Jump to content
[[Template core/front/custom/_customHeader is throwing an error. This theme may be out of date. Run the support tool in the AdminCP to restore the default theme.]]

BOOOOOOOOOOOO!


Recommended Posts

I think it's possible that you are either not making your point as clearly as you think you are... or you aren't actually making a good point.

 

 

 

Well, when I refer to all digital broadcasts and he refers to everyone receiving hi-def, then he's not got his facts straight on an admittedly complex subject. Also, grabbing onto tangental points and saying my argument is the equivelant of the anti-color TV argument is lacking comprehension, tailgate style.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 119
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Well it has happened.... http://www.comcast.com/sportspack/

 

It might be time to call Comcast and threaten to leave and see if I can get a deal. :D

 

 

"Now Comcast customers who are NFL fans can watch the NFL Network on the Comcast Sports Entertainment Package while customers who do not wish to watch NFL games will not incur additional costs. "

 

Oh! I didn't realize they were going to lower their prices for people who opt not to get it. That was nice of them. :D

 

(sarcasm)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's not true. I've seen satellite signal (DirecTV, Dish Network, etc.) go to crap for 40+ minutes in rain in a NUMBER of places. This is a well-documented phenomenon known as Rain Fade. The dish doesn't need to be physically moved for the signal to suffer.

Sure, I had signal while catching the edge of Hurricane Rita (rain and 40+ mph sustained wind). But I've also lost signal for an hour or more in a run-of-the-mill thunderstorm.

 

 

This doesn’t mean, however, that buying the largest antenna possible will solve all rain-related problems. There is a point (usually under extremely heavy rain conditions and only for very brief periods) where virtually 100% of the satellite signal is absorbed by rain and no increase in antenna size will raise availability.

 

I do believe that the weather can shut down a signal, briefly. But as a cable subscriber in the past, I have lost "the signal" because the cable company was having trouble from with their satellites. All I am saying is that with exceptional installation of my dishes (I always toss the installer and extra 20 spot on the side for that "personal touch), I have never had any significant reception problems! :D So in my case... IT IS TRUE!

 

For my money, I would rather deal with the problems that arise from one system rather than two. The $ for service, quality of service and picture clarity/superiority a VAST MAJORITY of the year make DirecTv a hands down winner!

 

You talk about all the knob-slobbing that goes on around here as it relates to DirecTv. Maybe it is because we in a vast majority are satisfied customers and like talking about a product we endorse? I don't see the same type of fervent support for other providers :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Weather can and does effect a satellite signal. It has with mine in the past and will in the future. It's the nature of the beast. Are these long periods of time? No. Does it happen with a slight drizzle? No, but it does happen in severe thunderstorms and to a lesser degree with me very bad snow. Is my dish installed correctly, absolutely. Anyone can check their signal strength themselves with the software that sits inside your sat. box. If the strength is good your sat. is positioned correctly. As far as the sat. dish moving, even a slight move in the dish will effect your reception and can result in a bad signal but, if installed correctly this just doesn't happen. If the weather is that severe I guess it can but, if the weather was that bad you'd probably have to reaim the dish anyway. Even with these small inconveniences I love the dish and would not go back to cable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, when I refer to all digital broadcasts and he refers to everyone receiving hi-def, then he's not got his facts straight on an admittedly complex subject. Also, grabbing onto tangental points and saying my argument is the equivelant of the anti-color TV argument is lacking comprehension, tailgate style.

No I understand you quite well, Pope.

 

You're debating that the "free" over air signal isn't really "free", as it'll soon be changing away from analog broadcasts altogether, thus forcing people with the old technology of an analog only capable receiver, to either purchase a new digital capable receiver (BTW, a recent study done for the EPA shows that on average, US households purchase a new TV every 7 to 9 years anyway) or rent / buy a receiver box to allow their old technological analog set to receive the new digital broadcast signal...

(...regardless of whether I refer to this complex subject as, digital, Hi Def or expialidoteous.) :D

 

For you to dismiss the previous break through in broadcast technology as only a tangential point, yet it forced the exact same set of circumstances that you're currently debating,

IE: a complete shift in broadcasting technology which forced consumers to purchase a completely new receiver to realize all the advantages of the change in "free" over air broadcasts.

is disingenuous to say the least & shows a clear failure to grasp the comparison.

 

However, back on point.

 

The Senate is looking to ensure, that regardless of your TV's receiving capabilities, analog or digital, right now or in 2009, you can receive "free" over the air NFL broadcasts.

 

As of right now, or in 2009, if the NFL Networks signal continues as is, it is impossibile to view those broadcasts without first paying for some additional service, be it cable, satellite, or (I suspect), eventually I-net.

 

To debate that the Senate should consider technological advances in broadcasting capabilities, which makes latent technology obsolete, as another hinderance to receiving "free" over air broadcasts & try to lump that in with not being able to receive an over air broadcast period, is neither logical, nor within the scope of what they're looking to accomplish.

 

Failure to understand that, is lacking comprehension, tailgate style. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do believe that the weather can shut down a signal, briefly. But as a cable subscriber in the past, I have lost "the signal" because the cable company was having trouble from with their satellites. All I am saying is that with exceptional installation of my dishes (I always toss the installer and extra 20 spot on the side for that "personal touch),

 

For my money, I would rather deal with the problems that arise from one system rather than two. The $ for service, quality of service and picture clarity/superiority a VAST MAJORITY of the year make DirecTv a hands down winner!

 

You talk about all the knob-slobbing that goes on around here as it relates to DirecTv. Maybe it is because we in a vast majority are satisfied customers and like talking about a product we endorse? I don't see the same type of fervent support for other providers :D

 

That's funny, because DirecTV has been around for a while now and still doesn't have anything close to a "majority" of market share. That's why they over-paid for the Sunday Ticket and made an unsuccessful bid for exclusive rights to Extra Innings a few months ago. Without exclusive rights to sports packages, they be Dish Network's equally-irrelevant cousin.

 

I have never had any significant reception problems! :D So in my case... IT IS TRUE!

 

That's nice, but I live in an area that gets an average of 50" of rain a year (the vast majority of which falls between November and March). And even when I lived in a much drier SE Texas, I still had problems with pixelation during rain and complete loss of signal for 40 minutes or more during a storm. Despite cable's monopoly and poor service in some areas, I've had overwhelmingly more reliable picture with cable (Insight in Indiana and Comcast in Oregon). As long as my cable company is giving me a reliable signal, I have no desire to watch TV over an inherently-inferior broadcasting medium. I'll go watch the Colts at the bar.

 

I realize that my experience doesn't represent everybody else's and I'm no cheerleader for the bastard monopoly cable companies, but DirecTV is only as good as one's environment will allow.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is the first step towards "NFL as pay-per-view". Basically, the NFL knows that a bunch of people love their games enough that they will fork over for a premium package so that they can watch Thursday and Saturday night games.

 

Let's face it, other than that, what other reason is there to pay $$ to watch the NFL Network? As far as league coverage is concerned, ESPN's "NFL Live" is about 5X better than anything on the NFL network. Heck, Chris Mortenson could kick the butt of the rest of NFL Network's programming by himself.

 

So the NFL insists that we fork out to watch a couple extra games each week. I don't really mind that they are doing this, I may take them up on it or I may not, but that is what it is all about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

To debate that the Senate should consider technological advances in broadcasting capabilities, which makes latent technology obsolete, as another hinderance to receiving "free" over air broadcasts & try to lump that in with not being able to receive an over air broadcast period, is neither logical, nor within the scope of what they're looking to accomplish.

 

Failure to understand that, is lacking comprehension, tailgate style. :D

 

 

 

Let's recap:

 

(Pope Flick @ 5/13/07 12:51am) *

These hearing are interesting because some of the logic seems clear, while other parts seem to be missing some context. The opening statements on the part of Leahy talk of concern about the 'free, over the air' aspect of Football broadcasts being lost but the context of that statement is that in 3 years time there will be no more analog 'free over the air broadcasts' on standard def TV's, you're going to need a digital receiver in your television to receive any signal whatsoever. That doesn't sound very free to me.

 

Same argument as when color TV came out. Why go to color when everyone has black & white TV's?

 

That's where this whole thing jumped the shark. I should have called BS in that asinine interpretation then and there.

 

And I do have issue with politicians thumping their chests at the NFL about whether or not their Federal Exemption should be pulled, while at the same time forcing obsolesence on consumers. They're only in it for their lobbyists and getting coin for them. That's what they're trying to accomplish. This isn't some 'we're taking care of the little man' thing they're doing on Capitol Hill. Don't try to convince me they're looking out for anything other than their own lobbyists.

