Real Facts About Pegasus Satellite

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