News:

why is this up in the corner now

Main Menu

DirecTV agrees to buy Dish Network for $1

Started by LM117, September 30, 2024, 08:35:48 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

LM117

"I don't know whether to wind my ass or scratch my watch!" -Jim Cornette


Bobby5280

Supposedly the move won't affect existing Dish Network customers. For now. The "birds" currently in service don't stay operational forever (components wear out, orbits decay, etc). At some point the combined DirecTV/Dish entity will be forced to streamline to a single series of receivers and satellite dishes. That is if the company even lasts much longer.

SectorZ

I don't even know if I see a point in satellite service continuing to exist. Given how many times I've been in hotels and restaurants where it craps out due to a gentle rain I'm shocked it's survived what's now approaching 40 years.

I'd make the same argument for radio, but at least being on the road satellite works where no cell signal exists, though companies like Honda aren't installing Sirius/XM units in new cars anymore.

NWI_Irish96

Quote from: SectorZ on September 30, 2024, 10:40:37 AMI don't even know if I see a point in satellite service continuing to exist. Given how many times I've been in hotels and restaurants where it craps out due to a gentle rain I'm shocked it's survived what's now approaching 40 years.

I'd make the same argument for radio, but at least being on the road satellite works where no cell signal exists, though companies like Honda aren't installing Sirius/XM units in new cars anymore.

Aren't there still plenty of rural areas that don't have high speed internet? Satellite would make more sense there.
Indiana: counties 100%, highways 100%
Illinois: counties 100%, highways 61%
Michigan: counties 100%, highways 56%
Wisconsin: counties 86%, highways 23%

WillWeaverRVA

Quote from: NWI_Irish96 on September 30, 2024, 10:53:27 AM
Quote from: SectorZ on September 30, 2024, 10:40:37 AMI don't even know if I see a point in satellite service continuing to exist. Given how many times I've been in hotels and restaurants where it craps out due to a gentle rain I'm shocked it's survived what's now approaching 40 years.

I'd make the same argument for radio, but at least being on the road satellite works where no cell signal exists, though companies like Honda aren't installing Sirius/XM units in new cars anymore.

Aren't there still plenty of rural areas that don't have high speed internet? Satellite would make more sense there.

It would, but the problem is satellite internet is prohibitively expensive for a lot of those rural areas. Satellite ISPs charge a lot more per month on average than fiber or cable providers.
Will Weaver
WillWeaverRVA Photography | Twitter

"But how will the oxen know where to drown if we renumber the Oregon Trail?" - NE2

ZLoth

Quote from: SectorZ on September 30, 2024, 10:40:37 AMI don't even know if I see a point in satellite service continuing to exist. Given how many times I've been in hotels and restaurants where it craps out due to a gentle rain I'm shocked it's survived what's now approaching 40 years.

I had satellite from 2001-2018, first with Dish and DirecTV. If a dish was improperly aligned, then "rain fade" would be a bigger problem. I had about two instances of "rain fade", and this was a extreme rainfall in California.

For many years, DBS was the only viable competition to the cable monopoly, especially if you wanted to watch programming in multiple rooms. Sure, there was C-band aka "Big Ugly Dish" (BUDs), but you could only watch programming on the same satellite. Many of those that had BUDs, especially in rural areas, were the early adopters of DBS.

One of the "killer apps" that DirecTV had was the NFL Sunday Ticket which was a loss leader for DirecTV, but was used to attract subscribers, and was one of the factors in AT&T acquring DirecTV. Even though YouTube now has the NFL Sunday Ticket, DirecTV has a sub-license to provide Sunday Ticket for commercial establishments because of Internet limitations.

How people now consume media has changed over the years. Once upon a time, it was "appointment TV". Now, streaming is more convient.

Quote from: SectorZ on September 30, 2024, 10:40:37 AMI'd make the same argument for radio, but at least being on the road satellite works where no cell signal exists, though companies like Honda aren't installing Sirius/XM units in new cars anymore.

I did not know about SiriusXM, but I am aware of no more CDs or tape decks in new vehicles for years. Because of the smartphone revolution and unlimited data plans, it is much easier and more convient to stream the audio to the Bluetooth connection and listen to what you want. For the carmaker, its five pounds of mechanical parts that can be replaced with a silicon chip, with the dashboard real estate being used elsewhere.

