Reviews:
 ·Comcast
·Charter
2 edits | reply to kamm
Re: Published data Because of greed. The lower the numbers published the less value of the company which leads to stock drops.
Companies are not incented to use data that make them look bad. It can also be compared and analyzed with total household census data.
Cable at 70% for ALL US with DirecTV, Dish, Uverse, FiOS competition is crazy
Edit add from the above data
quote:
The FCC came to that same basic conclusion in January, releasing a long-overdue report that concluded that while cable does pass more than 70% of households--a fact cable readily concedes--it had not met the second part of that test, which is that 70% of those housholds subscribe to cable.
|
|
|
|
| said by devnuller:Because of greed. The lower the numbers published the less value of the company which leads to stock drops. But saying they have 65% (when it is actually 71%) would still give them a good swath and I doubt the stock would change much. Greed is still greed under and disguise. They can falsify numbers SLIGHTLY to get past anything without doing any serious damage to their shareholders' views.
Also,
said by devnuller:Cable at 70% for ALL US with DirecTV, Dish, Uverse, FiOS competition is crazy DirectTV, Dish are not available everywhere (those darn trees, clouds, weather, and buildings!) and Uverse & FiOS are barely available except in select larger cities (and a FEW rural areas... to quiet appease the "equality-minded"). I should say in select parts of select larger cities because they do not serve a majority of the cities they are serving to. Competition? Only slightly in select areas.
--
- "Techie" Jim |
|
Reviews:
·Comcast
·Charter
4 edits | Please cite the sources to your hypotheses:
• 31+% of the US is blocked by trees and buildings (number they would have to reach to not hit 70%)
said by jimbo2150:But saying they have 65% (when it is actually 71%) • 71% (you cited above)? Before you quote the Warren Communications Report on Cable, read my other post. |
|
| said by devnuller:Please site the sources to your hypotheses: ... 71%? Before you quote the Warren Communications Report on Cable, read my other post. How about reading my post first? My first part I made no statement that they were at 71%. I was simply agreeing with kamm and showing a mythical example of how easy it is for them to falsify data without effecting their stock price. I never said my word was law. But I was also hinting that kamm was right that you can never just believe that their numbers are correct.
said by devnuller:31+% of the US is blocked by trees and buildings I never gave any number for that. I simply stated the obvious. If you say 31%, fine, where is your source? But I have had many family/friends who were not "blocked" by trees or buildings but got so fed up with poor quality, connection drop off or partial blockage that they got rid of satellite, even though the sat company places them in the "non-blocked" category. Simply put, nothing is as good a straight wire connection. But still, cable has little wired competion. You would be hard-pressed to find areas served by more than one wired carrier.
--
- "Techie" Jim |
|
| That's typically the approach. Make accusations or state the "obvious" without facts or verifiable sources. |
|
RadioDoc58ef2c0Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11
1 edit | I do believe you've tarred yourself with that brush, sir.
Oh, and the word you're trying to use is "cite", not "site".
--
Toolmaster of La Grange. |
|
Markie
join:2003-07-26
Kalispell, MT
1 edit | reply to jimbo2150
said by jimbo2150
But I have had many family/friends who were not "blocked" by trees or buildings but got so fed up with poor quality, connection drop off or partial blockage that they got rid of satellite, even though the sat company places them in the "non-blocked" category. Simply put, nothing is as good a straight wire connection.
This is nonsense. As long as someone has decent line of sight (which can usually be attained even when an installer initially tells them they don't, since most installers are only going to do easy installs), there is no reason for poor quality, connection drop-off, etc.
Those problems are almost always caused by poor installation (including ironic due to your argument, bad wiring). I have had to fix many satellite installs for friends with problems like you describe and they've never had a problem again. The MOST COMMON issue is bad connectors - most satellite installers, at least here, do not know how to do an F-connector properly (ironic given the F-connector was designed to be nearly idiot-proof). Then poor dish alignment (many installers get alignment done very poorly - they'll only check one transponder on each orbital slot for location and be slightly off so another sat at the same location doesn't come in properly). Sometimes crushed cabling (I saw an installer use heavy duty staples on the cable - the whole cable run needed replaced obviously). |
|
| reply to RadioDoc
said by RadioDoc:Oh, and the word you're trying to use is "cite", not "site". He corrected it, I used the quote before he edited his. But spelling really is beside the point (which is what kamm and I were trying to make).
--
- "Techie" Jim |
|
| reply to Markie
Whatever the problem may be, it was still an issue.
Also, I was in Florida a few years ago in a hotel with satellite TV installed -- no trees, no buildings blocking (clear line of sight). A passing shower (light overcast) caused the signal to be dropped for 4 hours just reaffirms my and my friends' issue with satellite.
--
- "Techie" Jim |
|
Markie
join:2003-07-26
Kalispell, MT | If that happened, there was something very very wrong with the installation.
Cable can have installation problems to. What you mention aren't satellite problems, they're bad installer problems.
My mother had the first E-MTA destoryed when she first switched to cable - the uneducated installer plugged it in backwards to a still-live phone line without disconnecting the phone line first. The phone rang, the E-MTA fried. Getting it replaced (the installer had gone already) was tough too, since if you unplugged it it worked for a minute (the line like seized off-hook so it'd work when first plugged in until the line went dead from being off hook so long); so they kept asking her to just restart it. Never mind that you couldn't call in and had to restart it before making a phone call... |
|
