dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
118
share rss forum feed


newview
Ex .. Ex .. Exactly
Premium
join:2001-10-01
Parsonsburg, MD
kudos:1

Let the kudos fall where they may

I'm not a fan of Dish Network. I think they are a low-life, conniving, lying excuse for a company ... worse than Comcast, and that's saying something.

But I DO applaud them for fighting this fight.


FLATLINE

join:2007-02-27
Buffalo, NY
Were never going to see any company in this industry conduct themselves in a pro consumer way. At least not for a long time. So I'll take the victories wherever and from whomever I can. I'm basically sitting on the sidelines anyways until these idiots get their sheet together.


88615298
Premium
join:2004-07-28
West Tenness

3 recommendations

reply to newview
said by newview:

But I DO applaud them for fighting this fight.

Careful what you wish for. Ads pay for the content you want to watch, Less ads shown less revenue expect even less quality programming more cheap to produce reality crap. more reruns. More infomercials. more product placement. Wouldn't shock me if there is some kind of permanent banner at the bottom of the screen so you can't skip it. The idea that people are going to skip over ads and there not be negative consequences is naïve.

Warmachine99

join:2006-03-20
Pleasant Prairie, WI
Reviews:
·Time Warner Cable

2 recommendations

No. Ads do not pay for the content that I want to watch. The re-transmit fees pay for what I want to watch. If I choose to fast forward over the commercials, its because I could care less about boner pills and that nasty yogurt that is supposed to make my intestines work better.
--
I've discovered that I often visit the state of confusion, and I know my way around pretty well.


88615298
Premium
join:2004-07-28
West Tenness

1 recommendation

said by Warmachine99:

No. Ads do not pay for the content that I want to watch. The re-transmit fees pay for what I want to watch. If I choose to fast forward over the commercials, its because I could care less about boner pills and that nasty yogurt that is supposed to make my intestines work better.

Well if the networks can't make money on ads expect re-transmission fees to go WAY up. The scenario where you think you get no advertising and high quality or even marginal quality TV and the networks not making up that loss of income elsewhere doesn't exist. That's the reality. people need to quit having these fantasies where everything is super good and free. No such thing as a free lunch.

Oh and the 10% that watch TV via OTA they don't pay re-transmission fees. So how are the networks making money from them without ads?


tshirt
Premium,MVM
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA
kudos:5
Reviews:
·Comcast
reply to Warmachine99
said by Warmachine99:

The re-transmit fees pay for...

part of the revenue from the ads you skipped however they aren't enough to pay for the programming if NOBODY on dish sees the ads, and automating the process assures that will happen. so expect dish to get hit with much, much higher retransmit fees.
everyone else appreciates paying for your selfish actions...see the villagers are bringing torches to your home to celebrate, and any one who watches TV know how that story goes.


TOPDAWG
Premium
join:2005-04-27
Midland, ON
kudos:3
Reviews:
·TekSavvy DSL

2 recommendations

reply to 88615298
»www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/new···y-awards

TV AND FILM STREAMING SERVICE Netflix has won its first two Emmy awards for its original TV series House of Cards.
The Creative Arts Emmy Awards event was held in the US on Sunday, a week ahead of the Primetime Emmy Awards, and it looks like Netflix was the talk of the evening.
Political thriller House of Cards became the first online-only TV show nominated for an Emmy, having scored nine nominations in July, and it has now become the first online-only series to win big at the awards.
Netflix's first win of the night was in the Outstanding Casting for a Drama Series category, with House of Cards besting Downton Abbey, Homeland and Game of Thrones for its stellar cast, which includes Kevin Spacey, Robin Wright, Kate Mara and Corey Stoll.

Try again home boy.


88615298
Premium
join:2004-07-28
West Tenness
said by TOPDAWG:

»www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/new···y-awards

TV AND FILM STREAMING SERVICE Netflix has won its first two Emmy awards for its original TV series House of Cards.
The Creative Arts Emmy Awards event was held in the US on Sunday, a week ahead of the Primetime Emmy Awards, and it looks like Netflix was the talk of the evening.
Political thriller House of Cards became the first online-only TV show nominated for an Emmy, having scored nine nominations in July, and it has now become the first online-only series to win big at the awards.
Netflix's first win of the night was in the Outstanding Casting for a Drama Series category, with House of Cards besting Downton Abbey, Homeland and Game of Thrones for its stellar cast, which includes Kevin Spacey, Robin Wright, Kate Mara and Corey Stoll.

Try again home boy.

