| Author |
Message |
Gary J Tait
Guest
|
 Posted:
Tue Mar 15, 2005 4:59 am Post subject:
Re: How much money will advertisers loose in the end? |
|
|
On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 16:12:56 -0500, "Slick" <me@here.com> wrote:
| Quote: | Gary, you mean that they (the ISP's) can charge you for advertisements, or
provide them FREE for your viewing pleasure?
Wow, free adds to view, beats FREE TV
|
No, you pay the ISP for a connection to the network.
You access content across the network, which you pay for that content
directly (or a combination of pay and advertising), or get the
content for free, either advertising supported, or by the graces of
the content provider.
| Quote: | "Gary J Tait" <classicsat@nospam_yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:rsc131p8c1ic4hiloug0d39pgv8he9dl84@4ax.com...
On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 11:33:12 PST, mojaveg@mojaveg.iwvisp.com (Everett
M. Greene) wrote:
Gary J Tait <classicsat@nospam_yahoo.com> writes:
"sn00p" <sn00p@haveashittyday.com> wrote:
snip
The encd content providers can put up advertising if they want, as
they have pay for their contend and bandwidth. Or they can charge a
fee for it, or have their reasons for providing it free.
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
The Lesbian Sleepover Clu
Guest
|
| Posted:
Tue Mar 15, 2005 8:14 am Post subject:
Re: How much money will advertisers loose in the end? |
|
|
David Levy wrote:
| Quote: | "Bill_Gates" wrote:
Do you guys realize your responding to a typographical
error in the subject line or am I just being a
hardass here? "loose"/"lose"
|
lol ;-)
| Quote: |
Do you realize that you misspelled the word "you're"? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
joeturn2000@yahoo.com
Guest
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ad Hoc Guy
Guest
|
| Posted:
Wed Mar 16, 2005 8:14 am Post subject:
Re: How much money will advertisers loose in the end? |
|
|
curmudgeaon..You must have brown nozed your teachers all your life ! LOL
--
" Being "over the hill" is much better than being under it."
"curmudgeon" <curmudgeon@buzzoff.net> wrote in message
news:RjPXd.11459$c72.2932@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
| Quote: | It's even more ironic that a loser can't spell "lose".
"Slick" <me@here.com> wrote in message
news:IwsXd.2258$eo5.7595@newscontent-01.sprint.ca...
Ever wonder what satellite piracy is doing to advertisers?
Well if there are millions of pirates watching shows on local commercial
TV, thus getting brainwashed by advertisers at the same time, then what
will happen when the Canadian and american DBS providers pull the plug on
all the pirate activity?
Well you guessed it, the advertisers are going to loose hundreds of
millions of dollars in advertising revenus, all because their programming
is scrambled at the distribution level.
Isn't it ironic that you HAVE TO PAY to watch commercials?
Shouldn't commercial TV really be free to watch by everyone, and not
scrambled by multi billion dollar conglomerates?
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ad Hoc Guy
Guest
|
| Posted:
Wed Mar 16, 2005 8:14 am Post subject:
Re: How much money will advertisers loose in the end? |
|
|
Boy, You guys really have time on your hands to start doing spell checks on
newsgroup postings.
Get a fucking LIFE guys !!!!! PLEEEEASE
--
" Being "over the hill" is much better than being under it."
"Bill_Gates " <"Bill_Gates "@yahoogroups.com> wrote in message
news:UNYXd.24012$fW4.727627@news20.bellglobal.com...
| Quote: |
curmudgeon wrote:
It's even more ironic that a loser can't spell "lose".
lol Thanks for catching that. I was wondering when someone would mention
this. :-p
"Slick" <me@here.com> wrote in message
news:IwsXd.2258$eo5.7595@newscontent-01.sprint.ca...
Ever wonder what satellite piracy is doing to advertisers?
