|
|
Real Facts About Pegasus Satellite
It is scandalous what DIRECTV and Dish Network has tried to do
to Pegasus Satellite because Pegasus refused to sell to DIRECT TV. Why isn't the FTC stopping what DIRECTV and Dish are doing! You should read this story. http://www.dldewey.com/jun04.htm |
Who cares about a satellite reselling middleman corporation?!
|
Sarah Miller wrote:
You should read this story. http://www.dldewey.com/jun04.htm How did you find this guy? A web page with a "column" every few months? This is nonsensical ranting, not reporting. Dennis Miller is more balanced, and he calls his diatribes ranting. -- --- Clarence A Dold - Hidden Valley (Lake County) CA USA 38.8-122.5 |
Why would anyone object to a change that results in a reduction
of monthly service cost? You should read the news items he http://www.directv.com/DTVAPP/aboutus/Headlines.jsp starting with one dated 4/14/04. A Federal court jury ruled against Pegasus. "Sarah Miller" wrote in message om... It is scandalous what DIRECTV and Dish Network has tried to do to Pegasus Satellite because Pegasus refused to sell to DIRECT TV. Why isn't the FTC stopping what DIRECTV and Dish are doing! You should read this story. http://www.dldewey.com/jun04.htm |
Jack Ak wrote:
Why would anyone object to a change that results in a reduction of monthly service cost? To say we should squash it just because it will save the consumers money isn't fair to the stockholders that risked the initial investment. Fortunately, even though I live in a rather rural area, I am not served by Pegasus. If Pegasus actually did put up front money in return for being able to "service" satellite users in certain areas, and now DirecTV thinks they ought to sell out their deal, then Pegasus would have every right to ignore the requests of DirecTV. Perhaps the deal could have been structured so that Pegasus worked on a reduced price from DTV so that their customers didn't pay extra, but that isn't the way it worked. Part of what I see is that Pegasus was willing to roll trucks into rural communities for the subsidized installations that DirecTV didn't want to do. Of course, now that all of that physical plant is in place, there is no incremental cost differential in providing the signal, and DirecTV thinks that rural America is a fine place to do business. --- Clarence A Dold - Hidden Valley (Lake County) CA USA 38.8-122.5 |
Just think if DIRECTV gets their way with
Pegasus and drives Pegasus out of business. Then there will only be (2) satellite services. I hate to think shortly after that what all of us will then be be paying...both DirectTV and Dish will start gouging all subscribers then! Second, as the columnist wrote in his column, "Yes, Pegasus may have been charging slightly more than DIRECT TV, however, DIRECT TV did not expend the financial resources in developing this large rural market which was expensive. Therefore, they had higher operations cost than DIRECT TV did by DIRECT TV employees driving to a city street address. Some people in rural areas live 30-50 miles away from large cities and this was Pegasus higher operation costs to service and develope this market. Pegasus is entitled to this. They built the market in these rural areas which DIRECT TV did not want to go to the expense of. But now...DIRECT TV sure wants that revenue without having to pay for this developed market." Is that fair for DIRECT TV to use these tactics to get this revenue and not paid for the development of it! You need to read this entire article, I'm glad I did. Cynical Take Over Attempt Of Goliath - DIRECT TV Of Little David Pegasus Satellite http://www.dldewey.com/jun04.htm |
I do not care about what the facts concerning Pegasus are........in
fact,I hope all the stockholders in that corporation take it in the proverbial "shorts".As far as I can tell,Pegasus used DirecTV as a program source.I have always disliked parasitical corporations (middlemen) and Pegasus seems to be one.Good riddance if true. |
"Sarah Miller" wrote in message om... Just think if DIRECTV gets their way with Pegasus and drives Pegasus out of business. Then there will only be (2) satellite services. I hate to think shortly after that what all of us will then be be paying...both DirectTV and Dish will start gouging all subscribers then! Second, as the columnist wrote in his column, "Yes, Pegasus may have been charging slightly more than DIRECT TV, however, DIRECT TV did not expend the financial resources in developing this large rural market which was expensive. Therefore, they had higher operations cost than DIRECT TV did by DIRECT TV employees driving to a city street address. Some people in rural areas live 30-50 miles away from large cities and this was Pegasus higher operation costs to service and develope this market. Pegasus is entitled to this. They built the market in these rural areas which DIRECT TV did not want to go to the expense of. But now...DIRECT TV sure wants that revenue without having to pay for this developed market." That "large rural market" is less than 10 percent of the DirecTV subscriber base. The brand those rural customers have is DirecTV or Dish Network not Pegasus. How many satellites does Pegasus or NRTC own and operate? DirecTV employees don't drive to city street addresses. In the metropolitan areas independent contractors do all dish installations. I suspect that anyone who has the skills needed to maintain farm equipment could perform a dish installation. I can't drive a tractor or harvester, but I have installed two satellite dishes without any help. DirecTV doesn't require a professional installer for satellite dish installations. The way you are complaining, one might think you work for NRTC or Pegasus or have a financial interest in one of those companies. |
In article ,
Sarah Miller wrote: No, I am not complaining and to make sure that no on accuses me of why I am defending Pegasus, I am not a Pegasus employee or stockholder. You don't say whether or not you're an employee of a company that Pegasus has hired to do PR, though. Or whether you have some similar consulting relationship with them. Thank God for journalists like Mr. Dewey that has the courage to write about such things when the major media doesn't because they are controlled, and no I am not a conspiracy nut. We all know that. I don't understand why you keep talking about Mr. Dewey as though he isn't someone you know. Patty |
Sarah Miller wrote:
No, I am not complaining and to make sure that no on accuses me of why I am defending Pegasus, I am not a Pegasus employee or stockholder. Why is it when anyone tries to provide information about the real truth of matters, someone has to accuse them of having a motive or say they are complaining. True. Any critisism of DISH or DirecTV usually draws the retort "You must work for the cable company." |
"Scott in Aztlán" wrote:
It must be because that guy is a nutcase living in a world of his own paranoid delusions. For example, he says: http://www.dldewey.com/columns/smartcrf.htm "The plan of the financial community, who have been working very closely with governments for the last ten or so years is to make the world a cashless society by the end of year 2000. Why? There are many reasons and I'll explain later, but first, let me share how it will work. The plan is to take all your plastic cards, employer ID, credit cards, phone card, Social Security card and even your video store card and merge them into one inclusive card. This will not only save hundreds of millions of dollars not only in the corporate world but governments will be able to keep better tabs on us." As you can see, his prediction came true... NOT! He didn't predict it would happen, only that it was the plan of "the financial community." Big difference. And the growing popularity of the "debit" card isn't bringing us closer to a cashless society? One can now survive quite nicely without cash these days. |
Scott in Aztlan wrote:
Sounds to me like Pegasus is operating under a flawed business model. If it costs more to roll trucks out to rural areas, then Pegasus should charge more for the installation, NOT charge more per month. That is certainly not the way the "free three room installation" from either DirecTV or Dish works. Is that flawed? Not only is this rapacious (the monthly price remains high even after the additional costs of rolling the tuck have been paid off), but it leaves Pegasus vulnerable to being undercut in precisely the way it just happened. Not. The only alternative to staying with Pegasus would be to go to some other provider. DirecTV is not eligible, if their original contract is still valid. I don't know if switching to Dish is possible, or if Dish has the same arrangement with Pegasus. Sadly, it looks like Pegasus is just another poorly managed company who can't win in the marketplace so it tries to win in the courtroom. I hope they lose and lose BIG - maybe it will discourage this kind of crap in the future. That is foul reasoning. This isn't SCO. I don't know enough about this case to form a full opinion, but I am amazed at how many people appear ready to say that Pegasus is wrong, when the simplistic read of the news indicates that the gigantic DirecTV is trying to stomp on them. I would prefer to think of a suit as the only way for the little guy to win against the behemoth. -- --- Clarence A Dold - Hidden Valley (Lake County) CA USA 38.8-122.5 |
wrote in message ... ..... Sadly, it looks like Pegasus is just another poorly managed company who can't win in the marketplace so it tries to win in the courtroom. I hope they lose and lose BIG - maybe it will discourage this kind of crap in the future. That is foul reasoning. This isn't SCO. I don't know enough about this case to form a full opinion, but I am amazed at how many people appear ready to say that Pegasus is wrong, when the simplistic read of the news indicates that the gigantic DirecTV is trying to stomp on them. I would prefer to think of a suit as the only way for the little guy to win against the behemoth. Pegasus lost in Federal court. DirecTV has won a jury verdict of $51.5 Million. With interest the judgement reaches $62 Million. The jury found that Pegasus had breached terms of a joint marketing contract and first defaulted on payment obligations beginning December 2000. http://www.directv.com/DTVAPP/aboutu...id=05_24_2004A |
