Competition lives! Echostar and Hughes merger rejected by FCC

[Maverick]

Read about it here

Man I was hoping they wouldn't merge...the existence of two satellite companies is whats brought DSS to an affordable level.

 

[Darein]

I would have liked to see the merger. They had many safeguards in place to make sure prices didn't get out of hand. I would have liked to see more local television, along with just plain more television then what cable can offer.

 

[Maverick]

I doubt you would've seen such innovation if the merger had gone through. This wouldn't have been like AT&T and Comcast merging...that merger still left competition in the market...this one would have eliminated competition 100%.

Yes innovations would have come, but much more slowly. And what pricing safeguards are you referring to?

 

[Shantanu]

Are you retarded? How is competition living?

This ruling preserves the monopoly that local cable providers now have. If this deal had gone through, I might have switched to satellite TV because then they would have been able to offer me local TV stations. But without that, satellite is not a legitimate solution, and I'm forced to pay whatever the local cable TV company demands. Another 10% rate hike next year, no doubt, whoop-dee-doo!

But it wasn't the local cable TV providers that blocked the deal. Rupert Murdoch paid off the FCC, because General Motors had previously rejected his bid for Hughes. Now he can buyout Hughes for pennies to expand *his* global satellite TV monopoly.

So, the one possible solution to America's cable TV monopolies has been blocked by the government, in order to a) preserve said monopolies and b) make Rupert Murdoch even wealthier. Is the FCC intentionally trying to screw over American consumers, or are they really that stupid?

The reason that they gave for blocking the merger was even more insulting: "We can't allow this to happen otherwise the number of media broadcast providers for a few hundred thousand Americans living in rural areas would drop from 3 to 2" (with the other one being Pegasys). This argument falls flat on its face when you ask: What about the tens of millions of Americans who live in cities where they're forced to pay whatever the local cable company demands, because satellite TV does not offer their local TV stations? The whole deal just wreaks of corruption.

 

[Maverick]

I guess I fail to see how the merger would help you get local channels any faster. If anything it would raise the price required to get local channels. I dont' think you'd get them any faster.

 

[arod]

Originally posted by: Shiva112
I guess I fail to see how the merger would help you get local channels any faster. If anything it would raise the price required to get local channels. I dont' think you'd get them any faster.

One of the provisions on the merger was every single local station would be on sattelite. That wont be happening very soon either. BTW my cable rates just went up another 10 bucks so I dropped cable and got a dish plus get my locals OTA now anyways but cable ripps you off. Id like to see my cable company match what Im payign for sattelite service.

 

[Shantanu]

If anything it would raise the price required to get local channels.

OK. There's only two possibilites:

A) they raise their price so much that it now costs more than cable.

B) they raise their prices so that's it's less than cable/they keep their prices steady/ (or even) they lower their prices because their average fixed costs are now lower.

In the case of A, nothing changes for me. The cable company will continue to rip me off, and satellite stays unviable because it now costs more than cable.

In the case of B, I can get satellite TV and pay less money than I do for cable. I am now better off.

So if this merger had gone through, I would either be: a) as well (or as badly) off as I am right now or b) better off than I am right now. Notice that there is no choice C, i.e. me being worse off. It would have been impossible for the merger to make me worse off than I am right now. It could only have been good. Personally, I would like to be offered that choice. I don't like some jerkoff government bureacrat making decisions for me, so that Rupert Murdoch and local cable monopolies can profit at my expense.

The whole FCC is fvcked up. I see no purpose to that organization. I'm a Republican right now, but the Bush administration has seriously dissapointed me today.

 

[CPA]

Originally posted by: Shantanu
Are you retarded? How is competition living?

This ruling preserves the monopoly that local cable providers now have. If this deal had gone through, I might have switched to satellite TV because then they would have been able to offer me local TV stations. But without that, satellite is not a legitimate solution, and I'm forced to pay whatever the local cable TV company demands. Another 10% rate hike next year, no doubt, whoop-dee-doo!

But it wasn't the local cable TV providers that blocked the deal. Rupert Murdoch paid off the FCC, because General Motors had previously rejected his bid for Hughes. Now he can buyout Hughes for pennies to expand *his* global satellite TV monopoly.

So, the one possible solution to America's cable TV monopolies has been blocked by the government, in order to a) preserve said monopolies and b) make Rupert Murdoch even wealthier. Is the FCC intentionally trying to screw over American consumers, or are they really that stupid?

The reason that they gave for blocking the merger was even more insulting: "We can't allow this to happen otherwise the number of media broadcast providers for a few hundred thousand Americans living in rural areas would drop from 3 to 2" (with the other one being Pegasys). This argument falls flat on its face when you ask: What about the tens of millions of Americans who live in cities where they're forced to pay whatever the local cable company demands, because satellite TV does not offer their local TV stations? The whole deal just wreaks of corruption.

I get my local channels with Directv here. No problems.

 

[Valinos]

I'm switching to DirecTV in a month when I move to my new house. Charter Communications is one of the worst companies period. My cable quality has continually been downgraded to fuzz over the past few months and although I pay $82 a month for premium channels, half of my channels totally go black randomly. Then I contact them and get a tech to come out and repair the problems and they have the gall to say I have to pay $13 to fix their problem and then I have to pay $2.95 a month for 6 months for "wire maitenence"....wtf is wrong with this picture?

I've heard nothing but good about satellite, and I can get more for the same price I pay Charter per month. I didn't buy a $2400 50" HDTV to watch scrambled cable.

Ok, I just had to bitch...so what exactly is all the commotion about this merger? I'm totally clueless about it...some say it is going to hurt consumers to not have it...others say it will help to not have it...wtf?

BTW, DirecTV now offers local channels for $4 extra month.

 

[Shantanu]

Valinos: DirectTV and Echostar currently offer local TV broadcasts for 42 markets. Echostar wanted to purchase DirecTV so that they could use the redundant bandwidth to offer local TV stations in all 210 markets in the U.S., as well as a variety of additional channels.

The deal would have been greatly beneficial to American consumers, but was blocked because of intensive lobbying by local cable monopolies and Rupert Murdoch, who has a global satellite TV monopoly outside the U.S.

Given that it currently costs about $250 million to put a satellite in space and neither DirecTV nor Echostar are significantly profitable right now, I think I will be paying high cable prices for a long time to come...

 

[Valinos]

So is Echostar otherwise known as the Dish Network?

It definately makes sense to me now that you explain it. Dick Murdoch is afraid the DirecTV and Echostar merger might threaten his global market if they became too big and expanded outside of the U.S.

Shady...