Dish Gets Busted Lying About Reaching 200 HD Channels > All providers should back their numbers up

reply to Nightfall

Re: All providers should back their numbers up

reply to fiberguy
"HD *CHOICES*"... not "channels"

What's the difference, just a play on words!!! Typical marketing ploy!!!

reply to Anonymous_
You quoted my ENTIRE post to respond with that? .. a single line? Did you not see the "(please avoid long quotes!)" next to auto quote? wow.

Anyway.. as you were YELLING... (I also have this mental image of you jumping up and down on your desk at the same time, to be honest)

If a PPV channel is broadcasting in HD, and that's all that channel does, then YES, IT IS A FULL TIME HD channel.. where are you getting your information from?

Let's break this one down in simple. The network is on a fixed frequency QAM, is it not? Is the signal being transmitted in 720 or 1080? Is that signal there today? tonight? Tomorrow? the next day? the next week, and so on? Welp! .. then it sounds like a "FULL TIME HD" to me!

So, I assume in your thought process of it not being FULL TIME HD that becuase you only get it for a short period of time that it's not full time either right? I guess those who subscribe to HBO this month, and not next month, that HBO too is not FULL TIME HD either, right? Hrmmm.. lets look at that. PPV is a "CHANNEL" that you subscribe to for a period of time. Most any of them these days, it's for a 24 or 48 hour period of time. While you only get that channel during the time you're subscribed to it (yes, that's an actual term applied to ANY channel you get) the "network" or "Channel" is still there.

I don't know where some of you guys make this stuff up, but you need to stop it.

And one other thing, to pick your reply apart a little, where did I say that OnDemand was a "full time" anything? I do believe that I was demonstrating OnDemand's delivery method as a "channel" by the true definition of a channel as to "channel" something from one end to another.. which, is what a "channel" is.. and where it got its name from originally. .

But, oh, gee.. forgive me for speaking and apply the English language correctly.

While were at it, lets stop calling Sprints 4G internet 4G becuase there is also a definition as to what is capable of being labeled "4G"...

Sometimes you don't agree with something and it doesn't look right to YOU.. but it doesn't mean it's not.. and, its never right to say "Oh, they're using a technicality by calling something like PPV a "channel" becuase it's not".. um.. it's NEVER a technicality to apply a proper term and apply the correct definition to something.. it's called ... oh, forget it....

You know, Oakland teaches Ebonics, too, for people that refuse to speak English and want to speak their own language.. not my problem if people want to make things up as they go along.

RIF - google it.

reply to Paul928

"Even then, I'm not sure if it IS a ploy.. in the sense to deceive anyone. If anyone is deceived by this, again, I find that to be the fault of the person receiving this."

OF COURSE it's done to deceive people, are you that naive? I do agree with you that maybe you and others who are a little more informed on the subject would know what they were trying to say, but the "average Joe," would be taken in by all of this! Hell, just look at all the confusion that people had when we went to the digital conversion of TV?

The confusion of many on DTV transition is not the fault of the conversion, rather, than the people itself. I'm sorry, but if the general public couldn't figure this out, then it really doesn't say alot about our general public.

The message about the DTV conversion was simple.. "Brodcast TV as you know it is changing. On such and such day, you will need to have acted. If you have an older set, you may need to install a digital receiver on your set. If you have cable TV or satellite, you're already covered".. what's so hard about that? WHY anyone, who subscribes to cable or satellite even asked if they needed to do anything, to begin with, was a sure sign of this.

Further, sorry, you saying "OF COURSE it's done to deceive people"... that's your opinion. Have you ever heard of ONE vs MANY? In this case, ONE person has a message, the MANY will take it MANY ways as THEY see fit. Did you NOT see or read a single word about applying the definition to something? I'm sorry, but you really have to stretch the meaning of the term "HD CHOICES" in order to feel deceived. FURTHER, Satellite coming in and making a huge deal out of it make it a big deal. EVEN FURTHER, once someone understands the meaning of HD CHOICES, why is there a need to further worry about it? .. you get it already.. so move on. To continue to make something out of this, you give it a life of it's own, which you're doing. You're smart enough, you obviously know better, MOVE ON to the next battle.

To this day, the MEANING of the words used together of "HD" & "CHOICES" mean exactly what they are along with the fact the put OnDemand along with it.. To read further into something, especially when you obviously already understand it, is in itself, being Naive.

We don't necessarily have to speak to "the average Joe".. there is ALWAYS going to be an average Joe. So what? The "average Joe" needs to not simply allow themselves to be taken by ANYTHING.. look, you can spell it all out 100%, and often it is.. and people will STILL not get it. I'm sorry, but the DTA conversaion couldn't have been any more simple and millions STILL didn't get it. Guess what? "Darwin!!! Come here buddy!!"

In some issues, when people spend too much time over-talking something, they make something more out of nothing. Further, DirecTV and Dish Network didn't help. Just as with the DT Conversion... Cable tried to tell people, in the discussion, that "If you already have cable TV, you don't need to do anything else - we've got you covered".. um.. how many people got confused by THAT? How many people, on top of all that cable advertising, also threw into the mix that "Cable must be out there to prey on people and profit from this"... again, more nonsense that just added to un-necessary confusion that, to be honest, wasn't there.

The messages are clear.. listen to them, read them, and if you have questions, ask them. Otherwise, if you're that stupid to form your own conclusion with out doing research off of a couple words, then really, what does that say about the individule? I don't know about you, but *I* don't need to read at a fourth grade level, NOR do I want to be talked to like one. I also don't want my internet cesored, I don't want to have to have a V-Chip in my TV and pay for it when I don't need it.. etc. Where am I going with this? ..simple.. we've lost our way when we have to cater to the lowest common demoninator. People need to be responsible for themselves.

In the issue of cable, there was nothing factually wrong with the phrase "More HD Choices".. someone's desire to ASSume doesn't change the English language.

reply to fiberguy
You type a lot but really dont say a lot. Yes, people want and expect things. Just as your friends, the business, wants and expects to make money hand over fist.

If people didn't want things, your friends, the business, would be hurting. Nobody needs internet. Nobody needs a car. Nobody needs phone. Nobody needs cigarettes. If people didnt want these things, your friends, the business, would be hurting to fulfill their wanting to make money.

lol - I type a lot but really don't say a lot. That's a good one.

I'm sorry, but I said plenty.. you refuse to acknowledge any of it. Typically, a reply with what you say about my posting generally means you have nothing to say.

Just because I say what you don't want to hear does not mean I have nothing to say. You say the world is full of people who want and only care about "me". The businesses that you typically defend only care about money and themselves. So what's the difference? So is better? If the general public didn't have wants, your businesses would fail. All we need is food, water and shelter. Everything else is out of convenience and luxury; i.e. wants.

Fact. If the people that you frequently criticize didn't exist, which are those who want and those we only are about "me", then those businesses that you typical defend would not exist. Besides food, water and shelter, everything else is a "want" and could be considered a luxury and not a necessary.

Unfortunately there are people who only think about themselves and that their opinions and views trumps all others, and that all others with differ opinions are just wrong and stupid. You can find one of those people if you look in the mirror.

And you forget that people would not survive with out those same businesses.

TRADE is not a one way street.

Besides.. no. Anything beyond food, water, and shelter, everything else is NOT a "want". That's an INCREDIBLY narrow view.

Our system is MUCH more complicated and intertwined. What I WILL say, AND correct you, is that things like television, movies, iPod, music.. all "wants"..

People need clothing, power, etc. etc. etc. Some people have said power isn't a necessity either before, here, in this very forum.

So, even taking part of what you said, which I agree with SOME of your belief.. if Cable is a "want" and music is a "want" and phones are a "want" then why are so many people, here, crying foul at every turn acting as if it's put too far out of their reach.. if it's a "want" and not a necessity, then your view needs to change. And, these companies don't NEED to price is like it IS some kind of "necessity" either, now, do they? These companies don't HAVE to care about you or anything else. They are actually, as you say, caring in all the right places.. they care about money and themselves.. that's what a non-necessity provider/company/maker, etc. is there for. They DON'T "care" about you..

You seem to tie in "wants" and "business care" in the same argument and it doesn't work. It's a matter of supply and demand, in the end, that matters. If you're the only one that has the supply and there is a demand, then who do you think is in the better position? Now, if 10 other people start offering up in the "supply" of a particular item, then yea, you have to start to "care" a little more.. or, in proper terms of caring, "drop your price" and "provide customer service"..

And let me set the record straight as your view is too narrow minded to see this.. (Sorry, but that's how I feel) .. I don't "defend" business.. I don't "support customers"... I see a topic, I put my two-cents in on an issue. Sometimes it falls to either side of the argument. I think that consumers and the general public is often stupid, and I also see times where the public is harmed. I also see where companies are working with in the system and I also see when they are being incredibly STUPID as well..

But yea, I "typically defend".. get real. There is a world of one side against the other, and then there is the middle ground.. I live in the middle and go where I feel it's right. Also, that's where the world actually works.. it doesn't work on one side or the other.. just remember, in the end, who decides elections too! (it's not the extremes, for sure!)

edit: Ironic stupid statement of the day:

Upon reflection, I do not wish to post.

Not worth it.

You missed the entire sarcasm here, fiberboy.

said by fiberguy:

But yea, I "typically defend".. get real. There is a world of one side against the other, and then there is the middle ground.. I live in the middle and go where I feel it's right. Also, that's where the world actually works.. it doesn't work on one side or the other.. just remember, in the end, who decides elections too! (it's not the extremes, for sure!)