 

In fact, I'd say that forcing the NFL to remain on a 'free' basis will only hinder technology even further. IMO we should be pushing towards a joining of the internet and television but keeping broadcasts around only slows that process.

 

I like how you argue semantics, but blow off that approach once you trip over it yourself.

 

Goodbye.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's recap:

That's where this whole thing jumped the shark. I should have called BS in that asinine interpretation then and there.

 

Agreed that was a bad comparison. People could continue to watch telecasts in B&W with their current equipment back then. However, I'm going to have to fork down a couple hundred dollars if I want to watch TV in my bedroom two years from now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's funny, because DirecTV has been around for a while now and still doesn't have anything close to a "majority" of market share.

 

 

Brah! :D Not worth warring about! I am talking about the VAST MAJORITY of people who use it are EXTREMELY SATISFIED.

 

Picture quality for basic packages is superior with satellite, under the majority of situations and the price is much more reasonable. More for the money.

 

All I can say is I am a satisfied DirecTv customer of 12 years and have NO plans to switch!

 

To each his own! :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And I do have issue with politicians thumping their chests at the NFL about whether or not their Federal Exemption should be pulled, while at the same time forcing obsolesence on consumers. They're only in it for their lobbyists and getting coin for them. That's what they're trying to accomplish. This isn't some 'we're taking care of the little man' thing they're doing on Capitol Hill. Don't try to convince me they're looking out for anything other than their own lobbyists.

I do not think the advances in broadcasting technology from analog to digital, providing for far superior audio & video quality is, is a result of forced obsolesence by lobbyists. If that were true you'd be hearing an enormous hue & cry from the broadcasters them selves. The changes in infastructure these comany's have to make to make to convert all of their broadcasts from analog to digital is mind boggling & they have some fairly powerful lobbyists in their own right.

 

Do you also think DVD technology & the resulting obsolesence of VHS, is a result of lobbyists?

 

Do you also think cassette tape technology & the resulting obsolesence of 8 track, is a result of lobbyists?

 

Do you also think CD technology & the resulting obsolesence of cassette tapes, is a result of lobbyists?

 

Do you also think MP3 / IPod digital technology & the resulting obsolesence of CD's, is a result of lobbyists?

 

I think you might've watched that Mel Gibson / Julia Roberts movie "Conspiracy Theory" one too many times. :D

 

Goodbye.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do not think the advances in broadcasting technology from analog to digital, providing for far superior audio & video quality is, is a result of forced obsolesence by lobbyists. If that were true you'd be hearing an enormous hue & cry from the broadcasters them selves. The changes in infastructure these comany's have to make to make to convert all of their broadcasts from analog to digital is mind boggling & they have some fairly powerful lobbyists in their own right.

 

Do you also think DVD technology & the resulting obsolesence of VHS, is a result of lobbyists?

 

Do you also think cassette tape technology & the resulting obsolesence of 8 track, is a result of lobbyists?

 

Do you also think CD technology & the resulting obsolesence of cassette tapes, is a result of lobbyists?

 

Do you also think MP3 / IPod digital technology & the resulting obsolesence of CD's, is a result of lobbyists?

 

I think you might've watched that Mel Gibson / Julia Roberts movie "Conspiracy Theory" one too many times. :D

 

Goodbye.

 

 

 

Not a single original thought in that entire post, while ignoring what I had said in mine.

 

Well done! :D

 

And if you don't think making bookoo bucks out of this isn't in the equation, up to a point not seen before, then you really are ignorant of the facts. Go google a little more about the conversion, upcoming auctions etc and we can speak again when you're better informed.

Edited by Pope Flick
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you also think MP3 / IPod digital technology & the resulting obsolesence of CD's, is a result of lobbyists?

 

Has a government body deemed that CDs should no longer be sold in stores because of mp3 technology? If not, that's an apples-and-oranges argument.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Has a government body deemed that CDs should no longer be sold in stores because of mp3 technology? If not, that's an apples-and-oranges argument.

 

 

 

He's engaging in straw man arguments. I've realized it's his schtick. None of that was relevant, because of what you pointed out. I could go buy an 8 track off eBay, get some tapes and jam out by the weekend. In 2010 you can go buy a non-digital Tv and....have a worthless piece of furniture. Or a DVD monitor to watch rented movies on only. For the record I'm not complaining about it. It is what it is, and it's for the better.

 

How about that: a TV sold in the mid90's is unusable before an 8 track player is. Finer points like that get lost on people with the initials of BS.

Edited by Pope Flick
Link to comment
Share on other sites

However, I'm going to have to fork down a couple hundred dollars if I want to watch TV in my bedroom two years from now.

 

 

I seriously, seriously.... seriously doubt that.

 

A digital converter antenna shouldn't cost more than $50 at the top end, and there has been talk about government programs to subsidize this cost to people who need it. You can probably get assistance with your incredible $50 investment in better free television if you really can't scrape it together.

 

If you want, I'll help you with the paperwork for government assistance on that antenna when the time comes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The DirecTV knob-slobbing in this thread is ridiculous. Take away Sunday Ticket and they'd be out of business.

 

Nah, I couldn't justify the Ticket anymore, and I am NOT going back to our local craptastic cable company. DTV suits me just fine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I also don't think the NFL will trip themselves up, they'll be sure to keep their exemption.

 

 

The NFL doesn't HAVE an anti-trust exemption, only MLB does.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nah, I couldn't justify the Ticket anymore, and I am NOT going back to our local craptastic cable company. DTV suits me just fine.

 

 

Living in the DC area and being a Charger knob-slobber (a lot of that going on in this thread :D:D ) I couldn't get by without the ticket. Some brahs from SoCal who have lived here say you get about 2-3 Bolt games a year.

 

For me the cost is for Charger Sunday Ticket!

 

:D:doh::D:tup:

 

But I'm with you. The Ticket was just one more factor that made FF too much a part of my life. With 5 yo twins and a 2 yo, I have more important things to do with my time. This year I plan on playing in a couple of free, auto-draft Yahoo (they suck) leagues and that is it. I have folded my league 13 years and am looking forward to taking a break for a few years. Until at least my son (daughters too!?!?) want to start playing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I seriously, seriously.... seriously doubt that.

 

A digital converter antenna shouldn't cost more than $50 at the top end...

If you want, I'll help you with the paperwork for government assistance on that antenna when the time comes.

 

Why would I want to pay $50 for a converter antenna for a TV that isn't even worth $50 anymore? Plus, I don't want an antenna. I want to receive the same analog cable signal in that room that I'm already paying for. If Comcast supplies me with a free digital converter, that's fine. But I'm not paying for another one.

 

and there has been talk about government programs to subsidize this cost to people who need it. You can probably get assistance with your incredible $50 investment in better free television if you really can't scrape it together.

 

I'm going to fork down about $1,200 for an HD to replace the 15-year-old RCA 27" in my livingroom later this year. So it's not a question of money, you condescending douchebag.

Edited by Bill Swerski
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The NFL doesn't HAVE an anti-trust exemption, only MLB does.

 

 

 

According to that Senate link BS provided, not true.

 

From Leahy's opening statement.

 

In 1961, Congress passed the Sports Broadcasting Act, creating a limited antitrust exemption for professional sports teams to pool broadcast rights through their leagues and divide the revenue. It paved the way for telecast agreements between the NFL and free, over-the-air networks; agreements that have made billions of dollars for NFL owners. Watching NFL games has become a weekly Sunday afternoon and Monday evening ritual in millions of American households every Fall.

 

The recent migration by the National Football League away from free, over-the-air television for transmitting NFL games to the public concerns some fans. The transfer of Monday Night Football, for instance, from free television to ESPN has cut significantly the number of viewers on Monday night. I have no doubt the switch has been lucrative for the NFL and its teams. I doubt whether it meets with universal acclaim among sports fans. I expect more fans would be concerned if there were a prospect that important games, such as the playoffs or the Super Bowl, were to be moved from free network broadcasts to pay-per-view or premium channel events.

 

He IS a big enough schmuck though to have gotten it wrong possibly. :D

 

That, apparently is sperate form the baseball anti-exemption laws. What's also missing from this debate is how baseball recently changed it's programming and games get blacked out in areas where they weren't before, and they screwed with the MLB EXtra Innings package, tho I'm not up on that because I'm fine with Gameday Audio - which I love.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information