What Are You Thinking About?

**dr. d** · November 11th, 2020 10:26 AM

Originally Posted by tarzegetakizerd

Illusion lang yan. kaya mukhang mas maraming lesser-known talents sa GMA bc they have lesser KNOWN talents. sorry for the pun haha

i agree.

in my view, abs has made selling their own into a life form.

gma, i think, hasn't mastered the art of self-aggrandizement yet.

even today,
after listening to the non-abs radio programs and comparing them to the now-gone abs radio programs...

**kisshmet** · November 11th, 2020 11:06 AM

Originally Posted by EQAddict

The logic behind this is baffling.

So you are saying the one who pays more is evil. Hmmmm.

So by your logic....employers who pay their employees minimum are good, while those that pay well for good talent are evil......

Sent from my SM-N975F using Tapatalk

ABS-CBN can afford to pay their stars more because they charge their KAPAMILYAs more

Look at the way ABS-CBN sell their TV+ digital box. Initially.. they offered it for P2500. Later on they sold it for P1499 when competition came in with easyTV of solar. They were able to sell many of it by selling the premium channels which are technically cable TV channels.

So ABS tried to convert the Free To Air digital broadcast service into a hybrid (combined free to air and exclusive premium cable channels) system which is against the broadcast rule which is supposedly FREE TO AIR ONLY. In doing so the cable (pay tv) service suffered with diminished subscribership thats why they are the main oppositor to the renewal of their franchise.

For those cable operators affected by ABS-CBN digital broadcast ABS engaged in an UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICE.

ABS had to do such a thing to gain market share to earn more so they could pay their management as well as their stars WELL

I hope you see the EVIL in that. The giant network cried for their employees when they renewed their franchise to broadcast. Yet their trade practice kills the cable industry which have employees too

GMA sells their digital box for less P888 and they didnt offer exclusive premium channels. They offered 2 premium channels that are not exclusive which can be viewed with digital tuners that are not of their own. Thats means consumers are given the free will to choose and still not deprived of viewership

Sent from my SM-G532G using Tapatalk

**EQAddict** · November 11th, 2020 11:47 AM

Huh?

They are a commercial for profit organization who was allowed by the NTC to launch their service. They applied for it. They were granted it. Their managements job is to make the most money for their shareholders.

The digibox revolutionized digital broadcast here. Pricing? All new product introductions are expensive and the economies of scale, innovation and competition eventually bring down the costs and pricing. In the end the consumer benefits.

Charging users for content? Free to air channels were always free. Premium pay per view channels had to be paid for. Does this concept seem alien to you?

In the end, It is up to the public consumer to buy their cool aid or not.

It is ONLY under this administration that a personal vendetta was used to close down a legitimate business. So which is more evil?

Sent from my SM-N975F using Tapatalk

**dr. d** · November 11th, 2020 12:52 PM

as i recall,
in the course of ordinary business,
"your firm is violating such and such rules, sir. but we might still renew your license, if you remedy your deficiencies to our satisfaction, and if you pay the requisite penalties."
in that way, all parties win. the firm gets to continue making money, government continues earning from requisite taxes, and employees retain their jobs.
if the firm is shut down, everybody loses. businessman loses capacity to earn money, government doesn't get to be paid taxes, and employees lose their jobs. no one wins.
and of course, there's the radio fans ...

**BratPAQ** · November 11th, 2020 01:08 PM

Originally Posted by EQAddict

Huh?

They are a commercial for profit organization who was allowed by the NTC to launch their service. They applied for it. They were granted it. Their managements job is to make the most money for their shareholders.

The digibox revolutionized digital broadcast here. Pricing? All new product introductions are expensive and the economies of scale, innovation and competition eventually bring down the costs and pricing. In the end the consumer benefits.

Charging users for content? Free to air channels were always free. Premium pay per view channels had to be paid for. Does this concept seem alien to you?

In the end, It is up to the public consumer to buy their cool aid or not.

It is ONLY under this administration that a personal vendetta was used to close down a legitimate business. So which is more evil?

Sent from my SM-N975F using Tapatalk

Are you saying it's OK to use free to air channels as pay per view?

Sent from my ASUS_X00TDB using Tapatalk

**dr. d** · November 11th, 2020 01:13 PM

i am thinking,

i am down-at-heel.
someone educate me.
if franchise holder is granted a frequency and/or a license to operate,
what is the franchise holder allowed to do with what he was granted, and what is not allowed?

as someone said,
"technology is running away from the law. technology can now do things that the older laws did not seem to address."

i tried to follow the televised hearings, but some terms and arguments i simply could not ride on.

**kagalingan** · November 11th, 2020 01:56 PM

tsikoteers,

ano ba kayo. Ako nga hindi ma-techie eh year2016 pa lang puro smart tv na nuod ko. Year 2011 or 2012 pa ako walang cable. Yung digibox nagtry nugn 2016 din pero one year lang nagamit kasi nasa smart tv ko na lahat careof youtube and online website free tv series free movies.

Wala ako gastos monthly. Ay meron pala yung internet lang.

Tama lang nasarado channel 2. Madami kabalastugan. And wag nyo sabihin nanunuod kayo mga teleserye ng local channels.

**EQAddict** · November 11th, 2020 03:29 PM

Originally Posted by BratPAQ

Are you saying it's OK to use free to air channels as pay per view?

Sent from my ASUS_X00TDB using Tapatalk

All their free to air channels were free and remained free. But u can also access their pay per view channels (which are separate from free to air) on the digibox.

Or are you saying live pacman fights with no commercials have to be free? If not...how else will they broadcast this?

Again, all of these were given approvals by the governing NTC body.

Sent from my SM-N975F using Tapatalk

**BratPAQ** · November 11th, 2020 04:36 PM

Originally Posted by EQAddict

All their free to air channels were free and remained free. But u can also access their pay per view channels (which are separate from free to air) on the digibox.

Or are you saying live pacman fights with no commercials have to be free? If not...how else will they broadcast this?

Again, all of these were given approvals by the governing NTC body.

Sent from my SM-N975F using Tapatalk

If they are using free airwaves then it should be free. Also their channels using free airwaves like cinemo isn't free because you have to pay for their TV box to watch it. The fight used the tv plus which uses free airwaves. So not "All their free to air channels were free and remained free."

Approvals from NTC?
Lopezes blame Tiengs for Pacquiao-Mayweather PPV issue: Solar Sports wanted ABS-CBN to charge P2,5 each | Bilyonaryo

ABS-CBN admitted that it defied the National Telecommunications Commission order to cancel the live showing of the event. ABS-CBN said it received the NTC order on 29 April 2015 or less than a week before the 3 May 2015 fight.

Sent from my Mi 9T Pro using Tapatalk

**EQAddict** · November 11th, 2020 05:16 PM

Originally Posted by BratPAQ

Also their channels using free airwaves like cinemo isn't free because you have to pay for their TV box to watch it.

Sent from my Mi 9T Pro using Tapatalk

Did i read this correctly? Its not free because you need to pay for the digibox?

Its like saying watching their channels isnt free because you have to purchase a TV to watch it.

Dude you need the digibox to decode digital signals. Thats not given away for free. The government was giving away digiboxes for free either .

What is your point? They arent allowed to charge anyone for any of the content they make? They should give all their content away for free? Or they cant use airwaives for their pay per view channel basically rendering any sort of pay per view by any channel, company, station, etc using airwaves moot and academic?

And if they have a violation then fine them. Penalize them.

But this govt chose the nuclear option and weaponized congress to punish them. So thats that . The gloaters are gloating.

Sent from my SM-N975F using Tapatalk