 devnuller
join:2006-06-10 Hollis, NH | Published data Isn't their enough published subscriber numbers by Cable, Dish, DirecTV, RCN, FiOS, etc to understand the market penetration numbers? | |
|  |   kamm
join:2001-02-14 Brooklyn, NY
·T-Mobile US
| Re: Published data said by devnuller :Isn't their enough published subscriber numbers by Cable, Dish, DirecTV, RCN, FiOS, etc to understand the market penetration numbers? What makes you think that you can trust anything these [b]notoriously greedy, unscrupulous, lying PoS parasite companies like Time Warner, Comcast etc publish? -- [BQUOTE=[user=bicker]]Waaaa waaaa waaaa. You just want what you want and don't care to factor in what is right or true. Your perspectives are un-American, and deserve far more ridicule than I'm prepared to pile on them. [/BQUOTE] | |
|  |  |  devnuller
join:2006-06-10 Hollis, NH
2 edits | 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.
| |
|  |  |  |  jimbo2150
join:2004-05-10 Youngstown, OH
| Re: Published data 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 | |
|  |  |  |  |  devnuller
join:2006-06-10 Hollis, NH
4 edits | Re: Published data 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. | |
|  |  |  |  |  |  jimbo2150
join:2004-05-10 Youngstown, OH
| Re: Published data 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 | |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  devnuller
join:2006-06-10 Hollis, NH | Re: Published data That's typically the approach. Make accusations or state the "obvious" without facts or verifiable sources. | |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  RadioDoc 58ef2c0 Premium,ExMod 2000-03 join:2000-05-11 1 edit | Re: Published data 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. | |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  jimbo2150
join:2004-05-10 Youngstown, OH
| Re: Published data 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 | |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  Markie
join:2003-07-26 Kalispell, MT
1 edit | 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). | |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  jimbo2150
join:2004-05-10 Youngstown, OH
| Re: Published data 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
| Re: Published data 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... | |
|  |   N3OGH Bear patrol must be working like a charm Premium join:2003-11-11 Philly burbs | I hate that picture of Martin. He looks like something from a SNL skit.
Or an escapee from an all boys prep school...... -- Petty people are disproportionably corrupted by petty power
| |
|  |  |  devnuller
join:2006-06-10 Hollis, NH
1 edit | Re: Published data Also since this is about his "Ghost" should we use something different  | |
|  |  Kearnstd Elf Wizard Premium join:2002-01-22 Mullica Hill, NJ | the government only wants more regulation so they can find better ways to tax the services. -- [65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports | |
|   kamm
join:2001-02-14 Brooklyn, NY
·T-Mobile US
| When will be this rotten crook investigated and TRIED? Martin LIED TO CONGRESS, used influence in several illegal ways, committed several egregious misconducts resulting billions in loss for IRS and higher cost for customers, dangerously unregulated markets resulted in monopolies, actively nurtured by the FCC etc.
When? -- [BQUOTE=[user=bicker]]Waaaa waaaa waaaa. You just want what you want and don't care to factor in what is right or true. Your perspectives are un-American, and deserve far more ridicule than I'm prepared to pile on them. [/BQUOTE] | |
|  |  |  |  |   jmn1207 Premium join:2000-07-19 Reston, VA
·Verizon FIOS
| Re: When will be this rotten crook investigated and TRIED? said by baineschile :TV is an entertainment industry, and if people wanted ala carte programming so badly, some venture capitalist somewhere will start a company that does just that, and make billions of dollars. With what programming? Is Viacom or Disney going to allow for the channels to be broken up and sold in pieces? There is very little consumer choice in the matter. As much as I love free markets, this is far from any type of business model that can be controlled by consumer spending. Since it's not able to be self-regulated, perhaps it needs regulation from outside sources?
My current choice is to either take it all or leave it all. And while I am fortunate enough to at least be able to change the brand, the product is still almost exactly the same at nearly identical prices.
I'd love to see a TV business similar to Rhapsody Music where I paid a monthly subscription fee for the opportunity to stream and watch any TV episode, live show, or event. Instead of Rhapsody radio channels there could be TV channels. For this to come to fruition, the same fate that happened to the music industry will also have to occur with TV. | |
|  |  |  |  miscDude
join:2005-03-24 Hendersonville, NC
| Curious I'm curious.... Would these rules apply to all pay-tv providers? or just traditional Cable-Co's?
Honestly it would definately seem unfair if traditional Cable-co's had to deal with even more fed induced handicaps compared to the "younger" players like Sat and Telco-TV. (They already have a "handicap" in a way because of the analog requirement, vs the newer players who have been able to broadcast in just digital and therefore use their resources much more effeciently.)
