Real Facts About Pegasus Satellite

"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:

(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.)

Aisde from Jack's posts (which I can never found factual errors with,
although he and I disagree occasionally), the posts all seem to be "Pegasus
was gouging, screw 'em".

Even this judgement refers to a failure to meet some contract, not whether
the Pegasus plan was flawed initially.

--
---
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.

On Sun, 20 Jun 2004 wrote:
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.

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.

My preciousssssssssssssss.....!!!


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.

-- 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?