge a higher premium. Some subscribers pay it happily, others grudgingly, others drop the channel(s). There is little either the content owner (Playboy) or the consumer can do. With only one distributor -- one trucking company driving the food from the farm into the local grocery store -- the distributor makes the rules and sets the margins.
Let's say you are a struggling Porn network and you want to get distribution. If NewCo decides it has enough Porn channels at the moment (with Playboy's 4 or 5 or whatever it is), you're done. At the moment, with two sources of satellite distribution, the newer smaller nets are more likely to get a niche, as each distributor uses it as leverage against their compeitor ("Get a Subscribution to Dish, we have the CowboyNeal Porn Channel, the other guys don't!")
If the Porn Channel is entenched with NewCo, and its CEO plays golf with NewCo's EVP Programming every Sunday, it's pretty much on a path to squeezing out more copycat Porn channels to the consumers while figuring out exactly how frequently it can raise rates. Why not? No competition will be introduced. In fact, the distributor can quite handily use its position as the single distributor to dictate exactly what type of new channels should be introduced, and, more disturbingly, how the content on existing channels should be modified.
Worst of all, yet not unimaginable (especially given our niche example) NewCo might (albeit foolishly) even decide they did not want to carry Porn.
As an aside, I am fascinated to see so much support for this merger here on SlashDot. It is getting tougher and tougher to figure this place out. Not that that is a bad thing, of course. Makes for some interesting discussions.
Re:Erf? Why bad? (Score:2)
Personally, I have DirecTV, and I'm against the merger. DirectTV tends to support any third party equipment you want to use (read: PVRs) where DishNetowrk wants total control. Total control is bad. I want to be able to do what I damn well please with the video signal coming into my house.
Re:Erf? Why bad? (Score:2)
The issue here is ensuring that choice remains an option.
Clearly the DOJ doesn't care (Score:5, Funny)
They don't care about my rights as a consumer to have ALL my services charged on one convenient bill, all my services installed and fixed by one courteous, prompt repairman!
My life is so convenient when I can get all this stuff from one, homogenous provider! Maybe the government would like to provide all these services, oh, wait a minute, maybe it's not so socialist afterall.
See Richard Gere's Ass Zoo [lostbrain.com]
tcd004
Questionable merger details (Score:3, Interesting)
It is fair to say that the concerns that led to the passage of US merger laws, and the goals that the laws aim to achieve, are not unique to the United States.
All countries that have adopted merger statutes will recognize them: putting limits on large concentrations of economic power, protecting small businesses, preserving competition, protecting jobs, encouraging economic efficiency, and protecting consumers against anticompetitive price increases. The explosion of new merger laws in recent years suggests that the issues may be close to universal.
Anyone else amazed ? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Anyone else amazed ? (Score:3, Informative)
However, several years ago the FCC ruled that building codes and deed covenants could not be used to block a homeowner from installing a small satellite dish or antenna to receive broadcast TV.
Re:Anyone else amazed ? (Score:2)
These so-called effects (Score:3, Insightful)
That's good (Score:2, Flamebait)
Violators of the government's will are arrested at gun point, if need be, or punished with fines. Government cooperation with special interests in business and interference with the free market is the real source of all coercive monopolies.
When the government allows companies to merge into huge monopolies, they are only laying the foundations for socialism -- and that's the last thing we ever want in America.
Without free markets and cutthroat competition, our economy will become stagnant and weak and eventually fall apart due to corruption and incompetence, like in the former Soviet Union and soon to be in socialist western Europe.
Please think about your "politics" (Score:2, Insightful)
Violators of the government's will are arrested at gun point [...] When the government allows companies to merge into huge monopolies, they are only laying the foundations for socialism -- and that's the last thing we ever want in America.
What you are describing is termed Fascism, not socialism. You might profit by learning a bit more about political science.
Without free markets and cutthroat competition, our economy will become stagnant and weak and eventually fall apart due to corruption and incompetence, like in the former Soviet Union and soon to be in socialist western Europe.