Without knowing specifics in what the FCC is potentially wanting to implement and how they wanted to regulate the industry, I am not going to definately say I'm for or against the move... Beyond a general discomfort in Gov'ment getting their hands into more things. | |
|  |   jmn1207 Premium join:2000-07-19 Reston, VA
·Verizon FIOS
2 edits | Re: Curious Personally I don't see it as being fair, but the issue is that if one form of TV provider dominated the industry, it would require some regulation. That is why the 70%-70% findings are so important. It's basically saying that if the cable companies can have such a high proportion of customers as compared to other options, how can it be considered at a disadvantage?
Now if Satellite were to achieve 70%-70% status, it should fall under the same scrutiny from the FCC. Although it is a much more difficult thing to determine how many households could receive satellite TV.
This is really just a federal-backed attack on cable, paid for by telco lobbyists. | |
|  |  |  miscDude
join:2005-03-24 Hendersonville, NC
| Re: Curious My opinion is in part that once the gov'ment gets ahold of something to regulate, it doesn't like to give it up.
Consumer Sat Tech is pretty mature these days... but Telco-TV is still maturing and getting out there. If the Gov'ment decides to regulate cable, I believe it should do so on a pay-tv provider level and not a delivery method level. Currently Telco-TV is limited to basically overbuilds of existing cable areas. Sat Technically has a 100% coverage rate, if you don't factor line-of-sight issues.
There's also the simple fact that should they write the regs such that only "Cable" is regulated, what happens to the cable-co's if they device to the FTTH? Are they no longer subject to that regulation because they no longer a cable-tv provider but instead a IPTV provider via Fiber?
Also, much of the regulation "wish list" we've seen is stuff like ala-carte, which is much more of content provider issue. If they are trying to force changes in the content contracts such to allow customer to ala-carte programming, then that should be something applied across their industry, and not just a forced contract condition on only a subset of their customer's. (cable co's vs sat/telco-tv/hotels/etc etc) | |
|  |  |  |   Eat Me
join:2002-09-25 Sussex, NJ | Re: Curious Verizon FiOS uses cable standards and cable equipment, not IPTV. I see no reason why it shouldn't be regulated like a cable company.
In fact, doesn't it have to negotiate cable franchises itself? | |
|  |  |   Anonymous_ Anonymous Premium join:2004-06-21 127.0.0.1 clubs: | all of them coast to coast | |
|   Bill Dollar
@above.net
| 70-70 test is for systems with at least 36 channels It is important to remember that the 70-70 test is for systems with at least 36 channels. Analysts always seem to forget this. The only comprehensive source for this data is Warren Communications, which showed that, yes, the 70-70 test has been met.
But thinking this is all about a la carte is just plain wrong. Here's the text of the law:
"at such time as cable systems with 36 or more activated channels are available to 70 percent of households within the United States and are subscribed to by 70 percent of the households to which such systems are available, the Commission may promulgate any additional rules necessary to provide diversity of information sources."
This is about "program access" regulation, not a la carte pricing. | |
|  |  miscDude
join:2005-03-24 Hendersonville, NC | Re: 70-70 test is for systems with at least 36 channels Funny thing.... Didn't the rulings that allowed pay-tv providers to bypass the local franchise system also gut the local access channels in many systems? | |
|  |  devnuller
join:2006-06-10 Hollis, NH
2 edits | said by Bill Dollar :
The only comprehensive source for this data is Warren Communications, which showed that, yes, the 70-70 test has been met. STATEMENT OF COMMISSIONER JONATHAN S. ADELSTEIN »www.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily···06A4.pdf
quote: In order to base our decision on the facts, Commissioners need access to all the facts. Unfortunately, the most important data we have the FCCs own numbers were suppressed from the Commissioners until the last minute. I did not learn until after 7:00 pm last night that the FCCs own 2006 survey found that only 54 percent of homes passed subscribe to cable. Similarly, the FCCs cable price survey came in at 55.2 percent penetration.
Based on these newly unearthed facts and the conflicting evidence on the record, I am unable to support a finding that 70 percent of homes passed subscribe to cable at this time. The data is inconclusive. If we were truly searching for the truth, it is inconceivable that our own data would be cast aside without mention. It was just last year that I called for more rigorous data collection by the FCC. To find that this years FCC data was suppressed casts a long shadow over this endeavor. They tried to hide the ball from their own team.
quote: Moreover, the Commissions attempt to rely solely on data from Warren Communications, while disregarding a multitude of other sources, is troubling. A thorough and transparent analysis of the available data both from the FCC and independent sources on cable penetration rates was sorely missing from the initial draft of this item. The Commission has in its possession at least four sources of cable penetration rates that were cited in previous reports: Warren, Nielsen, Kagan and FCC Form 325.
In blatant contrast to previous reports, no source but Warren was cited in the initial draft, and it took a majority vote to fix that deficiency. While not determinative, it is noteworthy that all of these sources, except Warren, concluded that current cable penetration rates are less than 70 percent. We also must give careful consideration to new data, added at the last minute to the report, supplied by leading consumer advocates finding that penetration rates exceed 70 percent. I appreciate the efforts of these advocates to advance our understanding of the marketplace.