Quote from: NWI_Irish96 on September 30, 2024, 10:53:27 AMAren't there still plenty of rural areas that don't have high speed internet? Satellite would make more sense there.

Satellite internet has high latency issues, plus the data usage can be capped.
Don't Drive Distrac... SQUIRREL!

mgk920

Several companies installed fiber-lightwave lines in my area over the past few years, one of them buried their lines under the sidewalks, with small junction boxes in repoured slabs every couple of lots.  I see no future for copper pair and coax lines, nor do I see a future for geosnync home satellite services.

Mike

Bobby5280

#7
Originally companies like DirecTV and Dish gained popularity because they were often a more affordable alternative to the local cable TV company. Over the past few years the satellite TV companies have lost their price advantage. For a basic "Top 120" channels package and no premiums turned on Dish is charging over $120 per month. I remember the DishHD package in the late 2000's that cost around $40 per month.

During the past few years residential Internet speeds have improved radically. I don't know the details of it, but I think the government is subsidizing a lot of fiber optic cable installation in many cities and towns. At my home I went from having dial-up and then DSL on a copper phone line. Then I went to cable Internet when they boosted their speeds to 25Mb/s and 50Mb/s. Over the past year AT&T and Bluepeak both installed their own fiber lines in my neighborhood. My cable Internet service went from 50Mb/s to 1 Gigabit per second and the price dropped to $49 per month -thanks to new competitors.

Mobile Internet speeds have also improved radically. Companies like T-Mobile are selling cellular based home Internet setups. That may help more people living in small towns and rural areas get an alternative to satellite-based Internet. Still, coverage depends on the location.

Cable TV networks have done themselves no favors. Some channels (such as FX and IFC) are good. Too many just show non-stop reality TV garbage. I'm not into watching the anger pornography news networks either. If it wasn't for live sports broadcasts I probably wouldn't have any sort of cable TV at all. It would be enough to have an outdoor antenna for picking up local broadcast channels and then one or two streaming services like Netflix or Prime Video. I know lots of people who do that already. They're not even getting streaming cable packages like YouTubeTV or Hulu Live.

jeffandnicole

Quote from: Bobby5280 on September 30, 2024, 12:29:34 PMCable TV networks have done themselves no favors. Some channels (such as FX and IFC) are good. Too many just show non-stop reality TV garbage. I'm not into watching the anger pornography news networks either.

Very opinion based.  Obviously if those other shows and channels didn't make a profit for themselves or the cable companies, they wouldn't exist. 

RobbieL2415

Quote from: SectorZ on September 30, 2024, 10:40:37 AMI don't even know if I see a point in satellite service continuing to exist. Given how many times I've been in hotels and restaurants where it craps out due to a gentle rain I'm shocked it's survived what's now approaching 40 years.

I'd make the same argument for radio, but at least being on the road satellite works where no cell signal exists, though companies like Honda aren't installing Sirius/XM units in new cars anymore.

Satellites work where terrestrial broadcasts don't -- at sea and in the air. They have their place, but maybe just not for consumers.

JayhawkCO

No mention of Starlink yet for all of the satellite talk. As that proliferates (or its competitors), it makes a satellite specifically for TV less and less useful.

Bobby5280

#11
Quote from: jeffandnicoleVery opinion based.  Obviously if those other shows and channels didn't make a profit for themselves or the cable companies, they wouldn't exist.

The "news" channels rake in a lot of money. But I suppose a cable channel would probably attract huge numbers of viewers if it aired public executions too.

The Weather Channel serves little purpose unless an actual disaster is in progress. Otherwise it's airing endless repeats of Ice Road Truckers or some other "reality" show. Why the MTV channel still calls itself "MTV" is a mystery. It's a laugh riot they still air an annual "video music awards" show. It's the same story for various other networks. The name of the network has little to do with what they show. National Geographic seems to be more about people in prison than nature documentaries. When the networks are not showing repeats of the same reality shows they're airing infomercials.

If all of these cable networks were profitable why do their parent media companies force service providers such as DirecTV to bundle a bunch of those various channels together? No one gets to hand-pick the channels they actually want to watch and put them into a "skinny" bundle. If customers could do that a bunch of those networks I mentioned would indeed cease to exist.

