ala-carte programing
robert turri
some time now and I keep waiting for someone to start asking the
question........WHEN DO WE GET TO PICK THE PROGRAMS WE WANT????
RTURRI
Patrick Martin
rules of the programmer and also the cost per channel is less. Ala Carte
is on its way out in most places, cable, BUD, etc. There are a few,
exceptions, but not many.
Patrick
Jack Ak
"robert turri" <rtu...@axs2k.net> wrote in message news:gm2u10hq6rrp0pqcs...@4ax.com...
If you mean subscribing to only those channels you want to view, you should
hope never. If you were able to pay for channels on an individual basis,
your monthly cost would be higher than it is now if you chose only 10-15 channels.
You can pick programs you want to watch now.
Stargazer
"robert turri" <rtu...@axs2k.net> wrote in message
news:gm2u10hq6rrp0pqcs...@4ax.com...
If you mean subscribing to only those channels you want to view, you
should
hope never. If you were able to pay for channels on an individual
basis,
your monthly cost would be higher than it is now if you chose only
10-15 channels.
You can pick programs you want to watch now.
If we could pick and choose our programs then it would probably be 3-5
times higher because only a third to a fifth as many of the people
would order those particular channels while other channels would simply
go out of business. Not only that but those channels that the
satellite companies had to take to get the main one would have no
revenue if they were no longer available so there would be increases
because of that as well. In addition even if you could still get the
packages with ala carte available, if many people chose ala carte, that
would raise prices for those taking packages to make up for those that
take ala carte, unless they charge a huge amount for those channels ala
carte alone to make up for it.
--
Stargazer
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stargazer's Profile: 40
View this thread: 6321
Jerry Reed
on my BUD and the cost is far below what I pay for similar channels on DBS.
The truth is that the system charges these high prices for 50 or 60 or 150
channels of programming that mostly no-one ever watches because they can.
If we as consumers refused to pay for these channels they would soon go
away. And in my opinion programming that can not make it on its own
deserves to go away. The bundling of programming gives the allusion of
getting more for your money. The faster rising prices of any product in the
US is cable and satellite TV. It is up over 100% in just the past few
years. It is hard for me to understand why people will pay for upwards of
$100.00 a month for TV. It is after all just TV. Just my 2 cents.
Jerry
John Lodge
At one point Dish had a package called Dish PIX that allowed
subscribers to pick 10 channels from Dish's general programing channels
for about 10 bucks. That package went away for several reasons, 1) More
and More channel owners refused carriage in this way limiting the
channels available making it look as though Dish was limiting choices
when the opposite was true, 2) Fixed Overhead and companies costs
gobbled up most if not all of that 10 dollars.
The current distribution system may seem flawed, but if you could
pick 15-20 channels you wished to receive instead of having general
packages the cost per channel would much higher than it is now. A twenty
channel ala carte package of your own choice would be could be as high
as a standard Top 100 package is now, about 32 bucks. Whether you like
it or not the channel and program owners control the market and force
the Must carry my 8-15 channels if you want to carry any, system. The
biggest reason is the way the advertising rates are determined. Not by
actual viewers but by the Total number of subscribed viewers.
BTW, a true ala carte system is NEVER going to happen.
John
John Lodge
Yes, because when using Cband you are buying directly from the program and
channel owners and not from a third party Satellite company and or cable
companies that have to sign carriage contracts to be able to offer those
channels.
Lastly many program owners are forcing cband subscribers into company
carriage packages like you want SPIKE then you will have to pay for the rest of
the Viacom Cable Networks.
John
David
Total was $46.62 for "Total Choice Silver" plus networks.
No HBO, etc.
My bill from June 2003:
Total $41.22 for Total Choice Plus (no locals) plus Guide.
That doesn't look like 100% to me.
I am currently on cable (Adelphia) and it sux.
On Mon, 2 Feb 2004 22:25:41 -0700, "Jerry Reed" <jree...@cox.net>
wrote:
no...@yaahoo.com
wrote:
>I've been keeping up with this and other dbs and tvro groups for
>some time now and I keep waiting for someone to start asking the
>question........WHEN DO WE GET TO PICK THE PROGRAMS WE WANT????
Never: It's called "Socialized Capitalism"
robert turri
Hmmm.....I don't believe for a moment that the programmers are in
charge...
the buyers of programming are the real power....How about getting
our wonderful leaders in government to get in the act...I can't
help but believe a bunch of letters and phone calls may just
start something that has legs..
Hey folks...remember we still own this ol country, and if we were
to pull together we can get anything we want
I for one want DBS, but not 50 channels ill never watch and a
bunch of music i can get for free every day...as for PPV there is
always blockbuster, or you can get movies on the internet
rturri
John Lodge
You can believe what ever you want but, the programers have the product
we want (Tv Programing). Since most channels are owned by HUGE corporations
that have several channels its carry one then you need to carry all. Since
all of the content owners want to be in a standard packages of channels you
get 30 to 50 channels in the a minimum package.
If you think for a minute that you have any stake in what goes on in this
country you need to take a hard look around you. Corporate greed and money is
what controls this country.
John
CheetoDust
> Hey folks...remember we still own this ol country, and if we were
> to pull together we can get anything we want
LOL! I want some of what you're smoking. It's all about money these
days. You can't fight greed with good intentions alone. You need
to fight big money with the lure of bigger money. It's the same reason
recycling didn't start to gain traction until people saw profit
potential in it.
When TV starts getting so expensive that significant amounts of
customers start dropping away, that's when they'll try something
new.
...Sean.
TNGTony
> On Mon, 2 Feb 2004 19:32:10 -0800 (PST), mwd...@webtv.net
> (Patrick Martin) wrote:
>
> >Never! The programming has to be sold together in a package, per the
> >rules of the programmer and also the cost per channel is less. Ala Carte
> >is on its way out in most places, cable, BUD, etc. There are a few,
> >exceptions, but not many.
> >
> >
> >Patrick
>
>
> Hmmm.....I don't believe for a moment that the programmers are in
> charge...
Err....yea....
If you want to buy ESPN, the owners of that channel REQUIRE you to buy
ESPN2, ESPNews, ESPN Classic, Disney Channel, Toon Disney and ABC Family.
If you don't want to buy any of those others, TOUGH. You can't have ESPN.
Period! Same goes for any of the channels on that list. And if you don't
like it, we'll take away your ABC broadcast station from your cable or
satellite.
If you want your MTV, the owners of that channel REQUIRE you buy TVLand,
Nickelodeon/Nick at nite, Noggin/The N, TNT, TBS, TNN, CMT, VH1, MTV2, CNN,
Headline News, CNNFN, Cartoon Network, Boomerang. If you don't want any of
those others, TOUGH. You can't have MTV. Period! Same goes for any of the
channels on that list. If you don't like it we'll take away your CBS station
from your cable or satellite.
There's quite a few other tie-ins like this. NBC with Bravo, ShopNBC, CNBC,
CNBC World, MSNBC, Pax and soon Telemundo.
The point is, that unless you can convince the populace to give up all the
channels on each list, you won't break it by market forces.
See ya
Tony
no...@yaahoo.com
<Stal...@synonymforenthuse.com> wrote:
>In article <aok020t2f09f5f563...@4ax.com>, robert turri wrote:
>> Hey folks...remember we still own this ol country, and if we were
>> to pull together we can get anything we want
>
>LOL! I want some of what you're smoking. It's all about money these
>days. You can't fight greed with good intentions alone.
You mean its all about this:
http://www.billionairesforbush.com/
A little pictorial humor; scroll down this site:
BobaBird
<JNOSPAMlodge@Earthlink.**IHateSpam**.com> wrote:
> A 20 channel ala carte package of your own choice would be could
> be as high as a standard Top 100 package is now, about 32 bucks.
Maybe, but if it included the 1 or 2 AT180 channels I actually watch
it would represent a better value.
And the satisfaction of knowing I'd no longer be forced to subsidize
the big 3 sports? Priceless.
--
Charles
"The other guys charge $9.95/month to use tapeless record"
Dish Network Tech Forum, 8-6-01
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
robert turri
well one thing is for sure..as long as the programmers have so
many subscribers bullied into paying for programming they don't
want, and as long as the belief remains that nothing can be done
you are writing a self defeating prof icy..
One thing to keep in mind might be....there are now (what) 20-30
million dish users... each dish household represents 3 to 4
voters...Unified that is quite an army..such an army could do
wondrous things..
rturri
maybe even get the attention of congress the ncta and the
broadcasters
Pratt
> "robert turri" <rtu...@axs2k.net> wrote in message
> news:gm2u10hq6rrp0pqcs...@4ax.com...
> > I've been keeping up with this and other dbs and tvro groups for
> > some time now and I keep waiting for someone to start asking the
> > question........WHEN DO WE GET TO PICK THE PROGRAMS WE WANT????
> >
Bell ExpressVu allows a-la-carte selections for their newer channels
at a price of $2.99 per channel.
That can get mighty expensive if you want 15 channels this way.
> > RTURRI
>
> If you mean subscribing to only those channels you want to view, you
> should
> hope never. If you were able to pay for channels on an individual
> basis,
> your monthly cost would be higher than it is now if you chose only
> 10-15 channels.
>
> You can pick programs you want to watch now.
>
> If we could pick and choose our programs then it would probably be 3-5
> times higher because only a third to a fifth as many of the people
> would order those particular channels while other channels would simply
> go out of business. Not only that but those channels that the
> satellite companies had to take to get the main one would have no
> revenue if they were no longer available so there would be increases
> because of that as well. In addition even if you could still get the
> packages with ala carte available, if many people chose ala carte, that
> would raise prices for those taking packages to make up for those that
> take ala carte, unless they charge a huge amount for those channels ala
> carte alone to make up for it.
---
forgotten-child-star-of-the-day
Kaleena Kiff
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0452684/
"Love Sidney" Remember it?
lifterguy
"Socialized Capitalism." I like that. Never heard it before, but it's
sooo true!
I just don't understand why magazine publishers haven't caught on to
this idea yet. Why should you be able to subscribe to just "Time"
without getting "Sports Illustrated" as well? Sure if they bundled
magazine subsriptions together it might cost 50 or 60 dollars a month,
but you could be getting dozens or even hundreds of magazines for that
price! Circulation would sky rocket, and advertisers would have to
pay more! Who cares if most of them went in the trash, it's the
circulation figures that matter. And the cost per magazine would be
dirt cheap compared to current newstand prices. Also, if the numbers
for "Sports Illustrated" soar, they could sign exclusive coverage
contracts with major league sports making sure that if you want to
read anything about your favorite team, you have to buy the whole
magazine package. Of course the big money from these exclusive
contracts could be funneled back to bigger contracts for the players.
So as you can see, in the end, everyone would benefit!
LithiaSpgs
>some time now and I keep waiting for someone to start asking the
>question........WHEN DO WE GET TO PICK THE PROGRAMS WE WANT????
You can pick what program you want. Just press "guide" on your remote and
choose whatever program you want and press "select".
TNGTony
> On Wed, 04 Feb 2004 17:22:42 GMT, "TNGTony"
> >If you want to buy ESPN, the owners of that channel REQUIRE you to buy
Prophesy...
What would you have "us" do? I want to be able to watch Nick, CBS, TNT, TCM
and TBS. I like the programming on TNT. I couldn't care less about CMT or
or really any other Viacom channel.
I like ABC programming. I couldn't care less about the programming on any
other ABC/Disney networks.
I like NBC programming (a lot!) and Bravo. I really don't care for the
other NBC stations.
So....
What do "we" do? Should "we" allow the cable systems in our area to have
all the channels "we" do watch pulled until the owners of BOTH the
cable/satellite systems and channels feel the bite and finally allow what we
want? Depriving an American from his TV is next to tourture. Just do a
search for the time the rarely-viewed ESPN Classic was pulled. The whines,
moans, angst and cries were incessat!
Just look back just a little bit at the threatened pulling of all Viacom
channels from Dish. The messages were generally "If they pull (insert
channel name here) I'm going to go to DirecTV or cable.
A boycott only works when there is little discention in the ranks. That is
not going to happen when you are talking about TV.
Defeatist? Maybe. Realistic? Absolutely.
>
> One thing to keep in mind might be....there are now (what) 20-30
> million dish users... each dish household represents 3 to 4
> voters...Unified that is quite an army..such an army could do
> wondrous things..
The problem will come to a head when people refuse to pay too much for this
muffler. And that point isn't even close. The murmurings about cable
prices have been going on since I can remember. The first time I heard
about legislating cable bills was in 1975!!!! And I'll tell you...with
another continuing school levy proposing to increase my taxes by 50%, I
don't want the government anywhere near my cable (or any other) bill!
See ya
Tony
no...@yaahoo.com
>> Never: It's called "Socialized Capitalism"
>"Socialized Capitalism." I like that. Never heard it before, but it's
>sooo true!
>I just don't understand why magazine publishers haven't caught on to
>this idea yet. Why should you be able to subscribe to just "Time"
>without getting "Sports Illustrated" as well?
With satellite broadcasts [DBS], the companies that own these shows
should be the ones "selling" their programs, instead of current
practices. In European countries, consumers have receviers and they
choose to have or not to have this/that company.
In other words, consumers should pay for a "hook-up" fee, and all
these vendors would be selling their programs; a big difference.
Todd Allcock
> If you mean subscribing to only those channels you want to view, you should
> hope never. If you were able to pay for channels on an individual basis,
> your monthly cost would be higher than it is now if you chose only 10-15 channels.