I think a little less Usenet and a little more Friedman [daviddfriedman.com] and Hayek [hayekcenter.org] would allow you to make the case you want to make a bit more clearly.
-j
Re:That's good (Score:4, Informative)
The terms "fascism" and "socialism" get thrown around here all the time. Please review their definitions.
From Marriam-Websters:
Main Entry: socialism
Pronunciation: 'sO-sh&-"li-z&m
Function: noun
Date: 1837
1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2 a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3 : a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done
Main Entry: fascism
Pronunciation: 'fa-"shi-z&m also 'fa-"si-
Function: noun
Etymology: Italian fascismo, from fascio bundle, fasces, group, from Latin fascis bundle & fasces fasces
Date: 1921
1 often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition
2 : a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control
In both cases, society or nation is emphasized over the individual.
Re:That's good (Score:2)
When you force the nation before the individual, only then does the system fail...ANY system which forces participation is doomed to failure eventually... be it a nation or a company.
Re:That's good (Score:2)
Lines copied from a dictionary: 25
Lines copied from the parent post: 2
Lines of original work: 3
Not spelling Merriam -Webster correctly, even after conclusively showing that the correct spelling was readily accessible: Priceless.
Re:That's good (Score:2)
In a free competitive market, sometimes you have winners. Sometimes you only have one winner. This is not a problem with a free market, it is a direct result of a successful competition.
In the Olympics, you have a winner even though the competition is incredibly fierce. Why not in free markets?
-russ
Right result, wrong reason (Score:5, Interesting)
However, this sudden affection from the Bush administration for strictly enforcing antitrust law is obvious horseshit. Dish won a bidding war for Direct by outbidding Rupert Murdoch's Fox conglomerate. Murdock, a renowned political conservative (he of Fox News, and the NY Post, among other things) figured (correctly, as it turns out) that the politicans his lobbyists bought over the years--primarily Republicans--could be counted upon to do his bidding. And so they have.
Re:Right result, wrong reason (Score:2, Interesting)
This is true, but you have to consider an even greater evil: not having the size to compete w/ cable in those markets where both satellite and cable are available. Those markets are much bigger. This is why Murdoch mobilized.
When I grow up, I want to be the legislator of scientific laws.
Re:Right result, wrong reason (Score:4, Funny)
When I initally read it, I was under the mistaken impression that they did the right thing for the right reasons. That goes against everything I've seen the government ever do, so I was so confused my mind coped by convincing me I'd traveled several decades back in time, when the government still cared about the people.
Thank you for clearing up any mistaken impressions that the government cares about the people, and reinforcing the (obviously correct) view that our government is up for sale to the highest bidder.
Re:Right result, wrong reason (Score:4, Funny)
Or maybe it is because the Clinton administration is not being bought by Turner to allow cable companies (namely Turner's) to grow into monopolies?
See. I can also pull reasons out of thin air.
Before I get marked down as flamebait, Ded Bob's political affiliation is none.
Re:Right result, wrong reason (Score:2)
EVERY cable company everywhere is already a monopoly.
This action clearly protects that monopoly interest.
The FCC created the situation to begin with by preventing competion on the ground, by blocking sat companies from carrying signals that terrestrial stations wanted to sell them, and by ensuring that in any given area there is only one cable company to choose from.
More often than not, it is the government that created whatever monopoly is in question.
Re:Right result, wrong reason (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Right result, wrong reason (Score:3, Interesting)
Oh, boy, here we go...the dangerous conservative businessman must have bribed Republicans somewhere to get this deal killed.
First of all, the concept of two services in a competitive economy works. Where I live, the majority of people have to suffer with the horrible service and support from the monopoly cableco, AT&T, if they want local service and don't want to mount an antenna.
In September, DirecTV announced local service here coming this month. I've had DirecTV for over four years, and I'll have to install a new dish to get locals, but I can now pull the YAGI antenna off my roof. (It's nothing but a lightning rod here in Florida, anyway). The surge in sales of new DirecTV installs since the announcement has been remarkable.
