Dish and DirecTV once again in talks despite antitrust.

[NashGuy]

True, but although I'm not affected, some people live in very rural areas and can only get TV by satellite. And besides that, it would still be a monopoly being that it would be the only satellite provider.

If anything prevented the government from approving a merger of DTV and DISH, I think it would be the fact that some percentage of Americans (10%?) still have no other option for cable TV service than satellite TV. But that percentage is shrinking every year as wired and wireless broadband options spread into those areas, opening up lots of pay TV options over the internet. And given the shot in the arm that rural broadband deployment is getting in the new infrastructure bill, I really doubt the DOJ would try to kill the merger at this point on account of those concerns. Although they might require some kind of price concessions from the merged company (e.g. can't hike prices more than 5% per year for the next X years), at least for customers in rural zip codes.

 

[joegr]

True, but although I'm not affected, some people live in very rural areas and can only get TV by satellite. And besides that, it would still be a monopoly being that it would be the only satellite provider.

Better one monopoly satellite provider than none (if both quit or go under)?

 

[NYDutch]

True, but although I'm not affected, some people live in very rural areas and can only get TV by satellite. And besides that, it would still be a monopoly being that it would be the only satellite provider.

If they can get TV by satellite, they can get Internet by satellite. Assuming there isn't a suitable cell service within range. And as Starlink expands to enable more subscribers per cell, that's another satellite Internet source that's already available to some. We sometimes go several days without setting up our dish while we're in transit, and don't miss a single program due to streaming.

 

[SamCdbs]

Public policy should never be based on things that do not yet exist, and may never be invented or proven to work on a commercial basis.

When this “star link” ACTUALLY exist, and ACTUALLY make money existing, then considering it effect on this or that will be in play. Not now.

 

[NYDutch]

Public policy should never be based on things that do not yet exist, and may never be invented or proven to work on a commercial basis.

When this “star link” ACTUALLY exist, and ACTUALLY make money existing, then considering it effect on this or that will be in play. Not now.

Starlink is currently serving ~145,000 subscribers in various countries. That seems like a pretty good start to me. Even without Starlink, satellite Internet is readily available if needed.

 

[Bruce]

Public policy should never be based on things that do not yet exist, and may never be invented or proven to work on a commercial basis.

When this “star link” ACTUALLY exist, and ACTUALLY make money existing, then considering it effect on this or that will be in play. Not now.

It exists, customers have it, there is just a slow down getting terminals into the Home due to the chip shortage.

I have one on order that I will use as a back up service since I live in Hurricane territory, this is what it says on my pre-order page-

Starlink expects to expand service in your area in January 2022.

 

[Jim5506]

Just because persons not in populated areas do not have access to internet or cable does not make a single satellite provider a monopoly. Does Dish charge these people more than people in the city - NO!, Everyone Dish serves pays approximately the same for a specific level of service whether there is competition in a small geographical area or not - no way it can be called amonopoly with all the competition from cable and IP's. Dish is a nationwide provider of TV ad other services, there is plenty of competition for pricing no matter what the local competition is. Everyone with an H3 and AT200 pays about the same per month whether you live in the hood or in the sticks.

 

[sktrus]

I read an article few weeks ago. Due to increase in new customers the average download speed with Starlink dropped about 10 mbps. (From 90's to 80's) in Northern US. No change in Canada and Europe. They expected that. The speed is supposedly going to increase with more satellites.

If you use Starlink and have few cats you might want to use a pole.

Apparently, the cats love to curl up on satellite dishes because they love the heat created by the dish to eliminate snow/ice accumulation.
There are complaints it is affecting the connection!!

 

[NashGuy]

Starlink is currently serving ~145,000 subscribers in various countries. That seems like a pretty good start to me. Even without Starlink, satellite Internet is readily available if needed.

Yeah, but let's be honest, traditional satellite internet service (e.g. HughesNet) shouldn't really be counted as an alternative pipe for pay TV service. It's really expensive and has low data caps, so you're not going to want to use it for daily TV viewing.

Looks like HughesNet requires a 2-yr contract. If you rent their equipment, you pay a $99 up-front activation fee and a $15 equipment rental fee on top of your data plan (all of which have speeds of 25/3). To get 30 GB of data per month (which they claim is enough to stream 45 hrs of SD video or 15 hrs of HD video), they charge $100. So $115/mo to be able to watch an average of 90 minutes of SD video per day? Yikes.

 

[SamCdbs]

Starlink is currently serving ~145,000 subscribers in various countries.

Only 7.752 Billion more left unserved.

 

[NYDutch]

Only 7.752 Billion more left unserved.

Under what premise does Starlink need to serve every human being on the planet with individual accounts???

 

[NYDutch]

Yeah, but let's be honest, traditional satellite internet service (e.g. HughesNet) shouldn't really be counted as an alternative pipe for pay TV service. It's really expensive and has low data caps, so you're not going to want to use it for daily TV viewing.

Looks like HughesNet requires a 2-yr contract. If you rent their equipment, you pay a $99 up-front activation fee and a $15 equipment rental fee on top of your data plan (all of which have speeds of 25/3). To get 30 GB of data per month (which they claim is enough to stream 45 hrs of SD video or 15 hrs of HD video), they charge $100. So $115/mo to be able to watch an average of 90 minutes of SD video per day? Yikes.