No, that's a steaming load. Until the comparitively recent
destruction of the consumer C-band market, most channels could be
purchased a-la-carte on big dishes. While it's true that if you
wanted 20-30 channels, a 50-channel package might be cheaper, the vast
majority of channels were under $1 each (except the "premium" basics
like Fox Sports, ESPN and Disney.)
Penny-ante channels like Sci-Fi, Travel Channel, A&E, etc. are a small
portion of your monthly bill. DISH Net ads notwithstanding, the real
"pig" we're feeding isn't cable, it's Disney and Viacom, who are
probably responsible for at least half of your basic channel costs.
When DISH started they had a 10 for $10 (eventually $15) package
called DISHPix, but dumped it for a variety of reasons, including
pressure from programmers (the prices providers pay for some channels
is based on penetration- if x% of the service's consumers get the
channel you pay x, if y% get it you pay y. DISH dumped DISHPix
partially because DISHPix customers would skew down those percentages
driving up costs. This is also why DISH barred their low end package
(AT40, then 50, now 60) from the "free dish" and rental promos for
several years- they needed to force subscribers to higher packages to
hit the percentages.
no...@yaahoo.com
>No, that's a steaming load. Until the comparitively recent
>destruction of the consumer C-band market, most channels could be
>purchased a-la-carte on big dishes.
Todd:
This article should bring you up to date:
PITTSBURGH – On October 1, 2002,
AMERICAN CABLE ASSOCIATION ASKS FCC TO INVESTIGATE AND CURB
RETRANSMISSION CONSENT ABUSES
snip...
"Increasingly, a few media conglomerates -- powerful players like
Disney/ABC, Fox/News Corp., and GE/NBC -- are pulling the strings
behind local retransmission consent negotiations," the ACA said in its
filing.
snip...
"Media consolidation has enabled a handful of companies to upend these
goals," ACA said.
snip...
http://www.americancable.org/ACAction%20Vol%202%20Issue%2017%20100302.htm
no...@yaahoo.com
wrote:
>I've been keeping up with this and other dbs and tvro groups for
>some time now and I keep waiting for someone to start asking the
>question........WHEN DO WE GET TO PICK THE PROGRAMS WE WANT????
When Congress acts in public interest, and only then...if you take the
time to read this thread herein this usenet group, Satellite Services
Gaining on Cable, the upshot is that Congress years ago passed "must
carry" and "retransmission consent" provisions for OTA broadcasters.
In effect, this was nothing more than a subsidy loop-hole for OTA
broadccasters to make a few extra bucks off of cable/dbs consumers via
"retransmission consent" provision. But, what has happened is that
Big Boys who have the Toys [Disney/ABC, Fox/News Corp., and GE/NBC]
have been requiring cable/dbs operators to carry their other programs
[Disney, Fox Sports/News, MSNBC, etc]. Needless to say, this has
increased your cable/dbs rates, and consumers are paying for "free
TV."
In other words, Congress made a loop-hole for OTA broadcasters via
retransmission consent, but the Big Boys have abused this subsidy for
OTA broadcasters. Consequently, these Big Boys don't want you to
choose [ala-carte], and in effect, they determine the basic tiers.
Originally, Congress was attempting to help the OTA industry, but now,
the Big Players have abused the original intent of Congress...to
assist OTA broadcasters only, not Viacom, Disney, Fox Sports, etc.
FCC has a "hands off" policy...and in effect, this increases your
cable/dbs rates, and does not allow for consumers to choose; it's the
classic power games...ala-carte programing will never happen under
their "rules of engagement;" socialized capitalism is the end result,
where everybody on cable/dbs supports their programming for the common
good of supporting all of their businesses. Imho...
See article below:
Patrick Martin
carte programming. It wont happen. The people I know around here (Oregon
coast) that have Dish are pleased to pay for the packages. People like
us are in the minority. This country is not made of of free thinkers.
They they were, the country would go broke.
Patrick
Patrick Martin
if gas prices hit $3 a gallon. He will spend $100 to fill up his SUV.
Cable will be $100 a month and still the masses will still fork over the
$100 for the service. Our country is full of followers. Few think for
themselves.
Patrick
Patrick Martin
the people wont complain. Most are happy with cable, Dish, Direct, or
whatever. We Americans still can raise enough noise to get our point
across. We always could. However, the masses aren't interested or don't
care.
Patrick
Patrick Martin
time on the news stands. A higher retail price, but you would only buy
the one you want.
Patrick
Patrick Martin
You are right. The masses wont do anything. I am surprised that Viacom
does not make Dish carry all of the other VH1/MTV channels like VH1
Country and VH1 Soul, etc. The whole bunch you can buy for $50 a year on
4DTV and most are commercial free.
Patrick
John Lodge
Ala carte programing would yield similar rates to the package rates we
now pay and only have a few channels to choose from. The MSO's have HUGE
overhead that is paid by us. How could a MSO have a viable service if all
their subscribers were only paying 10-15 bucks a month for a handful of
channels. The overhead costs per channel would be over a couple of dollars a
piece meaning subscribers would be paying a minimum of a couple of dollars
in overhead plus the royality payment to the chanel owner of a dollar or so
per channel (Because of a reduced advertising market) meaning that each and
every channel you wanted ala carte could cost as much as 3 or 4 bucks each.
Since that would be the likely outcome a 10-15 channel ala carte package
would cost as much as 30 to 40 bucks for those 10-15 channels. Personally I
would much rather have a larger slate of channels with more programing
choices for the same amount of money. In the end I have a much better
variety of programing since many of the shows I watch are on channels that I
never thought I might be interested in.
John
John Lodge
Here's a clue, the United State's government susidizes the oil industry
in many indirect ways. As citizens we pay the least amount per gallon than
ANY western Culture. In Europe the price per gallon of fuel is over 4-5
dollars per gallon.
I say sure raise the price of fuel so all the SUV owners realize their
choice of driving a Fuel Hog is not only emptying their wallet but
contributing to Global warming and raising the number of pollutants in the
atmosphere for no other reason other than having to own the BIGGEST car on
the block that can go OFF ROAD when 95 percent of them never leave the
pavement.
If you purchase a Fuel hog then you should pay a hefty premium for fuel.
John
Clark W. Griswold, Jr.
> I say sure raise the price of fuel so all the SUV owners realize their
>choice of driving a Fuel Hog is not only emptying their wallet but
>contributing to Global warming and raising the number of pollutants in the
>atmosphere for no other reason other than having to own the BIGGEST car on
>the block that can go OFF ROAD when 95 percent of them never leave the
>pavement.
>
> If you purchase a Fuel hog then you should pay a hefty premium for fuel.
I wonder if people who make silly statements like this realize how much of the
things they need to buy daily would go up in price if this were to happen?
Do you have any idea how food gets to your local grocery store? How clothing
gets to your local mall? It sure isn't by solar powered delivery trucks.
Look at the huge consumer price increases and inflation during the gas shortages
of the 70s. That was nothing more than a large tax increase on fuel.
You want that to happen again?
What really seems to bug people is the lifestyle choices some people make. They
just couch it in politically correct terms. Lots of people live their lives in
ways I don't like. But I'm not willing to give up my ability to choose, just to
force them to live in accordance with my ideas.
Stan Brown
>John Lodge <JNOSPAMlodge@Earthlink.**IHateSpam**.com> wrote:
>> If you purchase a Fuel hog then you should pay a hefty premium for fuel.
>
>I wonder if people who make silly statements like this realize how much of the
>things they need to buy daily would go up in price if this were to happen?
In the short term, you're right. However you need to consider _all_
costs not just the direct costs.
Burning petroleum for fuel, particularly fuel of motor vehicles, has
huge and expensive consequences in the long term. What is the
economic cost of all the diseases and, yes, deaths caused by smog?
What about the increased destructiveness of storms due to global
warming?
>Look at the huge consumer price increases and inflation during the gas shortages
>of the 70s. That was nothing more than a large tax increase on fuel.
Actually, most of it was the result of watering down the currency to
pay for an unpopular war without raising taxes.
--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Cortland County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com
"An expense does not have to be required to be considered
necessary." -- IRS Form 1040 line 23 instructions
Robert Morrisette
research.
Sabu
"Clark W. Griswold, Jr." <73115 dot 1041 at compuserve dot com> wrote in
message news:cnlo20piq98mrj8ed...@4ax.com...
LithiaSpgs
I disagree. What we need to a "wal mart" type of DSS service. You have to
admire the way Wal Mart has succeeded in large part by turning the tables on
suppliers and vendors by saying "this is what we will pay, take it or leave
it". This is what somebody- Comcast, DirecTV or Dish, has to do with
programmers that seem to have free rein right now to charge ever higher prices-
especially the sports channels.
LithiaSpgs
>the
>things they need to buy daily would go up in price if this were to happen?
This is a lie. It will lead to more efficiency and less pollution. Hummer and
Excursion owners should pay more for fuel- much more. Most trucks run on Diesel
and not gasoline anyway. Gasoline is higher in some states than others. It is
very cheap where I live but food and other prices are about the same.
LithiaSpgs
>research.
And nobody is complaining about those models so far as I know. But big gas
eaters like the Hummer should be banned or be subjected to the guzzler tax like
cars are.
LithiaSpgs
"basic basic" sports free package with no ESPN and other expensive sports
channels.
John Lodge
Come On, you couldn't live where you do if you Didn't have a "JEEP Cherokee",
talk about hyperbole.
John
DaveO wrote:
> DaveO wrote:
>
> I wish my Grand Cherokee was one of them, but I'm really not
> complaining because if I didn't have it, I couldn't live where I live,
> and that makes it worth the difference.
Clark W. Griswold, Jr.
>>I wonder if people who make silly statements like this realize how much of
>>the things they need to buy daily would go up in price if this were to happen?
>
>This is a lie.
It is not. It is backed up by actual and historical facts, not emotional
rhetoric. Let's break it down.
>It will lead to more efficiency and less pollution.
Perhaps. But at what cost? There are two sides to the equation: cost and
benefit. You seem to be focusing on the benefit side and ignoring the cost side.
Furthermore, a 1 year Hummer creates a whole lot less polution than a 20 year
old beater that couldn't pass a smog check. And there's a whole lot more 20 year
old beaters than there are 1 year old Hummers.
Do you realize that all new vehicles could be made 100% safe within a couple of
years? That is, manufacturers could guarantee that no one would ever die in a
car accident again? Doesn't that sound wonderful? Of course, the vehicles would
weigh 2-3 times what they do now, consume a corresponding 4-10 times more fuel
and cost 10-20 times as much. While you might like that idea, I know that not
many other people would.
How do I know this? There's those pesky facts again. When car manufacturers make
safety equipment optional, people choose not to buy those options. They make a
rational, economic, personal decision that the benefit of said equipment is less
than the cost.
>Hummer and Excursion owners should pay more for fuel- much more.
Ahhh... See, there's that lifestyle issue again. The fact that some people can
afford to pay 40-60K on a vehicle, plus $100 or more every couple of weeks for
fuel just really bugs you doesn't it? It's just not fair. Let's get back at them
by taxing fuel they use.
Say, as long as we are looking at ineffecient vehicles, let's look at housing.
I'll bet you live in a small flat (apartment in the US). I'm sure it more than
suits your needs and a cohabiting partner's as well. Most US apartments run 900
square feet or so. Let's be generous and say a reasonable amount of space is 500
sq ft per person.
How about if we put a $1 a month excess space tax on every house that is larger
than 500 x the number of people living there? Most homes in the US are 2000 sq
feet or larger. Most households (according to the US census) are 2.1 people or
less.
Think of the millions of dollars that could be raised! Think of the natural
resources that could be saved! We'd force people back into the cities, make them
live closer together. No need to drive miles and miles to get to work. They may
not like it very much, but we could use the tax system to force them to do it.
>Most trucks run on Diesel and not gasoline anyway. Gasoline is higher in some states than others.
Fuel is fuel. Put a tax on gasoline and watch how quickly people switch to
diesel engines for personal transportation. Ever been to England or Europe? They
don't drive diesels for the performance.
I've got it! Tax personal fuel use! Well, of course those individuals who live
on the outskirts of a city or in a place like southern California will just have
to pay more to commute in their 10 year old Taurus to their $25K a year job that
barely covers food & rent. But it will be worth it to get those big SUVs off the
road.
>It is very cheap where I live but food and other prices are about the same.
And that's a personal economic decision that you've made. More power to you.
What is hypocritical is that you want to dictate your lifestyle choice to
others.
LithiaSpgs
>benefit. You seem to be focusing on the benefit side and ignoring the cost
>side.
>Furthermore, a 1 year Hummer creates a whole lot less polution than a 20 year
>old beater that couldn't pass a smog check. And there's a whole lot
I am for removing ANY vehicle, regardless of age, from service that pollutes. I
don't think old vehicles should get a pass on the smog test.
>Do you realize that all new vehicles could be made 100% safe within a couple
>of
>years? That is, manufacturers could guarantee that no one would ever die in a
>car accident again? Doesn't that sound wonderful? Of course, the vehicles
>would
>weigh 2-3 times what they do now,
Safety can be accomplished in other ways too such as more and better air bag
systems which add little weight. Size should not be used.
>Ahhh... See, there's that lifestyle issue again. The fact that some people
>can
>afford to pay 40-60K on a vehicle, plus $100 or more every couple of weeks
>for
>fuel just really bugs you doesn't it? It's just not fair. Let's get back at
>them
>by taxing fuel they use.
It is not a lifestyle issue. People can pay $100,000 for a Rolls or $50,000 for
the top of the line Mercedes. As long as they are not polluting the air I
breathe and wasting fuel, I don't care. 40K is not that much money for a
vehicle. I just think that the same standards should apply to SUVs that apply
to cars. Why should they get a pass?
>Say, as long as we are looking at ineffecient vehicles, let's look at
>housing.
>I'll bet you live in a small flat (apartment in the US). I'm sure it more
>than
>suits your needs and a cohabiting partner's as well. Most US apartments run
>900
>square feet or so.
I live in a house and I have 2000 sq feet. Not big by today's standards but big
enough.
> Let's be generous and say a reasonable amount of space is 500
>sq ft per person.
Well then I am owed an additonal 500 sq feet because there are 5 of us!
>How about if we put a $1 a month excess space tax on every house that is
>larger
>than 500 x the number of people living there? Most homes in the US are 2000
>sq
>feet or larger. Most households (according to the US census) are 2.1 people
>or
>less.
I would not be for that BUT I would support putting additional taxes on LOT
SIZE as opposed to house size. If you want to own a half acre, fine but you
should PAY the TAXES that the 2 houses that would normally occupy that land
pay. I do not understand much of the country's thinking that vacant land should
be taxed cheaply and encourage hoarding and "land banking" by speculators. My
thinking is that vacant land should be TAXED as though it had a dwelling on it.
>Think of the millions of dollars that could be raised! Think of the natural
>resources that could be saved! We'd force people back into the cities, make
>them
>live closer together. No need to drive miles and miles to get to work.
You are not forcing them to do anything. You are encouraging people to do
things. The choice is still theirs to make. Right now, we do the opposite. We
encourage them to buy Hummers because Hummers are 100% tax deductible unlike my
Accord, Mustang or Explorer.
>And that's a personal economic decision that you've made. More power to you.
>What is hypocritical is that you want to dictate your lifestyle choice to
>others.
I do not want to dictate anything. It is still their choice. But there is
nothing wrong in discouraging people from doing things that are not in the
country's best interest and encouraging them to do things that are in the
country's best interest. It is in our best interest to cut pollution and
conserve resources.
Peter Neenan
consumption tax at pruchase--say 20% added on to the cost of the vehicle.
"Clark W. Griswold, Jr." <73115 dot 1041 at compuserve dot com> wrote in
message news:cnlo20piq98mrj8ed...@4ax.com...
TNGTony
"Peter Neenan" <pne...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:g4TXb.6221$W74...@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> Probably the better way to handle this would be to impose s psecial fuel
> consumption tax at pruchase--say 20% added on to the cost of the vehicle.
a "gas guzzler tax" already exists. It's not 20%, but its pretty steep. It
is imposed on the auto manufacturer which is usually translated directly to
the sticker price. It's just transparent to the consumer.
See ya
Tony
Tom Johnstone
news:v_UXb.5389$9H3...@fe2.columbus.rr.com...
Okay - I wasn't going to get into this, but...
1. to the previous poster: sure - you're right. The price of many things
would go up if legitimate commercial users of big trucks and pickups were
charged more. So exempt legitimate commercial users from penalty taxes on
big, fuel burning autos. It's done elsewhere - it could easily be done here.
It won't be, because the politicians are beholden to the SUV makers who
contribute too much money to their coffers.
2. To this poster - unfortunately, the gas-guzzler tax only exists for
"non-commercial" vehicles. Why are SUVs so popular? Partly because, unlike
big, wood panelled V8 station wagons, they are considered "commercial" and
so are exempt from fuel consumption excise. Yep - that's right. You
effectively get a tax break if you buy a huge, fuel consuming road hog.
TNGTony
"Tom Johnstone" <itjoh...@wisc.edu> wrote in message
news:c0pe5g$cbm$1...@news.doit.wisc.edu...
> "TNGTony" <tng...@REMOVE.TO.REPLYcinci.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:v_UXb.5389$9H3...@fe2.columbus.rr.com...
> >
> > "Peter Neenan" <pne...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
> > news:g4TXb.6221$W74...@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> > > Probably the better way to handle this would be to impose s psecial
fuel
> > > consumption tax at pruchase--say 20% added on to the cost of the
> vehicle.
> >
> > a "gas guzzler tax" already exists. It's not 20%, but its pretty steep.
> It
> > is imposed on the auto manufacturer which is usually translated directly
> to
> > the sticker price. It's just transparent to the consumer.
>
> Okay - I wasn't going to get into this, but...
>
> 1. to the previous poster: sure - you're right. The price of many things
> would go up if legitimate commercial users of big trucks and pickups were
> charged more. So exempt legitimate commercial users from penalty taxes on
> big, fuel burning autos. It's done elsewhere - it could easily be done
here.
> It won't be, because the politicians are beholden to the SUV makers who
> contribute too much money to their coffers.
Not to mention the voters who happen to be buying these "gas-guzzling"
vehicles faster than they can be built?
> 2. To this poster - unfortunately, the gas-guzzler tax only exists for
> "non-commercial" vehicles. Why are SUVs so popular? Partly because, unlike
> big, wood panelled V8 station wagons, they are considered "commercial" and
> so are exempt from fuel consumption excise. Yep - that's right. You
> effectively get a tax break if you buy a huge, fuel consuming road hog.
BTW most SUVs today get 50% to 400% better gas milage than the old 1977 Olds
station wagon. But never let the facts get in the way of a good argument.
Even the Hummer gets better milage than the 1976 Ford LTD family station
wagon we had. (loaded with all sorts of EPA crap as it was)
See ya
Tony
Lazarus Long
Given that postings here indicate that the sports channels are
expensive, I'd be in favor of dropping them if I could.
Lazarus Long
dot 1041 at compuserve dot com> wrote:
>John Lodge <JNOSPAMlodge@Earthlink.**IHateSpam**.com> wrote:
>
>> I say sure raise the price of fuel so all the SUV owners realize their
>>choice of driving a Fuel Hog is not only emptying their wallet but
>>contributing to Global warming and raising the number of pollutants in the
>>atmosphere for no other reason other than having to own the BIGGEST car on
>>the block that can go OFF ROAD when 95 percent of them never leave the
>>pavement.
>>
>> If you purchase a Fuel hog then you should pay a hefty premium for fuel.
>
>I wonder if people who make silly statements like this realize how much of the
>things they need to buy daily would go up in price if this were to happen?
>
>Do you have any idea how food gets to your local grocery store? How clothing
>gets to your local mall? It sure isn't by solar powered delivery trucks.
>
Nobody drives delivery trucks to work or the mall. But they are
driving massive behemoths that serve no use other than being the
biggest on the block. I say tax them heavily.
Bob Ward
<laz...@removethis.wi.rr.com> wrote:
>
>Nobody drives delivery trucks to work or the mall. But they are
>driving massive behemoths that serve no use other than being the
>biggest on the block. I say tax them heavily.
Sounds like your feeling is "If *I* can't afford one, make sure no one
else can, either.
Sad, really.
Clark W. Griswold, Jr.
>Sounds like your feeling is "If *I* can't afford one, make sure no one
>else can, either.
>
>Sad, really.
Wow. I never thought the day would come when I agreed with Bob Ward on
*anything*.
Has hell frozen over?
Todd Allcock
> Patrick,
>
> Ala carte programing would yield similar rates to the package rates we
> now pay and only have a few channels to choose from. The MSO's have HUGE
> overhead that is paid by us.
Most of that "overhead" is the $400-500 "9-room system installed
free!" subsidy new customers get for signing up!
> How could a MSO have a viable service if all
> their subscribers were only paying 10-15 bucks a month for a handful of
> channels.
Make them buy their equipment, or restrict them to higher end packages
during their committment period- i.e free dish system w/1 year
committment to AT60 or higher, but have "YT15" ("Your Top 15" for
$29.99) afterwards, or for those who pass on the free system.
> The overhead costs per channel would be over a couple of dollars a
> piece meaning subscribers would be paying a minimum of a couple of dollars
> in overhead plus the royality payment to the chanel owner of a dollar or so
> per channel (Because of a reduced advertising market) meaning that each and
> every channel you wanted ala carte could cost as much as 3 or 4 bucks each.
Possibly, but the "reduced advertising market" is a double-edged
sword- while overall subscribers to the "Basket Weaver's Channel"
would be markedly lower, advertisers would know that any schmuck
actually forking out $2.50/month for it is actually WATCHING it, as
opposed to all of us getting it as part of AT350 who couldn't even
tell you what channel number it occupies!
> Since that would be the likely outcome a 10-15 channel ala carte package
> would cost as much as 30 to 40 bucks for those 10-15 channels. Personally I
> would much rather have a larger slate of channels with more programing
> choices for the same amount of money. In the end I have a much better
> variety of programing since many of the shows I watch are on channels that I
> never thought I might be interested in.
Perhaps, but most of us tend to watch their favorite 20 channels 80%
of the time.
What decides our programming package is whether the majority of our 20
favorites are in AT60, 120, or 180! ;-)
John Lodge
Really, and I thought the Hundreds of Millions per satellite * 10, several hundred Million more in launch costs and station keeping,
Wholesale swap outs of older encoders and uplink facilities additions (Which Dish has plowed back into the company since the beginning)
that are leveraged against earnings, don't have anything to do with the overhead of the company, plus Employee costs.
My figures tell me that Dish has spent well over 1 BILLION dollars over the last 6 years in operation with Employee, and Satellite
costs alone then you need to add the retransmission costs to that as well, and sure the subsidised equipment deals as well, but as I said
the Overhead is much more than the subscriber aquisition costs. Now you need to add the fees that Dish pays for the transponder licenses,
Taxes, and thousands of other operational expenses.
In the end very little of that we pay Dish each month is profit, I would hazard a guess that less than 5 dollars per year per
subscriber in total profit. Any thing that is related to on going business activity overhead cost and most of the overhead is mostly
fixed or Dish has very little direct contol of, in terms of Employee costs, satellites and station keeping, and mostly retransmission
agreements.
John
Fred Viles
>...
> My figures tell me that Dish has spent well over 1 BILLION
> dollars over the last 6 years in operation with Employee,
> and Satellite costs alone
>...
> as I said the Overhead is much more than the subscriber
> aquisition costs.
You may want to have another go with the back of that envelope. Even
several billion for satellites & overhead is mouse nuts compared to
SAC.
Say $300/sub (it's higher lately, but wasn't so bad in the early
days), with 10 million subs you've got over $30 billion. Todd
generally knows what he's talking about...
- Fred
Todd Allcock
"John Lodge" <JNOSPAMlodge@Earthlink.**IHateSpam**.com> wrote in message
> Todd,
>
> Really, and I thought the Hundreds of Millions per satellite * 10,
several hundred Million more in launch costs and station keeping,
> Wholesale swap outs of older encoders and uplink facilities additions
(Which Dish has plowed back into the company since the beginning)
> that are leveraged against earnings, don't have anything to do with the
overhead of the company, plus Employee costs.
All of those costs were there, or on the drawing boards, back in 1996 when
DISH offered DISHPix for $10/month, or did their devil's deal with Sky Angel
(if you'll pardon the pun!) allowing Sky Angel to piggyback on DISH service
for $5/month per subscriber.
If DISH thought $5/month was a "reasonable" break-even in 1996, why not
today? Back in 1996, receiver subsidies were not as high as today, and
nobody offered dealers $200 for free installations.
> My figures tell me that Dish has spent well over 1 BILLION dollars
over the last 6 years in operation with Employee, and Satellite
> costs alone then you need to add the retransmission costs to that as well
Not really- that's a cost passed onto the customer. If DISH were a retail
store, the satellite and uplink overhead would equate to rent and utilities,
but retrans would be like wholesale "inventory"- the product itself you're
in business to sell. Retrans isn't fixed- it is a per subscriber amount.
Those satellites cost DISH $xx regardless of how many subscribers. Retrans
is a per customer cost.
> and sure the subsidised equipment deals as well, but as I said
> the Overhead is much more than the subscriber aquisition costs.
True, but if you remove SAC from the equation, the overhead per sub is a LOT
lower, particularly when you factor churn- 10% of those $500 SAC customers
don't last 18 months!
> Now you need to add the fees that Dish pays for the transponder licenses,
> Taxes, and thousands of other operational expenses.
>
> In the end very little of that we pay Dish each month is profit, I
would hazard a guess that less than 5 dollars per year per
> subscriber in total profit.
Depends how you want to define "profit". Again, the fixed costs of
satellites and uplink are there regardless of how many subscribers you have.
If adding 100,000 "geeks" nationwide willing to pay $299 for an unsubsidised
system and pay DISH $6.50/month to get NASA TV ($5 for "no package access
fee" plus $1.50 for NASA a la carte) DISH just realized a net zero profit on
equipment (no real SAC), and $80/year times 100,000 geeks for a channel that
costs DISH nothing.
Obviously the "danger" is guesstimating how many $30-50 subs would drop to a
$20 sub if a la carte was a reality, but from personal experience as a
dealer, when DISHPix WAS available, precious few ever took it, since most
people equate value = channels per dollar. AT40 for $20 (in 1997) was
"twice" the value of DISHPix's 10 for $10.
A la carte was to DISH what NFL Ticket was to DirecTV- a package a small
number of subscribers actually bought/buy, but a larger number felt good
about having available "just in case".
> Any thing that is related to on going business activity overhead cost and
most of the overhead is mostly
> fixed or Dish has very little direct contol of, in terms of Employee
costs, satellites and station keeping, and mostly retransmission
> agreements.
Fixed costs, by definition are costs that a la carte customers wouldn't
really affect. It's like the long distance telephone business- calculating
per customer cost is difficult because you've got to maintain the
infrastructure regardless of whether anybody is using it to it's potential.
Satellite even more so- the same satellite resources (spacecraft, uplink,
terrestrial local-to-local fiber, etc.) are required whether DISH has
100,000, 1 million, 10 million or 100 million customers.
[ Sidebar: Obviously this "argument" is all academic- we all know
package-only bundled pricing is a programmer-controlled genie that can never
go back in the bottle! ;-) ]
What killed a la carte for DISH was a number of factors- pressure from
programmers who linked per customer costs to subscriber penetration,
programmers not allowing popular channels to be unbundled, confusion as to
what channels were available a la carte (which changed several times during
the DISHPix era due to renegotiated contracts) and Wall Street's insistance
to link a company's well-being to ARS (average revenue per subscriber.)
These forces are what also caused DirecTV to kill the "Select Choice"
package (their ~$20 AT40/50 alternative) not very long after DISH nixed
DISHPix (say that 5 times fast!)
Even as a C-band subscriber, I didn't use a-la-carte very often- package
pricing was no more expensive once the a-la-carte list hit 20 or so
channels. Ironically, I used it the most after I started subscribing to
DISH- I bought my favorite basic channels a-la-carte on my big dish to get
the west coast feeds of Comedy Central, Lifetime, USA, etc.
Clark W. Griswold, Jr.
Lazarus Long
I *can* afford one, and have, but have since though it over carefully
and don't see any need for it, in addition to being a waste of
resources on all levels.
>
Burn-...@peeoplepc.com
wrote:
>[ Sidebar: Obviously this "argument" is all academic- we all know
>package-only bundled pricing is a programmer-controlled genie that can never
>go back in the bottle! ;-) ]
Actually, it could if the will of Congress chooses.
Like your telephone service, with a little assistance from Congress,
Dish/Direc/Digital-Cable could have a "connect charge" and individuals
could pick-n-choose individually or in group package deals. Most
likely, having all these options would better be done via Internet
account. It's no sweat off of Dish/Direc/Digital-Cable's backs, just
some of the content providers who would have a cow...some!
Congress recently has suggested package for PG viewing/etc, btw!
But...until shit really hits the fan...don't expect much.
Yes, no sweat for Dish/Direc/Digital-Cable...
Todd Allcock
> On Wed, 18 Feb 2004 03:47:05 GMT, "Todd Allcock" <elecc...@aol.com>
> wrote:
>
> >[ Sidebar: Obviously this "argument" is all academic- we all know
> >package-only bundled pricing is a programmer-controlled genie that can never
> >go back in the bottle! ;-) ]
>
> Actually, it could if the will of Congress chooses.
Surrrrrrre. Because Congress is so likely to put consumer
protectionism above the will of broadcast lobbyists!
> Like your telephone service, with a little assistance from Congress,
> Dish/Direc/Digital-Cable could have a "connect charge" and individuals
> could pick-n-choose individually or in group package deals.
The telephone industry protections were put in place to facilitate
competition in a former monopoly market. Realistically there's no
compelling reason to "fix" bundling. No law requires jelly bean
manufacturers to sell each color separately ina e you only like the
red ones...
The FCC should step in, IMHO, when local/network channels are
leveraged (i.e. "pay $2 more for Disney or lose ABC!") only because
broadcast networks are a special case- they (supposedly) serve the
public interest in return for spectrum, etc.
I'm basically a capitalist- the programmers are free to package their
product anyway they want, but cable cos. and DBS providers should make
a stand and demand more packaging alternatives.
> Congress recently has suggested package for PG viewing/etc, btw!
> But...until shit really hits the fan...don't expect much.
Gee, after the Janet Jackson Super Bowl half-time debacle, I'm
surprised Congress hasn't knee-jerked strict anti-breast legislation
into place.
Ed Stasiak
>
> Ala carte programing would yield similar rates to the package
> rates we now pay and only have a few channels to choose from.
Indeed, the cost of popular channels would sky-rocket while
those with few viewers would be dropped completely by providers.
In the end consumers would be paying the same amount (likely more)
and get far fewer channels for their money.
Perhaps a better way (for the consumer) would be for ala carte
legislation to be written in such a way that that consumers could
only be charged a certain amount for the number of channels per
package, (while allowing consumers to pick whatever channels they
want for that package) instead of charging separate rates for
specific channels?
5 channel package = $X
10 channel package = $Y
15 channel package = $Z
Lazarus Long
>Perhaps a better way (for the consumer) would be for ala carte
>legislation to be written in such a way that that consumers could
>only be charged a certain amount for the number of channels per
>package, (while allowing consumers to pick whatever channels they
>want for that package) instead of charging separate rates for
>specific channels?
>
>5 channel package = $X
>10 channel package = $Y
>15 channel package = $Z
I might like this so long as it represents real savings. As other
posters point out, it might actually result in paying the same number
of dollars for fewer channels.
I might also give the content providers a clearer picture on what
people actually want. While some channels are considered desirable
and are thefore priced higher, perhaps ala carte would reveal that
they're not wanted as much as they think.
Burn-...@peeoplepc.com
wrote:
>> Like your telephone service, with a little assistance from Congress,
>> Dish/Direc/Digital-Cable could have a "connect charge" and individuals
>> could pick-n-choose individually or in group package deals.
>The telephone industry protections were put in place to facilitate
>competition in a former monopoly market.
Maybe, maybe not...maybe it was for creating more jobs too. Some of
the legislation creates more/less jobs.
>I'm basically a capitalist- the programmers are free to package their
>product anyway they want, but cable cos. and DBS providers should make
>a stand and demand more packaging alternatives.
I'm a capitalist too; DBS/Digital-Cable would make a profit, and
programmers would have to stand on their own two feet, and not have
control [ie., monopoly] over the market place, which is what exists
today.
If Fox Sports says, for instance, if you want Fox, you got to pay for
it all; that's fine, Mr. Murdock. And if ABC says, you will have
Disney/etc., that's fine. Let the "Capitalist" deal with the
consumers "face-to-face," instead of their "back-room" dealings.
LithiaSpgs
>expensive, I'd be in favor of dropping them if I could.
I would too. I never watch ESPN or Fox Sports. Any sporting event worth seeing
is on free network TV anyway.
LithiaSpgs
>station wagon. But never let the facts get in the way of a good argument.
>Even the Hummer gets better milage than the 1976 Ford LTD family station
>wagon we had. (loaded with all sorts of EPA crap as it was)
A Hummer gets about 5 miles a gallon. Even the biggest baddest LTD with a 400
engine and huge 4 barrell carb get better than that.
LithiaSpgs
>else can, either.
I can afford one. A Ford Expedition is not that much money. I have an Explorer
now.
LithiaSpgs
>and don't see any need for it, in addition to being a waste of
>resources on all levels.
They all think it is OK as long as it ain't THEIR kids dying in Iraq for cheap
oil.
John Lodge
Really, since my local Sports Teams never see national OTA networks I would
have to DISAGREE.
AHL All Star game, College Frozen Four, National Indoor Lacrose. I'm really
sick of the SAME NHL Teams on the ABC telecast of the week for me either
Philadelphia or NY Rangers, PLEASE spare me. Even though I prefer many other
Eastern Conference teams how about a Western Conference game once in a while. I'd
love to see Vancouver or some other teams once in a while.
What you should have said was "Any sporting event YOU would like to see is on
Free Network TV anyway.
John
Bob Ward
<laz...@removethis.wi.rr.com> wrote:
>On Mon, 16 Feb 2004 18:53:35 GMT, Bob Ward <bob...@email.com> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 16 Feb 2004 08:18:57 -0600, Lazarus Long
>><laz...@removethis.wi.rr.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>Nobody drives delivery trucks to work or the mall. But they are
>>>driving massive behemoths that serve no use other than being the
>>>biggest on the block. I say tax them heavily.
>>
>>
>>Sounds like your feeling is "If *I* can't afford one, make sure no one
>>else can, either.
>>
>>Sad, really.
>
>I *can* afford one, and have, but have since though it over carefully
>and don't see any need for it, in addition to being a waste of
>resources on all levels.
>>
And you feel qualified to make this analysis and decision on behalf of
all drivers. I don't see the need for you to continue to consume
oxygen, either - but I'll let that pass.
Lazarus Long
<JNOSPAMlodge@Earthlink.**IHateSpam**.com> wrote:
>Lithia,
>
> Really, since my local Sports Teams never see national OTA networks I would
>have to DISAGREE.
>
> AHL All Star game, College Frozen Four, National Indoor Lacrose. I'm really
>sick of the SAME NHL Teams on the ABC telecast of the week for me either
>Philadelphia or NY Rangers, PLEASE spare me. Even though I prefer many other
>Eastern Conference teams how about a Western Conference game once in a while. I'd
>love to see Vancouver or some other teams once in a while.
>
> What you should have said was "Any sporting event YOU would like to see is on
>Free Network TV anyway.
>
>
>John
>
I don't doubt that there are people that want to see sports on TV. No
problem. But those channels should be their own package for people
that like sports. It's a win-win. People that don't want sports
don't pay for it, people that do want sports can subscribe and watch
'til their eyes fall out.
From my own view, I *never* turn on sports except for NASCAR. And
NASCAR is usually on a OTA channel anyway. Sometimes on TBS or TNN
and those are basic channels anyway.
Lazarus Long
The government makes decisions like that all the time on one subject
or another. Yes, I would make those decisions for all. It's what
politicians/governments do.
Just because a person has a ton of money to spend doesn't mean they
should be able to burn all the fossil fuel in the world just to
satisfy their own selfish desires.
It's simple really. I would *never* stop anyone from buying the
vehicle they want. What I do want is they get better mileage than
they presently do.
Lazarus Long
There's only so much oil in the ground. Some folks seem to have the
position that we can send our military around the world to take all
the oil we want. Even if that were true, even if you're willing to
spend the lives of our young people, the day will come that there is
no more oil to pump out of the ground. I sure don't want my kids to
be the ones to fight and die just the bozos driving the land yachts
can fill 'er up.
What are we to do when the oil's gone? Fuel isn't the only thing made
from crude. Plastics, fertilizers, paint, ect. are made from it.
Well, they won't be after it's all gone. I guess planning for the
future, for someone other than themselves is beyond their thinking.
Lazarus Long
I had two different Explorer's. But I discovered that for my use, a
midsize sedan with a folding back set and a trailer hitch could do
anything one of them did and get better mileage to boot.
And an Explorer isn't the worst at mileage. I shudder when I see the
mileage figures for the really big ones.
LithiaSpgs
>position that we can send our military around the world to take all
>the oil we want. Even if that were true, even if you're willing to
>spend the lives of our young people, the day will come that there is
>no more oil to pump out of the
I agree but I have heard that there is a like a 100,000 year supply in the
ground. Oil is plentiful and cheap. We shouldn't have to steal it from Iraq.
There is more oil under the ground than water on the surface of the Earth-
enough for everybody.
Burn-...@peeoplepc.com
>I agree but I have heard that there is a like a 100,000 year supply in the
>ground. Oil is plentiful and cheap
Long-Term World Oil Supply:
A Resource Base/Production Path Analysis
Is the world running out of crude oil? Of course - because oil is a
finite resource that is being consumed at high and increasing rates.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/plugs/plworld.html
Future world oil supplies: There is a finite limit
L. F. Ivanhoe, Novum Corp., Ojai, California
Unscientific reserve claims for political reasons may obscure the fact
that most large, economic oil fields have been found, and permanent
oil shock is inevitable early in the next century
John Lodge
It wouldn't be a win-win, if all Sports were to be made ala carte or removed, by
the 3rd party provider. Reason, because then Fox Network channels, Viacom channels
with CBS network channels, ABC owned Cable channels as well as network channels, would
all or partly be removed as a penalty for removing some of the other channels from
their suite of available channels.
If would be a LOSE - LOSE as TV as we know it would no longer exist, we would pay
VASTLY higher per channel fees as more and more channels were made ala-carte in the
end you WOULD be paying as much as you are now for an entire package of channels
instead of less for fewer channels.
The problem in the market is the concentration of more and more channels being
owned by fewer and fewer Media entities. Vertical integration has killed any
likelyhood of any ala-carte distribution in your life time.
John
John Lodge
At current consumption of Oil Reserves, and our continued thirst for more
and more, it's Highly Unlikely Oil Extraction will be able to fuel and or power
the World alone for more than 100 hundred years.
Seems to me you added a couple of zeros to your prediction.
John
L Alpert
>> The only reason that corporate greed controls TV programming is
>> because the people wont complain. Most are happy with cable, Dish,
>> Direct, or whatever. We Americans still can raise enough noise to
>> get our point across. We always could. However, the masses aren't
>> interested or don't
>
> I disagree. What we need to a "wal mart" type of DSS service. You
> have to admire the way Wal Mart has succeeded in large part by
> turning the tables on suppliers and vendors by saying "this is what
> we will pay, take it or leave it". This is what somebody- Comcast,
> DirecTV or Dish, has to do with programmers that seem to have free
> rein right now to charge ever higher prices- especially the sports
> channels.
Wal-Mart also keeps prices down by keeping wages low. They reduce the local
competitive wages in just about each area they have a store.