(I can tell when interest is piqued when a lot of people I know start asking my opinions about my service).
A few weeks ago, Dish Network announced local availabilty on their systems beginning next week. Now, there's even more of a choice. Since DirecTV provides more subscription sports services, you can choose that one if that's a big deal for you. If not, the cable/movie channel packages from Dish are nearly identical in their offerings. And now locals can be had on both.
Now that three providers offer services in the area, the pressure on AT&T to improve service and quality (and price) increases, and eventually, everyone benefits.
But, what do Murdoch's politics have to do with him buying DirecTV? (His bid was rejected initially becuase Hughes apparently wanted to merge rather than sell the service and keep two systems in place). His holdings include satellite systems in Europe, and him owning DTV might mean a future of sharing those resources and allowing more foreign and global services to each side of the pond. I see that as a potential benefit.
With Charlie Ergen and Echostar pulling the strings, all I might be able to count on is being forced to change all my equipment, or potentially losing the sports subscriptions I enjoy so much. I want choice, and I have it.
And, by the way Fox News is not a "conservative news network." They have conservative folks on opinion shows (i.e., Sean Hannity), but that have a stable of liberals as well (Alan Combs, same show) to provide both sides. Their hard news shows also provide a more balanced view, which is something that doesn't exist on network or network-owned cable outlets. Which is why people aren't used to it, causing such confusion.
Re:Right result, wrong reason (Score:2)
I realise that FAIR has what a lot of people would call a 'liberal bias,' but their facts in this case are sound. Worth a look.
Triv
Re:Right result, wrong reason (Score:2)
From the linked article:
I don't care what your political affiliation is, and I don't care what you think of FAIR's liberal spin. Bottom line, bottom-feeder: facts are facts once you weed them from the fluff, and based on those FOX has a rather acute slant to the right (fine) while claiming they're unbiased (not fine).
Triv
FOX is a conservative network (Score:2)
And there is nothing wrong with it being a conservative network. What people seem to miss when they critize FOX is that all networks have biases. Only FOX is willing to admit that it is different.
I would also argue that Fox is a more fair network - you really do get to see all sides of an issue. The way the liberal networks do their slant is two ways:
1 - they simply don't show stories that contradict their points of view. CNN and the TV major networks are masters of this.
2 - they use loaded language. You almost never hear the adjective "liberal" or "leftist" on most networks, but the words conservative, ultra-conservative and rightist are applied to anything that isn't left-wing.
The anchors on most networks are stuffed shirts who try to portray a gravitas and a lack of bias, as they blather along with their liberal and left wing agenda. Fox anchors, OTOH are pretty open with their views, and are a lot more relaxed and human.
And not all of Fox anchors are conservative. Bill O'Reilly is in his own league... he can demagogue from any side of an issue (I always switch to another channel or classical music when O'Reilly comes on).
As far as Murdoch goes, his main ideology is money. He founded Fox more out of a recognition that there was a large viewership that was tired of the uniform biased view coming out of *all* other TV outlsets, rather than out of some conservative do-goodism (or do-badism if you are a leftist). Friends of mine who have worked closely with him are pretty uniform in their view that his ideology is money.
Re:FOX is a conservative network (Score:2)
Conservative is pro-big government? really? That's certainly a different definition than I have ever heard!
Conservative has never been pro-big government. It does tend to favor enforcement of different laws than the left does, and it does tend to favor more defense spending, but neither of those are even close to a match for the rest of big government.
I also have not heard them argue for pro-corporate welfare. Can you be specific? Or are you using the left's code word that equates any decrease in taxation with "welfare?"
And yes, they are for going after Iraq. That is not the same as pro-war, unless any advocate of any war is pro-war, and anti-war means no war, no how, no reason, no matter what provocation.
Re:FOX is a conservative network (Score:2)
Since all government spending originates in the house of representatives, which was controlled by democrats during the entire time of Reagan and Bush I, your argument seems to lack a bit of reality! It is true that conservatives don't like the idea of government controlled health care, and we object to the vast amounts of money that are overspent on public education (the US spends far more per pupil than Europe, and gets poorer results - of course, in almost all European countries they have more private alternatives).