Jack Ak wrote:
The jury found that Pegasus had breached terms of a joint marketing contract and first defaulted on payment obligations beginning December 2000. http://www.directv.com/DTVAPP/aboutu...id=05_24_2004A If I read that with Pegasus in mind, I see that there was a jury award which is not explained. The default in payments results from that judgement, not an earlier contract. (I've read lots of nastiness about Pegasus in the group, and I have no experience with them, but I don't want to see the big guy win one just because he's big.) -- --- Clarence A Dold - Hidden Valley (Lake County) CA USA 38.8-122.5 |
|
wrote in message ... Jack Ak wrote: The jury found that Pegasus had breached terms of a joint marketing contract and first defaulted on payment obligations beginning December 2000. http://www.directv.com/DTVAPP/aboutu...id=05_24_2004A If I read that with Pegasus in mind, I see that there was a jury award which is not explained. The default in payments results from that judgement, not an earlier contract. (I've read lots of nastiness about Pegasus in the group, and I have no experience with them, but I don't want to see the big guy win one just because he's big.) I read the item as suggesting that Pegasus didn't live up to terms of the joint marketing contract. The payments were those DirecTV was entitled to receive from Pegasus' operations, not from an ordered judgement. I'd guess the non-payment occurred because Pegasus was running out of funds. Most of the nastiness about Pegasus I've read has come from their customers. Those folks are in a better position to know than you or I are. |
On Wed, 16 Jun 2004, Sarah Miller wrote:
It is scandalous what DIRECTV and Dish Network has tried to do to Pegasus Satellite because Pegasus refused to sell to DIRECT TV. Yes, it is indeed scandalous that Pegasus has managed to delay its inevitable (and well-deserved) demise through abuse of the courts. Why isn't the FTC stopping what DIRECTV and Dish are doing! Why should it? The FTC is not in the business of propping up useless middlemen who rip off consumers. Yes, the government did such stupid things in the past, such as requiring firemen on diesel and electric locomotives (a fireman shovels coal into the boiler on a steam train; on other types of trains, he scratches his balls). But it doesn't mean that it's right, or should be perpetuated. You should read this story. http://www.dldewey.com/jun04.htm Sorry, I don't wear a tin-foil hat. -- Mark -- http://staff.washington.edu/mrc Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate. Si vis pacem, para bellum. |
Mark Crispin wrote:
It is scandalous what DIRECTV and Dish Network has tried to do to Pegasus Satellite because Pegasus refused to sell to DIRECT TV. Yes, it is indeed scandalous that Pegasus has managed to delay its inevitable (and well-deserved) demise through abuse of the courts. Why isn't the FTC stopping what DIRECTV and Dish are doing! Why should it? The FTC is not in the business of propping up useless middlemen who rip off consumers. OK. But why did DirecTV contract with Pegasus in the first place? |
Mark Crispin wrote:
OK, enough with Gollum. The point is that you might well feel ill-treated if you were told that you were forced to deal with an expensive middleman for no good reason. Protestations that this middleman is a little guy won't wash with you. OK. But why did DirecTV contract with Pegasus in the first place? |
Jack Ak wrote:
I read the item as suggesting that Pegasus didn't live up to terms of the joint marketing contract. The payments were those DirecTV was entitled to receive from Pegasus' operations, not from an ordered judgement. Okay. Most of the nastiness about Pegasus I've read has come from their customers. Those folks are in a better position to know than you or I are. That's an aside, from people who are upset about living in a place where they are forced to pay more, for reasons that have not been explained. -- --- Clarence A Dold - Hidden Valley (Lake County) CA USA 38.8-122.5 |
Scott in Aztlan wrote:
The little guy wins against the behemoth by being fast and innovative and producing a superior product and getting it to market faster than the large, mired-in-bureaucracy companies can. The big company then comes along and buys out the little guy for a grossly overinflated price, and the founders retire to a mansion in Newporshe Beach. You've obviously not heard of Microsoft. Or maybe that is the model you like. Suing in court is the crybaby approach. Or where you go when the big guy enjoys having your product around until he can figure out how to cut you out of the deal that you agreed to. -- --- Clarence A Dold - Hidden Valley (Lake County) CA USA 38.8-122.5 |
ric wrote:
