New True FTA coming
|
Bronze Member Username: CalifirniaPost Number: 91 Registered: Apr-06 | New True FTA coming: http://www.freedbs.org/ |
|
Silver Member Username: Boss_hogPost Number: 206 Registered: Oct-08 | http://www.freedbs.org/ Thread: New True FTA coming Alan New True FTA coming: http://www.freedbs.org/ |
|
Bronze Member Username: Marbie6Post Number: 51 Registered: Nov-08 | Can the Fortec Lifetime Ultra recievers work with NEW TRUE FTA that is comming???? Is it the same thing when you go to the internet and download the files to upload the reciever? |
|
Bronze Member Username: Marbie6Post Number: 52 Registered: Nov-08 | IS NAGRAVISION 3 CRACKED YET?? TELL ME AND WHEN IT WILL BE RELEASED!!! |
|
Silver Member Username: AjdarwinPost Number: 311 Registered: May-06 | Hey, someone with the money and know how has finally developed a business model like I proposed three years ago. I thank them for doing this. It can revolutionize the satellite industry. I had neither the money nor the expertise, but I knew that with all those machines out there, it had to be possible to develop a business model that would allow true FTA to exist. Next we have to work on some Spanish channels. |
|
Platinum Member Username: PlymouthModeratorCanada Post Number: 12326 Registered: Jan-08 | How many time before Dave and Charly kill this? They offer to paid much more to provide their channels and the $$$$ make that we lose our FTA. Many True FTA are gone like it!  |
|
Silver Member Username: AjdarwinPost Number: 312 Registered: May-06 | I don't know, maybe the two pay services can sabotage this venture by offering to carry the channels on FTA on their satellite for free to the providers, giving them a wider audience. I sort of doubt they will be inclined to do this, since FTA will not be much competition for them. Mostly it will establish the business model of not paying for programming that contains commercials, like you do now with the two pay services. Any channel that has commercials should not be charged for, they can be paid for by the commercials. Satellite time is not cheap. Gaining a national audience is a very valuable asset. Working out the dynamics so that the viewer doesn't pay is very cool. If you have to watch commercials, you shouldn't have to pay to watch. Just my two cents. |
|
Platinum Member Username: PlymouthModeratorCanada Post Number: 12337 Registered: Jan-08 | Joe I totally agree with you but if you look how Bev work, they block the commercials and try to get money to let those commercials on a channel. What a bunch of robber!  |
|
Silver Member Username: AjdarwinPost Number: 313 Registered: May-06 | There are how many channels? Except for the "premium" channels, there are commercials on every channel. If the satellite companies would charge a la carte, lots of these commercial laden channels would go belly up. If the two pay sats wanted to get their channels in line, offer them, just charge the customer an a la carte fee for each equal to the amount the channel is asking, plus a small, and I mean small additional amount for each channel. You would find that more than half the channels would disappear is my guess. If you had a choice, would you pay for MTV, really? How about the O channel? Lifetime anyone? Yes, some would pay, but it would be lower because in order to charge what they do to their commercial clients, they have to have an audience. If they get turned off by charging too much, their revenue dries up. Given this scenario many people would trim their channels down to 10 or less. My folks watch less than ten channels, History, Fox, Weather, Speed, National Geographic, Animal Planet, Lifetime, Disney (grandkids), and one or two others. They pay for around 100 channels. At two dollars each, they would save more than 25 dollars a month. Bundling is not a way to provide better service, it is a way to extort (gouge) more money from the customer in order to get the channels they really want. By bundling, we are forced to pay for channels no one wants, or at least many who are forced to pay for them don't want them. If we instead required the sat providers to offer an a la carte choice, in addition to bundling of channels, the consumer would be better served. And before anyone says anything, the sat space we have is limited and owned by our government. Like the airwaves here on Earth, you have to lease time and frequency. We need to apply many of the same rules to sat and cable as the local channels. Serve the public interest. |
|
Silver Member Username: AjdarwinPost Number: 314 Registered: May-06 | Here's an example. The bundles change and the offers change, but recently I checked what it would take to get Fox News on Dtv. I found that not only would I have to buy a bundled set of channels, I would have to buy something other than the smallest package. Fox News is watched more than all the other news channels, so to get it you had to buy a more expensive bundle. It wasn't available any other way. So, to get Fox News, you pay for 60 additional channels you don't want to get the one you do. These numbers aren't exact, but it gives you an idea of how the sat providers work. |
|
Platinum Member Username: PlymouthModeratorCanada Post Number: 12338 Registered: Jan-08 | Joe This is denounced on all tv sites but those providers never listen the customer! They get too much money from us and are able to blocked all new way of provider with better services! For now I use my OTA antenna until Nfusion move on to make me happy, Sonysat is the one which provide better french channels but they are out of stock and I don't have a reseller here in Quebec city to get one. |
Main Forums
Today's Posts- Home Audio Forum
- Home Video Forum
- Home Theater Forum
- Car Audio Forum
- Accessories Forum
- All Forum Topics