But yes, Republicans, and conservatives do believe in the NECESSITY of defending our country, and are willing to actually take the flack for spending the money necessary to do it. Then leftists like yourself come along and blame us for it. Go figure.
Under Reagan, Bush headed the "Vice-President's Council on Competitveness", in which he handed out billions of taxpayer money to select Republican donors. That's corporate welfare.
Gee, and all this time I thought Bill Clinton was the master at handing out billions - which is a lot easier when you have a congress of your own party. He did, Reagan and Bush I didn't!
Bush II just gave handouts and subsidies to airlines,
Which were dying from the effects of 9-11.
agriculture, steel,
This was wrong. But it is HARDLY a conservative trait. In fact, conservatives have strongly attacked both of these moves. Again, you are not exactly demonstrating that conservatives are in favor of big spending.
It *is* true that elected officials in general tend to spend too much money, however.
Not to mention borrowed billions from the financial industry for "tax cuts" - a total joke, considering he just increased everyone's taxes, just pushed paying for it forward a few years.
Would you care to explain how Bush II just *increased* everyone's taxes? The main problem with his tax cut was that it wasn't enough, and the DEMOCRATS insisted that it end in 2010. The other problem was that congress in general tacked all sorts of pork onto bills that were necessary in the wake of 9-11.
Reagan and Bush both gave billions of bailouts to the defrauded S&Ls (like Bush's brother). They've bailed the finance industry time and time again, to the tune of trillions of dollars, over the last 20 years.
What an unsophistacted and untrue accusation! The S&L's were technically bankrupt starting with the inflation of the '70s. In fact, the entire concept of the S&L's, created by liberals, was financially irresponsible. S&L's could only survive, under the liberals' rules, in times of deflation. When inflation hit, it was Jimmy Carter (a conservative?) who changed the rules to allow them to invest in higher yielding (and higher risk) financial instruments. Had he not, the S&L's would have collapsed then, at much less cost, and he should have let them! And of course, the final blow to the S&L's was a result of a liberal required measure added to the Reagan tax cut - a measure which required that Real Estate partnership losses suddenly could no longer be deducted. This led to an immediate (and predictable) loss in the value of almost all commercial real estate of 15-30%. Since the S&L's were heavily invested in commercial real estate (since it alone provided the returns they needed to stay alive with low interest rate 30 year loans out), they lost ALL of their equity. IOW the straw that broke the camel's back was the liberals' insistence on a punitive tax rule. It is a tribute to their political skills, however, that they managed to hang the blame for this on Bush I.
Republicans want more government
FALSE
interference in your sex life, your reproduction, your porn and everything else.
Many of us think that in some areas, some of this stuff indeed has gotten so far out of hand as to be seriously damaging to society. But few conservatives, except for some on the Christian Right, believe the government should "interfere in your sex life" - unless you are having sex with underage kids! Grow up!
Oh, and we also aren't interested in interfering with your reproduction, but we do believe that your murdering of your children to avoid the consequences of your sex life is immoral and should be illegal. That one, you can hang on us.
Bush wants to give tax money to churches and religious organizations.
Yep. Of course, the money is only to go to charitable works, but I guess you would prefer that only uncaring bureaucrats be the only people empowered to help folks!
Yes, conservatives seem to love big government,
You have yet to prove this. You have shown a few places where conservatives want government to act (which doesn't require *big* government) and have indeed identified that we believe that the most important purpose of government is to protect its citizens, rather than to pamper them.
Republicans love to send the US military to "protect America's economic interests" - more corporate welfare, for the oil industry, the weapons industry, minerals, etc.
Yep... of course, Democrats have started far more wars and interventions than Republicans - in fact FDR alone started more than every Republican since then! And if you don't want our economic interests protected, then go live on an island and eat coconuts. Only a fool believes that a country should not protect its interests.
