Lame attempt to justify Cable

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.tivo,rec.video.satellite.dbs (More info?)

In article <427E5024.3050302@comcast.net>,
Ed Nielsen <egnlsn@comcast.net> wrote:

>
> The thing about VOD is that it is quite popular. It is available to all
> subscribers right off the bat. You don't even have to subscribe to
> digital services to use it (except premiums )-- just have a DCT. Analog
> STBs have not been installed for a few years, which makes that part even
> easier. A large percentage of subscribers have upgraded from basic or
> expanded basic service to add digital services. Some have gone back
> down to basic or expanded basic. But they still have their DCT, which
> makes VOD available to them.
>
> Don't have to buy a TiVo (or other DVR) to use it. Don't have to train
> that DVR on what to record. As you go through the menu, you may see
> something that looks interesting enough to watch but you didn't even
> know that it was out there, let alone record it. Perhaps even something
> you saw a long time ago. This past season, many of our local high
> school football games were available to watch, and there is other local
> programming as well. Some of the PPV movies have a High Def version
> available.
>
> Too many pros to consider it anything other than a positive.
>
Your argument is soooo weak you have to post it 10 times to
hope someone will read and believe it???

So there I was watching the Braves vs the Astros on DirecTv today, and a
outfield sign showed the desperation of Comcast. A $400 bribe to get
people to switch back from their satellite to Comcast.

http/www.comcast-ne.com/dump_the_dish.html

And still Cables loses millions more subscribers every year to Satellite.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.tivo,rec.video.satellite.dbs (More info?)

Jack Zwick wrote:
> Your argument is soooo weak you have to post it 10 times to
> hope someone will read and believe it???
>
> So there I was watching the Braves vs the Astros on DirecTv today, and a
> outfield sign showed the desperation of Comcast. A $400 bribe to get
> people to switch back from their satellite to Comcast.
>
> http/www.comcast-ne.com/dump_the_dish.html
>
> And still Cables loses millions more subscribers every year to Satellite.

Apparently, someone can't figure out an apology (for duplicate posts)
when they see it.

So which is it. In your initial post, you write a number of 25,730,000
(DBS subscribers), then twenty hours later you write 50,000,000. Just 1
cable company has your first number beat by a few million, and even your
50 million number is shadowed by the over 73 million cable subs.

As you wrote, over 73 million people can't be wrong. But then again,
neither can 25.7 or 50 million. Satellite does have its place, but let
the numbers speak for themselves as to which is preferred.

 

[Eric]

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.tivo,rec.video.satellite.dbs (More info?)

"Ed Nielsen" <egnlsn@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:F92dnUu9KZcYG-PfRVn-ig@comcast.com...
> Jack Zwick wrote:
>> Your argument is soooo weak you have to post it 10 times to hope someone
>> will read and believe it???
>>
>> So there I was watching the Braves vs the Astros on DirecTv today, and a
>> outfield sign showed the desperation of Comcast. A $400 bribe to get
>> people to switch back from their satellite to Comcast.
>>
>> http/www.comcast-ne.com/dump_the_dish.html
>>
>> And still Cables loses millions more subscribers every year to Satellite.
>
> Apparently, someone can't figure out an apology (for duplicate posts) when
> they see it.
>
> So which is it. In your initial post, you write a number of 25,730,000
> (DBS subscribers), then twenty hours later you write 50,000,000. Just 1
> cable company has your first number beat by a few million, and even your
> 50 million number is shadowed by the over 73 million cable subs.
>
> As you wrote, over 73 million people can't be wrong. But then again,
> neither can 25.7 or 50 million. Satellite does have its place, but let
> the numbers speak for themselves as to which is preferred.

One of the big reasons is because lot of people (like me) still have analog
cable due to the cost of renting boxes for all the TVs in the house and just
about all the channels they want to see are still on analog cable.
According to a field tech I spoke to Cox Las Vegas wanted to go all digital
late last year but delayed the switch because they were scared about losing
customers to satellite.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.tivo,rec.video.satellite.dbs (More info?)