Many of those network may ultimately disappear anyway. The cord cutting trend does not look like it is reversing itself. And it won't stop as long as the cable networks keep raising prices. They try to act like they're not, but whenever they demand more money from the service provider (such as DirecTV) those increased costs will get passed on to the customer. It's easy to see customers are sick of that shit.

Life in Paradise

Quote from: JayhawkCO on September 30, 2024, 01:13:05 PMNo mention of Starlink yet for all of the satellite talk. As that proliferates (or its competitors), it makes a satellite specifically for TV less and less useful.
Starlink is quite a game changer.  I used it after it was installed on a cruise ship last fall (Holland America) and although there were some gaps as we were going across the Atlantic, the ability to stream quite a lot was amazing.  I also see this recommended in the future for those traveling the US with RVs or travel trailers.  This will likely put Hughes Net out of business and push the single satellite disc/cable company to the brink in a few years.

MikieTimT

Only the older generation is keeping legacy broadcast viewing alive.  Most everyone that's at least 15 years from retirement age is replacing their viewing with streaming subscriptions to get at least some semblance of a-la-carte media channels.  It's a brave new world where people get to watch what they want, when they want, and for the most part, for less money that a standard cable or satellite TV package.

hbelkins

Oh, great. DirecTV has gotten outrageously expensive and this will eliminate Dish as an option. No more threatening to switch to Dish as a negotiating tactic to get a rate reduction.
Government would be tolerable if not for politicians and bureaucrats.

JayhawkCO

Quote from: MikieTimT on September 30, 2024, 03:39:51 PMOnly the older generation is keeping legacy broadcast viewing alive.  Most everyone that's at least 15 years from retirement age is replacing their viewing with streaming subscriptions to get at least some semblance of a-la-carte media channels.  It's a brave new world where people get to watch what they want, when they want, and for the most part, for less money that a standard cable or satellite TV package.

I would agree with everything you said except for the last clause in the last sentence. I don't find it dramatically cheaper than what I once paid for cable, if any cheaper at all.

brad2971

Quote from: MikieTimT on September 30, 2024, 03:39:51 PMOnly the older generation is keeping legacy broadcast viewing alive.  Most everyone that's at least 15 years from retirement age is replacing their viewing with streaming subscriptions to get at least some semblance of a-la-carte media channels.  It's a brave new world where people get to watch what they want, when they want, and for the most part, for less money that a standard cable or satellite TV package.

Once sports channels such as ESPN and SEC Network are factored in, whatever price advantages streaming apps had disappears.

LilianaUwU

Quote from: JayhawkCO on September 30, 2024, 01:13:05 PMNo mention of Starlink yet for all of the satellite talk.
I'm not gonna give my money to Elon Musk.

Anyways, remember when monopolies were illegal?
"Volcano with no fire... Not volcano... Just mountain."
—Mr. Thwomp

My pronouns are she/her. Also, I'm an admin on the AARoads Wiki.

JayhawkCO

Quote from: LilianaUwU on September 30, 2024, 06:42:40 PM
Quote from: JayhawkCO on September 30, 2024, 01:13:05 PMNo mention of Starlink yet for all of the satellite talk.
I'm not gonna give my money to Elon Musk.

Anyways, remember when monopolies were illegal?

I hate the guy too, but, similar to Tesla, he's showing what CAN be done and the competitors will follow.

vdeane

Quote from: JayhawkCO on September 30, 2024, 04:02:36 PM
Quote from: MikieTimT on September 30, 2024, 03:39:51 PMOnly the older generation is keeping legacy broadcast viewing alive.  Most everyone that's at least 15 years from retirement age is replacing their viewing with streaming subscriptions to get at least some semblance of a-la-carte media channels.  It's a brave new world where people get to watch what they want, when they want, and for the most part, for less money that a standard cable or satellite TV package.

I would agree with everything you said except for the last clause in the last sentence. I don't find it dramatically cheaper than what I once paid for cable, if any cheaper at all.
Quote from: brad2971 on September 30, 2024, 04:52:57 PM
Quote from: MikieTimT on September 30, 2024, 03:39:51 PMOnly the older generation is keeping legacy broadcast viewing alive.  Most everyone that's at least 15 years from retirement age is replacing their viewing with streaming subscriptions to get at least some semblance of a-la-carte media channels.  It's a brave new world where people get to watch what they want, when they want, and for the most part, for less money that a standard cable or satellite TV package.