Overhead rates are usually set as a percentage multiplier of labor that is
fully burdened (benefits, wages, holidays, etc). If the overhead rate is
150% and fully burdened labor is $10/hr, then with L/OH, the per hour cost
would be $25 an hour (overhead would be considered any employees the are not
directly related to the product and other costs such as facilities, etc).
Now I am by no means defending cable or dish companies, but your rates are
set by 1. Gross margin over COGS (cost of goods sold) and 2. What the market
will bear. If these companies can reduce their costs, in theory we (the
public) would realize a savings (except for number 2, of course).
The high cost of labor is what is making companies go offshore. It is
usually the biggest expense for any company. Where I work, the burdened
labor cost is about $29/hr, with OH at 142% for the group I manage (I am
part of the overhead). this works out to about $77/hr Other groups within
the division have lower labor rates (about $16/hr, but the OH is over 600%.
They have a labor rate of $112/hr.
I would not be surprised to see our products built in Mexico some day.
L Alpert
Lazarus Long
<JNOSPAMlodge@Earthlink.**IHateSpam**.com> wrote:
>Lazarus,
>
> It wouldn't be a win-win, if all Sports were to be made ala carte or removed, by
>the 3rd party provider. Reason, because then Fox Network channels, Viacom channels
>with CBS network channels, ABC owned Cable channels as well as network channels, would
>all or partly be removed as a penalty for removing some of the other channels from
>their suite of available channels.
>
> If would be a LOSE - LOSE as TV as we know it would no longer exist, we would pay
>VASTLY higher per channel fees as more and more channels were made ala-carte in the
>end you WOULD be paying as much as you are now for an entire package of channels
>instead of less for fewer channels.
>
> The problem in the market is the concentration of more and more channels being
>owned by fewer and fewer Media entities. Vertical integration has killed any
>likelyhood of any ala-carte distribution in your life time.
>
>John
>
Well, you're right about the vertical integration and all that
implies. I can wish I didn't have to pay for what I don't watch.
It's simply not fair of one other other media company for force the
package requirements onto Dish or anyother provider. I'm dreaming of
a buck a channel ala carte situation. But I suppose I'll have find
that magic lamp and have the genie grant that wish.
Lazarus Long
<JNOSPAMlodge@Earthlink.**IHateSpam**.com> wrote:
>Lithia,
>
> At current consumption of Oil Reserves, and our continued thirst for more
>and more, it's Highly Unlikely Oil Extraction will be able to fuel and or power
>the World alone for more than 100 hundred years.
>
> Seems to me you added a couple of zeros to your prediction.
>
>John
This is exactly where I'm coming from. It is easy to take the
position of "screw it, it won't affect me" It WILL affect someone.
I'd rather be part of the solution than part of the problem. This
might be a matter of definition.........
LithiaSpgs
>fully burdened (benefits, wages, holidays, etc). If the overhead rate is
>150% and fully burdened labor is $10/hr, then with L/OH, the per hour cost
>would be $25 an hour (overhead would be considered any employees the are not
>directly related to the product and other costs such as facilities, etc).
>
>Now I am by no means defending cable or dish companies, but your rates are
>set by 1. Gross margin over COGS (cost of goods sold) and 2. What the market
>will bear. If these companies can reduce their costs, in theory we (the
>public) would realize a savings (except for number 2, of course).
>
>The high cost of labor is what is making companies go offshore. It is
>usually the biggest expense for any company. Where I work, the burdened
>labor cost is about $29/hr, with OH at 142% for the group I manage (I am
>part of the overhead). this works out to about $77/hr Other groups within
>the division have lower labor rates (about $16/hr, but the OH is over 600%.
>They have a labor rate of $112/hr.
>
>I would not be surprised to see our products built in Mexico some day.
>
I could buy into these theories about labor cost except when I hear the CEO and
top mangement are making $30 million and more a year while trying to save a
dollar or two by screwing the employees or moving jobs to Mexico, China and
India. The same theory should apply to CEOs. If I can find a CEO that will do
the job for 2 million, why is mine making 30 million? I don't see anything
"special" about him. I could do the job myself for a lot less.
L Alpert
>> Overhead rates are usually set as a percentage multiplier of labor
>> that is fully burdened (benefits, wages, holidays, etc). If the
>> overhead rate is 150% and fully burdened labor is $10/hr, then with
>> L/OH, the per hour cost would be $25 an hour (overhead would be
>> considered any employees the are not directly related to the product
>> and other costs such as facilities, etc).
>>
>> Now I am by no means defending cable or dish companies, but your
>> rates are set by 1. Gross margin over COGS (cost of goods sold) and
>> 2. What the market will bear. If these companies can reduce their
>> costs, in theory we (the public) would realize a savings (except for
>> number 2, of course).
>>
>> The high cost of labor is what is making companies go offshore. It
>> is usually the biggest expense for any company. Where I work, the
>> burdened labor cost is about $29/hr, with OH at 142% for the group I
>> manage (I am part of the overhead). this works out to about $77/hr
>> Other groups within the division have lower labor rates (about
>> $16/hr, but the OH is over 600%. They have a labor rate of $112/hr.
>>
>> I would not be surprised to see our products built in Mexico some
>> day.
>>
>
> I could buy into these theories about labor cost except when I hear
> the CEO and top mangement are making $30 million and more a year
> while trying to save a dollar or two by screwing the employees or
> moving jobs to Mexico, China and India.
It is no theory. It is they way costs are calculated. The CEO is part of
the overall overhead costs. It is more than a dollar or two when moving
operations over seas. The highest costs of manufacturing are usually L/OH.
Moving operations to say, Mexico, can reduce the L/OH by huge amounts, which
will lower costs substantially per unit built.
I'm not saying this is what should be done, as my job is in as much danger
of moving off shore as any other (being in CA may make it even more worthy
to move), it is just the reality of the system.
Lower cost, drive up the stock, and the CEO will have 50 million instead of
30 million and the rest of the stock holders are happy.
> The same theory should apply
> to CEOs. If I can find a CEO that will do the job for 2 million, why
> is mine making 30 million? I don't see anything "special" about him.
> I could do the job myself for a lot less.
Well, I'd love to have the job for a year, but it depends on if the board of
directors would think I'm qualified!!!
So now, to make this on topic, what are the current HD channels offered via
satellite?
I currently have cable (Comcast) which currently has 9, including locals,
HBO, SHO, INHD and INHD2. They are rolling out Cinemax, Starz and I believe
a couple of others, and should have a total of about 14 HD channels. Since
I subscribe to the platinum package, I will get all of them.
What would be the equivalent HD service from the sat vendors?
LosAlamos
snip...
> Until the comparitively recent
> destruction of the consumer C-band market, most channels could be
> purchased a-la-carte on big dishes.
Todd, C-Banders can still can buy channels a-la-carte:
http://www.callnps.com/prices/retailalacarte.html
http://www.satelliteprogramming.com/new/cgi-bin/sps_home.asp
Taken recently from a post by ric <nos...@home.com>
What, exactly, *is* "home C-band TVRO" ??
Is it HBO and other cable programming?
Is it sports and news feeds?
Is it analog?
Is it 4:2:0 or 4:2:2 digital FTA DVB?
Is it 4DTV?
Or is it a combination of the above?
Those that only have interest in analog cable programming might see
C-band TVRO in decline. Those with interest in the other aspects will
not.
======================================
Oh, Todd, C-Band [C/Ku..analog/digital] is the only outlet for quality
broadcasts. Todd, don't confuse analog with digital; C-Band includes
both, not "analog only" as Dishnetwork [Netlink, etc] would like to
suggest.
BTW, C-Band had digital broadcasts first...
Remember, digital quality is not the same as quality digital, which
both DBS companies lack.
LithiaSpgs
>satellite?
I don't know. I am not interested in HDTV or DTV. I am very happy with what I
have now.
Todd Allcock
> elecc...@aol.com (Todd Allcock) wrote in message news:<de37a2e0.04020...@posting.google.com>
>
> snip...
>
> > Until the comparitively recent
> > destruction of the consumer C-band market, most channels could be
> > purchased a-la-carte on big dishes.
>
> Todd, C-Banders can still can buy channels a-la-carte:
I used a C-band dish for about a decade. I know a few programmers are
left, but the prices of C-band channels have skyrocketed due to the
shrunken market. (Currently about 250,000 subs, IIRC, own from over
2,000,000 in the early 90's.)
> http://www.callnps.com/prices/retailalacarte.html
I never used anyone except NPS. Good service, great prices.
> Taken recently from a post by ric <nos...@home.com>
>
> What, exactly, *is* "home C-band TVRO" ??
>
> Is it HBO and other cable programming?
> Is it sports and news feeds?
> Is it analog?
> Is it 4:2:0 or 4:2:2 digital FTA DVB?
> Is it 4DTV?
>
> Or is it a combination of the above?
>
> Those that only have interest in analog cable programming might see
> C-band TVRO in decline. Those with interest in the other aspects will
> not.
True- I've said for years that C-band will stick around as a hobbyist
device- sort of a "police scanner" of the skies. But for cable TV
replacement, "she's dead, Jim."
> Oh, Todd, C-Band [C/Ku..analog/digital] is the only outlet for quality
> broadcasts.
True.
> Todd, don't confuse analog with digital; C-Band includes
> both, not "analog only" as Dishnetwork [Netlink, etc] would like to
> suggest.
I never said otherwise . However, the lack of a "universal" digital
standard hampers C-band as a consumer medium. DC-II, Mpeg, Mpeg
4:2:2, etc.
> BTW, C-Band had digital broadcasts first...
I realize that, but so what? Again, for the purpose of this forum-
we're discussing satellite as a subscription service.
> Remember, digital quality is not the same as quality digital, which
> both DBS companies lack.
Agreed. But a lot of C-band digital sucks too. Digital cable signals
are sourced unprocessed from C- (actually Ku- usually) band, like the
"HITS" (Headend In The Sky) service, and that stuff is just as crappy
as anything DBS shovels at us.
Dale J. Stephenson
[...]
> I could buy into these theories about labor cost except when I hear
> the CEO and
> top mangement are making $30 million and more a year while trying to save a
> dollar or two by screwing the employees or moving jobs to Mexico, China and
> India.
Which CEO? I doubt any CEO in the country makes that much in cash
compensation. The bulk of executive compesnsation comes in stock options
and grants, which means that they make really big money when the stock price
soars. Stock prices often go up when labor costs are reduced, so the CEO
may only make that $30M *because* he moved the jobs to lower-cost locations.
(Note that this doesn't always lead to *actual* profitability, so if the
CEO fails to dispose of his stock in a timely fashion, the value of his
shares could be far less.)
In 2000, for instance, Charlie Ergen received a $250,000 salary, and a
$750,000 bonus. He also exercised options to buy $9.3M in stock. Don't
know how much that stock is worth now, or what it will be worth when
Charlie ever sells it--Ergen owns over half of Echostar's stock, and in
the last eight years I believe has only sold 250,000 shares.
The same theory should apply to CEOs. If I can find a CEO that will do
> the job for 2 million, why is mine making 30 million? I don't see anything
> "special" about him. I could do the job myself for a lot less.
>
If you control the board and can find a $2M CEO who will do as much for
your company as a $30M CEO, by all means do it. Better check the contract
with the outgoing CEO, though, you'll probably owe a very large termination
payout.
The board of directors controls executive pay, and since the board is
usually composed of fellow executives they have little incentive to crack
down on salaries. But the people being ripped off here aren't necessarily
employees. It's the shareholders' money.
--
Dale J. Stephenson
daleste...@mac.com
LosAlamos
> > snip...
Todd stated erroneously:
> > > Until the comparitively recent
> > > destruction of the consumer C-band market, most channels could be
> > > purchased a-la-carte on big dishes.
> > Todd, C-Banders can still can buy channels a-la-carte:
http://www.callnps.com/prices/retailalacarte.html
> I know a few programmers are
> left, but the prices of C-band channels have skyrocketed due to the
> shrunken market. snip..
Todd, I think there are more C-Band programmers today, than ten years
ago. And only one provider, Netlink has bumped up the prices.
Prices have not "skyrocketed due to the shrunken market;" but rather
after Dishnetwork and Netlink [C-Band programmer] made a deal for
Netlink to be a Dish Dealer, then Netlink's prices have "skyrocketed."
You see, Netlink is playing a marketing game [Dish paid Netlink over
10 million dollars, and still counting] on illiterate C-Banders, so do
remember, you can still get low prices at NPS, see and compare to
Dish:
http://www.callnps.com/prices/retailalacarte.html
http://www.callnps.com/prices/retailpackages.html
> True- I've said for years that C-band will stick around as a hobbyist
> device- sort of a "police scanner" of the skies. But for cable TV
> replacement, "she's dead, Jim.
It's too early to speculate this far; as I recall, Echostar/Netlink
predicted C-Band would be history within a year back in 1999. You
see, Netlink having a large database of C-Banders, has been using, for
past three-plus years, deceptive sales tacits and "in-your-face" Dish
pitches everytime you re-order C-Band programming. This would be like
DirecTV having all of Dishnetwork's customer database, and everytime
you re-order DIsh programming, DISH's CSRs would give you the DirecTV
sales pitch. Considering, this has most likely cost Dishnetwork about
15 Million dollars or more so far, it is clear to me Dishnetwork's
campaign to eradicate consumer C-Band market has failed; it has
failed, as based upon their predictions. Needless to say, there could
be a consumer lawsuit down the road for Dishnetwork's monopolist
practice.
BTW, with all the debt Dishnetwork has, it may go under within next
ten years; as you may know, there is no such thing as a "Free Dish,"
and it takes several years to pay off this "Free Dish." Considering
the "Churn Rate" is around 16% [and higher], I can only wonder when
both Dish/DirecTV are going to loose their "new meat." Cable, on the
other hand, tends to be more stable with long-term customers; of
course, with advent of cable-modems, cable has a decisive edge over
DBS. My prediction is that after Cable has made the digital
transition, and people see/hear the superior video/audio that cable
will have with digital, then within seven years, DBS will be history
for city dwellers since the Internet will be playing a larger role
with time, and since cable will have full bandwidth OTA channels
> I never said otherwise . However, the lack of a "universal" digital
> standard hampers C-band as a consumer medium. DC-II, Mpeg, Mpeg
> 4:2:2, etc.
Todd, you need to get back to C-Band; man, you are out of date.
Any signal that is scrambled, of course, you can't receive legally.
But, all others can be received either via buying equipment or via
software programming.
Today, for instance, you can buy [yes, no "free lunch"] a $100.00 pc
card, and get several free software programs to watch all of the
non-scrambled MPEG-II-DVB [HDTV, 4:2:2, 4:2:0] channels, and with a
DC-II equipment, watch DC-II channels [pay/free].
Todd, get back into C-Band, you are missing out on hundreds of free
channels, which many are broadcast quality. Your speech shows a
complete lack of understanding about C-Band; refresh your info.
> Again, for the purpose of this forum-
> we're discussing satellite as a subscription service.
Todd, people in this forum talk about the "free public service"
channels that Dish may allow for after DISH service has been
terminated, so don't confine your focus so narrow; people here want to
know about "quality video" and "free channels," and sadly, both DBS
companies can't provide; only on C-Band can consumers find quality
video and a large selection of "free channels." Hence, the group here
want more than "subscription services."
BobaBird
Stephenson) wrote:
>(Note that this doesn't always lead to *actual* profitability, so if the
>CEO fails to dispose of his stock in a timely fashion, the value of his
>shares could be far less.)
See the gainers and losers on the CEO Wealthmeter
http://studio.financialcontent.com/Engine?Account=rocky&PageName=CEO
One Mr C Ergen took the 4th largest dollar loss, over $138M. But
don't worry too much, he's still worth $8.67B.
--
Charles
Visit the Echostar Knowledge Base
http://ekb.dbstalk.com
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
L Alpert
Just asking. Which package do you have?
Todd Allcock
> Todd, I think there are more C-Band programmers today, than ten years
> ago. And only one provider, Netlink has bumped up the prices.
By "programmers" I mean the guys who sell programming (NPS, Netlink,
etc.)- not the guys who own the channels (Viacom, Disney, etc.)
Most of the small guys went broke or were bought out by NPS or
Netlink.
> Prices have not "skyrocketed due to the shrunken market;" but rather
> after Dishnetwork and Netlink [C-Band programmer] made a deal for
> Netlink to be a Dish Dealer, then Netlink's prices have "skyrocketed."
I don't consider Netlink a C-band programmer- they're "pretendig" to
be one to do their bait-n-switch to DISH trick on their customer base,
like you describe below.
> You see, Netlink is playing a marketing game [Dish paid Netlink over
> 10 million dollars, and still counting] on illiterate C-Banders, so do
> remember, you can still get low prices at NPS, see and compare to
> Dish:
>
I did- the "Get it All" pack offers far less than DISH's "Everything
Pack" for about the same dough. I used to get a bigger package from
NPS WITH E/W broadcast networks for well under $600/year in 1997, when
DISH was still selling AT40 for $20/month. Since then, DISH is up
about 25%, and NPS is up about 30-40% it seems.
Superstation and broadcast nets have shot out-of-sight.
> > True- I've said for years that C-band will stick around as a hobbyist
> > device- sort of a "police scanner" of the skies. But for cable TV
> > replacement, "she's dead, Jim.
>
> It's too early to speculate this far; as I recall, Echostar/Netlink
> predicted C-Band would be history within a year back in 1999.
It IS history! You might consider C-band alive when NPS is down to
300 customers, but not me. Look at the channel availability- look at
Fox Sports! NPS had to uplink those channels themselves in DC-II to
make them available!
Using your criteria, 8-ack tapes are still alive because 3 guys with
1974 Lincolns are still playing them!
> You
> see, Netlink having a large database of C-Banders, has been using, for
> past three-plus years, deceptive sales tacits and "in-your-face" Dish
> pitches everytime you re-order C-Band programming. This would be like
> DirecTV having all of Dishnetwork's customer database, and everytime
> you re-order DIsh programming, DISH's CSRs would give you the DirecTV
> sales pitch. Considering, this has most likely cost Dishnetwork about
> 15 Million dollars or more so far, it is clear to me Dishnetwork's
> campaign to eradicate consumer C-Band market has failed; it has
> failed, as based upon their predictions. Needless to say, there could
> be a consumer lawsuit down the road for Dishnetwork's monopolist
> practice.
Give it a rest. I had to listen to this crap on
rec.video.satellite.tvro for years. DISH knew the C-band market was
ripe for plucking because they were already turning to mini-dishes in
droves, and they were already familiar with the advantages and more
importantly the DISadvantages of satellite. (How many big dish owners
had a second $800 receiver in the bedroom?)
DISH used Netlink to get the Best C-band customers- the guys who
bought lots of programming.
> BTW, with all the debt Dishnetwork has, it may go under within next
> ten years;
Better than the 2 to 3 years it's detractors gave it in 1996!
> as you may know, there is no such thing as a "Free Dish,"
> and it takes several years to pay off this "Free Dish."
About three years.
> Considering
> the "Churn Rate" is around 16% [and higher], I can only wonder when
> both Dish/DirecTV are going to loose their "new meat."
In the next few years unless they learn to compete with bundled
services. If they can't, they'll end up primarily servicing the
sticks, just like C-band did.
> Cable, on the
> other hand, tends to be more stable with long-term customers;
Bulls--t. They are generally monopoly operators. If cable was a two
or three horse race in each town they'd be churning customers back and
forth like the cellphone guys.
> of
> course, with advent of cable-modems, cable has a decisive edge over
> DBS.
Yes you think C-band and it's 1/4 million customers are a viable
business!
You aren't pro C-band- you're just anti-DBS!
> My prediction is that after Cable has made the digital
> transition, and people see/hear the superior video/audio that cable
> will have with digital
Oh please- they're squeezing channels just as bad if not worse than
DBS. HITS runs 12:1 compression!
>, then within seven years, DBS will be history
> for city dwellers since the Internet will be playing a larger role
> with time, and since cable will have full bandwidth OTA channels
When DBS is history, consumer C-band will need archeologists to find
it.
> > I never said otherwise . However, the lack of a "universal" digital
> > standard hampers C-band as a consumer medium. DC-II, Mpeg, Mpeg
> > 4:2:2, etc.
>
> Todd, you need to get back to C-Band; man, you are out of date.
Really? Fox converted all of the Wegener digital channels to DCII?
Did I miss a memo?
> Any signal that is scrambled, of course, you can't receive legally.
> But, all others can be received either via buying equipment or via
> software programming.
>
> Today, for instance, you can buy [yes, no "free lunch"] a $100.00 pc
> card, and get several free software programs to watch all of the
> non-scrambled MPEG-II-DVB [HDTV, 4:2:2, 4:2:0] channels
I owned one of the first consumer MPEG receivers available. I'm
familar with the PC cards as well.
>, and with a
> DC-II equipment, watch DC-II channels [pay/free].
I know. I left my BUD behnd when I moved. The only thing I miss are
the pre-feeds of network shows.
> Todd, get back into C-Band, you are missing out on hundreds of free
> channels, which many are broadcast quality.
Yeah, and most of which are garbage. I loved the picture quality of
my C-band system, but like most users, the quality was secondary. I,
like the vast maority of C-banders bought the systems because cable
wasn't available or to get channels local 36-channel cable systems
didn't carry. That need is now filled by digital cable or DBS.
> Your speech shows a
> complete lack of understanding about C-Band; refresh your info.
No, my speech shows a nostalgia for C-band as it was- not the crippled
consumer product it is today. As I said- it's great for hobbyists or
niche users (international, spiritual, etc.) but for a "family guy"
like myself, ease-of-use, intergrated DVR and multi-receiver
cabability outweights the fun of tinkering and the discovery of a new
news-truck backhaul.
> > Again, for the purpose of this forum-
> > we're discussing satellite as a subscription service.
>
> Todd, people in this forum talk about the "free public service"
> channels that Dish may allow for after DISH service has been
> terminated, so don't confine your focus so narrow; people here want to
> know about "quality video" and "free channels," and sadly, both DBS
> companies can't provide; only on C-Band can consumers find quality
> video and a large selection of "free channels." Hence, the group here
> want more than "subscription services."
Maybe, but A) there's a forum for that in rec.video.satellite, B) the
topic of THIS thread was about a la carte subscription programming on
DISH, and C) nether you nor I speak for this group, or what "they"
want.
But it was fun waxing nostalgic with you...
LosAlamos
wrote:
>> Todd, I think there are more C-Band programmers today, than ten
years
>> ago. And only one provider, Netlink has bumped up the prices.
>Most of the small guys went broke or were bought out by NPS or
>Netlink.
In C-Band, there were/are only about three actual programmers, who
sold directly to public and let others sell to public. The small guys
were generally Mom-Pop BUD dealers selling "locally," which many are
now selling DISH/DirecTV. But now, there are internet re-sellers that
are available to all nationwide. Hence, today, there are more outlets
for buying C-Band programming.
BTW, I really doubt if "small guys went broke." Can you cite one
example? Mom-Pop local dealers, unless they were "screwing" the
locals, made peanuts to their income, and many are making $300 or so
for installing Dish/Direc dishes now. I think your choice of words
delude other readers, btw.
>> Prices have not "skyrocketed due to the shrunken market;"
>I did- the "Get it All" pack offers far less than DISH's "Everything
>Pack" for about the same dough.
Todd, citing your example does not make a point. Most consumers,
including myself, do not "watch it all." When you look at the
"Monthly Bill Comparison," you will find:
NPS C-Band: $20.20
DBS: $49.62
Cable: $53.90
Source: SkyReport 2002 & NPS
Do note, it is clear the general public do not "watch it all," so your
example has skewed the reality. In any event, with DBS/Cable, you are
limited to your total channels, but with a C-Band unit, you do get to
see *wild-feeds* and *sports-backhauls* Hence, you can't "watch it
all," but are limited on DBS/Cable. I might add, if you are Spanish,
there are a large number of free channels in Spanish that you will
never see on DBS/Cable. Hence, "Get It All" is a meaningless
comparison.
>> It's too early to speculate this far; as I recall,
Echostar/Netlink
>> predicted C-Band would be history within a year back in 1999.
>It IS history!
Todd, Primestar is History, but it was a propriety system, just like
Dish/DirecTV; once they turned off their system, that's all.
C-Band at some point could be history, just as Dishnetwork could be
history after digital over-the-air broadcasts are 100%.
C-Band will change with time, but will it be history. For instance,
C-Banders can purchase PPV Movies, which is done via electronic means,
which one can ask why would anyone pull the plug? Or even the other
programs, which could be setup like PPV movies. With advent of
internet, you don't need CSRs, just a credit card.
>> BTW, with all the debt Dishnetwork has,
> it may go under within next ten years;
>Better than the 2 to 3 years it's detractors gave it in 1996!
The future is digital SD/HD broadcast via local broadcasters; both DBS
outfits are attempting now to get a FCC waiver for full bandwidth
local re-transmissions, but these broadcasters don't want their
bandwidth reduced. Once the public gets a taste of full bandwidth
SD/HD, most will want the *real thing* I might add here that these
locals will have upto four SD broadcasts during day hours, and this
will compete with "cable channels." Hence, DBS today, does not have
the means to uplink all those locals in full 19.2 mbps.
The detractors you speak of were not considering the future aspects of
cable modems and local SD/HD broadcasts. In ten years, most all
adults will be computer literate and will be aware of DVD quality, and
most all, will be using the internet. And for those living in cities
with internet access, many will choose Cable for modem usage alone.
Think of it this way, DBS has used the "digital quality" sales pitch,
and in the future, Cable will use the "quality digital" plus cable
modems sales pitch. No doubts in my mind, Cable is the future!
Just like right now, if I was into HD, I would get Voom:
> If they can't, they'll end up primarily servicing the
> sticks, just like C-band did.
I predict DBS will end up in the sticks in ten years, if they don't go
under.
>Yes you think C-band and it's 1/4 million customers are a viable
>business!
Via removing CSRs, there is no doubt in my mind. Internet ordering
only, which btw, is what DBS may go to in time.
>You aren't pro C-band- you're just anti-DBS!
Oh no, I think Voom is a great idea: www.voom.com
They offer "quality digital," as they say.
I prefer what has happened in Europe; people can scan the skies, and
also subscribe to this/that provider [ala-carte programming, so to
speak]. You know, Viacom, Disney, etc., should sell direct to the
consumers...and cut out the "middle men" [Dish/DirecTV].
You see, when Viacom, Disney, Murdoch, etc., are selling their
programs directly to consumers, then we will have "Direct Broadcast
Service." Dish/DirecTV are nothing more than "middle men," but I
think Voom is a hybird service [their own + cable channels, with no
locals].
Imho, the whole sat system should be standized, and Viacom, Disney,
Murdoch, etc., should sell direct to consumers, as separate entities.
Consumers are paying too much, for these middle men, and all of their
"back-room" dealings. Like the break-up of AT&T, this whole industry
needs to be re-examined by Congress in terms of wasted dollars.
>> My prediction is that after Cable has made the digital
>> transition, and people see/hear the superior video/audio that cable
>> will have with digital
>Oh please- they're squeezing channels just as bad if not worse than
>DBS. HITS runs 12:1 compression!
Todd, your local channels will be "quality digital," but your "cable
channels" may be "digital quality" [inferior video]; please don't
confuse the subject. Consumers have not really seen the *real thing*
yet, but in time, consumers will say anything less than SD-OTA sucks.
Hey, how many people watch B/W TV? Not many hey....btw, when I lived
in Germany years old, I could see their B/W was better. It don't
take a rocket scientist to figure out DVD is better than VHS. It's
just a matter of time, before consumer magazines focus upon inferior
video.
>> Todd, you need to get back to C-Band; man, you are out of date.
>Really? Fox converted all of the Wegener digital channels to DCII?
>Did I miss a memo?
Todd, as I noted above, not everybody watches everything...in fact,
there are movies I would like to see on cable movie channels, but the
big wigs do not focus on "my generation."
In other words, "You can't always get what you want..." As the prices
rise, more/more people are going to chuck Cable/DBS and watch OTA.
Sports btw, tend to be "blacked out" anyway, and most folks can do
without. But, if all you watch is sports, they you will pay the
price, along with increases in price. But, C-Band does have sports
backhauls, which are free to watch, something Fox can not deliver.
Hence, you can't get it all on DBS or C-Band, but you can get sport
backhauls without charge on C-Band, and many times, those games which
are blacked out in your local area..
>I know. I left my BUD behnd when I moved. The only thing I miss are
>the pre-feeds of network shows.
See what I mean, you can't get it all on DBS or C-Band!
>I loved the picture quality of
>my C-band system, but like most users, the quality was secondary.
See what I mean, in the future; when consumers are offered quality
channels [locals, for instance], they will consider Cable, not DBS.
Cable modems and quality local broadcasts will make consumers think
before they consider DBS.
> C) nether you nor I speak for this group, or what "they"
>want.
Through various topics, this group has expressed a need for quality
channels, and ala-carte; and as such, the function of usenet is to
educate, which has been the thrust of my thoughts.
Consumers should be aware, and as such, alt.dbs.echostar is not
Dishnetwork's sale's front door, but rather to inform all relevant
aspects.
As an example, if C-Banders or even Dishnetwork consumers were aware
of deceptive sales pitches/etc. via Dish's agents, brought about by
Echostar's monopolist actions towards C-Band industry, then these
consumers could have had a different attitude towards Echostar. For
instance, those who have morals may not choose to have anything to do
with Echostar.
Hence, when people are informed, most tend to act accordingly to their
principles/etc., but when people are left in the dark, they can make
decisions that are not in their best interest, as they might see it.
Todd Allcock
"LosAlamos" <losal...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:93c35c50.0402...@posting.google.com...
> >Most of the small guys went broke or were bought out by NPS or
> >Netlink.
>
> In C-Band, there were/are only about three actual programmers, who
> sold directly to public and let others sell to public.
Umm, off the top of my head, circa 1994 or so: NPS, Netlink, Turner Home
Satellite (As in Ted Turner), TurnerVision (not the same as Ted Turner),
APS, Programmer's Warehouse, PCH, HBO Direct, Showtime Satellite Services,
and Disney. Not an inclusive list- just the ones I used to compare for best
pricing.
> The small guys
> were generally Mom-Pop BUD dealers selling "locally," which many are
> now selling DISH/DirecTV.
They were all dealers of a larger programmer. I signed up as an NPS dealer
in 1997 just to buy their programming at wholesale. I was my only customer!
;-)
> But now, there are internet re-sellers that
> are available to all nationwide.
Just like the 800# resellers before the WWW.
> Hence, today, there are more outlets
> for buying C-Band programming.
All selling NPS or Netlink packages. Where's the "competition" in that?
> BTW, I really doubt if "small guys went broke." Can you cite one
> example?
APS was absorbed by NPS, PWH and PCH went belly up IIRC, and Netlink
absorbed TurnerVision and one other I'm forgetting (Star somebody?)
> I think your choice of words
> delude other readers, btw.
Really. I don't have an anti-C-band agenda. I loved and miss my big dish,
but it wasn't for the average guy. I enjoyed ferreting out the "weird"
stuff not intended for broadcast. My wife was thrilled when we switched to
the mini-dish, even though I tried making the C-band setup as painless as
possible.
C-band is kind of like a shortwave radio- if you're into that sort of thing,
it's a blast. If you're just trying to listen to Casey Kasem, maybe FM is
the radio for you.
> >> Prices have not "skyrocketed due to the shrunken market;"
> Todd, citing your example does not make a point. Most consumers,
> including myself, do not "watch it all." When you look at the
> "Monthly Bill Comparison," you will find:
>
> NPS C-Band: $20.20
> DBS: $49.62
> Cable: $53.90
>
> Source: SkyReport 2002 & NPS
That was a report of the "average" viewer's monthly fee of each service, and
doesn't compare "value". That NPS average included, in 2002, guys like me,
who had an ANNUAL bill of $15. I used my C-band dish to get west coast
feeds of Comedy Central, Lifetime, and USA, and simultaneously paid DISH
$800/year for everything else.
> Do note, it is clear the general public do not "watch it all," so your
> example has skewed the reality.
Really? Cable has 80,000,000 subscribers, DBS 20,000,000 and C-band
250,000. You think the C-band guy with 12 channels off of G5 is the
"general public"?
> In any event, with DBS/Cable, you are
> limited to your total channels, but with a C-Band unit, you do get to
> see *wild-feeds* anIt's not an apples to apples comparisond
*sports-backhauls*
Surrrre. Most wild feeds have disappeared to incompatible digi-land, and
virtually all sports backhauls of any sport more popular than Tiddlywinks is
encrypted.
> Hence, you can't "watch it
> all," but are limited on DBS/Cable. I might add, if you are Spanish,
> there are a large number of free channels in Spanish that you will
> never see on DBS/Cable. Hence, "Get It All" is a meaningless
> comparison.
Not to the guy who WANTS cable programming!
> C-Band will change with time, but will it be history. For instance,
> C-Banders can purchase PPV Movies, which is done via electronic means,
> which one can ask why would anyone pull the plug?
Because the transponder those movies are on costs $xxx a month to rent. If
the subscription revenue falls below that, it disapprears (provided the
programming isn't REALLY there for a cable company and the backyard
dish-owners are "gravy".)
Consumer C-band has always been a parasitic industry- the vast majority of
the subscription services were there for OTHER reasons (cable headend use)
and backyard dish owners were considered "gravy" and allowed to subscribe.
Therefore C-banders didn't bear any of the infrastructure costs like cable
or DBS subscribers. Now that cable companies use other less
consumer-friendly means to source some programming (Wegener digital,
terrestrial fiber or microwave, etc.) those channels are no longer available
on C-band unless someone retransmits it for the ever decreasing consumer
C-band audience (like NPS has with some DC-II programming like Fox Sports.
No cable headend uses NPS's FS feed.)
> Or even the other
> programs, which could be setup like PPV movies. With advent of
> internet, you don't need CSRs, just a credit card.
And $50,000/month for transponder rental and uplink facilities- not
realistic if only 20,000 are subscribing at $1/month!
> The future is digital SD/HD broadcast via local broadcasters; both DBS
> outfits are attempting now to get a FCC waiver for full bandwidth
> local re-transmissions, but these broadcasters don't want their
> bandwidth reduced.
They also don't want to be dropped from 20 million subscribers. The classic
"rock and a hard place".
> Once the public gets a taste of full bandwidth
> SD/HD, most will want the *real thing* I might add here that these
> locals will have upto four SD broadcasts during day hours, and this
> will compete with "cable channels." Hence, DBS today, does not have
> the means to uplink all those locals in full 19.2 mbps.
True. Neither does C-band. Off-air or cable only.
> The detractors you speak of were not considering the future aspects of
> cable modems and local SD/HD broadcasts. In ten years, most all
> adults will be computer literate and will be aware of DVD quality, and
> most all, will be using the internet. And for those living in cities
> with internet access, many will choose Cable for modem usage alone.
True- that's already happening. So unless DBS can get it's act together
with affordable satellite internet (unlikely, IMHO) or inclrease
partnerships with DSL providers, they'll eventually be servicing the sticks
that can't get cable, just as C-band did 10-20 years ago.
> Think of it this way, DBS has used the "digital quality" sales pitch,
> and in the future, Cable will use the "quality digital" plus cable
> modems sales pitch. No doubts in my mind, Cable is the future!
Yet you're trying to convince us to buy C-band!
I agree that wired always beats wireless in terms of bandwidth, all else
being equal. Cable could've offered 500 channels in 1994, but had no need
to. They were fat lazy monopolies that had us by the short and curlies, and
only became competitive when DBS put the fear of God into them. If for
nothing else, you've got to thank DBS for forcing cable to become more
competitive.
> Just like right now, if I was into HD, I would get Voom:
>
> www.voom.com
You and the other six subscribers would be very happy...
Voom is doomed if they don't rethink their marketing strategy, IMHO.
Instead of trying to be a combo HD provider as well as general cable
replacement, they should forget about the SD "cable" stuff and sell an
HD-only package suitable for adding on to customers' existing cable or DBS
packages. Their SD/cable selection is pitiful, and nobody wants to give up
a gazillion channels to get a dozen HD ones, and folks will be offended to
have to buy the "basic cable" stuff twice.
> I predict DBS will end up in the sticks in ten years, if they don't go
> under.
If so, it will have been a pretty good run, and with a slight change in
marketing strategy (no more free equipment, slightly higher rates) a
rural-only DBS service can be quite viable and profitable.
> >Yes you think C-band and it's 1/4 million customers are a viable
> >business!
>
> Via removing CSRs, there is no doubt in my mind. Internet ordering
> only, which btw, is what DBS may go to in time.
Only if they can continue to leech cable programming. When it goes, as it's
continuing to, so does consumer C-band.
> I prefer what has happened in Europe; people can scan the skies, and
> also subscribe to this/that provider [ala-carte programming, so to
> speak]. You know, Viacom, Disney, etc., should sell direct to the
> consumers...and cut out the "middle men" [Dish/DirecTV].
That was C-band.
> Imho, the whole sat system should be standized, and Viacom, Disney,
> Murdoch, etc., should sell direct to consumers, as separate entities.
> Consumers are paying too much, for these middle men, and all of their
> "back-room" dealings. Like the break-up of AT&T, this whole industry
> needs to be re-examined by Congress in terms of wasted dollars.
Agreed, but Pandora's box was opened too long ago to fix it now.
BTW, you aren't my old "friend" dbq by any chance, are you?
Patrick Martin
variety. I plan on getting DVB this Summer. The reason I went with Dish
was because the variety of programming was there. Many services are not
available on the BUD and the opposite it true too. But a lot of the
programming on the BUD is getting expensive now with less and less subs.
Patrick
LosAlamos
wrote:
>> >Most of the small guys went broke or were bought out by NPS or
>> >Netlink.
Todd, I never heard on one going broke....
>> In C-Band, there were/are only about three actual programmers, who
>> sold directly to public and let others sell to public.
>Umm, off the top of my head, circa 1994 or so:
The question is, did all of those mentioned have full contracts with
the "distributors," or did they "sub-contract" some/all from
Netlink/NPS? Just a fine point...
>> But now, there are internet re-sellers that
>> are available to all nationwide.
>Just like the 800# resellers before the WWW.
Most C-Banders were in the "dark." Most were signed up via BUD
dealer, and NPS/Netlink did the lion's share of business. Look at
this from the perspective of the individual home owner, and how he saw
the situation. Yes...there were exceptions...
>> Hence, today, there are more outlets
>> for buying C-Band programming.
>All selling NPS or Netlink packages. Where's the "competition" in
that?
Todd, there is "no competition;" Viacom, Disney, Murdock, etc., sets
the prices.
Netlink has overpriced their packages, but NPS is reasonable; of
course, Netlink wants you to get a Dishnetwork pizza-dish [excuse me,
a "mini-bud" now with three LNBs].
>Really. I don't have an anti-C-band agenda. ....
> My wife was thrilled when we switched to the mini-dish
Does your wife have a "vision problem...does not see very well?"
Usually, women tend to see the finer details, but maybe today's
"liberated women" have lost this skill.
Btw, I know of one couple who went out and bought big screen HD
monitor, and had local TV man take it back; they both didn't like the
quality seen on a DBS provider.
>C-band is kind of like a shortwave radio-
Naw, it's more than that....have not you forgotten men like to switch
the channels? Plenty of extra channels on C-Band.
>> Todd, citing your example does not make a point. Most consumers,
>> including myself, do not "watch it all."
>That was a report of the "average" viewer's monthly fee of each
service, and
>doesn't compare "value".
"Value" is what I want, and what I pay for it; my bill is always
cheaper than DBS. And most consumers, if given the chance, would not
order the standard DBS teirs. There are no "choices" on DBS/Cable,
and DBS consumers deal with "take it or leave it."
Can I buy just the Movie channels?
Like I stated before elsewhere, DBS/Cable need to be setup as
"carriers," not program sellers. You pay a "hook-up" fee, and
consumers buy direct from distributors.
>Consumer C-band has always been a parasitic industry- the vast
majority of
>the subscription services were there for OTHER reasons (cable headend
use)
>and backyard dish owners were considered "gravy" and allowed to
subscribe.
Incorrect....the "freight bills" have been paid by all who use it.
DBS/Cable/TVRO have all paid for the services rendered.
>Therefore C-banders didn't bear any of the infrastructure costs like
cable
>or DBS subscribers.
Excuse me, but DBS never paid for the infrastructure...they were
"Johnny come lately," to the existing infrastructure, which I don't
think its "cable" but rather the distributors..
> Now that cable companies use other less
>consumer-friendly means to source some programming (Wegener digital,
>terrestrial fiber or microwave, etc.) those channels are no longer
available
>on C-band
Excuse me, but if you want a nation wide distribution....you use
satellite....what you are talking about are essentially "closed
circuit" shows [to certain local areas only]. And needless to say,
when Cable or DBS has exclusive contract, say DirecTV has a specific
sport program, you can't get it on Dishnetwork. Hence, in the end, no
provider [Cable/DBS/C-Band] has all of the programs available.
Please Todd, refrain from illogical thoughts....you are blowing your
own arguments.
>> Think of it this way, DBS has used the "digital quality" sales
pitch,
>> and in the future, Cable will use the "quality digital" plus cable
>> modems sales pitch. No doubts in my mind, Cable is the future!
>Yet you're trying to convince us to buy C-band!
Oh no....most consumers must use the "poor man's video" cause they
ain't got the bucks, nor have they been educated about sat/cable
industry.
I'm suggesting, as based upon current DBS practices, that DBS will be
history for city dwellers, after local broadcasters make the
transition to all digital broadcasts, and transactions are
internetized..
There is going to be a fundamental shift in the way the public
interacts in the next ten years; and the internet will be the norm for
most people. Credit card companies/etc., will be "demanding," like GM
has demand with their parts suppliers, it you ain't on the net, then
we won't do business. Just like today, many places [employment, credit
cards/etc] won't consider you unless you have a telephone.
In any event, I did not say a thing about C-Band, you dreamed up those
words above.
> If for
>nothing else, you've got to thank DBS for forcing cable to become
more
>competitive.
Wrong, your local broadcasters has/will improve quality. There is no
"competition" in Cable/DBS, as I see it. Like I've stated before,
Cable/DBS should only be "carriers," not program resellers. Then,
market forces will affect distributors.
>Voom is doomed if they don't rethink their marketing strategy, IMHO.
I've stated this before, is Voom's HD resold to cable? It is a cable
outfit....so....
>> Via removing CSRs, there is no doubt in my mind. Internet ordering
>> only, which btw, is what DBS may go to in time.
>Only if they can continue to leech cable programming. When it goes,
as it's
>continuing to, so does consumer C-band.
RE: 1967 in "The Graduate," Dustin got some advice, "plastics is the
future."
RE: 2004, the Internet is the future...quit thinking in old
paradigms...the internet is going to transform many transactions done
"the old fashion way," like CSRs.
Digital-Cable/DBS user authorizations are done via computers; after
cable is digitalized, CSRs can be history, for the most part.
>> Consumers are paying too much, for these middle men, and all of
their
>> "back-room" dealings. Like the break-up of AT&T, this whole
industry
>> needs to be re-examined by Congress in terms of wasted dollars.
>Agreed, but Pandora's box was opened too long ago to fix it now.
Negative...anything broke...can be fixed....we live in a changing
world...where most anything is possible for change.
RE: World War I, the private railroad sector was un-coordinated at
logistics, so military took over coordinating train traffic.
RE: Today, the whole sat/cable industry is uncoordinated, and wastes
tons of money...all it takes is a bean counter to make the case, and a
willing Congress.
Footnote - The reason AM-Stereo didn't make it, was because of a lack
of FCC standards. You see, when you let the big boys "play," they
make a "fuc_ing" mess out of it. Hence, FCC, via their lack of
standards, has/did cause downfall of AM-Stereo, and a big mess in sat
industry. In other words, government control can be good/bad, but
here are two case in points that lack of FCC control is BAD for
business and consumers.
Btw, negative to your last question...
LithiaSpgs
I have the AT Top 100 plus Superstations and distant and local networks
LithiaSpgs
>usually composed of fellow executives they have little incentive to crack
>down on salaries. But the people being ripped off here aren't necessarily
>employees. It's the shareholders' money.
It is all of our money- the customers, employees and share holders too. And it
is way out of hand with these slimeball corporation CEOs. One thing that needs
to be done is to BAN by law any CEO from sitting on the board of any other
company. That would go a long way towards breaking up this cartel of thieves.
Todd Allcock
> >> >Most of the small guys went broke or were bought out by NPS or
> >> >Netlink.
>
> Todd, I never heard on one going broke....
I don' know for sure- I read about the major buyouts and mergers, but
others just seemed to disappear.
> >Umm, off the top of my head, circa 1994 or so:
>
> The question is, did all of those mentioned have full contracts with
> the "distributors," or did they "sub-contract" some/all from
> Netlink/NPS? Just a fine point...
Most if not all I mentioned had their own contracts.
> Most C-Banders were in the "dark." Most were signed up via BUD
> dealer, and NPS/Netlink did the lion's share of business. Look at
> this from the perspective of the individual home owner, and how he saw
> the situation. Yes...there were exceptions...
Oh, please! Anybody who ever bought a copy of Orbit or OnSat was
regaled with ads from each of the companies I mentioned, but at least
a dozen smaller guys. Those guides were available on newsstandds and
in supermarkets!
> Todd, there is "no competition;" Viacom, Disney, Murdock, etc., sets
> the prices.
All "manufacturers" set their wholesale prices, but having a dozen
vendors of a product usually gets you a better price than only one or
two.
> >Really. I don't have an anti-C-band agenda. ....
> > My wife was thrilled when we switched to the mini-dish
>
> Does your wife have a "vision problem...does not see very well?"
No, she just thinks ease of use trumps picture quality. A blurry show
correctly recorded beats a broadcast-quality one missed! Or, having
two DBS PVRs means two shows aired simultaneously BOTH get recorded.
That didn't happen with the BUD!
> Usually, women tend to see the finer details, but maybe today's
> "liberated women" have lost this skill.
> Btw, I know of one couple who went out and bought big screen HD
> monitor, and had local TV man take it back; they both didn't like the
> quality seen on a DBS provider.
I know two of my customers that did that as well. In both cases they
were DISH DVR users who thought crappy picture+DVR beat perfect
picture and no storage ability, so they opted against upgrading to an
HD receiver
> >C-band is kind of like a shortwave radio-
>
> Naw, it's more than that....have not you forgotten men like to switch
> the channels? Plenty of extra channels on C-Band.
And plenty of downtime between them as you make your way across the
Clarke belt! ;-)
> Can I buy just the Movie channels?
Yes. DISH charges a $5/month "programming access fee" to customers
who don't take a basic package. Then you Can order the few channels
DISH sells a-la carte: int'l, movie, locals, superstations, and a few
others.
> Like I stated before elsewhere, DBS/Cable need to be setup as
> "carriers," not program sellers. You pay a "hook-up" fee, and
> consumers buy direct from distributors.
I agree. After the Apes rise up and take over the Earth, you and I
can make our pitch to whatever Orangutang ends up in charge...
> >Consumer C-band has always been a parasitic industry- the vast
> majority of
> >the subscription services were there for OTHER reasons (cable headend
> use)
> >and backyard dish owners were considered "gravy" and allowed to
> subscribe.
>
> Incorrect....the "freight bills" have been paid by all who use it.
You are showing a great ignorance of how subscription C-band
works/worked. If everyone of the remaining consumer C-banders
cancelled their subscriptions tomorrow, 99% of what's up there would
stay up there.
> Excuse me, but DBS never paid for the infrastructure...they were
> "Johnny come lately," to the existing infrastructure, which I don't
> think its "cable" but rather the distributors..
Correct, who need the distribution met od to service their customers,
new and old.
> Excuse me, but if you want a nation wide distribution....you use
> satellite....what you are talking about are essentially "closed
> circuit" shows [to certain local areas only].
Not just terrestrial- that was just one example. Fox uses a digital
encryption method unavailable to home dish owners. Cable companies
can get it, but e can't. Does THAT tell you who C/Ku is meant for?
> And needless to say,
> when Cable or DBS has exclusive contract, say DirecTV has a specific
> sport program, you can't get it on Dishnetwork. Hence, in the end, no
> provider [Cable/DBS/C-Band] has all of the programs available.
True.
> Please Todd, refrain from illogical thoughts....you are blowing your
> own arguments.
At least I'm sticking to facts, not emotion and agenda.
> Footnote - The reason AM-Stereo didn't make it, was because of a lack
> of FCC standards.
That, plus it still sounded like AM! No dynamic range, affected by
weather, and lousy Freq. response.
> Btw, negative to your last question...
I'm not convinced. You sound waaaay too much alike.
Dale J. Stephenson
It's the shareholders' money. It's not the customers -- they give a company
money of their own free will for services rendered, and how the company
spends the money isn't their business. It's not the employees (assuming
they aren't also shareholders, which they often are) -- they receive money
in exchange for services rendered, an agreement entered into of their own
free will.
I don't think a law banning CEOs from sitting on the board is appropriate.
Charlie Ergen owns a bit over 50% of all the Dish stock, but you want him
prohibited from sitting on the board? It's his money that's at stake.
It's not yours.
LosAlamos
Todd, I'll be back....with I hope the last comments on these
thoughts...got to do some chores...
LithiaSpgs
>Charlie Ergen owns a bit over 50% of all the Dish stock, but you want him
>prohibited from sitting on the board? It's his money that's at stake.
>It's not yours.
Perhaps I wasn't clear. I mean we need a LAW the prohibits him from sitting on
the boards of other corporations. Ergen can have a seat on Echostar's board.
What he should not be able to do is to also sit on the board of XYZ Corp while
the CEO of XYZ sits on the board of Echostar.
Dale J. Stephenson
Should he be allowed to sit on the board of XYZ Corp if the CEO of XYZ is
*not* on the board of Echostar? What if he's a major shareholder of XYZ
Corp? What if he owns 50+% of XYZ as well?
Here's the board membership of Echostar:
Charlie Ergen (Chairman, also CEO)
James DeFranco (Executive Vice President, Echostar)
David K. Moskowitz (Senior VP & General Counsel, Echostar)
Cantey Ergen (Mrs. Charlie Ergen, co-founder)
Peter A. Dea (CEO, Western Gas Resources)
Raymond L. Friedlob (corporate lawyer)
Steven R. Goodbarn (former CFO of Janus Capital Corp)
C. Michael Schroeder (retired founder of Consumer Satellite Systems)
So if sitting CEOs are prohibited from the board, Peter Dea would have to
be kicked off. I don't see this ushering in a sea change in executive
compensations, given that all the remaining members are current executives
in the company or former/current executives. I doubt Dish is atypical
in this regard, although Dish is certainly on the low end of executive
pay.
The best way to tone down executive pay is for the market to punish the
stocks of excessive spenders. Until that happens, the shareholder's
money (not yours) will continue to be wasted. But every time the capital
gains tax (or AMT reductions) comes up, I learn that shareholders are
the rich capitalistic idle class who deserve to be taken, so what's the
problem? (Ironically, whenever a stock is wiped out by corporate
malfeasance, it seems to be held by widows, orphans, and struggling
retirees.)
LithiaSpgs
>*not* on the board of Echostar?
Perhaps. I have not really thought about that.
>What if he's a major shareholder of XYZ
>Corp? What if he owns 50+% of XYZ as well?
That has no bearing. Major shareholders are usually very rich people and
institutions that rarely get hurt when the CEO loots the company and forces it
into bankruptcy. It is the people like me with 401Ks and direct employee
investments that lose our retirement savings. Yes, I know that stocks are not a
risk free investment but reform is needed to clean the criminals out of the
markets. I don't mind if the Maifia is into to gambling, prostitution and
bootlegging because my well being is not dependent on those enterprises. But
when they move into MCI, Tyco and Enron, it is a different matter.
>So if sitting CEOs are prohibited from the board, Peter Dea would have to
>be kicked off.
Does Ergen sit on Peter Dea's board too? If so, they both should be kicked off
each other's boards.
>The best way to tone down executive pay is for the market to punish the
>stocks of excessive spenders. Until that happens, the shareholder's
>money (not yours) will continue to be wasted. But every time the capital
>gains tax (or AMT reductions) comes up, I learn that shareholders are
>the rich capitalistic idle class who deserve to be taken, so what's the
>problem? (Ironically, whenever a stock is wiped out by corporate
>malfeasance, it seems to be held by widows, orphans, and struggling
>retirees.)
SOME shareholders are rich lazy people. But many others are institutions that
hold mine and your 401K accounts. Others, like my company, offer employee stock
plans which allow me and thousands of other individual employees to buy company
stock and accumulate savings. My company matches 20% of what I have withheld
every paycheck to buy their stock which is a good deal for me (although I have
still lost money over the past few years but not that much). So all of us do
have a direct interest in cleaning up the cesspool of criminals in corporate
America.
>Dale J. Stephenson
>daleste...@mac.com
>
>
>
>
>
>