Yeah and......? What does that have to do with the price of tea in China? Home boy? Can you discuss a topic without insulting someone just because you don't agree with them?

By the way Netflix get $8 a month per subscriber. You want the networks to charge $8 each? hey only $1000 a month for cable.


RARPSL

join:1999-12-08
Suffern, NY
reply to 88615298
"Careful what you wish for. Ads pay for the content you want to watch, Less ads shown less revenue expect even less quality programming more cheap to produce reality crap. more reruns. More infomercials. more product placement. Wouldn't shock me if there is some kind of permanent banner at the bottom of the screen so you can't skip it. The idea that people are going to skip over ads and there not be negative consequences is naïve."

The Hopper does NOT bypass commercials by not recording them. What it does is record the full show (including commercials) and if the recording is over 24 hours old, skip over them if you have this option activated. Thus it is no different from manually skipping over them as you can with any recording. So long as the commercial is recorded, the advertiser has gotten what they have paid for - ie: Presenting the ad to optionally be viewed.


r81984
Fair and Balanced
Premium
join:2001-11-14
Katy, TX
Reviews:
·row44

1 recommendation

reply to newview
So is direct tv. They call and harass you for other peoples bills.
People that you dont know, but just happened to have a phone number before you did.
They dont comply with the do not call list either.
--
...brought to you by Carl's Jr.


r81984
Fair and Balanced
Premium
join:2001-11-14
Katy, TX

3 recommendations

reply to 88615298
You can't force people to watch ads.
Dish or DirectTV never skipped 1 ad. Only the end users skipped ads which cannot be stopped.
--
...brought to you by Carl's Jr.


r81984
Fair and Balanced
Premium
join:2001-11-14
Katy, TX

1 recommendation

reply to 88615298
I think ESPN is already $15 of your cable bill with no way to opt out.
--
...brought to you by Carl's Jr.


TOPDAWG
Premium
join:2005-04-27
Midland, ON
kudos:3
Reviews:
·TekSavvy DSL

1 recommendation

reply to 88615298
where did a insult you? netflix gives you a ton of shows and movie for 8 bucks a month. way way more then you'll ever find on a single network. you said you can't get get shows without ads I give you an exp of that not being true.

cable is a waste of money. money be damned networks want the most bang for the buck and if making the so called reality TV is penny's on the dollar they'll still ask for the same prices you pay now they don't want a fair price they want as much money as they can get.


Hall
Premium,MVM
join:2000-04-28
Germantown, OH
kudos:2

1 recommendation

reply to 88615298

Oh and the 10% that watch TV via OTA they don't pay re-transmission fees. So how are the networks making money from them without ads?

10%... Effectively, they don't care about that small number ! With non-OTA viewers, 80+ % of their viewers, they double-dip -- they get advertising revenue (it's still based on the # of viewers irregardless of whether they skip commercials or not) AND re-transmission fees. In the past, they chose must-carry (for cable) because it increased their viewer numbers substantially. That in turn increased what they could demand from advertisers. It's nothing but greed from them....


firephoto
We the people
Premium
join:2003-03-18
Brewster, WA

1 recommendation

reply to 88615298

said by 88615298:

said by newview:

But I DO applaud them for fighting this fight.

Careful what you wish for. Ads pay for the content you want to watch, Less ads shown less revenue expect even less quality programming more cheap to produce reality crap. more reruns. More infomercials. more product placement. Wouldn't shock me if there is some kind of permanent banner at the bottom of the screen so you can't skip it. The idea that people are going to skip over ads and there not be negative consequences is naïve.

Really, name one television network that has only a single channel. Can you?

The reality is that networks have multiple channels, some dedicated to reruns, cheaply made shows, infomercials. If you even went and gathered up the popular shows spread across a networks multiple channels, lets say Discovery for example, you would find that all their new unaired programming could be broadcast in it's entirety from a single channel. Why do they have more channels? To make more money. And they do this by forcing carriers to carry their sub-channels which they in turn sell cheaper advertising for and use more product placments.

You're essentially just describing any industry as it exists and saying it HAS to be this way. That is not true, and especially true in the case of television of these arguments wouldn't continue to pop up in the media that twists it for their benefit.
--
Say no to astroturfing. go to their profile, start ignoring posts and ignoring what's not true.

desarollo

join:2011-10-01
Monroe, MI

1 recommendation

reply to 88615298
Your premise fails when you consider people have been using commercials for pee breaks for pretty much all of TV broadcasting history. No one has been calling for people to hold their bladder for quality TV programming.

