October 29, 2001
7:41 AM   Subscribe

Murdoch backs down. DirectTV is now Echostars. I'm not at all happy about this. Do we really need another monopoly?
posted by tiaka (7 comments total)
 
(scanning for information about Microsoft)

Eh, whatever.
posted by jragon at 7:43 AM on October 29, 2001


Well, it's not quite EchoStar's yet. There's still all that tedious FTC/FCC federal regulation to go through, and all the executive restructuring, and all the redundancy layoffs.

In the end, satellite broadcasting and broadband satellite services will become prohibitively expensive, not because there's a monopoly, but because buying that monopoly cost so much to begin with. It seems to me that EchoStar is pounding the nails in its own coffin.
posted by dogmatic at 8:39 AM on October 29, 2001


I love the quotes on how this will be a "benefit" for consumers. They claim that their reach will increase, local channels will be available via satellite, and increase HDTV broadcasts.

Yes, as we all know, a monopoly loves to "innovate". I suppose I could hope for the day when television prices itself out of the reach of all but the elite, but another part of me really wants to see Let's Bowl and doesn't want to pay $35 to do so.

So let's see. Local TV will cost more when HDTV comes down the pike. Cable TV is owned by AT&T and AOL. And satellite TV will be owned, possibly, by EchoStar. I don't like those options. I wonder if others will agree.
posted by hijinx at 9:01 AM on October 29, 2001


They are a monopoly in the terms of distributing content, but they are not a monopoly in terms of content itself. They will still have to compete with cable companies, which should keep them honest and force them to innovate in ways other natural monopolies wouldn't.
posted by prodigal at 9:39 AM on October 29, 2001


prodigal hit the nail on the head. While EchoStar and DirecTV were competing with each other, their #1 competition was always cable.

Satellite only has about 10% of the U.S. viewers, while cable has around 85% IIRC.

As a DirecTV customer, I'm pretty concerned about what EchoStar is going to do to allow its customers access all this extra bandwidth -- larger dishes? new receivers? Oy!

However, I'm encouraged by EchoStar's aggresiveness in rolling out HDTV content. They are trying to offer HDTV network feeds to those viewers whose local stations can't or won't carry them, starting with a deal they cut with CBS this summer.

The local affiliates are crying foul, but I think EchoStar is just calling them on their outdated business model (which depends on a legal local monopoly to survive).
posted by Dirjy at 9:48 AM on October 29, 2001


I'll be happy just so the quality of the encoding doesn't decrease, I can still use by DirecTV/Tivo receiver, and the cost doesn't go up more than the inflation rate each year.

I'd be thrilled if I could get local channels, and get to pick single stations to subscribe to, instead of paying $35 for 10 channels I want, and 150 that I don't care anything about.

of course, I moved away from cable because the quality was terrible, the service was bad, the prices were outrageous, and I don't believe that a monopoly in any shape or form is legal.

I love satellite television. I hate monopolies.
posted by presto at 10:31 AM on October 29, 2001


This sucks! DirecTV just bought out my DSL provider Telocity a few months ago and happily increased the monthly bill by 25% (from $40 to $50). I can only imagine what fun things EchoStar has in store for their newly acquired customers.
posted by Down10 at 6:09 PM on October 29, 2001


« Older If you crow about your redesign,   |   Halloween Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments