New HD channels WILL require new receivers.

[Guest]

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

In article <MPG.1d7ee08224387bd8989f61@news.nabs.net>,
Jeff Rife <wevsr@nabs.net> wrote:

> Jack Zwick (jackzwick@yahoo.com) wrote in rec.video.satellite.dbs:
> > > DirecTV has *always* replaced equipment for free when they change
> > > technology in such a way that old equipment can no longer be used to
> > > receive channels. When multiple satellite locations came up, receivers
> > > and dishes were replaced for free.
> >
> > Only for locations that required it to receive local stations, and that
> > was part of a Federal mandate.
>
> No, that's not true. You're thinking of Dish Network and the single dish
> requirement for all locals.
>
> DirecTV gave free multi-satellite dishes to anyone that wanted them so
> that they could get more programming of any kind.
>
> > HD is different.
>
> Not in DirecTV's eyes. Every single person who told DirecTV "I want to
> get HD...what do I need?" was given a 3-LNB dish for free if they asked for
> it, and many were given it even if they weren't.

Because the HD channells require it, not because DTv is being generous.


Absolutely HD is different. The broadcasting of all locals was and is an
FCC mandate.

HD is and will remain different until such time as the only local
channels are HD and analog goes away.

Perhaps they're the same in DTv eyes, but thats again a GUESS on your
part. They have NEVER said officially word one on the subject.

 

[Guest]

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

I received a free oval dish and installation when I purchased (at a very
significant discount) my HD rx from DirecTV.

All speculation aside, I have been treated VERY well by DirecTV. That is
factual, and based on over 10 years of experience with them. Have they been
perfect? No. Have they been very good? Yes.

I never put any faith in reps on the phone and to continually rant at
DirecTV based on minimum wage phone people, in the face of actual
performance of the company, is at least unfair, and at most no more than
bashing.

Instead of nitpicking every little detail with ill-informed speculation (and
always assuming the worst as well), pull back and look at the actual past
results for the subscribers. The best predictor of future behavior is past
behavior, as Jeff has tried to point out to you over and over again.

I, for one, am not the least bit worried about how this will all shake out.
Mindless speculation may excite you, but it really is nothing more than
useless prattle.

Do you have so much time on your hands that speculation is the only way to
fill your day? Every post of yours on this topic is permeated with "NO NO
NO"...they haven't done this, they haven't done that, they lie, they never,
they (fill in the blank with more accusations laced with speculative
whining). All very negative and all essentially pointless. No wonder you
are dissatisfied. Wait it out or change providers (or both).

After reading your plethora of posts and responses, it is more than apparent
that you just like to see yourself in print and have the last word. Kinda
like the ne're-do-well in "My Uncle Vinny" who came from a long line of
arguers in his family, except lacking the endearing qualities of the Joe
Pesci character. More's the pity.

....hasan, N0AN

"Jack Zwick" <jackzwick@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:jackzwick-F9A5AF.05390231082005@newsclstr01.news.prodigy.com...
> In article <MPG.1d7ee08224387bd8989f61@news.nabs.net>,
> Jeff Rife <wevsr@nabs.net> wrote:
>
>> Jack Zwick (jackzwick@yahoo.com) wrote in rec.video.satellite.dbs:
>> > > DirecTV has *always* replaced equipment for free when they change
>> > > technology in such a way that old equipment can no longer be used to
>> > > receive channels. When multiple satellite locations came up,
>> > > receivers
>> > > and dishes were replaced for free.
>> >
>> > Only for locations that required it to receive local stations, and that
>> > was part of a Federal mandate.
>>
>> No, that's not true. You're thinking of Dish Network and the single dish
>> requirement for all locals.
>>
>> DirecTV gave free multi-satellite dishes to anyone that wanted them so
>> that they could get more programming of any kind.
>>
>> > HD is different.
>>
>> Not in DirecTV's eyes. Every single person who told DirecTV "I want to
>> get HD...what do I need?" was given a 3-LNB dish for free if they asked
>> for
>> it, and many were given it even if they weren't.
>
> Because the HD channells require it, not because DTv is being generous.
>
>
> Absolutely HD is different. The broadcasting of all locals was and is an
> FCC mandate.
>
> HD is and will remain different until such time as the only local
> channels are HD and analog goes away.
>
> Perhaps they're the same in DTv eyes, but thats again a GUESS on your
> part. They have NEVER said officially word one on the subject.

 

[Guest]

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

Jack Zwick (jackzwick@yahoo.com) wrote in alt.video.ptv.tivo:
> > Not in DirecTV's eyes. Every single person who told DirecTV "I want to
> > get HD...what do I need?" was given a 3-LNB dish for free if they asked for
> > it, and many were given it even if they weren't.
>
> Because the HD channells require it, not because DTv is being generous.

Yes, they are being generous. They don't *have* to give away the extra
equipment...they merely choose to do so.

> Absolutely HD is different. The broadcasting of all locals was and is an
> FCC mandate.

No, it is not. Digital is the only requirement...not HD.

--
Jeff Rife |
| http/www.nabs.net/Cartoons/OverTheHedge/Olympics.gif

 

[Guest]

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

In article <df4790$vud$1@news.netins.net>,
"hasan schiers" <schiers@netins.net> wrote:

> I received a free oval dish and installation when I purchased (at a very
> significant discount) my HD rx from DirecTV.
>
> All speculation aside, I have been treated VERY well by DirecTV. That is
> factual, and based on over 10 years of experience with them. Have they been
> perfect? No. Have they been very good? Yes.

Have they changed ownership? Yes.
Is the new ownership more cost conscienious ? Yes.
Is support being outsourced to the Phillipines? Yes


>
> I never put any faith in reps on the phone and to continually rant at
> DirecTV based on minimum wage phone people, in the face of actual
> performance of the company, is at least unfair, and at most no more than
> bashing.
>
> Instead of nitpicking every little detail with ill-informed speculation (and
> always assuming the worst as well), pull back and look at the actual past
> results for the subscribers. The best predictor of future behavior is past
> behavior, as Jeff has tried to point out to you over and over again.
>
> I, for one, am not the least bit worried about how this will all shake out.
> Mindless speculation may excite you, but it really is nothing more than
> useless prattle.
>
> Do you have so much time on your hands that speculation is the only way to
> fill your day? Every post of yours on this topic is permeated with "NO NO
> NO"...they haven't done this, they haven't done that, they lie, they never,
> they (fill in the blank with more accusations laced with speculative
> whining). All very negative and all essentially pointless. No wonder you
> are dissatisfied. Wait it out or change providers (or both).
>
> After reading your plethora of posts and responses, it is more than apparent
> that you just like to see yourself in print and have the last word. Kinda
> like the ne're-do-well in "My Uncle Vinny" who came from a long line of
> arguers in his family, except lacking the endearing qualities of the Joe
> Pesci character. More's the pity.

Typical - When you lose an argument, Get personal.

>
> ...hasan, N0AN
>
> "Jack Zwick" <jackzwick@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:jackzwick-F9A5AF.05390231082005@newsclstr01.news.prodigy.com...
> > In article <MPG.1d7ee08224387bd8989f61@news.nabs.net>,
> > Jeff Rife <wevsr@nabs.net> wrote:
> >
> >> Jack Zwick (jackzwick@yahoo.com) wrote in rec.video.satellite.dbs:
> >> > > DirecTV has *always* replaced equipment for free when they change
> >> > > technology in such a way that old equipment can no longer be used to
> >> > > receive channels. When multiple satellite locations came up,
> >> > > receivers
> >> > > and dishes were replaced for free.
> >> >
> >> > Only for locations that required it to receive local stations, and that
> >> > was part of a Federal mandate.
> >>
> >> No, that's not true. You're thinking of Dish Network and the single dish
> >> requirement for all locals.
> >>
> >> DirecTV gave free multi-satellite dishes to anyone that wanted them so
> >> that they could get more programming of any kind.
> >>
> >> > HD is different.
> >>
> >> Not in DirecTV's eyes. Every single person who told DirecTV "I want to
> >> get HD...what do I need?" was given a 3-LNB dish for free if they asked
> >> for
> >> it, and many were given it even if they weren't.
> >
> > Because the HD channells require it, not because DTv is being generous.
> >
> >
> > Absolutely HD is different. The broadcasting of all locals was and is an
> > FCC mandate.
> >
> > HD is and will remain different until such time as the only local
> > channels are HD and analog goes away.
> >
> > Perhaps they're the same in DTv eyes, but thats again a GUESS on your
> > part. They have NEVER said officially word one on the subject.

 

[Guest]

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

Jack Zwick (jackzwick@yahoo.com) wrote in alt.video.ptv.tivo:
> > All speculation aside, I have been treated VERY well by DirecTV. That is
> > factual, and based on over 10 years of experience with them. Have they been
> > perfect? No. Have they been very good? Yes.
>
> Have they changed ownership? Yes.

Have any policies about discounted or free hardware changed after the
ownership change? No!

--
Jeff Rife |
| http/www.nabs.net/Cartoons/RhymesWithOrange/ReadyForADog.jpg

 

[Guest]

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

In article <-9ydnQNPYs4TAIjeRVn-gQ@comcast.com>,
"AGN" <agnesspor1234@comcast.net> wrote:

>
> > If you think Dtv will instantly swap out old units for new $1000 units,
> > you are the one dreaming.
>
> Watch and see, sport. Do you actually believe that the units cost DTV
> anywhere near $1000?
>
> With all your concerns and obvious sleepless nights over this, maybe you
> should subscribe to hi def cable.

I have no sleepless nights. I also have zero idea how this will all
shake out, except that of all the infinite possibilities, there is no
reason to try and fool yourself that DirecTv is committed to the best of
all them.

They have said zero publically.

 

[Guest]

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

On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 13:32:03 +0000, Jack Zwick wrote:

> In article <-9ydnQNPYs4TAIjeRVn-gQ@comcast.com>,
> "AGN" <agnesspor1234@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>
>> > If you think Dtv will instantly swap out old units for new $1000 units,
>> > you are the one dreaming.
>>
>> Watch and see, sport. Do you actually believe that the units cost DTV
>> anywhere near $1000?
>>
>> With all your concerns and obvious sleepless nights over this, maybe you
>> should subscribe to hi def cable.
>
> I have no sleepless nights. I also have zero idea how this will all
> shake out, except that of all the infinite possibilities, there is no
> reason to try and fool yourself that DirecTv is committed to the best of
> all them.
>
> They have said zero publically.

And they are unlikely to do so until the rollout is imminent. There is no
reason to show their hand to Dish and the cable companies.

 

[Guest]

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

In article <4315b55b$1_2@newspeer2.tds.net>,
"Steve M. Mann" <rockermann@LOOSEITsteve-mann.com> wrote:

