Directv versus Dishnetwork receivers, standards? FCC?
Henry
Thomas <thom...@pacbell.net> wrote in article
<32A8CC...@pacbell.net>...
> Mike Kunda wrote:
>
> > DirecTV can modify some things concerning receiver operation via
> > downloads to limited EEPROM memory in the receiver (it appears
> > that E* can do even more in this reguard). But most of what you
> > are asking about is either hard wired or ROM and cannot be modified.
> >
>
>
> What leads you to believe that the E* system has a greater capability?
>
> While the amount of EEPROM memory set aside by the designers could be
> a factor, one must remember that the code contained in that memory is
> usually erased and reprogrammed by each successive download.
>
> As code matures the programmers frequently find better ways to do things,
> and that leads to economies of memory. I must admit I don't recall ever
> seeing an SW/FW upgrade that got smaller, but usually the increase in
> functionality is greater than the corresponding memory consumption (i.e.
> the new features take up more memory, but the "new" implementation method
> for some of the older features actually frees up some memory).
>
> It would be interesting to have a real functional spec and logic diagram
for
> these babies.
>
One more thing to note here-if the modifications to DSS recievers is
limited to modifying certain reciever operations (as Mike K. wrote) how was
it that DTV was able to download a software patch/enhancement to the early
1st gen Sony units to fix a problem they had.Another theory could be that
the DSS system software was more mature when released thus not needing
constant upgrades (even the E-mail works (sorry-couldn't resist)) like the
E* units (perhaps they were rushed to market too soon?? (again-just a
theory)).
Henry
Shawn
Scott Anguish wrote:
> >>>Shawn wrote:
> >>>Dish is at 295,000+ customers, reported an 87% increase in business the
> >>>2nd Quarter of 1996, a whopping 274% increase in the 3rd Quarter, and
> >>>are right on target to reach a Million customers by November, 1997.
> More meaningless number crunching from Shawn, not a big surprise
> though.
> My problem is with Shawn's consistent manipulation of numbers to
> make E* look better than it may be.
>
> We've seen him do it with the channel costs..
> We're now seeing him do it with these percentages.
> Scott Anguish DBS Online - http://www.dbs-online.com/DBS
> sang...@digifix.com Stepwise OpenStep WWW - http://www.stepwise.com
Well, this time Scott, I have to publicly announce you as a fu*king
idiot.
It seems I owe you one as I keep finding these blatant little bullsh*t
remarks you post floating around the newsgroups. As much as you blab on
and on about your knowledge, it's too bad the little knowledge you seem
to have outweighs your common sense.
Once again, the percentages and numbers listed in my post could've be
found at YOUR web site, but it seems I can't direct you there because
you're too broke to fix your rickety old server
(http://www.dbs-online.com/dbs).
For the time being, why not reference the facts at some other well known
sites:
http://www.dishnetwork.com/about/news.html displays 2nd & 3rd Quarter
earnings & the respective growth rates + other related info.
http://www.dbsdish.com/dbsdata.html shows 294,017 DISH subscribers as of
11/29/96, though the true numbers are over 296,000 as we speak. Lots of
other info here.
Dont waste any more of your time foaming at the mouth. Just think
before you post and use your head.
By the way, while we're on the subject about you, I hope everyone will
take the time to vote AGAINST alt.video.satellite.dbs.moderated that
Sangduwich here proposed. On the otherhand, I wouldn't be against a
newsgroup called alt.satellite.scott.opinionated.hypocrite. It would
fit you perfectly.
-Shawn
Scott Anguish
Shawn was nice enough to email me a copy of his reply, and since its not yet
on my local server, I'll answer it from that..
Date: Tue, 10 Dec 1996 14:06:55 -0600
From: Shawn <s...@ally.ios.com>
Reply-To: s...@ally.ios.com
Organization: SK1 Poductions
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01Gold (Win95; I)
Newsgroups: rec.video.satellite.dbs,alt.dss
To: Scott Anguish <sang...@digifix.com>
Subject: Re: Directv versus Dishnetwork receivers, standards? FCC?
