DirecTV and DISH Network Merger
by:
Gary Davis
It was in Oct
2001 that General Motors Hughes (Parent institution of Direct TV) and EchoStar Communications Corp., dealer of Dish Network united
to a merger. The new institution would-be have improved the services for satellite TV clients by adding many a Hdtv channels and local channels would-be then be accessible to all satellite TV viewers.
However, the US Department of Justice blocked the merger.
Why did they do that?
The merger would-be create a monopoly position
When incorporated the new institution would-be serve all of the United States without any competition. As we all know, competition spurs progress and a merger would-be au fond result in less progress. At the present time simply about 25 to 35 million homes do not have access to cable TV services. Those folk have the select between 2 satellite TV companies. The merger would-be reduce this to simply 1 company, which clearly is a monopoly position that is not allowed. Even as in areas with cable TV the merger would-be result in simply 2 providers, of which each has a monopoly on its own technology. Further, EchoStar claimed that the merger was necessary to be able to contend
against the cable TV Giants. However, satellite TV was growing really fast patch cable TV was loosing clients. Out of every 3 new cable/satellite TV clients, 2 would-be go for satellite TV.
EchoStars planned
self-regulation makes not compensate for the basic monopoly issues
EchoStar and Hughes secure
local TV programming to all 210 TV markets. However, the day after this promise, EchoStar asked the Supreme Court to overturn a law that required local carriage. They aforementioned they had no purpose to carry all channels with the new company. At the time, local channels were accessible in simply 41 markets patch the 2 companies together already had the technology accessible to provide local programming in all 210 markets. A competitive market is more likely to speed up these services than a self regulated monopoly.
A planned
national rating plan that would-be guarantee that prices would-be be the same in some
rural and urban areas was as well not accepted as prices could be set too high.
The merger would-be create a monopoly position for broadband cyberspace services
In areas that are not served by DSL or cable, the only alternative to broadband cyberspace services is via satellite. The merger would-be create a monopoly for broadband cyberspace services in these areas.
Over all it seemed that without any different satellite TV providers a merger of the 2 companies was not possible. The public’s interest was simply not served by a merger (or at least not enough).
Some markets simply don’t have more competition because of their nature. Satellites are costly to build, put into orbit and operate. The fact that there are 2 providers and not simply 1 is a blessing for the public and everyone can do a choice. Of course we at Dish-Network-Satellite-TV.ws believe that the select is easy. Dish Network Satellite is our preferred choice.
Webmasters: You may reprint this article in its entirety,
providing you leave the Byline and Just simply about the Author sections
intact, including the links to Dish Network Satellite TV.
Just simply about THE AUTHOR
Metropolis Davis is owner of Dish Network Satellite TV, has some years experience in the Satellite TV Industry and has written some articles on satellite TV.