> On 08/30/2005 3:39 PM, Jack Zwick pondered briefly and then wrote:
>
> > In article <1125432290.8c7cd3e643488f05bc6cc29600d1e700@teranews>,
> > "Steve M. Mann" <rockermann@LOOSEITsteve-mann.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On 08/30/2005 2:43 PM, Jack Zwick pondered briefly and then wrote:
> >>
> >> > In article <dImdnVm0d4YLAYneRVn-jg@comcast.com>,
> >> > "AGN" <agnesspor1234@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> What "vested" interest will I possibly have?
> >> >>
> >> >> DTV is going to do the changeouts themselves, I won't be in the loop.
> >> >>
> >> >> If you think for one second that DTV is going to let paying customers
> >> >> hanging with no access to the programming with all the competition out
> >> >> there
> >> >> you're more clueless than I give you credit for.
> >> >
> >> > If you think Dtv will instantly swap out old units for new $1000 units,
> >> > you are the one dreaming.
> >>
> >> Not a dream at all. Most informed sources believe the upgrade will be
> >> done at a very minimal cost to the subscriber if any all. There will
> >> likely be a 2 year subscription commitment requirement, however. There's
> >> a recent thread (and many others) over on the AVS boards about this.
> >
> > Nice try. Now produce a URL for your "informed source" - you?
> >
> > The folks at the AVS boards are all guessing, as am I as DirecTv refuses
> > to say.
>
> You said it. You're guessing. But, do you really think D* is going to
> charge long time customers a large amount and risk loosing those customers?

With Murdock running the show, they will have a rookie MBA put a pencil
to it and do what is best for them cost wize rather than what you or I
might think logical.


>
> We're going to find out for sure which way DirecTV is going to go. I'll
> 'guess' that they require a 2 year commitment and maybe shipping
> charges. I 'guess' we'll see who's right soon enough.

And if they do that you forgot to add the "waiting list" that could be
months or years.

 

[Guest]

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

On 08/31/2005 10:33 AM, Jack Zwick pondered briefly and then wrote:

> In article <4315b55b$1_2@newspeer2.tds.net>,
> "Steve M. Mann" <rockermann@LOOSEITsteve-mann.com> wrote:
>
>> On 08/30/2005 3:39 PM, Jack Zwick pondered briefly and then wrote:
>>
>> > In article <1125432290.8c7cd3e643488f05bc6cc29600d1e700@teranews>,
>> > "Steve M. Mann" <rockermann@LOOSEITsteve-mann.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> On 08/30/2005 2:43 PM, Jack Zwick pondered briefly and then wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > In article <dImdnVm0d4YLAYneRVn-jg@comcast.com>,
>> >> > "AGN" <agnesspor1234@comcast.net> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> What "vested" interest will I possibly have?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> DTV is going to do the changeouts themselves, I won't be in the loop.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> If you think for one second that DTV is going to let paying customers
>> >> >> hanging with no access to the programming with all the competition out
>> >> >> there
>> >> >> you're more clueless than I give you credit for.
>> >> >
>> >> > If you think Dtv will instantly swap out old units for new $1000 units,
>> >> > you are the one dreaming.
>> >>
>> >> Not a dream at all. Most informed sources believe the upgrade will be
>> >> done at a very minimal cost to the subscriber if any all. There will
>> >> likely be a 2 year subscription commitment requirement, however. There's
>> >> a recent thread (and many others) over on the AVS boards about this.
>> >
>> > Nice try. Now produce a URL for your "informed source" - you?
>> >
>> > The folks at the AVS boards are all guessing, as am I as DirecTv refuses
>> > to say.
>>
>> You said it. You're guessing. But, do you really think D* is going to
>> charge long time customers a large amount and risk loosing those customers?
>
> With Murdock running the show, they will have a rookie MBA put a pencil
> to it and do what is best for them cost wize rather than what you or I
> might think logical.
>>
>> We're going to find out for sure which way DirecTV is going to go. I'll
>> 'guess' that they require a 2 year commitment and maybe shipping
>> charges. I 'guess' we'll see who's right soon enough.
>
> And if they do that you forgot to add the "waiting list" that could be
> months or years.

Shouldn't you change your on screen name to Chicken Little? It would
certainly be fitting.