Well if there are millions of pirates watching shows on local commercial
TV, thus getting brainwashed by advertisers at the same time, then what
will happen when the Canadian and american DBS providers pull the plug on
all the pirate activity?
Well you guessed it, the advertisers are going to loose hundreds of
millions of dollars in advertising revenus, all because their programming
is scrambled at the distribution level.
Isn't it ironic that you HAVE TO PAY to watch commercials?
Shouldn't commercial TV really be free to watch by everyone, and not
scrambled by multi billion dollar conglomerates?
---
http://movies.groups.yahoo.com/group/Sumpter/
Sumpter@yahoogroups.com |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Slick
Guest
|
| Posted:
Wed Mar 16, 2005 8:15 am Post subject:
Re: How much money will advertisers loose in the end? |
|
|
Ad Hoc Guy, it's the feebleminded man's way to take the heat away from the
topic, and just throw it away on some insignificant detail...
Insults are intended, to those concerned, as long as they can understand
them....
"Ad Hoc Guy" <PussyFart@hic-ups.org> wrote in message
news:bwPZd.16843$N8.435105@news20.bellglobal.com...
| Quote: | Boy, You guys really have time on your hands to start doing spell checks
on newsgroup postings.
Get a fucking LIFE guys !!!!! PLEEEEASE
--
" Being "over the hill" is much better than being under it."
"Bill_Gates " <"Bill_Gates "@yahoogroups.com> wrote in message
news:UNYXd.24012$fW4.727627@news20.bellglobal.com...
curmudgeon wrote:
It's even more ironic that a loser can't spell "lose".
lol Thanks for catching that. I was wondering when someone would mention
this. :-p
"Slick" <me@here.com> wrote in message
news:IwsXd.2258$eo5.7595@newscontent-01.sprint.ca...
Ever wonder what satellite piracy is doing to advertisers?
Well if there are millions of pirates watching shows on local commercial
TV, thus getting brainwashed by advertisers at the same time, then what
will happen when the Canadian and american DBS providers pull the plug
on all the pirate activity?
Well you guessed it, the advertisers are going to loose hundreds of
millions of dollars in advertising revenus, all because their
programming is scrambled at the distribution level.
Isn't it ironic that you HAVE TO PAY to watch commercials?
Shouldn't commercial TV really be free to watch by everyone, and not
scrambled by multi billion dollar conglomerates?
---
http://movies.groups.yahoo.com/group/Sumpter/
Sumpter@yahoogroups.com
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Some ga
Guest
|
| Posted:
Wed Mar 16, 2005 7:55 pm Post subject:
Re: How much money will advertisers loose in the end? |
|
|
On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 01:53:29 -0500, "Slick" <me@here.com> wrote:
| Quote: | snip
Insults are intended, to those concerned, as long as they can understand
them....
snip
|
Hey, I take offense at that !
I think..................
;-) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
seog
Guest
|
| Posted:
Tue Apr 05, 2005 1:42 am Post subject:
Re: How much money will advertisers loose in the end? |
|
|
I admire your sense of integrety Gary but it's really misplaced. I really
have no problem with stealing from theives. If you do, don't do it.
