(OT) Online petition for the Speedvision-NASCARvision fiasco

For those concerned, there's an online petition protesting the proposed changes to Speedvision. 52,000 signatures so far, which is a hell of a lot. Go to http://www.petitiononline.com/svsn/ Even though I can't get Speedvision here in Australia, I'm still opposed to changing what is an excellent channel (from all reports). Why wouldn't they just add a second channel? Granted, the costs would be higher, but the formats would complement each other and many would opt for both channels. Rafe Mc

52K???whouuuufff! I think I was like 124 or somehting...I expected maybe a thousand or two...WAY TO GO INTERNET!!!! dave henrie "Rafe McAuliffe" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (13 lines)

> For those concerned, there's an online petition protesting the > proposed changes to Speedvision. 52,000 signatures so far, which is a > hell of a lot. Go to > > http://www.petitiononline.com/svsn/ > > Even though I can't get Speedvision here in Australia, I'm still > opposed to changing what is an excellent channel (from all reports). > Why wouldn't they just add a second channel? Granted, the costs would > be higher, but the formats would complement each other and many would > opt for both channels. > > Rafe Mc

Filling quickly, another 30 odd in the last hour since I signed up! Rafe Mc On Mon, 06 Aug 2001 03:30:22 GMT, "Dave Henrie" <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (19 lines)

> 52K???whouuuufff! I think I was like 124 or somehting...I expected maybe >a thousand or two...WAY TO GO INTERNET!!!! >dave henrie >"Rafe McAuliffe" <[email hidden]> wrote in message >news:[email hidden]... >> For those concerned, there's an online petition protesting the >> proposed changes to Speedvision. 52,000 signatures so far, which is a >> hell of a lot. Go to >> >> http://www.petitiononline.com/svsn/ >> >> Even though I can't get Speedvision here in Australia, I'm still >> opposed to changing what is an excellent channel (from all reports). >> Why wouldn't they just add a second channel? Granted, the costs would >> be higher, but the formats would complement each other and many would >> opt for both channels. >> >> Rafe Mc >

In article <[email hidden]>, [email hidden] (Rafe McAuliffe) writes: >For those concerned, there's an online petition protesting the >proposed changes to Speedvision. 52,000 signatures so far, which is a >hell of a lot. Go to > >http://www.petitiononline.com/svsn/ Done. Eldred -- Dale Earnhardt, Sr. R.I.P. 1951-2001 Homepage - http://www.umich.edu/~epickett F1 hcp. +16.36...Monster +366.59... Never argue with an idiot. He brings you down to his level, then beats you with experience... Remove SPAM-OFF to reply.

Quoted text (7 lines)

> Even though I can't get Speedvision here in Australia, I'm still > opposed to changing what is an excellent channel (from all reports). > Why wouldn't they just add a second channel? Granted, the costs would > be higher, but the formats would complement each other and many would > opt for both channels. > > Rafe Mc

This kinda corporate take over is mostly about eliminating competition. If Fox started a new na$car channel instead of changing Speedvision to all na$car programing, they would have to compete with Speedvision for the motorsports viewers and advertising market. http://www.petitiononline.com/svsn/ Marty

If Fox owns Speedvision and intends to convert to an all Nascar format, why are they currently running the add featuring Al Unser Jr talking about how great Speedvision is because it covers so many different forms of motorsport? Seems a bit incongruous. -- Don Scurlock Vancouver,B.C. GPLRank -14.06 MonsterRank 104.55 Come see how you rank, at the GPLRank site http://gplrank.ringlord.com/

But hasn't Fox already bought Speedvision? The only competition is in-house. On Mon, 06 Aug 2001 08:52:50 -0700, Marty U'Ren <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (16 lines)

>> Even though I can't get Speedvision here in Australia, I'm still >> opposed to changing what is an excellent channel (from all reports). >> Why wouldn't they just add a second channel? Granted, the costs would >> be higher, but the formats would complement each other and many would >> opt for both channels. >> >> Rafe Mc > >This kinda corporate take over is mostly about eliminating competition. >If Fox started a new na$car channel instead of changing Speedvision to >all na$car programing, they would have to compete with Speedvision for >the motorsports viewers and advertising market. > >http://www.petitiononline.com/svsn/ > >Marty