--
Steve
http/www.soundclick.com/rockermann

 

[Guest]

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

In article <MPG.1d7f95591899edde989f63@news.nabs.net>,
Jeff Rife <wevsr@nabs.net> wrote:

> Jack Zwick (jackzwick@yahoo.com) wrote in alt.video.ptv.tivo:
> > > Not in DirecTV's eyes. Every single person who told DirecTV "I want to
> > > get HD...what do I need?" was given a 3-LNB dish for free if they asked
> > > for
> > > it, and many were given it even if they weren't.
> >
> > Because the HD channells require it, not because DTv is being generous.
>
> Yes, they are being generous. They don't *have* to give away the extra
> equipment...they merely choose to do so.
>
> > Absolutely HD is different. The broadcasting of all locals was and is an
> > FCC mandate.
>
> No, it is not. Digital is the only requirement...not HD.

technically yes, but actually no, as everyone I know of that goes
digital, also goes to HD.

 

[Guest]

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

Jack Zwick (jackzwick@yahoo.com) wrote in rec.video.satellite.dbs:
> > No, it is not. Digital is the only requirement...not HD.
>
> technically yes, but actually no, as everyone I know of that goes
> digital, also goes to HD.

This goes to show that you know very little about this subject.

In Washington, DC (#8 market in the country), there are 12 digital TV
channels on line. Five of them are SD-only, and only one of the other
7 shows any HDTV that isn't sourced from the network.

This is pretty much typical across the country, although some areas don't
have any passthrough of network HD...they have nothing but SD.

--
Jeff Rife |
| http/www.nabs.net/Cartoons/OverTheHedge/TiVoForRealLife.gif

 

[seth]

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

"Jeff Rife" <wevsr@nabs.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.1d7f95591899edde989f63@news.nabs.net...
> Jack Zwick (jackzwick@yahoo.com) wrote in alt.video.ptv.tivo:
>> > Not in DirecTV's eyes. Every single person who told DirecTV "I want to
>> > get HD...what do I need?" was given a 3-LNB dish for free if they asked
>> > for
>> > it, and many were given it even if they weren't.
>>
>> Because the HD channells require it, not because DTv is being generous.
>
> Yes, they are being generous. They don't *have* to give away the extra
> equipment...they merely choose to do so.
>
>> Absolutely HD is different. The broadcasting of all locals was and is an
>> FCC mandate.
>
> No, it is not. Digital is the only requirement...not HD.

What actually was a mandate by the FCC was that if you supply locals, all
the channels for that locale have to be accessible by a single dish. DiSH
Network got into some hotwater over this. They had the primary channels for
a locale on 110 or 119 and put the "lesser" stations on the wing slots (61
and 148). Thus people were getting the channels they most wanted to see off
the core location, but channels who elected for "Must Carry" status weren't
getting seen as most subscribers (at the time) didn't have the 2nd dish, and
didn't bother asking as the channels they were missing weren't important
enough to them as well.

The FCC stepped in, partially to protect the consumer and make sure they
were able to get every channel they were paying for, but mostly to protect
the stations that elected "Must Carry" status (seeing as the ability to be
able to choose Must Carry was imposed to protect the smaller stations in the
first place).

 

[Guest]

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

Jack Zwick <jackzwick@yahoo.com> wrote:
> In article <MPG.1d7f95591899edde989f63@news.nabs.net>,
> Jeff Rife <wevsr@nabs.net> wrote:
>
> > Jack Zwick (jackzwick@yahoo.com) wrote in alt.video.ptv.tivo:
> > > > Not in DirecTV's eyes. Every single person who told DirecTV "I
> > > > want to get HD...what do I need?" was given a 3-LNB dish for free
> > > > if they asked for
> > > > it, and many were given it even if they weren't.
> > >
> > > Because the HD channells require it, not because DTv is being
> > > generous.
> >
> > Yes, they are being generous. They don't *have* to give away the extra
> > equipment...they merely choose to do so.
> >
> > > Absolutely HD is different. The broadcasting of all locals was and is
> > > an FCC mandate.
> >
> > No, it is not. Digital is the only requirement...not HD.
>
> technically yes, but actually no, as everyone I know of that goes
> digital, also goes to HD.

Then you never heard of WGGB in Springfield MA.