Television networks have been happily increasing commercial load and reducing the quality of programming to where the value proposition is tipped horribly in favor of their profit. When I worked in TV, the profit margin was 62%.

TV has already invaded the program time with snipes and crawls, if they think that is going to endear themselves to consumers that have a choice, I wish them luck with that decision.

The fact that they have somehow managed to attach their sucker to my cable bill for what they freely give away over the air has them firmly in the douchebag category.


88615298
Premium
join:2004-07-28
West Tenness
reply to TOPDAWG
said by TOPDAWG:

where did a insult you?

you called me home boy. There wasn't any reason for that.


88615298
Premium
join:2004-07-28
West Tenness
reply to firephoto
Sorry dude but if you think networks are going to spend millions of dollars per episode to bring you HQ television if they can't make revenue on advertising you're dreaming.


88615298
Premium
join:2004-07-28
West Tenness
reply to desarollo
said by desarollo:

Your premise fails when you consider people have been using commercials for pee breaks for pretty much all of TV broadcasting history. No one has been calling for people to hold their bladder for quality TV programming.

Actually you make MY point. If you don't like commercials you don't need to skip just take a pee break or get a drink or something. The fact is advertisers don't how many people take pee breaks they WILL know how many are skipping their commercials. And they'll demand that ad pricing be less because they can verify that X amount of people are skipping commercials. Less revenue means the networks will get it elsewhere. The concept that they'll accept LESS revenue is naïve.

TBBroadband

join:2012-10-26
Fremont, OH
reply to 88615298
Either that or higher content fees; meaning higher costs for TV.

Kearnstd
Space Elf
Premium
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ
kudos:1
reply to newview
I honestly do not get the big deal of ad skipping, Nobody loses anything because technically the network only sold ad space for a viewing during that timeslot.

If advertisers took into account the odd hours people watch DVR recordings they would demand lower rates since lets say for a moment no DVR had fast forward, an Advertiser could state that the content is being viewed outside the block they pay for so they should pay less.
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports


elios

join:2005-11-15
Springfield, MO
reply to 88615298
i would gladly trade CBS NBC ABC and Fox for the BBC fees and all
the BBC puts out great programing and no ads


michieru
Premium
join:2009-07-25
Miami, FL
Reviews:
·Comcast Business..
reply to 88615298
That loss income will come via higher prices for higher quality content and shows that people actually want to watch. However the perception here is that based on actual usage you will spend less right now than you would being subscribed to 100+ channels with nothing you care about or will miss unless you pay extra for a DVR. I don't have cable but my parents do for simply two or three shows. If they purchased the shows directly they could be saving over $100 dollars every month.


dvd536
as Mr. Pink as they come
Premium
join:2001-04-27
Phoenix, AZ
kudos:4
reply to Kearnstd
no FF on dvr, it would go back to cox in lightning speed. i'm paying $18.49 extra to avoid these annoyances.
--
Despises any post with strings.


TheHelpful1
Premium
join:2002-01-11
Upper Marlboro, MD
reply to 88615298
I am exclusive OTA + Netflix. For my OTA service, I built an HTPC with 3 HD Tuners connected to BeyondTV, which cuts out the commercials for me so I rarely see an ad.
--
"My weakness is that I care too much"


Steve B
Premium
join:2004-08-02
Auburn, WA

1 recommendation

reply to 88615298
Being called homeboy is not an insult and to consider it as such is ridiculous. I personally don't use the term but, its not an insult nor is it meant as such by any means.

desarollo

join:2011-10-01
Monroe, MI

1 recommendation

reply to 88615298
I don't think you understand your own point.

The pressure on TV advertising dollars is NOT from time shifting and skipping commercials, it is from better targeted methods that don't cast the message into the wind with the hopes that it will stick. People have been getting up to pee, people have been time shifting and fast-forwarding through commercials with their VCRs, and now people use little computers to do it for them. That isn't the real problem for TV.

TV's problem isn't that people skip commercials, they've been doing that for years. TV's problem is that it faces competition from methods that provide better feedback and much better targeting of desired demographics. Broadcasting is over, the world has evolved.

Skippy25

join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO
reply to 88615298
Sure, let them charge $8 per month per network, not channels. There are what 5 networks worth watching and paying for?

Skippy25

join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO

2 recommendations

reply to tshirt
Content creators just need to get more creative.

Times are changing so they can change or die standing in the mud.

Skippy25

join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO

2 recommendations

reply to 88615298
Sorry dude, but if you dont think networks will adjust and still make revenue you are dreaming.