[opendtv] Re: Analysis: Broadcast's $1 Billion Pot of Gold

  • From: "John Willkie" <johnwillkie@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: <opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2008 10:05:13 -0700

? 

 

Then, why aren't you concerned hereabouts on the channel-line ups and
packages of NPS (see the court decision of a few days ago), EchoStar,
DirecTV, AT&T u-Verse, Verizon FIOS, etc., etc, etc?

 

How come you aren't concerned about the real demise of newspapers (a future
phase or three are going to be brutal, when what remains of the newspapers,
through their ownership of AP, start royally screwing the broadcast
customers who have on ownership of voting rights in AP?

 

Have you ever thought was Craig's list and Ebay have done to newspapers,
with no social benefit, but much commercial importance.

 

And, I'm not agreeing with your premise, just doing the first round of
challenges of it.

 

John Willkie

 

  _____  

De: opendtv-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:opendtv-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] En
nombre de dan.grimes@xxxxxxxx
Enviado el: Thursday, July 10, 2008 9:33 AM
Para: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Asunto: [opendtv] Re: Analysis: Broadcast's $1 Billion Pot of Gold

 


Media available to and media consumed by people have the utmost social
importance, affects and consequenses. 

Dan 




"John Willkie" <johnwillkie@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> 
Sent by: opendtv-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx 

07/10/2008 09:24 AM 


Please respond to
opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx


To

<opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> 


cc

 


Subject

[opendtv] Re: Analysis: Broadcast's $1 Billion Pot of Gold

 


 

 




I'm sorry, with the recovery of my main hard drive, I missed the "issues of
social importance." 
  
Just how is cable tv rates or package alignment of "social importance."
Shall I sing a few bars of "Sing Me A Song of Social Significance?" 
  
It's a commercial arrangement, not a social service.  The only thing that
relates to social importance is how it might affect free over the air tv,
since there is no direct cost for that. 
  
John Willkie 
 

Other related posts: