Trust Counts... A Note from SatelliteGuys Founder Scott Greczkowski

[Scott Greczkowski]

Nothing wrong with that at all.

However, it appears, at least to me, that the review was rushed just to get a scoop.

When you have as many technical and grammatical errors as Jasons review had, it really makes the review look amaturish. What good is being first, if the information is wrong?

Jason had his review ready for awhile now. Perhaps his mistake was sending it to me to check for errors when I neither had a SWM LNB and I am not the best at grammar.

Other then that what was wrong with it? (Besides the 5 ports mentioned instead of 8 ports.)

Whats wrong with DirecTv or Dish, or whoever, giving a review a look to make sure that all the information is correct? A poorly written review that is full of mis-information, can be very damaging. Especially if the review gets picked up by other sites like endgaget or tvpredictions. It's impossible to put that genie back in the bottle.

Nothing wrong with giving them an advance look but with them editing and rewriting sections, it no longer is a review it is just company propaganda. That is the issue I have there. And I think thats a fair complaint.

I think that the issue that I am seeing is folks are jealous that we got ours out before DBSTalks, however again we waited until the LNB's were available before releasing it. We had no obligation to anyone to hold it back and it seemed kind of silly to wait for DBStalk to release their review just so we could release ours.

I will also say that we would have happily sent ours for review before posting it, however we had no place to send it to, and that is part of the problem.

 

[Hall]

Nope, Just want to make sure that everyone is picked on equal merrit. It seems more often than not the guys who buddy buddy up to the mods are the first ones to see the betas.

Who's to say that wouldn't happen here too ?

 

[Scott Greczkowski]

Who's to say that wouldn't happen here too ?

Because I don't even let the staff win prizes when we have giveaways. The site is about the members, without them (and you) we wouldn't be here.

 

[RobertE]

Are you referring to the 3-page PDF ? If so, and I admit I scanned it very quickly, I didn't pick up many, if any, grammar errors. I'm a stickler for that too....

Yes.

As already acknowledged, the 5 channel when its an 8 channel

Additionally, SWM technology feeds two signals to a DVR receiver without the need for a second wire, and eliminate the need for BBC converters on HD receivers.​

Saying BBC converters is like saying "B-Band Converter converters"

Also, BBCs are also needed on the R22 in some markets for local channels that are provided by D10 and soon D11.

Splitters are highly-recomended be rated up to 2300mhz

While the upper end is mentioned, it is equally important (possibly more so) that the lower end goes down to 2 mhz as well. That is due to the communication channel being at 2.3mhz.

This LNB is targetted at becoming a standard installation device in 2009, and makes installs and upgrades much faster.​

Time frame is actually by mid August. Not 2009. Also, the install criteria is going to be new installs only. I woud assume that upgrades to this LNB will be possible at some point, it's hard to tell at this time. You all know what happens when one assumes.

There is no D13. They are intentionally skipping D13, for the same reasons you don't find to many floor 13s in buildings. I've seen a prototype D14 which may or may not make it to the field. Tiny little box, but I digress.

I could go on, but that wouldn't serve any purpose.

 

[Hall]

That's not a grammatical error, but a technical one. "BBC converter" vs "BB Converter" is, hmmm, yeah, maybe that's grammar. Kinda like "PIN Number".

 

[Scott Greczkowski]

Geesh those are not really mistakes.

BBC Converters I guess is like saying MASH. Everyone knows what it means.

I got to admit I look forward to seeing the DBSTalk review as well...

But most importantly I am looking forward to getting my hands on one of these amazing LNB's when they become for sale to the general public and not just for new installs.

 

[RadCPUman]

No I still think that we can do some stuff together which would interest both our members.

As I said before I am working on something big and I would like to see it open to all true fans of Satellite Technology, not just SatelliteGuys members.

I know that there will always be folks who are SatelliteGuys fans (thank you) who prefer us over DBSTalk. And I also know that there are others who are DBSTalk fans (they thank you) who like that site better then ours. Thats the nature of the beast. I just want to give our members honest accurate information so they can gain more knowledge and hopefully help out others with the knowledge they gained.

I don't think there is anything wrong with that.

There is nothing wrong with what your trying to do. But is that what DirecTV wants? Your trying to get access to this program for your members on your site, but direcTV may have all they want at this time.

As has been said earlier in this thread, public companies do stuff like this all the time. There isn't any rule that says these programs have to be made available to everyone equally. I think that is only for financial and SEC type stuff. You should build a relationship with the folks at DirecTV and maybe they'll think to use this site for something in the future. If you pound on the door to loudly, they may just lock it for good.

 

[shibby191]

I just want to give our members honest accurate information so they can gain more knowledge and hopefully help out others with the knowledge they gained.

I don't think there is anything wrong with that.

There is nothing wrong with wanting that. But if DirecTV doesn't want to play with you, you seem to want to complain in public about it over and over again. You can't seem to accept the fact that DirecTV wants to work with DBSTalk first and in many cases exclusively. And you only hurt yourself by posting a review before they wanted.

Not saying you are in the wrong by posting the review. But if DirecTV has certain rules or ways they want to work with forums and you actively flaunt it and burn the bridge, well, then you get what you deserve. Again, maybe it's not right. But if you want to play with DirecTV then you need to play by *their rules*, not yours. They are much more powerful then you. If it were the other way around then perhaps they would have to play by your rules. But they certainly don't need you or Satguys (or DBSTalk for that matter) to make it.

And don't you think DBSTalk could make the same complaints about the access you have to Dish Network? I don't really see the owners or mods over there crying in their milk because they aren't at the forefront of Dish news and stuff.

Honestly, you only make your site look bad by acting this way and not handling it like a proper business man would. Sorry if that hurts but it's the truth.

 

[Scott Greczkowski]

It dont hurt at all Shibby, what I posted here today is not even the tip of the iceberg.

I believe in being open and honest with my members and have no intention on changing and nor will I be silenced.

Everything I say is the truth and of course I have documentation to back up everything I say. I am lucky enough to have enough flies on the wall sending me stuff that I almost always know whats going on.

But that is not the point of all of this the olive branch is still out there, there are things we can do together which can benefit us all.

 

[Ronnie-]

And how much different was that from the recent Charlie meetting where folks from this site were told things about Dish/Echostar but told not to report on what they were told?

It isnt any different at all.

 

[Hall]

I believe in being open and honest with my members and have no intention on changing and nor will I be silenced.

Then post the missing details related to this review or whatever it was that you alluded to in earlier posts. That would be truly "open and honest". Mind you, I don't have D* service so I don't give a rat's ass about their equipment or service. I'm just referring to the (or your) principle.

...there are things we can do together which can benefit us all.

Stick to that philosophy for a while, but when the obvious becomes clear, just let it drop. You can preach "benefit us all" but if the other side doesn't care or isn't interested, you aren't going to change their minds. You'll then just be wasting your time and energy on a dead subject.

 

[grydlok]

All the stuff wrong with the world. Gas 4 dollars a gallon. People can't find a job and yet the same B.S. squabbles go on between SatGuys and DBS talk.

 

[jayn_j]

Because to some, this site can do no wrong, but DBSTalk is the spawn of satan. :dev Double standards, etc, etc.

This site can certainly do wrong. So can DBSTalk. Robert, be honest. How long would the DBSTalk mods have let this thread run before deleting it? How many members would have been invited to take a vacation for their comments here? BTW, you need to turn it around and look at it from Scott's viewpoint. If this were DBSTalk, I likely would have been banned for my comments back on page 2. Instead, Scott just ignored me Both sites have their strengths and weaknesses. That's the nature of this.

But Robert, you have to admit that you have been acting like a troll in this thread. You are looking for excuses and a lot of complaints are stretches. You feel you were owed that review and feel cheated out of it. In response, you have been deliberately trying to get people here to lose it.

Masterdeals review did have one technical mistake, freely admitted and corrected. The rest is petty details, and it looks like most of it is inside info that he wouldn't have had access to. Does that make it a bad review? No. Is yours going to be more complete? Probably. It's not like DBSTalk hasn't lifted stuff off this site in the past.

 

[darrencp22]

People make mistakes...as I recall, D*'s own promotional literature adverised that their AM21 product comes with an HDMI cable. They ment USB cable. Dont come off as holier than thou.

 

[darrencp22]

Hey Scott, one thing confuses me. The relationship satguys has with D* seems contradictory. On one hand you're saying you're working on something with them that is exciting, on the other hand it is being said that SatGuy is being kept our of the loop on the CE program. I'm a little confused. Are there different relationships with different departments? I dont get it.

 

[microbeta]

Aperry, there is more to it there which I could go into, but I would rather not. I wish it was as simple as that though.

It really is that simple.

I've been involved in several field tests. I was also involved in writing/contributing to two first looks. I've seen the drafts prior to DirecTV getting their cut and while there has been editorial changes almost nothing was changed effecting the overall content.

Just for the record, I disagree with Satellite Guys releasing the review. Yeah I disagree with some of the content, but I admit that overall it is a pretty accurate review and I commend Masterdeals on his write up.

With that said it have a real problem with the Satellite Guys portrayal of their review. To participate in a field test in another forum and then pretend that it is an "Exclusive" review is just bad form. There is a whole group of people involved in any field test and you would never know it by reading the review.

Additionally, all members of any field test are informed that as a requirement of participation, they are not to discuss the test/equipment until they are told they can do so.

That on the surface makes it appear that releasing the review without prior approval to be a violation of that agreement.

Further, if DirecTV considers it a violation of the agreement who is at fault? Isn't the forum conducting the field test ultimately responsible.

I understand that you believe since it's already out in "the wild", it's an implicit approval to talk about in the open. However, is it possible, by releasing the review as you did, that you have placed the "other guys" in a bad spot.

Mike

 

[yourbeliefs]

Even more than in real wars.. in "Forum Wars," there truly are no winners and only losers...

 

[microbeta]

Nope, Just want to make sure that everyone is picked on equal merrit. It seems more often than not the guys who buddy buddy up to the mods are the first ones to see the betas. Why not do a point system or randomly select people? There are ways that it can be done. Even so, Once the beta was released to the general population who signed up over there, any member who was a satelliteguys member who didnt post over there was not accepted into the program even though they meet all the requirements. Even when members who were able to post here (IE masterdeals) and post over there was kept out of the program.

Actually, testers are usually chosen for their ability to articulate the issues.

They're picked based on how useful their issues posts are NOT on who's whose buddy.

DirecTV doesn't care who you know. They want useful info from their field tests.

I'm not saying that's the sole criteria because I'm not in that loop but it is one of the important ones. That means that they pick for those that post in issues threads...mostly the CE issues threads.

It isn't meant to be exclusionary but I can understand how DirecTV would be limiting the field for their own ease of decision making...good or bad, it is what it is. Since Earl was instrumental in setting up the CE program most of the testing was done at DBSTalk. Not because their any better than anyone else but because the business side of DirecTV has to limit exposure until their products are ready.

I'll never understand how this situation has morphed into them vs. us; we're being excluded on purpose; they're out to get us.

No one said "Hey, the SatGuys suck so we're going to exclude them" AAMOF, it's pretty arrogant to think there is a conscious decision to exclude anyone.

At first I thought it was pretty cool that there were Satellite Guys members involved. Now I'm not so sure.

Mike

 

[Scott Greczkowski]

With that said it have a real problem with the Satellite Guys portrayal of their review. To participate in a field test in another forum and then pretend that it is an "Exclusive" review is just bad form.

Mike, please show me where we said it was an "Exclusive"

Some folks have creative imaginations.

 

[microbeta]

When anyone in the media gets too close to a particular company or subject they run the risk of losing their objectivity. Directv will not want to be in bed with a web site that puts its readers first and tells it like it is. They'll only cooperate if you play by their rules.

Look at the whole DLB fiasco with the HR series. Earl was told why it wasn't present but was also told not to say why to his readers. So does he have an obligation to the readers and spill the beans or does he keep his mouth shut? Well in order to continue to stay in bed with Directv, he keeps his mouth shut. He ends up being/looking like an unpaid representative of the company

Do you put the readers first or the company? The whole idea of getting inside information to your readers before something hits the shelves is great but if it comes from the company on their terms then you're just an unpaid mouth piece for them. Rumors and inside scoops from un-named sources putting their jobs on the line is different and gets a real unofficial look into the company.

Why the heck can't you see the big picture. There has to be some diplomacy involved.

Let's say every time DirecTV tells you something but asks you not to give the full story but you decide to say "screw it, I think the people have a right to know".

You only have to that once or twice before they won't tell with you anymore.

You hit them with a stick everytime you see them, then won't be seeing them any more.

Maybe if you tone it down and try to work with everyone you might actually get more consideration for your efforts. You're not entitled to anything you haven't earned.

Mike