Once sports channels such as ESPN and SEC Network are factored in, whatever price advantages streaming apps had disappears.
It might depend on the sports stuff, but the combined amount of what I pay for the ad-free versions of Netflix, Hulu, Disney+, Max, Amazon Prime, and Paramount+ is about half of what my parents are paying for a basic DirectTV subscription.

Quote from: MikieTimT on September 30, 2024, 03:39:51 PMOnly the older generation is keeping legacy broadcast viewing alive.
Indeed, see above.  Dad won't give up the DirecTV subscription and switch to streaming and when asked why it's an endless line of excuses that could be very easily solved if he were actually interested in switching.  "I don't want to pay for streaming."  It costs less than what you pay for DirecTV.  "I don't want to watch on my computer."  There are various devices you can get to watch on your TV (even connecting a laptop - which we have done!) (alternatively: "you do that already with YouTube").  "I don't want to lose my surround sound."  If we could get my laptop connected to the surround sound that time you and Mom wanted to watch a movie on my Max subscription, I'm sure anything else can be hooked up as well.  Even "you could watch NCIS whenever you want" gets met with "between CBS, ION, and a channel on DirecTV, it's only one day a week it isn't on". :ded:

At this point I'm convinced that the Boomers just don't want to give up channel surfing.
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position of NYSDOT or its affiliates.

WillWeaverRVA

Quote from: LilianaUwU on September 30, 2024, 06:42:40 PM
Quote from: JayhawkCO on September 30, 2024, 01:13:05 PMNo mention of Starlink yet for all of the satellite talk.
I'm not gonna give my money to Elon Musk.

Anyways, remember when monopolies were illegal?

Starlink is also RIDICULOUSLY expensive, which is on brand for something owned by Elon Musk. Sure, it's helpful in situations like what's happening in NC and TN right now, but the people providing Starlink receivers to those areas had to spend an absolute truckload of money for it, and you sure don't see Elon chipping in to help in the relief effort.
Will Weaver
WillWeaverRVA Photography | Twitter

"But how will the oxen know where to drown if we renumber the Oregon Trail?" - NE2

1995hoo

We had DirecTV for many years, but after AT&T took over I had a dispute with them when a DVR died. They told me, in writing, that I didn't need to return the old box. Then they charged me for it and claimed the letter they sent was in error. I got nowhere fighting with them, so I disputed the charge with American Express, who ruled in my favor after DirecTV refused to respond to the inquiry. Then they cancelled my autobill because my "card was declined" and they threatened to take the matter to a collection agency (it got resolved short of that). We switched to YouTube TV shortly thereafter; interestingly, the guy on the phone didn't even try to convince me to stay because when I told him what happened there wasn't much he could say.

The only thing I particularly miss is baseball because YouTube TV, like all streaming services, doesn't carry MASN, and spoofing my location to use MLB.tv was just plain too much of a hassle.



Quote from: vdeane on September 30, 2024, 10:06:55 PMIndeed, see above.  Dad won't give up the DirecTV subscription and switch to streaming and when asked why it's an endless line of excuses that could be very easily solved if he were actually interested in switching.  "I don't want to pay for streaming."  It costs less than what you pay for DirecTV.  "I don't want to watch on my computer."  There are various devices you can get to watch on your TV (even connecting a laptop - which we have done!) (alternatively: "you do that already with YouTube").  "I don't want to lose my surround sound."  If we could get my laptop connected to the surround sound that time you and Mom wanted to watch a movie on my Max subscription, I'm sure anything else can be hooked up as well.  Even "you could watch NCIS whenever you want" gets met with "between CBS, ION, and a channel on DirecTV, it's only one day a week it isn't on". :ded:

I wouldn't be surprised if it's just a function of comfort with what they have combined with "if it ain't broke, don't fix it." About 20 years or so ago when I first got a DVR, I offered to get my parents one for Christmas, but they declined. "It would change the way we do things too much." Well, yes, that's the idea! (I certainly remember the fussing about putting in the correct videotape depending on which night of the week it was.) Of course they eventually got one when they switched from cable to Verizon FIOS.