Of course, you really mean to imply that we are using the military solely to help those evil businessmen, but if you look at all our interventions since 1960, that just isn't true. For the best examples of using military for business interest, look at FDR's interventions in Central America - not modern republicans!
By growing the military, they are increasing government.
Duh. Yes, that is true as long as we aren't allowed to cut a lot of the wasteful spending in other areas. Reagan tried to do the latter unsuccessfully. Bush hasn't tried hard enough, as far as *conservatives* are concerned.
But to imply that Conservatives favor big government is to blindly ignore all of modern history, the meaning of the conservative movement, and the politics and writings of all modern conservatives.
Now, don't get me wrong, it's not like Clinton was much different. He loved corporate welfare too.
Nice admission. Clinton was the master at using the goverment for his own purposes, whatever they were.
And politicans in general use the government to hand out largess to whoever will keep them in office.
However, I have to say that I have rarely seen a more pure example of the leftist propaganda line than you put in your last post. It is almost a classic, except even educated leftists don't claim that conservatives are for bigger government.
It is really too bad they don't teach history today, and it is also too bad that you get your information from sources on the left.
Just the S&L example alone is enough to show how badly the mainstream (read: left) press has mislead america. The general opinion of it, as supplied by you, is so far from fact as to be amazing - coming from citizens of a country that is supposed to be educated.... err... but of course I forget that they are educated by the failed public education system... and propagandized by the real biased media: NBC/CBS/ABC/NYT/CNN/WP/LAT.
Re:Right result, wrong reason (Score:2)
Ah...so that's why the Bush admistration stopped a mega-merger for the fisrt time in recent memory! And here I thought it was because he woke up and decided to become a pro-consumer president!
Oh well, I suppose he's got to figure that when he goes to war with Iraq, in addition to the heating oil industry, the media conglomerates will all benefit from new subscribers who want to watch the carnage...
credo quia absurdum
Re:Right result, wrong reason (Score:2)
That's not entirely true. There's a service/company called, I believe, The Rural Communications Collective (forgive my laziness in not searching). Basically, people out in the boondocks who can't get cable are given reduced priced receivers and DirecTV service, as mandated by law. The FCC (rightly so, in my opinion) believes that although it does sound a bit corny, the ability to watch television is more or less a right. In fact, long before DirecTV or Dish sold local channels as an add-on for anyone, if you lived outside of the range of any of the closest big three (NBC/ABC/CBS) transmitters, you got "local" channels from (I think) New York. While I can certainly see the DoJ's complaints, I also don't understand exactly why they're worried about a monopoly. These companies would still have cable to compete with, and they're required by federal law not to gouge people who can't get an alternative to their service. I guess the way I see it, it'd be sort of like HP and Dell merging, and the DoJ complaining about a monopoly on computers. I can still build a PC/buy it from a few other companies, and there's also Apple/Sun/SGI
Just my $0.02.
Re:Right result, wrong reason (Score:2)
The ironic thing, of course, is that there would be only one satellite provider because the FCC prevented any others from being launched!
This is literally the government deciding how many people can compete in the market, and then exactly how they are allowed to compete. Contrary to popular usage, this is the definition of fascism (As opposed to socialism where no private companies are allowed.)
If you wanted competition, you would oppose this flagrantly unethical ruling by the DOJ and FCC and lobby for the elimination of the FCC altogether.
THEY limited it to only 2 companies in obit. THEY make it so that hte local cable monopoly is a monopoly. and THEY blocked the satellite companies from competing effectively against cable.
They told terrestrial stations that they Weren't ALLOWED To sell their own signal to the satellite providers!
This is total inanity.
The reason you have crappy service from Cable is because the FCC has mandated that there be a monopoly.
If you had a free market, you'd have 3-4 satellite providers and 4-6 local cable providers and the best service would win-- not the one that paid off the FCC.
Its pathetic that americans oppose a free market, and then think they are getting one when the FCC and DOJ block a merger.
Idiots, all.
What's the hidden agenda here? (Score:5, Insightful)
So, I say, what's the frequency, Michael? What's the hidden agenda here - because there obviously must be one.