Mark Crispin wrote: It is scandalous what DIRECTV and Dish Network has tried to do to Pegasus Satellite because Pegasus refused to sell to DIRECT TV. Yes, it is indeed scandalous that Pegasus has managed to delay its inevitable (and well-deserved) demise through abuse of the courts. Why isn't the FTC stopping what DIRECTV and Dish are doing! Why should it? The FTC is not in the business of propping up useless middlemen who rip off consumers. OK. But why did DirecTV contract with Pegasus in the first place? DirecTV didn't contract with Pegasus in the first place. There was a contract between DirecTV and NRTC for DirecTV content. Pegasus was (is) a member of the NRTC coop, but Pegasus didn't have a contract (for CONTENT) with DirecTV. Pegasus did have a joint marketing arrangement (contract) with DirecTV. All the years of suit and countersuit between DirecTV and Pegasus came to an head in April & May. Pegasus owes $51 million for not living up to the terms of the joint marketing agreement (April), then they tacked on $12 million or so for interest, I believe (early May). Mid May, all remaining Pegasus claims about DirecTV content (premiums like HBO had to be through Pegasus) and DirecTV claims against Pegasus were dismissed because there WASN'T a contract between those two parties. The contract was between NRTC and DirecTV. -- Bill Henley |
Mark Crispin wrote:
Let me explain this to you in a way that you should understand. I have the monopoly on providing all telecommunications services to people named Clarence. It costs me a lot of money to get to all the Clarences in the country, so as a Clarence you have to pay me more than a Bill or George or Sally would pay. You should be pleased by this arrangement, since this is special for Clarences! I am a little guy. How dare that big nasty DirecTV and SBC try to hurt my precious business. It only cost more to connect all of the Clarences. Before Pegasus embarked on this expensive task, they had a deal with DirecTV to put up my money and take long term payments from Clarence. DirecTV couldn't sell directly to Clarence, because that was the deal. SBC came along and decided that the cost of talking to Clarence could be amortized across the much more readily connected Marks, who didn't notice the slight increase in cost. This required SBC to put different equipment in Clarences' houses, and Pegasus equipment was discarded. That is competition, and Pegasus can do nothing to prevent it. They have to compete. DirecTV notices the dropoff in Clarence revenue, and realizes that their cost to provide service to Clarence isn't any higher than to Mark, especially if Pegasus has already installed the equipment. In fact, cheap as new Marks might be, it is cheaper to take over Clarence, since equipment is already installed. If that violates Pegasus original deal, just offer Pegasus some small buyout proposition, threatening to put them out of business if they don't go along, a tactic that DirecTV learned at Microsoft seminars. -- --- Clarence A Dold - Hidden Valley (Lake County) CA USA 38.8-122.5 |
Jack Ak wrote:
You should read the news items he http://www.directv.com/DTVAPP/aboutus/Headlines.jsp starting with one dated 4/14/04. A Federal court jury ruled against Pegasus. Looking at the chronolgy, I can see your point about Pegasus defaulting on some portion of the earlier agreement. I also see some collusion, with NRTC agreeing to cancel their deal soon after the courts turned down Pegasus. The Pegasus deal had merit at its origin. If they had kept up their portion, it could have remained in effect. --- Clarence A Dold - Hidden Valley (Lake County) CA USA 38.8-122.5 |
On Mon, 21 Jun 2004, ric wrote:
OK, enough with Gollum. The point is that you might well feel ill-treated if you were told that you were forced to deal with an expensive middleman for no good reason. Protestations that this middleman is a little guy won't wash with you. OK. But why did DirecTV contract with Pegasus in the first place? They didn't. The contract was with NRTC. More precisely, the content contract (which gave NRTC exclusive rights to provide DirecTV content in NRTC's territories) was with NRTC. -- Mark -- http://staff.washington.edu/mrc Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate. Si vis pacem, para bellum. |
Mark Crispin wrote:
OK. But why did DirecTV contract with Pegasus in the first place? They didn't. The contract was with NRTC. More precisely, the content contract (which gave NRTC exclusive rights to provide DirecTV content in NRTC's territories) was with NRTC. OK. Why did DirecTV contract with the NRTC in the first place? |
"ric" wrote in message ... Mark Crispin wrote: OK. But why did DirecTV contract with Pegasus in the first place? They didn't. The contract was with NRTC. More precisely, the content contract (which gave NRTC exclusive rights to provide DirecTV content in NRTC's territories) was with NRTC. OK. Why did DirecTV contract with the NRTC in the first place? For $100 Million to help pay startup expenses... http://www.nrtc.coop/sub/satellitete...es/directv.jsp |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:18 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HomeCinemaBanter.com