If my father were still around I think he might be more willing to consider switching to a streaming service, but my mother will never do that now because it would be too big an adjustment from what she's used to having. She had enough trouble understanding how to use the Amazon Fire Stick I got her so that she could watch Hamilton when Disney+ carried it (she subscribed for a month so she could see that, and I had to get her the Fire Stick because the older Roku my father had bought couldn't access Disney+). Plus, because I'm her tech support since my brother moved away, I'd just as soon she stick with what she knows!

The argument that's never made sense to me—and is not one my mother has made, but rather is one I've heard from other people—is the argument that "cable replacement" streaming services like YouTube TV or Sling or the like are too confusing because they don't have channel numbers. The channel numbers are all arbitrary anyway and vary from provider to provider—and sometimes the same provider even rearranges them (I remember when I was in junior high school, the local cable company had MTV on channel 25, later moved it to 77, and later moved it again to 112). When we had DirecTV, ESPN was on 206, whereas my mother has Verizon FIOS and it's on 500-something. I only know one person who refers to any cable channels (as opposed to the local broadcast networks) by channel number. Everyone else says, for example, "It's on ESPN tomorrow night" or "It's on Monumental 2 because basketball is on the main channel" (referring to when the regional sports channel lights the alternate feed to air two games at once). It doesn't help to do what that one guy does when he says, for example, "The game is on 576." "OK, what channel is 576? We don't all have the same provider you do." (I note that YouTube TV, for one, allows you to rearrange the program guide so that the channels you watch most often are at the top. I have done that; my wife has not.)

I think some people have trouble with the concept that the streaming services are set up to be "platform-agnostic" to the extent possible. That is, they don't know what sort of device a given viewer will use—Apple TV, Amazon Fire Stick or Cube, Roku, native app on a smart TV, and I'm sure there are probably others. They all have different remote controls and the services' software is therefore set up to allow you to access the features regardless of what device you use. I think that confuses some people because it creates a steeper learning curve than they might otherwise have.

And my wife certainly complains about how she misses the days "when you just turn on the TV and the show comes on." Now she has to turn it on, load the appropriate app, etc. I get it. But I also like saving $70 a month versus what we paid for DirecTV. We use some of that difference to pay for a couple of other services. I also like that we can log in separately to YouTube TV and have our own DVR queues, our own set of recommended programming, etc.—as long as she remembers to switch it to her account before she starts watching Hallmark movies or some such that I don't want cluttering up my recommendations. (Sort of like how a downside of sharing a grocery points card is that it will sometimes offer me e-coupons for Tampax or other such things that men don't use and don't want to know about.)
"You know, you never have a guaranteed spot until you have a spot guaranteed."
—Olaf Kolzig, as quoted in the Washington Times on March 28, 2003,
commenting on the Capitals clinching a playoff spot.

"That sounded stupid, didn't it?"
—Kolzig, to the same reporter a few seconds later.

SP Cook

IMHO,

- The original business plan for DBS was simply to serve rural America.  There were, and still are, millions of people who cannot get cable that is worth a darn, or any at all.

- Internet service?  See above.  REGARDLESS of who is in political or economic power, there will ALWAYS be people in rural America who cannot get services.  Basic economics, and basic political science. 

- DBS boomed and became a product that suburban and urban customers, who could get cable, used, because it was so vastly superior.  And if you think that the cable of today would have ever existed without DBS to push that industry, you don't understand.  Cable was just fine with charging high prices for 12 to 20 ghosting channels.  It is an industry based on doing the least it can for its customers.

- Let us define terms fairly.  A TRUE cord cutter depends on things that are free (if you count the internet service itself as a sunk cost), which is FAST services like Roku, Tubi, etc., which are collections of ancient reruns hacked up with commercials, preachers, and loons, along with YouTube, which is fine but it is what it is; A SO-CALLED cord cutter has switched from PAYING for cable or DBS, to PAYING for on-demand movie services like Netflix, Peacock, etc.  More about that below.  A FAKE cord cutter is someone who has switched from PAYING for one linear set of real TV channels via DBS or cable, to PAYING for a similar set of real TV channels via internet based packages like YouTubeTV, Hulu + Live TV, DirecTV Stream, Sling, etc.  These people have cut no cords, they have simply switched from one provider to another.

- Because of the existence of such packages of liner channels, the consumer, who previously had only three choices (cable, DISH, DirecTV) now has maybe a dozen, so this should sail through the government.  Hopefully with a caveat that rural Americans without internet service get a price break from DirecTV.