http://www.progress.org/2004/assets07.htm
http://www.susanives.com/columns/oct1704.html
http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:zmVAWOn3kMkJ:www.gpnys.org/archives/000037.php+airwaves+belong+to+the+people&hl=en&client=firefox-a"The airwaves that the corporate media control," said Nader, "areours; they belong to the people. And yet, we can't even get them tooffer a single half-hour show of what's going on culturally,academically, or in the arts in our universities. Not a single show,except for sports." He looked directly into the local news camerasand announced to the audience that they could be sure we wouldn't seethis on the evening news when he said, "the airwaves belong to thepeople. The people control them and the networks ought to pay rent onthem. When programming is determined by some small-minded executivein New York based on what will sell product, as it is too oftentoday, the franchise ought rather be offered to those who wouldproduce real programming that is the product of a rich culture andbenefit to the people, with a wide and varied offering andaccessibility to those who would learn to direct, produce, staffcameras, and write programming for television and radio.""We own the commonwealth," Nader continued. "This is a rich treasurethat includes the public a
irwaves; one-third of this country ispublic lands, national parks and preserves that belong to us; thereare $5 trillion in pensions that are owned by the peoples; hundredsof billions in research and development, through NASA, defense (sic),and the like, is ours although it has been given away to corporationsfor free; the public works: the highways, bridges, schools,libraries, and roads all belong to the people. We own it. But wedon't control it. Who controls it? Other than the public works it isall controlled by corporations, by the huge banks, the realtors, themining, energy, and timber industries."Gary J Tait" <classicsat@nospam_yahoo.com> wrote in messagenews:f19c31t9pip1lj5hlqpmr8f0nbncl6l2vo@4ax.com...> On 14 Mar 2005 14:57:04 -0800, "joeturn2000@yahoo.com"> <joeturn2000@yahoo.com> wrote:>>>http://www.emantechnology.com>>Some one ought to sue them for false advertise huh Gary?>>> No, because ithe their context, the receivers they sell receive> unencrypted FTA channels.>> In your context, you of lash pirate firmware in the receiver to get> aroun paying for pay TV : IE stealing it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
terribletom
Guest
|
| Posted:
Tue Apr 05, 2005 1:47 am Post subject:
Re: How much money will advertisers loose in the end? |
|
|
"seog" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:9xi4e.7027$4b.3665@trndny08...
| Quote: | I admire your sense of integrety Gary but it's really misplaced. I really
have no problem with stealing from theives. If you do, don't do it.
|
see that's what i been saying all these years :P |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gary J Tait
Guest
|
| Posted:
Tue Apr 05, 2005 4:48 pm Post subject:
Re: How much money will advertisers loose in the end? |
|
|
On Mon, 04 Apr 2005 21:42:29 GMT, "seog" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
| Quote: | I admire your sense of integrety Gary but it's really misplaced. I really
have no problem with stealing from theives. If you do, don't do it.
http://www.progress.org/2004/assets07.htm
http://www.susanives.com/columns/oct1704.html
http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:zmVAWOn3kMkJ:www.gpnys.org/archives/000037.php+airwaves+belong+to+the+people&hl=en&client=firefox-a"The airwaves that the corporate media control," said Nader, "areours; they belong to the people. And yet, we can't even get them tooffer a single half-hour show of what's going on culturally,academically, or in the arts in our universities. Not a single show,except for sports." He looked directly into the local news camerasand announced to the audience that they could be sure we wouldn't seethis on the evening news when he said, "the airwaves belong to thepeople. The people control them and the networks ought to pay rent onthem. When programming is determined by some small-minded executivein New York based on what will sell product, as it is too oftentoday, the franchise ought rather be offered to those who wouldproduce real programming that is the product of a rich culture andbenefit to the people, with a wide and varied offering andaccessibility
to those who would learn to direct, produce, staffcameras, and write programming for television and radio.""We own the commonwealth," Nader continued. "This is a rich treasurethat includes the public airwaves; one-third of this country ispublic lands, national parks and preserves that belong to us; thereare $5 trillion in pensions that are owned by the peoples; hundredsof billions in research and development, through NASA, defense (sic),and the like, is ours although it has been given away to corporationsfor free; the public works: the highways, bridges, schools,libraries, and roads all belong to the people. We own it. But wedon't control it. Who controls it? Other than the public works it isall controlled by corporations, by the huge banks, the realtors, themining, energy, and timber industries."Gary J Tait" <classicsat@nospam_yahoo.com> wrote in messagenews:f19c31t9pip1lj5hlqpmr8f0nbncl6l2vo@4ax.com...> On 14 Mar 2005 14:57:04 -0800, "joeturn2000@yahoo.com"
joeturn2000@yahoo.com
wrote:>>>http://www.emantechnology.com>>Some one ought to sue them for false advertise huh Gary?>>> No, because ithe their context, the receivers they sell receive> unencrypted FTA channels.>> In your context, you of lash pirate firmware in the receiver to get> aroun paying for pay TV : IE stealing it.