Chip

--
-------------------- http/NewsReader.Com/ --------------------
Usenet Newsgroup Service $9.95/Month 30GB

 

[sinner]

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.tivo (More info?)

* Randy S. Wrote in alt.video.ptv.tivo:

> I don't know what's
> got you all hot and bothered over this, maybe it's those
> know-nothing front-line service reps, but the reality is that the
> final procedure probably isn't even really set in stone yet.
>

I think its the absence of 'he who's name shall not be mentioned' and
the inherant boredom due to lack of trolling and other Tivo haters.

--
David

 

[sinner]

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

* hasan schiers Wrote in alt.video.ptv.tivo:

> Kinda
> like the ne're-do-well in "My Uncle Vinny" who came from a long
> line of arguers in his family, except lacking the endearing
> qualities of the Joe Pesci character. More's the pity.
>

That's "My COUSIN Vinny". One of my all time favs

--
David

 

[Guest]

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

Jeff Rife wrote:
> Jack Zwick (jackzwick@yahoo.com) wrote in rec.video.satellite.dbs:
>
>>>No, it is not. Digital is the only requirement...not HD.
>>
>>technically yes, but actually no, as everyone I know of that goes
>>digital, also goes to HD.
>
>
> This goes to show that you know very little about this subject.
>
> In Washington, DC (#8 market in the country), there are 12 digital TV
> channels on line. Five of them are SD-only, and only one of the other
> 7 shows any HDTV that isn't sourced from the network.
>
> This is pretty much typical across the country, although some areas don't
> have any passthrough of network HD...they have nothing but SD.
>

Locally it seems pretty typical that a broadcaster will have 2
subchannels, one of which is SD, the other is either HD all the time, or
HD in the evening, and SD the rest of the time.

Randy S.

 

[Guest]

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

In article <20050831120556.553$Pw@newsreader.com>,
cjdaytonjrnospam@cox.net wrote:

> Jack Zwick <jackzwick@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > In article <MPG.1d7f95591899edde989f63@news.nabs.net>,
> > Jeff Rife <wevsr@nabs.net> wrote:
> >
> > > Jack Zwick (jackzwick@yahoo.com) wrote in alt.video.ptv.tivo:
> > > > > Not in DirecTV's eyes. Every single person who told DirecTV "I
> > > > > want to get HD...what do I need?" was given a 3-LNB dish for free
> > > > > if they asked for
> > > > > it, and many were given it even if they weren't.
> > > >
> > > > Because the HD channells require it, not because DTv is being
> > > > generous.
> > >
> > > Yes, they are being generous. They don't *have* to give away the extra
> > > equipment...they merely choose to do so.
> > >
> > > > Absolutely HD is different. The broadcasting of all locals was and is
> > > > an FCC mandate.
> > >
> > > No, it is not. Digital is the only requirement...not HD.
> >
> > technically yes, but actually no, as everyone I know of that goes
> > digital, also goes to HD.
>
> Then you never heard of WGGB in Springfield MA.


Is that the exception that proves the rule?

I like everyone else would love a free upgrade. That by no means assures
it will happen.

 

[Guest]

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

In article <4315cedd$1_3@newspeer2.tds.net>,
"Steve M. Mann" <rockermann@LOOSEITsteve-mann.com> wrote:

> On 08/31/2005 10:33 AM, Jack Zwick pondered briefly and then wrote:
>
> > In article <4315b55b$1_2@newspeer2.tds.net>,
> > "Steve M. Mann" <rockermann@LOOSEITsteve-mann.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On 08/30/2005 3:39 PM, Jack Zwick pondered briefly and then wrote:
> >>
> >> > In article <1125432290.8c7cd3e643488f05bc6cc29600d1e700@teranews>,
> >> > "Steve M. Mann" <rockermann@LOOSEITsteve-mann.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> On 08/30/2005 2:43 PM, Jack Zwick pondered briefly and then wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> > In article <dImdnVm0d4YLAYneRVn-jg@comcast.com>,
> >> >> > "AGN" <agnesspor1234@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> What "vested" interest will I possibly have?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> DTV is going to do the changeouts themselves, I won't be in the
> >> >> >> loop.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> If you think for one second that DTV is going to let paying
> >> >> >> customers
> >> >> >> hanging with no access to the programming with all the competition
> >> >> >> out
> >> >> >> there
> >> >> >> you're more clueless than I give you credit for.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > If you think Dtv will instantly swap out old units for new $1000
> >> >> > units,
> >> >> > you are the one dreaming.
> >> >>
> >> >> Not a dream at all. Most informed sources believe the upgrade will be
> >> >> done at a very minimal cost to the subscriber if any all. There will
> >> >> likely be a 2 year subscription commitment requirement, however.
> >> >> There's
> >> >> a recent thread (and many others) over on the AVS boards about this.
> >> >
> >> > Nice try. Now produce a URL for your "informed source" - you?
> >> >
> >> > The folks at the AVS boards are all guessing, as am I as DirecTv refuses
> >> > to say.
> >>
> >> You said it. You're guessing. But, do you really think D* is going to
> >> charge long time customers a large amount and risk loosing those
> >> customers?
> >
> > With Murdock running the show, they will have a rookie MBA put a pencil
> > to it and do what is best for them cost wize rather than what you or I
> > might think logical.
> >>
> >> We're going to find out for sure which way DirecTV is going to go. I'll
> >> 'guess' that they require a 2 year commitment and maybe shipping
> >> charges. I 'guess' we'll see who's right soon enough.
> >
> > And if they do that you forgot to add the "waiting list" that could be
> > months or years.
>
> Shouldn't you change your on screen name to Chicken Little? It would
> certainly be fitting.

I love it when USENET posters lose an argument and lapse into childish
insults.

I like everyone else would love for Directv to give free upgrades with
the new HD channels. I have seen little evidence yet to guarantee that
happening.

 

[Guest]

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

On 08/31/2005 12:51 PM, Jack Zwick pondered briefly and then wrote:

[...]
>> Shouldn't you change your on screen name to Chicken Little? It would
>> certainly be fitting.
>
> I love it when USENET posters lose an argument and lapse into childish
> insults.

Now who's slinging personal insults?

I never insulted you, nor did I loose any 'argument'. You have yet to
prove any of your 'guesses'.

All I did was describe your attitude. Others seem to see you the same way.

> I like everyone else would love for Directv to give free upgrades with
> the new HD channels. I have seen little evidence yet to guarantee that
> happening.

I have seen little evidence of it not happening. There, now we're even.
--
Steve
http/www.soundclick.com/rockermann

 

[Guest]

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

In article <pan.2005.08.31.17.25.47.5582@removethis.oz.net>,
Bob Nielsen <nielsen@removethis.oz.net> wrote:

> On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 13:32:03 +0000, Jack Zwick wrote:
>
> > In article <-9ydnQNPYs4TAIjeRVn-gQ@comcast.com>,
> > "AGN" <agnesspor1234@comcast.net> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> > If you think Dtv will instantly swap out old units for new $1000 units,
> >> > you are the one dreaming.
> >>
> >> Watch and see, sport. Do you actually believe that the units cost DTV
> >> anywhere near $1000?
> >>
> >> With all your concerns and obvious sleepless nights over this, maybe you
> >> should subscribe to hi def cable.
> >
> > I have no sleepless nights. I also have zero idea how this will all
> > shake out, except that of all the infinite possibilities, there is no
> > reason to try and fool yourself that DirecTv is committed to the best of
> > all them.
> >
> > They have said zero publically.
>
> And they are unlikely to do so until the rollout is imminent. There is no
> reason to show their hand to Dish and the cable companies.

Thats exactly what they did by pre-announcing the satellite launches the
number of new channels and the number of cities to be covered by
satellite provided HD locals and the order they are coming.