Scott Anguish wrote:
> >>>Shawn wrote: >>>Dish is at 295,000+ customers, reported an
> 87% increase in business the >>>2nd Quarter of 1996, a whopping
> 274% increase in the 3rd Quarter, and >>>are right on target to
> reach a Million customers by November, 1997.
>
>> More meaningless number crunching from Shawn, not a big surprise
>> though.
>
>> My problem is with Shawn's consistent manipulation of numbers
>to > make E* look better than it may be. > > We've seen him do
>it with the channel costs.. > We're now seeing him do it with
>these percentages.
>
>
>Well, this time Scott, I have to publicly announce you as a fu*king
>idiot. It seems I owe you one as I keep finding these blatant
>little bullsh*t remarks you post floating around the newsgroups.
>As much as you blab on and on about your knowledge, it's too bad
>the little knowledge you seem to have outweighs your common sense.
Oh please Shawn, you're breaking my heart.
You're almost at the point where you'll be getting the 'Benny' award
for the group. (Those who have been able to stick it out this long can
remember Ben's brief and massively trolling appearance here..)
>Once again, the percentages and numbers listed in my post could've
>be found at YOUR web site, but it seems I can't direct you there
>because you're too broke to fix your rickety old server
>(http://www.dbs-online.com/dbs).
The problem appears to be stupidity on your part, again, So at least
your consistent.
http://www.dbs-online.com/DBS has been up continuously over the last
week with the exception of the day the server failed. Replacing it isn't
the problem, but I don't expect you to understand the requirements of
hosting a site.
If you can't reach it, its likely because you're using the wrong URL
or an old link.
>For the time being, why not reference the facts at some other well
>known sites:
>
>http://www.dishnetwork.com/about/news.html displays 2nd & 3rd
>Quarter earnings & the respective growth rates + other related
>info.
>
Once again, since you seem to be too stupid to figure this out.
I don't dispute the numbers, I dispute the way you PRESENT them.
You'll also note that my site doesn't make any attempt to interpret those
numbers, they are marketing crap, plain and simple.
The per channel pricing means nothing if they don't have what you
want to watch. That goes for both DSS and DISH.
The growth of a product in terms of percentages as you've attempted
to present them are meaningless. Less than meaningless infact. They aren't
something you can base a purchase on, nor something you can base the long
term feasibility of the product or company on.
>http://www.dbsdish.com/dbsdata.html shows 294,017 DISH subscribers
>as of 11/29/96, though the true numbers are over 296,000 as we
>speak. Lots of other info here.
>
Yes, from many different sources. Lets remember that these numbers
that John gets are ESTIMATES, not hard fast numbers.
>Dont waste any more of your time foaming at the mouth. Just think
>before you post and use your head.
>
Yawn.... Lets see, there is someting
>By the way, while we're on the subject about you, I hope everyone
>will take the time to vote AGAINST alt.video.satellite.dbs.moderated
>that Sangduwich here proposed. On the otherhand, I wouldn't be
>against a newsgroup called alt.satellite.scott.opinionated.hypocrite.
>It would fit you perfectly.
And if you could read, you'd understand what how stupid what you've
said right here is.
Those who read the CFV know that its purpose is to prevent spam and
abuse, not to censor idiots such as yourself...
--
Brian Trosko
Shawn <s...@ally.ios.com> wrote:
: Well, this time Scott, I have to publicly announce you as a fu*king
: idiot.
Well, I'm sure he's upset. Personally, I think that such an announcement
is akin to Michael Jackson announcing Charleton Heston as 'a bit
unconventional.'
: you're too broke to fix your rickety old server
: (http://www.dbs-online.com/dbs).
Gee, everytime *I* try that site, it works fine, with quick response.
Maybe you're a genetic throwback masquerading as a biped, and are having
troubles hitting the right keys. I understand how tough it can be, given
your lack of a true spinal cord. If you end up just mashing the keyboard
with your palm, try using a straw held between your gums.
: 11/29/96, though the true numbers are over 296,000 as we speak. Lots of
: other info here.
: Dont waste any more of your time foaming at the mouth. Just think
: before you post and use your head.
The point isn't the *numbers*, you goddamned gimp. The point is that
you're blatantly and transparently using the numbers as evidence of a point
that just isn't true. Sure, they're growing fast, but percentages of
growth don't tell you a goddamn thing this early in the game. As Scott
said, if Alphastar sells 11,000 systems next month they'll exhibit %100
growth, but who gives a fuck? Same thing with E*. Sure, they're growing
fast. Sure, they're growing faster than DSS was at equivalent points in
their existence.
See, that doesn't fucking *matter*. Remember when Netscape went public?
Remember how they were touted as an invincible up-and-comer? Remember all
the news stories about how they were growing faster than Microsoft was at
equivalent points in their existence?
So fucking what. What's happened lately? NS has fled the field of battle,
seeking to dominate a niche market as opposed to going toe-to-toe with MS
for the average user's wallet.
Growth doesn't fucking matter. Percentages don't fucking matter. *Money*
matters. *Numbers* matter. 2.5 million vs. 300 thousand fucking matters.
E* is a very viable system. But stop massaging the data to make it seem
like David against Goliath. That's bullshit, and you're an idiot for
maintaining that.
Joe Ducey
Shawn wrote:
> Well, this time Scott, I have to publicly announce you as a fu*king
> idiot.
very nice
> For the time being, why not reference the facts at some other well known
> sites:
>
> http://www.dishnetwork.com/about/news.html displays 2nd & 3rd Quarter
> earnings & the respective growth rates + other related info.
>
> http://www.dbsdish.com/dbsdata.html shows 294,017 DISH subscribers as of
> 11/29/96, though the true numbers are over 296,000 as we speak. Lots of
> other info here.
Or you could check with Echostar's own press release, instead of the ESTIMATES
used above:
Headline News
DISH Nets 285,000 Subs In November
<nice headline, very misleading>
Dec. 11, 1996
Subscribers for EchoStar's DISH Network totaled 285,000 at the end of November,
making that month the best subscriber
acquisition month for the nine-month-old DBS service.
The 50,000 in new subscribers also put DISH Network close to its year-end
projection of 300,000 to 400,000.
"A lot of people were thinking we would reach that 300,000 to 400,000 count by
the end of the year," EchoStar's Judianne
Atencio told SkyREPORT.COM. "We are very close to that. We are very happy with
the direction we are going."
DISH matched the number of subscribers PrimeStar Partners cornered in November,
considered a big achievement for the
EchoStar service.
While DISH may conquer year-end projections set by the company or analysts,
other DTH services - such as PrimeStar,
DirecTV and AlphaStar - may fall short of their goals. C-Band's slide also may
continue through the holiday shopping
season.
All November subscriber counts, an analysis of holiday shopping sales among
dealers and retail chains and other research are
in the December SkyREPORT publication.
--
Joe Ducey
joed...@winternet.com
10Base-T to the Chipcom, off the Wellfleet, through the Shiva and....swish,
nuthin' but 'Net!
Mark Schlageter
In article <58klpq$k...@news.digifix.com>, sang...@digifix.com says...
> The per channel pricing means nothing if they don't have what you
>want to watch. That goes for both DSS and DISH.
>
I can't agree more. I was in the market for a dish and looked at ALL of them. I
really wanted nfl sunday ticket. sorry, but DISH didn't have it.
who ever came up with this ridiculous price per channel crap anyway? I don't
give a rattail if it costs me a buck a channel if it has what I want. I suspect
the people who buy into this are the same people who finance cars with a
60-month loan.
IMO if one has to pinch pennies and figure out cost per channel, then perhaps
owning a DBS system isn't the wisest use of their money (I don't ever remember
DBS being promoted as affordable to everyone).