Re:What's the hidden agenda here? (Score:2)
Sometimes Gov't works (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Sometimes Gov't works (Score:3, Insightful)
No such luck. This is an example of the administration trying to protect their cronies in the cable industry.
Individually, Dish Networks and DirectTV are no threat to the local cable companies. People who live in apartment complexes are rarely able to install satellite dishes. If your patio doesn't point the right way or you don't have a clear 45 degree line of site over any trees, you're screwed. A few complexes will let you install a dish on the roof if you're on the top floor. But they don't have to so they usually will not permit it. Many windows are opaque to satellite signals, so simply finding a window pointing in the right direction is not necessarily enough. I have to open a bedroom window to use my dish.
And even if you can get a dish installed, you probably won't get all your local networks. Although there will always be one station broadcast for every network from your satellite, you can't get access to any station that's not in your "broadcast area". Dish and DirecTV would probably like to sell you a package that gives you access to a replacement station in a different region, but they're not allowed to. The law prohibits it. Years ago, the cable companies lobbied the government to put that law in place to protect themselves from satellite competitors. How many people will subscribe to satellite TV when they'd be missing one or two of ABC, NBC, CBS, FOX, UPN, and WB?
Good Move (Score:4, Insightful)
With that said, how much do you want to bet that Microsoft tries to buy one of them?
Re:Good Move (Score:2)
Think of the hackers!!! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Think of the hackers!!! (Score:2)
If you broadcast a signal at someone's house, AND REFUSE TO LET THEM GIVE YOU MONEY FOR IT, you're obviously giving it to them for free.
duh (Score:4, Funny)
They come BEFORE the merger, not after.
The REAL monopoly rears its ugly head (Score:3, Interesting)
Supposed the two dish companies had merged? How popular would it have been for them to have immediately jacked the prices up? But, you say, they could have done it anyway, because people would have had no choice? Well, there IS still air channels. Or, radical idea here! Quit watching TV! Ahh...now I see the problem. The State made sure to preserve the people's Bread and Circuses. If people stopped watching TV, they might start reading or something hazardous.
But slightly more seriously, to take it to an illustrative extreme, the satellite networks join, and jack prices way up. How long can they keep that up? A demonstrated low level of profitable service has apparently been illustrated at the current level. If they exceed this, the pressure just keeps increasing for someone to come in from underneath and displace them as cheap as they currently are operating. It might take 2 or three years, but it will happen. Oh wait. No it won't. Too much government red tape to get through. :-P
Meanwhile, the two existing companies can collude a little bit, and stay just good enough, and lobby just enough to keep screwing you more than unfettered competition would.
What the hell, if they did abuse their market, maybe it would be a good thing. The next dish network to displace them might use 6" dishes, or roll out broadband cable/internet or something. The existing companies are not as likely to do that; they are happy where they are, making money.
Deal was DOA (Score:2, Informative)
That being said, it would be good for competition, because it would allow better competition with cable companies...the FCC/DOJ look at it totally wrong. SatTV as a whole competes with cable. It should be labeled the same thing.
And the stocks went up. (Score:5, Interesting)
Most mergers don't do much for the shareholders. In fact, most M&A activity is counterproductive. You'd think otherwise, but, in fact, making the company formed by a merger work properly is hard.
This merger has been dead for a while... (Score:5, Informative)
When the merger first came out it didnt seem so bad, because both satellite companies had stagnated for a while in terms of adding content and local markets (aka local-in-local, or LiL). But in the past year, three spot-beam satellites have become operational, and one more is scheduled to come online. Both Dish network and DirecTV have (or will have soon) the capability to serve the top 100 or so television markets (there are around 220 DMA, or designated viewing areas). Dish Network actually has the capability to serve all 220 DMAs using other oribtal locations for satellites that can see half the country (at 61.5 degrees Wests and 148 degrees West, where as the current satellites that can see all of the CONtinental US are located at 101, 110, and 119 degrees west, aka the three CONUS slots).
