results are in. Satellites win, cable loses.

[Guest]

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

Jack Zwick wrote:

> Sorry, Cable has zero credibility.

And, you have lost yours.

 

[Guest]

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

In article <427E779C.C4099F17@home.com>, ric <nospam@home.com> wrote:

> Jack Zwick wrote:
>
> > Sorry, Cable has zero credibility.
>
> And, you have lost yours.

I am proud to be judged by the minority that would think so.

 

[Sean]

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

On Fri, 6 May 2005 18:04:32 -0400, Jeff Rife <wevsr@nabs.net> wrote:

> (Sean <none>) wrote in rec.video.satellite.dbs:
>> if, if, if. How about talking about the way things are? You posted
>> about VOD which you obviously don't know much about.
>
>Yeah, right. Other than some being PPV (none here is...it's all free
>if you subscribe to the source channel), everything the local Comcast does
>is the same as you describe. And, they spent a boatload of money on
>bandwidth, and now they are going to spend a boatload of money on getting
>their DVR service up to the quality that people expect. Luckily, they
>can just pass it on to their customers with their twice-yearly 10% price
>increase.
>
>> Spare me your theories on how it could be dopne better. I'm sure
>> Cable executives will be contacting you soon to redo their VOD
>> business plan.
>
>No, but they might be contacting DirecTV, who will be doing their version
>of "VOD" using DVR devices. Or, they might be contacting TiVo, because
>TiVo already has the concept of "hidden" videos built in...the VOD could
>be stored there. So, maybe Comcast will call TiVo soon and make a deal
>to use that sort of technology...oh, wait, they already did.


Oh, give me a break.

I read somewhere that Comcast was talking to Sony about getting access
to their catalog of movies for their VOD.

That's thousands of titles.

I suppose you, Mr. Engineer, would propose the best way to make
thousands of movies available is to use DVR technology?

Give it up.

Next thing we'll hear is that the next release of Tivo will cure
static cling.

Sean

 

[Sean]

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

On Sun, 08 May 2005 13:33:32 -0700, ric <nospam@home.com> wrote:

>Jack Zwick wrote:
>
>> Sorry, Cable has zero credibility.
>
>And, you have lost yours.

He never had any.

He's a DTV TIVO rumpswab.

Soon we'll be hearing Jackie and his ilk crying a river when they
get their new NDS DVR.

Sean

 

[Guest]

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

"Jack Zwick" <jzwick3@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:jzwick3-6BBC4E.04481306052005@news1.west.earthlink.net...
> In article <20050505183403.420$GW@newsreader.com>,
> cjdaytonjrnospam@cox.net wrote:
>
>> Jack Zwick <jzwick3@mindspring.com> wrote:
>> > As of March 31:
>> >
>> > DirecTv 14,500,000
>> >
>> > Dish 11,230,000
>> >
>> > ------------------------
>> >
>> > Total 25,730,000
>> >
>> > Comcast, Warner, Cox, Charter and friends have scared away 25 million
>> > customers, what's that: 60 million viewers?
>>
>> To be fair, a number of these cannot get cable. But you are right,
>> most would have stayed with cable if they were treated like they were
>> valued.
>> Chip
>
> It's more often the other way around. Folks continue to suffer with
> cable, because they cant get DirecTv.

I haven't suffered at all with cable. I have Time Warner MN, they must be
really good relative to other cable companies because in the five years I've
had them, I've had no outages that I can recall. And RoadRunnerMN is
consistently over 4 Mbps. Plus their service is pretty good.

 

[Guest]

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

Adam Corolla wrote:

> > It's more often the other way around. Folks continue to suffer with
> > cable, because they cant get DirecTv.
>
> I haven't suffered at all with cable. I have Time Warner MN, they must be
> really good relative to other cable companies because in the five years I've
> had them, I've had no outages that I can recall. And RoadRunnerMN is
> consistently over 4 Mbps. Plus their service is pretty good.

Indeed. I've had Cox analog cable since 1973, and their HSI service since
1998. I have a DirecTV system in my closet because the Cox analog has
better video. DirecTV had better audio, but I couldn't put up with the
video. The Cox analog video is almost as good as my C/Ku-band dish (which
I use extensive for sports feeds) except on some of the upper channels,
which have more video noise. But I still find this less offensive than
the over compressed digital on DirecTV.

Had an outage last week. It was the first one I could remember in several
years. Lasted about an hour. I read the paper instead.

 

[Guest]

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

> Indeed. I've had Cox analog cable since 1973, and their HSI service since
> 1998. I have a DirecTV system in my closet because the Cox analog has
> better video. DirecTV had better audio, but I couldn't put up with the
> video. The Cox analog video is almost as good as my C/Ku-band dish (which
> I use extensive for sports feeds) except on some of the upper channels,
> which have more video noise. But I still find this less offensive than
> the over compressed digital on DirecTV.
>
> Had an outage last week. It was the first one I could remember in several
> years. Lasted about an hour. I read the paper instead.

Maybe so, ric, but your one anecdotal story doesn't make it true for
everybody or even the majority. I have Cox as well, including HSI and
the analog quality in my house is nothing to write home about, plus it
regularly gets worse. It is *definitely* affected by poor weather and
in only 2 years I've had at least 3 outages that have lasted an entire
evening or more, plus one for over a week (caused by Hurricane Frances).
Worse, there has been uncountable incidences of loss or poor quality
on particular channels.

Does this mean *everyone's* cable experience is like mine? No, but
neither are they all like yours either.

Randy S.

 

[Guest]

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

> 4. HD programming was about the same for Dish or cable. To be fair,
> the signal quality on cable HD was every bit as good as Dish.
> However, Dish now offers HDNET, DISCOVERY HD, TNT HD, ESPN HD, HDNET
> MOVIES, and the new VOOM ten pack including ULTRA HD, MONSTERS HD,
> RAVE HD, EQUATOR HD, GALLERY HD, ANIMANIA HD, RUSH HD, HD NEWS, GUY TV
> HD, and MAJESTIC HD. The VOOM channels only cost $5 over the basic HD
> package.
> 21 additional VOOM channels are coming to DISH this fall!! This far
> exceeds anything cable offers today. I did not include the HD movie
> channels Showtime HD and HBO HD as these are automatically included if
> you subscribe to those SD packages and also have the HD pack.

Is Dish offering VOOM's old channels? How did they end up with that? I
know VOOM finally went under, but didn't know what happened to them
after that.

Randy S.

 

[Richard]

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

"Randy S." <rswittNO@SPAMgmail.com> wrote:

>
>> 4. HD programming was about the same for Dish or cable. To be fair,
>> the signal quality on cable HD was every bit as good as Dish.
>> However, Dish now offers HDNET, DISCOVERY HD, TNT HD, ESPN HD, HDNET
>> MOVIES, and the new VOOM ten pack including ULTRA HD, MONSTERS HD,
>> RAVE HD, EQUATOR HD, GALLERY HD, ANIMANIA HD, RUSH HD, HD NEWS, GUY TV
>> HD, and MAJESTIC HD. The VOOM channels only cost $5 over the basic HD
>> package.
>> 21 additional VOOM channels are coming to DISH this fall!! This far
>> exceeds anything cable offers today. I did not include the HD movie
>> channels Showtime HD and HBO HD as these are automatically included if
>> you subscribe to those SD packages and also have the HD pack.
>
>Is Dish offering VOOM's old channels? How did they end up with that? I
>know VOOM finally went under, but didn't know what happened to them
>after that.
>
>Randy S.

Yes, 10 of the HD VOOM channels are now on DISH with 21 more coming
this fall. The quality of the video signal on these channels is
outstanding and some of the folks who moved from VOOM to DISH report
that the channels actually look better than when they were on VOOM. I
can not say that since I never saw a VOOM broadcast, but I can say
that the quality is outstanding. The pessimist in me says the quality
may be very high because their are a limited number of channels
currently available but who knows.

 

[Richard]

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

"Randy S." <rswittNO@SPAMgmail.com> wrote:


>Is Dish offering VOOM's old channels? How did they end up with that? I
>know VOOM finally went under, but didn't know what happened to them
>after that.
>
>Randy S.


OOPS! You asked how they ended up with VOOM channels and I forgot to
answer. DISH bought the satellite from VOOM and I guess that they
worked out a deal with their programming. The channels would have
just gone silent until the packages were sold to others so DISH had a
perfect opportunity to be first.

 

[Guest]

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

> OOPS! You asked how they ended up with VOOM channels and I forgot to
> answer. DISH bought the satellite from VOOM and I guess that they
> worked out a deal with their programming. The channels would have
> just gone silent until the packages were sold to others so DISH had a
> perfect opportunity to be first.

Nice bonus for Dish customers! Yes, I'd always heard that the VOOM
signals were excellent. I wouldn't worry about them degrading unless
they try to push more channels through the VOOM satellite (which is
quite possible, I suppose).

Randy S.

 

[Guest]

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

"Comcast, Warner, Cox, Charter and friends have scared away 25 million"


This is a logical fallacy. First of all, not everyone who has a digital
satellite package had the option between getting it or getting cable.
Plus, you're not taking into account people who got the satellite
package without ever having cable. And then there are the ones who got
it so they could get those cards off the internet or from friends so
they could get all the channels for free, illegally.To say that all
these customers that have digital satellite were scared away from cable
by the companies is just stupid.

And cable is still winning because it has more than a 65% of market
share- nearly 75 million subscribers.

 

[Guest]

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

smaug86 wrote:

> "Comcast, Warner, Cox, Charter and friends have scared away 25 million"
>
> This is a logical fallacy. First of all, not everyone who has a digital
> satellite package had the option between getting it or getting cable.
> Plus, you're not taking into account people who got the satellite
> package without ever having cable. And then there are the ones who got
> it so they could get those cards off the internet or from friends so
> they could get all the channels for free, illegally.

And those that have DBS *and* basic cable.

 

[Guest]

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

"Jack Zwick" <jzwick4@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:jzwick4-649EAF.21061708052005@news1.west.earthlink.net...
> In article <427E779C.C4099F17@home.com>, ric <nospam@home.com> wrote:
>
>> Jack Zwick wrote:
>>
>> > Sorry, Cable has zero credibility.
>>
>> And, you have lost yours.
>
> I am proud to be judged by the minority that would think so.

It's too bad that so many cable companies have provided such horrible
service to their customers. I am grateful that dish service exists, because
the cable companies are being forced to either improve their services or die
out.

I have had terrific service from my cable company, but clearly I am one of
the few cable subscribers lucky enough to have a good provider.

Still, I refuse to accept your assertion that every single one of the 25
million dish customers was "sacred away" by the cable companies. Sure, a
lot of them were, but others might not be able to get cable (like my
parents, who have dish service) or might be new subscribers who chose dish
because they had better advertising and marketing or because they knew
someone else who had it. Do you have any links to statistics of how many
cable subscribers there were from year to year since the Dish companies
started?