- All discussions about so-called cord cutters begin and end with "I saved ______ and I don't miss ______ that much".  You do you.  I am not trying to save money.  I want every TV service there is, and the blunt fact is, things like Netflix are only intended as a supplement to real TV, not a substitute for it.  If you feal differently, you do you and enjoy counting your money.  I will be watching TV.

- As the original business model for DBS is rural America, and rural America is still there, it will survive.  You won't see a lot of dishes in the suburbs, just like you don't see those big white propane tanks, but get out in the country and you will see plenty, for a long time to come.

- The other side people forget is the commercial side.  Many businesses cannot get, and do not otherwise need, video quality internet (times multiple TVs for a sports bar, etc.)  Its not worth it to provide said internet in many shopping areas, where no business other than the sports bar needs any more than something to run the credit card machine on.

- DirecTV has in hand a deal with Disney to sell channels by genre.  It will, as the deals expire, get similar deals with the rest of Big Media.  The previous system was that you had to pay big money for 150 - 200 channels, some of which had no appeal in your household.  The new deal, and internet based linear TV providers and cable will follow suit, will be you just have to buy the genres you want.  Not to be stereotypical, by single male living alone?  Maybe just the sports channels.  Maybe just the news channels, or ever just the news channels you like.  Female household?  Maybe no sports, just the Hallmark-ish channels.  No kids?  No need for Nickelodeon, Disney Channel, Cartoon Network. Etc.

- The one type of channel that will be going away is what I call the "general rerun channels".  FX, TNT, USA Network, etc.  Leaving out their sports, there is nothing on these channels but reruns of 20 plus year old network dramas.  Everyone who wants to see them has seen them, and the networks are not really making a whole lot of new such shows.  This is better presented via non-linear streaming services like Paramount, etc.


vdeane

Quote from: WillWeaverRVA on October 01, 2024, 08:28:02 AMand you sure don't see Elon chipping in to help in the relief effort.
I'm pretty sure Elon only helps with things when he can be seen by the press as a hero swooping in to save people.

Quote from: 1995hoo on October 01, 2024, 09:04:40 AMThe channel numbers are all arbitrary anyway and vary from provider to provider—and sometimes the same provider even rearranges them (I remember when I was in junior high school, the local cable company had MTV on channel 25, later moved it to 77, and later moved it again to 112).
And then there are hotels, which for whatever reason have their own separate channel lineups shared with nobody else.  The last two places I stayed were particularly noteworthy; one had a completely arbitrary selection of channels and not just the numbers (their choice of NBC affiliate was different from what the local cable providers use and they had Global but not CTV - and the listing in the room said the reverse, which would have been helpful to know the night the audio wasn't working on CBS!), and the other didn't have channel numbers at all, with a full lineup of digital cable in alphabetical order (VERY annoying, since it meant a LOT of scrolling just to get between ABC and CBS).

Quote from: SP Cook on October 01, 2024, 12:52:42 PMCable was just fine with charging high prices for 12 to 20 ghosting channels.  It is an industry based on doing the least it can for its customers.
Quite true.  Just look at Spectrum internet where I am.  Where it's good and where it's garbage correspond almost 1:1 with where Verizon FiOS is available.

Quote from: SP Cook on October 01, 2024, 12:52:42 PMREGARDLESS of who is in political or economic power, there will ALWAYS be people in rural America who cannot get services.  Basic economics, and basic political science. 
If this were always true, the same would be true for landline telephone service and electricity.  But back then, the government said "these are essential" and it got done.  Now we can't because it's "socialism". :rolleyes:
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position of NYSDOT or its affiliates.

1995hoo

Quote from: SP Cook on October 01, 2024, 12:52:42 PMblah blah blah

Do you ever post something without the arrogant, know-it-all condescension schtick? If not, give it a try.
"You know, you never have a guaranteed spot until you have a spot guaranteed."
—Olaf Kolzig, as quoted in the Washington Times on March 28, 2003,
commenting on the Capitals clinching a playoff spot.

"That sounded stupid, didn't it?"
—Kolzig, to the same reporter a few seconds later.



Opinions expressed here on belong solely to the poster and do not represent or reflect the opinions or beliefs of AARoads, its creators and/or associates.