Our job of ascertaining the facts was made more difficult because the draft cherry-picked only the data that justified the outcome desired, while suppressing other data. I believe that it is our obligation to ensure that our decisions are objective and based on the facts, not outcome-driven for political expediency. Much like our media ownership studies, which are outcome-driven to support the media consolidation agenda, there was an attempt to cook the books on this report.
| |
|  |  |   Bill Dollar
@above.net
| Re: 70-70 test is for systems with at least 36 channels Well, first, you should know that the FCC's data is based on a survey that is not scientific, because it only is required of the largest systems. Thus the need for the current proceeding to fix the survey. Warren's data is nearly a census of all providers.
Second, the back story on the politics here -- Adelstein hated Martin with a passion. Adelstein is also very close to the cable industry, and at the time was very concerned with his prospects for renomination to the Commission. He made the political calculation that he needed at least one industry group to support him in the Senate Commerce Committee, and particularly to get Sen. Rockefeller to agree to move on his nomination. Adelstein had no friends in broadcast or telecom, so cable became his only option. His traditional allies -- consumer groups -- had no leverage for his renomination, and he thus felt free to ignore their calls for a yes vote on 70-70.
It is telling the difference between Copps' statement that day, and Adelsteins.
Oh well. His renomination is now going nowhere, and he is due to be an ambassador to some far away land. Nice job! | |
|  |  |  |  devnuller
join:2006-06-10 Hollis, NH
4 edits | Re: 70-70 test is for systems with at least 36 channels I think the Warren data is only one source and hence still suspect. This is why there is a need for additional investigation. What about the Nielsen or Kagan data?
I also think there is a large consensus that Martin had telco on the brain and history shows us that he would do anything in his power to kill cable. "Cooking the books" is par for his course.
[my thoughts, not facts] | |
|  |  |  |  |   Bill Dollar
join:2009-02-20 Washington, DC
| Re: 70-70 test is for systems with at least 36 channels Interesting you mention Nielsen. Consumers Union did their own analysis of 70-70 with Nielsen data as the primary source, and demonstrated 70-70 had likely been met. Media Access Project used ABI data, and also concluded 70-70 had been met.
And yes, Martin had it out for cable, no doubt about that. It just so happened that on this issue he at least had more than just telco on his side.
CU: »tinyurl.com/d7za6m MAP: »tinyurl.com/czmrgd | |
|  |  |  |  |  |  Sammer
join:2005-12-22 Canonsburg, PA | Re: 70-70 test is for systems with at least 36 channels Whether it has been met or not probably really doesn't matter because with the new administration and Democrat controlled Congress the cable industry will probably face regulation worse than anything Martin would have thrown at them. | |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |   Bill Dollar
join:2009-02-20 Washington, DC | Re: 70-70 test is for systems with at least 36 channels Well, actually, the conventional wisdom is just the opposite. The coziness of the Congressional Black Caucus with cable and their strong opposition to a la carte means it isDoubtful there will be much if any cable regulation. | |
|  |  |  |  |  |  devnuller
join:2006-06-10 Hollis, NH
| said by Bill Dollar :Interesting you mention Nielsen. Consumers Union did their own analysis of 70-70 with Nielsen data as the primary source, and demonstrated 70-70 had likely been met. Media Access Project used ABI data, and also concluded 70-70 had been met. In reading these, and considering the sources, I find a bit of speculation in the studies and when you get "close" the line I think people can find ways to keep it under or make it go over.
Two quotes come to mind on both sides of this debate:
"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." -Samuel Clemens (aka Mark Twain)
"Believe only half of what you see and nothing that you hear." - Dinah Craik | |
|   BF69
join:2004-07-28 Camden, TN | If they have nothing to hide Why are they against giving the FCC the data? | |
|  |  devnuller
join:2006-06-10 Hollis, NH
1 edit | Re: If they have nothing to hide said by BF69 :Why are they against giving the FCC the data? They are not and they do provide this data.
The FCC creates an Annual Report of Cable Television Systems which is comprised of data from CATV providers. The point some are making above is they don't trust these numbers.
I don't have direct knowledge of this, but many times docs like these need to be signed by officers under (criminal?) penalties for falsifying data. In today's world I would expect this is taken pretty seriously.
Not sure of DISH/DTV have to do the same thing. | |
|  devnuller
join:2006-06-10 Hollis, NH
1 edit | Government Mafia {Conspiracy Theory}
Due to past Government subsidies and heavy investment in the telco industry early years (as well as huge telco Government contracts) there is a "one hand washes the other" between the two entities.
Cable grew from private companies with little to no government involvement and therefore Uncle Sam (or "Big Sammy") doesn't have as much control / influence in Cable and is unhappy with the growth they have had in "the neighborhood" without "the Families" involvement.
This is where the regulation "squeeze" comes in. Big Sammy wants more "control/tax" over cable.
{/Conspiracy Theory} | |
|  | |  |
|
|