In article <F92dnUu9KZcYG-PfRVn-ig@comcast.com>,
Ed Nielsen <egnlsn@comcast.net> wrote:

> Jack Zwick wrote:
> > Your argument is soooo weak you have to post it 10 times to
> > hope someone will read and believe it???
> >
> > So there I was watching the Braves vs the Astros on DirecTv today, and a
> > outfield sign showed the desperation of Comcast. A $400 bribe to get
> > people to switch back from their satellite to Comcast.
> >
> > http/www.comcast-ne.com/dump_the_dish.html
> >
> > And still Cables loses millions more subscribers every year to Satellite.
>
> Apparently, someone can't figure out an apology (for duplicate posts)
> when they see it.

You assume someone believed it.

>
> So which is it. In your initial post, you write a number of 25,730,000
> (DBS subscribers), then twenty hours later you write 50,000,000. Just 1
> cable company has your first number beat by a few million, and even your
> 50 million number is shadowed by the over 73 million cable subs.



Duh - B O T H. Most households have more than one viewer.

And at the rate Cable is hemorraging subscribers to Satellite, soon it
will be a minority.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.tivo,rec.video.satellite.dbs (More info?)

"Jack Zwick" wrote:
>> So which is it. In your initial post, you write a number of 25,730,000
>> (DBS subscribers), then twenty hours later you write 50,000,000. Just 1
>> cable company has your first number beat by a few million, and even your
>> 50 million number is shadowed by the over 73 million cable subs.
>
>
>
> Duh - B O T H. Most households have more than one viewer.


What has the no. of viewers to do with the no. of subscribers?
I thought the argument was about no. of subscribers. Of course,
the no. of viewers affects ad income, but does the ratio of
viewers-to-subscribers differ between cable and satellite?


Rick Lowen

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.tivo,rec.video.satellite.dbs (More info?)

Ed Nielsen wrote:

<snip>

> As you wrote, over 73 million people can't be wrong. But then again,
> neither can 25.7 or 50 million. Satellite does have its place, but
> let the numbers speak for themselves as to which is preferred.

Eh, there's no accounting for taste. Witness the number of people that buy
brand new (or any, for that matter) American cars. They're junk, just like
cable, and generally owned by people that have no idea that there are even
better options out there.

Like my grandmother, for example--wouldn't drive anything but her '89 Buick
and watch anything that the local cable company hasn't deemed good enough
for her.

--
tooloud
Remove nothing to reply...

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.tivo,rec.video.satellite.dbs (More info?)

In article <ZYSge.77091$WI3.69636@attbi_s71>,
"tooloud" <nospam.jake@mchsi.com> wrote:

> Ed Nielsen wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > As you wrote, over 73 million people can't be wrong. But then again,
> > neither can 25.7 or 50 million. Satellite does have its place, but
> > let the numbers speak for themselves as to which is preferred.
>
> Eh, there's no accounting for taste. Witness the number of people that buy
> brand new (or any, for that matter) American cars. They're junk, just like
> cable, and generally owned by people that have no idea that there are even
> better options out there.
>
> Like my grandmother, for example--wouldn't drive anything but her '89 Buick
> and watch anything that the local cable company hasn't deemed good enough
> for her.

So buy her a BMW and a TiVo.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.tivo,rec.video.satellite.dbs (More info?)

Jack Zwick wrote:
> In article <ZYSge.77091$WI3.69636@attbi_s71>,
> "tooloud" <nospam.jake@mchsi.com> wrote:
>
>> Ed Nielsen wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>> As you wrote, over 73 million people can't be wrong. But then
>>> again, neither can 25.7 or 50 million. Satellite does have its
>>> place, but let the numbers speak for themselves as to which is
>>> preferred.
>>
>> Eh, there's no accounting for taste. Witness the number of people
>> that buy brand new (or any, for that matter) American cars. They're
>> junk, just like cable, and generally owned by people that have no
>> idea that there are even better options out there.
>>
>> Like my grandmother, for example--wouldn't drive anything but her
>> '89 Buick and watch anything that the local cable company hasn't
>> deemed good enough for her.
>
> So buy her a BMW and a TiVo.

It's not a money issue; she can afford it as easily as any of us and she's
not a tightwad. It's more a matter of her just not believing that it could
be any better than it already is.

--
tooloud
Remove nothing to reply...