I wasn't discussing cost, since that's an individual decision. Obviously some people find HughesNet, etc. acceptable or they wouldn't subscribe to it. They may not like the price, but apparently they've learned to live with it. HughesNet plans include an additional 50 GB/mo of off-peak data (2am-8am), and when the high speed data is used up the speed drops to 1-3 Mbps for the remainder of the month. I have successfully streamed at 3 Mbps, but obviously you don't get the best resolutions at that speed.

The point is that satellite Internet exists for those that have no other choice.

 

[NashGuy]

I wasn't discussing cost, since that's an individual decision. Obviously some people find HughesNet, etc. acceptable or they wouldn't subscribe to it. They may not like the price, but apparently they've learned to live with it. HughesNet plans include an additional 50 GB/mo of off-peak data (2am-8am), and when the high speed data is used up the speed drops to 1-3 Mbps for the remainder of the month. I have successfully streamed at 3 Mbps, but obviously you don't get the best resolutions at that speed.

The point is that satellite Internet exists for those that have no other choice.

Right. I guess my point, though, is that virtually no one buys that kind of satellite internet so that they can use something like YouTube TV on it. If they have satellite internet, they'll almost certainly have DISH or DTV for their cable TV provider if they want cable TV.

 

[SamCdbs]

Right. I guess my point, though, is that virtually no one buys that kind of satellite internet so that they can use something like YouTube TV on it. If they have satellite internet, they'll almost certainly have DISH or DTV for their cable TV provider if they want cable TV.

Correct. And, fanciful predictions of not yet commercially (nor even just plain actually) proven technologies, that is likely to be the case for the foreseeable future.

If you go back to the dawn of satellite TV, the original and obvious BUD customer was just that. Somebody who lived so far out that OTA didn’t work and either had a evil cable bandit, providing poor service; or no cable access at all.

That market still exists.

 

[NYDutch]

Right. I guess my point, though, is that virtually no one buys that kind of satellite internet so that they can use something like YouTube TV on it. If they have satellite internet, they'll almost certainly have DISH or DTV for their cable TV provider if they want cable TV.

Yes, they most likely do have sat TV, but the point as far as competition goes, there other choices even if a combined Dish/DTV is the only sat choice.

 

[scoob83]

I figured this would happen as neither services will be able to keep going without a merge. I had no idea Direct had lost 10 million subs in 5 years. That is even worse than Dish. If they are allowed to merge, they will be back up to 23 million, at least for the time being. I wonder if they merge, if both Dish and Direct will have different packages, or will both merge together in programming? The core is close, but Direct has a lot more sports and Dish has diginets and other programming. This will be interesting. I presume we will keep the same receivers/antennas as it would cost too much to replace them.

Is this just Direct satellite customers or their streaming too? I wonder if their push to convert satellite customers to AT&T TV now called DirecTV Stream caused a big decline?


Sent from my iPhone using the SatelliteGuys app!

 

[FLEABttn]

The DBS industry is in secular decline. What represented an antitrust issue a decade ago doesn't necessarily represent an antitrust issue today. At some point the market is going to be small enough to where two providers doesn't make sense. We're possibly already there.

 

[nelson61]

Dish is putting it's money into wireless.

Again today This band has coverage out a mile or so and more value than the high frequency 5g .


AT&T and satellite TV provider Dish Network are the top winners of airwaves once reserved for military use that will soon be used for 5G wireless service in the Federal Communications Commission's latest auction, the agency said Friday.

AT&T spent $9.1 billion and Dish spent $7.3 billion for licenses of wireless spectrum that sits between the 2.5 gigahertz and 3.5GHz range of frequencies on the radio spectrum. T-Mobile was the third highest bidder in the auction, spending $2.9 billion. Verizon Communications did not participate in the

CNET: AT&T and Dish big winners in latest 5G auction.

AT&T and Dish big winners in latest 5G auction

The FCC says it raised more than $22.5 billion for midband spectrum that previously had been used by the military.

www.cnet.com

 

[mwdxer1]

The DBS industry is in secular decline. What represented an antitrust issue a decade ago doesn't necessarily represent an antitrust issue today. At some point the market is going to be small enough to where two providers doesn't make sense. We're possibly already there.

With streaming and OTA, less people are willing to dish out $100 a month or more.

 

[mwdxer1]

Just because persons not in populated areas do not have access to internet or cable does not make a single satellite provider a monopoly. Does Dish charge these people more than people in the city - NO!, Everyone Dish serves pays approximately the same for a specific level of service whether there is competition in a small geographical area or not - no way it can be called amonopoly with all the competition from cable and IP's. Dish is a nationwide provider of TV ad other services, there is plenty of competition for pricing no matter what the local competition is. Everyone with an H3 and AT200 pays about the same per month whether you live in the hood or in the sticks.

In reality, Dish is fine. I have been with them for going on 23 years now and what they offer, the prices aren't all that bad. A good streaming package isn't much less if at all and Dish offers a lot of channels not available elsewhere. The way the services are upping prices, I am surprised we don't have to pay more.