The only thing that the merger would have helped is HDTV offerings. Right now, each provider has 4-5 HD channels. As more come online, there will be a bandwidth crunch (since each HD channel will take up the space of 4-6 regular channels). Maybe at the maximum, there will be room for about 20 HD channels for each provider, but there is not enough bandwidth to provide more than that.
Also, Charlie Ergan (the CEO of Echostar, the owner of Dish Network), has done a number of things to piss off the FCC (like challenging the law that says if a provider carries any number of local channels from a city, it must carry all of the channels for that city, regardless of how popular the station is). After he lost the appeal for this law, he tried to do an end-run around the law, and put the most popular networks (the big four plus WB and UPN and in some cases PBS) on the main satellites, and require users to put up a second dish for the smaller stations. The FCC got pissed and told Echostar to do a number of remedies to fix the situation. They have come into compliance of the recomendations, but its still very iffy.
All and all, its a good thing this merger was rejected. The downside is that now Rupert Murdoch will now be the likely owner for DirecTV. Which is better, the devil you know, or the devil you dont?
Missing information (Score:4, Interesting)
There are some other interesting tidbits in the piece, like that the potential satellite competitor is interested in offering some 40 HDTV channels. The WSJ is unabashedly free-market, so they support the revised merger, apparently with the opinion that neither company can combat cable companies independently.
Cable Co's get their way (Score:3, Interesting)
Cable Co's feared a merged Echostar/Dtv, as they wouldn't have a monopoly anymore and Sattelite TV was a real threat with all local market channels being offered but they have nothing to fear now.
Re:Cable Co's get their way (Score:2)
With Echostar and Hughes merged they wouldn't have competed against the cable companies. They would've formed a 2 party oligopoly. Satellite pricing has been pretty constant in the past 5 years, while cable prices have risen dramatically in most markets. Eliminate one third of the competition, however, and you want to bet that satellite pricing won't go through the roof like cable has? And it has even less regulation than cable has! Come on people, THINK.
All the kvetching about locals is crap. The big markets/cities have locals available over satellite. Rural locations don't, but I seriously question that the merged company would've spent the tremendous amount of bandwidth needed to rectify that situation for the very minor gains it would've resulted in. Anyway, the regulations are that if you can receive a good over-the-air signal then you cannot get the national broadcasts - this happened to my sister. They still love their DirecTV though. The only real downside is that they can't DirecTiVo the local channels since they come in via antenna. They survive.
Re:Cable Co's get their way (Score:2)
The deal you're going to get via the telco seems pretty good... I'm surprised they're even bothering with the current regulations on the book though. Bowling Green/Owensburo may have enough people to justify it though.
Back on topic, though - the problem is that if you look at the merger plans the idea wasn't to just eliminate duplication. There were plans to sell off a large percentage of the bandwidth, partially to reap profits, partially to head off anti-trust issues ("see, someone else can broadcast now!").
The core issue, though, is that the merger would have drastically reduced competition. When there are 3 or more companies competing against one another there's usually advantages to the consumer - especially in price and service. When there's only two the competition often becomes a mutual oligopoly, with the companies agreeing (tacitly or otherwise) on pricing structures, service levels, and so forth. Do you really think that the satellite pricing would be as low as it is if Dish and DirecTV weren't competing against one another and the cable companies? Do you think that the hardware would be "free"?
Re:Cable Co's get their way (Score:2)
Not for everyone... I may finally be able to get satellite since removing a bunch of trees. If so we can save $30/mo for the same service. Currently we have digital cable w/ HBO (and our cable company lumps Cinemax in with HBO). To move to DirecTV with local stations and HBO (screw Cinemax) it's a $30 savings. And I get more "regular" channels. And I can either get a DirecTiVo or a DirecTV receiver that I can plug my TiVo serial cable into, so now I don't fail to change channels ever again and wind up recording the wrong damn thing.
The right solution is to allow Dish and DirectTv to merge with restrictions and to force local Cable competition
That won't ever happen - local cable competition has never existed outside a few very small markets, and it's starting to disappear in even those. Given that, the right solution is to prevent the merger. Competition is the consumer's friend.
As for HD over satellite - it'll happen eventually because if cable companies start offering it widely then the satellite vendors will have to to stay competitive. It may mean launching new birds, acquiring more transponders somehow, or even changing the encoding on the stream, but they'll do it.
Remember when,..... (Score:4, Insightful)
have commericials to pay for the shows. Cable TV is something you HAVE to pay for. Now there are
as many or more commericials on CABLE TV. So I not only pay the %$#^@'s for the cable, but also
have to endure #$(#^(# commericals.
I would let them have their monopoly if they would promise to get rid of the commericials.
Re:Remember when,..... (Score:3, Interesting)
What I don't get (Score:2, Interesting)
Half the country may never get locals via sat (Score:4, Interesting)
If you read the FCC's decision (available from www.fcc.gov), they repeatedly mention that without the merger the two companies can still provide local into local service for 100 of the roughly 200 DMA's in the country. Had the merger been accepted, it would have been all 200.
I really don't see how satellite can possibly COMPETE EFFECTIVELY against cable, when they're only provide local-into-local service for the larger metropolitan areas, which may even have multiple cable companies also competing!
The DOJ could easily make sure that the New Echostar keeps its promise of uniform pricing, and make no mistake, They're not making a whole lot of money from us people in Farm Country (as I am), so it wouldn't make sense for them to create "uniformly high pricing", unless they wanted to just roll over and die.
The FCC generally makes decisions that are friendly to broadcasters. Look at their decisions against satellite over the last few years. They (and Congress) regard satellite companies as essentially wanting to steal television from Over The Air broadcasters.
I quit watching the major networks (ABC/NBC/CBS/FOX) about 3 years ago, when I couldn't get a decent signal over-the-air. I get UPN and WB via satellite superstations, and I watch those quite a bit. Broacasters should have been fighting tooth and nail for this, but instead they generally opposed it, probably out of habit. I might actually start watching network TV again, if I could get it on sat.
I'm very angry at Rural TV, and other "rural" groups that opposed this merger. As a rural person in a DMA that will likely never get locals via satellite, I am very angry at these people that are supposedly representing me. They don't speak on my behalf.
State of satellite TV in North America (Score:3, Informative)
What North America needs is separation of these two areas. (Standard) DVB could do this and still provide the same service level North American currently enjoys. A satellite would be blasted into orbit by an actual telecomms company, a satellite TV station would rent time from them to put their station on the air, and, if necessary, they would encrypt the channel and sell the service to North America in general if they felt Advertising revenue wouldn't cover their rental costs (note: In most cases it would -- A large percentage of what you see on DSS has already been broadcast in the clear on one or two satellites before it makes it to you, largely commercial free). You could buy individual channels that you want (assuming those aren't free), you wouldn't worry about DishNet having UPN and DirectTV not, and there's no middle-man. Not to mention you'd be able to use the huge amount of GREAT DVB gear out there, including computer capture cards. And the freedom of any company being able to broadcast TV as long as they can pony up the cash necessary to do it would be excellent.
Right now we have two companies with a pile of hardly used birds up in the sky. There's complete overlap on four of them, making two useless. Another one broadcasts the (largely unreceived) HDTV content, and so on.
When will this happen?
Beats me. My bets are on 20 or 30 years into the future, or maybe when the current birds run out of fuel. I do know it has to happen sometime. It's inevtitable.
This violates the bill of rights. (Score:2)
Speicfically, the right to free association.
Furthermore, its idiotic-- how can a company competing with thousands of cable companies around the country be a "monopoly"?
I think MS deserves to be punished for stealing apple's technology and defrauding linux and other users who never used windows but were forced to pay for it.
but the FCC has no business being in existance in the first place, and if this is the result of a republican DOJ, then the republicans really are no different from the democrats.
And somehow, I suspect the leftist slashdot crowd is happy to see that human rights have, once again, taken it up the a$%