|
Stealing doesn't alleviate the problem, it hides it, unless you are
going outright to them and saying you are stealing their service in
defiance of their buisness. If you are doing it in secret, you are
simply stealing, and are claiming defiance as the excuse. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ric
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sat Aug 13, 2005 8:08 am Post subject:
Re: How much money will advertisers loose in the end? |
|
|
"slugworth" <joepete51@juno-dot-com.no-spam.invalid> wrote in message
news:CpKdnctOGqFxpGDfRVn_vQ@giganews.com...
| Quote: | There are more commercials per hour now than back when tv was "free".
|
Those signals are still free using the same reception equipment
as in the past.
--
Shorter of breath and one day closer to death. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Yojimbo
Guest
|
| Posted:
Mon Aug 15, 2005 8:08 am Post subject:
Re: How much money will advertisers loose in the end? |
|
|
This must have been the argument that was given to Congress during the
debates on the scrambling law in the 80's. I watched that train wreck and
knew we (c-band owners) were going to lose. We did not have the deep deep
pockets of the regional vertical monopolies of TCI, Time Warner, etc. Not
just cable distribution and programming but newspapers and movie companies.
I felt I was just my own personal cable provider (dealing the high initial
cost, replacing equipment like the receiver that would drift from capacitor
heat, having my actuator jack just wear through in its sleeve, stolen
outside equipment, not cheap and not less than cable but my choice for
quality TV) in a small town where I didn't agree with what local cable
offered. Like -not- Fox or UPN. The music I bought pretty much ended after
MTV went blank; the videos were an excellent promotion of the artists. The
preceding all advertiser supported. I wasn't big on the movies. (Though I
did admittedly miss the pro wrestling) As for the cost of the uplink, it
cost them more to deny rural customers by scrambling. But the nature of the
business channel to distribution means that anyone perceived as getting
their signal for nothing will be cut off. I don't know how it is with the
Videocipher nowadays but anyone who was willing to go legit had the cost of
his satellite, the cost of the 'Cipher, and was supposed to pay the going
cable rate as well. Punishing. In the 80's, the argument the home C-band
lobby made was to pay what the cable company pays, on average about a tenth
per channel. We were our own downlink, with all its intendant material risk
and outlay! But there was no way to win; I should have just enjoyed what
there was left instead of watching C-SPAN. Of course, the downlink argument
flies even less nowadays with DBS: those are special high-powered birds put
up for the little pizza pans. And, of course, the satellite distributors
are still the same old cable people. I must be mellowing; in another time I
called them cable <fatherless children>.
"slugworth" <joepete51@juno-dot-com.no-spam.invalid> wrote in message
news:CpKdnctOGqFxpGDfRVn_vQ@giganews.com...
| Quote: | ricwrote:
Slick wrote:
Isn't it ironic that you HAVE TO PAY to watch commercials?
No more ironic than PAYING for a newspaper full of advertisements or
PAYING for a magazine full of advertisements. Old (tired) argument.
Shouldn't commercial TV really be free to watch by everyone, and
not
scrambled by multi billion dollar conglomerates?
Only when the satellites and uplink equipment for this commercial TV
is free to these multi billion dollar conglomerates. In the meantime,
use a VHF/UHF antenna if you want free TV.[/quote:b0c0c9f6a8]
There are more commercials per hour now than back when tv was "free".
Who paid for the transmitters, antennas and support back then?
I don't even bother watching old tv shows anymore, they are hacked up
so bad to add more commercials. It's time to go back to the old rules
of
10 minutes per hour for commercials.
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in