 LinklistPremium join:2002-03-03 Longport, NJ kudos:5 | Content companies will find new ways protecting ad revenue
If the courts won't stop ad skipping, ultimately the content companies will find a way to protect their ad revenue. If they don't, they will go out of business because their costs can't be totally covered by just selling the content. They need that ad revenue to make a profit. IMO the placement of product within the content's story line will be the end result. Long closeups of cans of Pepsi being used by the character in the show. Toothpaste with the product name prominently displayed for several seconds; characters using the product name in the dialog; etc; etc. -- Impeach Obama and tie up government for next 2 yrs | |
|
 |  | | Re: Content companies will find new ways protecting ad revenue That's good for some stuff, but it might be a little more difficult to advertise stuff like hemmoroid cream. -- Concentrated power has always been the enemy of liberty - Ronald Reagan | |
|
 |  |  LinklistPremium join:2002-03-03 Longport, NJ kudos:5 | Re: Content companies will find new ways protecting ad revenue said by footballdude:That's good for some stuff, but it might be a little more difficult to advertise stuff like hemmoroid cream. LMAO. But I'd bet they would somehow find a way. A closeup of the tube but not its application.  -- Impeach Obama and tie up government for next 2 yrs | |
|
 |  |  |  | | Re: Content companies will find new ways protecting ad revenue I remember the Preparation H commercial that was part of "The Big Bang Theory." The look on Penny's face was priceless. | |
|
 |  |  |  |
 |  Reviews:
·voip.ms
·TekSavvy DSL
| I'm not sure product placement in the tv program will be the end result. I think a more likely scenario is the use of mini commercials being shown, without sound, in a small box sort of like picture in picture, during the tv program. They will probably experiment with a few schemes and use a combination of annoying advertising tactics. | |
|
 |  |  Voodoo288Common Sense DictatesPremium join:2002-08-19 Richmond, VA | Re: Content companies will find new ways protecting ad revenue You mean something similar to Blipverts?
»en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blipvert | |
|
 |  |  | | said by Rastan:I'm not sure product placement in the tv program will be the end result. I think a more likely scenario is the use of mini commercials being shown, without sound, in a small box sort of like picture in picture, during the tv program. They will probably experiment with a few schemes and use a combination of annoying advertising tactics. Or they could just jack up your rates even more. | |
|
 |  |  openbox9Premium join:2004-01-26 japan kudos:2 | That will take annoying to a whole new level, driving even more consumers away from "prime time", IMHO. My guess is that this will lead to the end of "free" "worthwhile" OTA broadcast TV and we'll begin seeing more pay streams of content that used to be "free". | |
|
 |  HallPremium,MVM join:2000-04-28 Dayton, OH kudos:2 | Admittedly, if this catches on and DirecTV and the cablecos start doing it, the advertisers themselves are otherwise oblivious to this ad-skipping feature. A Dish customer, with a Hopper, who is also a Nielsen-counted household, still counts as having "watched" the commercials shown during episodes that they watch.
On the other hand, does anyone watch a Pepsi commercial, Doritos commercial, Ford commercial, etc go out and buy those products the next day ? Likely no.... Pepsi drinkers will keep drinking Pepsi, etc, etc, etc.
The advertisers and networks need to enter the 21st century: Commercial breaks are antiquated. As much as product-placement bugs me, it's probably the way things will go in the future. | |
|
 |  1 edit | Come on man, the commercials are still being watched the day of the show. How is skipping commercials after the fact a detriment to the content companies to the point that you think this will end all content programming? People have been skipping commercials since the VHS days. How is this any different? Last time I checked, the content companies were still raking in money from advertisers despite there being ad skipping devices in play for the last 30 years!
Read this comment on Ars Technica and thought it was very informing.
You are profoundly wrong. Networks can survive on carriage fees and residuals.
CNN is a great example. They have 100% of their budget (plus some profit) covered by carriage fees alone. Think about that fact every time you're subjected to one of their horribly obnoxious, intelligence insulting commercials. "HEADON! Apply directly to the head. HEADON!..."
Networks run ads for two reasons: profit, obviously but perhaps less obvious is that it saves them from having to produce content.
Go watch an old episode of Star Trek, they're 51+ minutes. Modern TV is now barely 42 minutes of "content" in every hour and even then that 42 minutes is counting credits, title sequence, bumpers, recaps and "coming next time." By the time you factor all of that in you get something closer to 36 minutes of content in each hour. You won't find many admitting it but networks love commercials because it saves them from producing content.
Consider the example of Adult Swim. While the big four are airing infomercials (that's 100% pure advertising) Adult Swim is airing actual content with highly reduced commercials, they even finance a good bit of original content. Alas, most are moving in the opposite direction. Why produce original content and actually fill the air waves with it when you can crank out a few reality shows or the same procedural they've made five-hundred times before, book-end it with a few hours of "late night" and then just drop into hours of infomercials.
It doesn't have to be this way. Networks could devote 55 minutes out of the hour to content leaving 1 minute ads between "acts" and still turn a profit, especially when you consider how valuable those ads would become. Heck, people might even watch them. The problem isn't ad skipping technology; the problem is the proliferation of ads by networks that have forgotten why they exist: content.
| |
|
 |  1 edit | True, but it has already been ruled that companies can use products in shows/movies without permission as part of fair use.
However, they could encourage competitors to compete for placement thus earning money.
"Legal experts say fairly recent product placement practices, in which companies pay producers to use their products in TV and movie scenes, have mistakenly given corporations the idea that they can control the use of their products on camera.
Experts say studios are not obligated to get permission before featuring a product in their work.
Trademark laws "don't exist to give companies the right to control and censor movies and TV shows that might happen to include real-world items," said Daniel Nazer, a resident fellow at Stanford Law School's Fair Use Project. "It is the case that often filmmakers get paid by companies to include their products. I think that's sort of led to a culture where they expect they'll have control. That's not a right the trademark law gives them."
Filmmakers, legal experts say, are protected under federal "fair use" privileges for use of trademark products without getting the OK of the rights holder. " | |
|
 |  MSaukMSaukPremium join:2002-01-17 Sandy, UT | said by Linklist:If the courts won't stop ad skipping, ultimately the content companies will find a way to protect their ad revenue. If they don't, they will go out of business because their costs can't be totally covered by just selling the content. They need that ad revenue to make a profit. IMO the placement of product within the content's story line will be the end result. Long closeups of cans of Pepsi being used by the character in the show. Toothpaste with the product name prominently displayed for several seconds; characters using the product name in the dialog; etc; etc. I have a novel idea, pay the overpriced actors/writers, whoever else, less money.
If you are making less money, pay the people you employ less money. Pretty simple economics -- 801 Images | |
|
 |  |  LinklistPremium join:2002-03-03 Longport, NJ kudos:5 | Re: Content companies will find new ways protecting ad revenue said by MSauk:I have a novel idea, pay the overpriced actors/writers, whoever else, less money.
If you are making less money, pay the people you employ less money. Pretty simple economics I'm for that. But after 1 season of shows, popular actors won't work for less. They want to be paid a lot and would rather not work at all if they can't get rich. -- Impeach Obama and tie up government for next 2 yrs | |
|
 |  |  |  MSaukMSaukPremium join:2002-01-17 Sandy, UT | Re: Content companies will find new ways protecting ad revenue Eventually money will become an issue and guess who comes back wanting to work..... -- 801 Images | |
|
 |  KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium join:2000-01-17 Tulsa, OK | The commercials are being watched. The retransmission fees are being paid by subscribers.
Skipping over commercials on old recordings doesn't cost anyone any revenue, at all. -- "Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini
| |
|
 |  |  LinklistPremium join:2002-03-03 Longport, NJ kudos:5 | Re: Content companies will find new ways protecting ad revenue said by KrK:The commercials are being watched.
By who? Nobody I know watches commercials anymore. They all DVR everything and FF thru commercials when they watch their recorded shows.
The only time I stumble across a commercial is during live football games. And even then I switch channels the second a commercial comes on. -- Impeach Obama and tie up government for next 2 yrs | |
|
 |  |  |  KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium join:2000-01-17 Tulsa, OK | Re: Content companies will find new ways protecting ad revenue Anyone who watches live.
The fact DVR's have become so popular is people are so sick of commercials and the time wasted.
Can't blame that on Dish. -- "Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini
| |
|
 |  | | said by Linklist:IMO the placement of product within the content's story line will be the end result. They already do that but not overtly. One of the things I like to do for fun when watching a show is counting branded products that show up.
Yeah I know I'm weird. Blame that on my marketing professor who made that a homework assignment for the class.  -- The true patriot is motivated by a sense of responsibility, and out of self interest for himself, his family, and the future of his country to resist government abuse of power. He rejects the notion that patriotism means obedience to the state. | |
|
 | | wow! Golly gee, Dolly Gee? A judge that stands up for the consumer? Imagine that! | |
|
 |  openbox9Premium join:2004-01-26 japan kudos:2 | Re: wow! Don't be disillusioned. This ruling isn't for or against consumers. It is simply Fox's inability to prove it is being harmed by this technology. I doubt this fight is done. | |
|
 pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And PrettyPremium join:2002-05-02 Mount Airy, MD | Dish Loses Later I love this technology but how long before content companies stop doing business with Dish on account of this? -- USA 2012 - the mooches won. | |
|
 |  Reviews:
·Comcast
| Re: Dish Loses Later I'm sure they'll try to do a lot of saber rattling, but the fact of the matter is they want us watching their shows more than they want to screw over Dish. While I'm sure they'll try to get back at Dish network they'll just end up alienating the product (watchers) in the end. | |
|
 |  |  | | Re: Dish Loses Later said by Angrychair:I'm sure they'll try to do a lot of saber rattling, but the fact of the matter is they want us watching their shows more than they want to screw over Dish. While I'm sure they'll try to get back at Dish network they'll just end up alienating the product (watchers) in the end. if no ads are being watched, why even bother showing customers who won't even know ads are there?
Content providers will either start charging Dish more or will pull their programming. | |
|
 |  |  |  Reviews:
·Comcast
| Re: Dish Loses Later Because the networks charge by the ratings. If they're not even on the radar for 10% of households that only hurts the network's ability to charge exorbitant prices for advertising time.
The fact of the matter is the network doesn't care if you watch the commercials, they just care if they can sell them.
What this is really about is control - those in power never want to relinquish even the slightest amount of it. Period. | |
|
 |  HallPremium,MVM join:2000-04-28 Dayton, OH kudos:2 | Don't hold me to this, but Dish is possibly the 3rd or 4th largest TV provider in the US, behind Comcast (#1) and DirecTV (#2). Time-Warner may be up there, hence why I say Dish is #3 or #4.
As mentioned above, they'd love to pull their channels from Dish but it would take away a lot of eyeballs (and in turn, advertising revenue). Also, this ad-skipping feature is only available on Dish's latest HD-DVR receiver, so for the time-being, the number of customers with this is rather small. | |
|
 JRW2R.I.P. Mom, Brian, Ziggy, Max and Zen.Premium join:2004-12-20 La La Land kudos:5 Reviews:
·Optimum Online
| I can't speak for everyone but... .. the reason I skip the commercials is... 1)There are too many of them. 2)Most are just stupid or insulting.
Basically, these are the only reasons I skip commercials...
I'm old enough to remember when commercial breaks were just long enough to make a QUICK run to the kitchen for a snack, or to grab a drink. Now, I could paint a room and wait for it to dry before the commercials stop.  -- Politics is a disease, we need a cure! In constant search for intelligent life on Earth! | |
|
 |  | | Re: I can't speak for everyone but... said by JRW2:I'm old enough to remember when commercial breaks were just long enough to make a QUICK run to the kitchen for a snack, or to grab a drink. Now, I could paint a room and wait for it to dry before the commercials stop.  And during those medical (pharmaceutical) commercials, you can take a 2 week vacation to England and still be back in time before the show resumes. | |
|
 |  |  KearnstdElf WizardPremium join:2002-01-22 Mullica Hill, NJ | Re: I can't speak for everyone but... said by seamore:said by JRW2:I'm old enough to remember when commercial breaks were just long enough to make a QUICK run to the kitchen for a snack, or to grab a drink. Now, I could paint a room and wait for it to dry before the commercials stop.  And during those medical (pharmaceutical) commercials, you can take a 2 week vacation to England and still be back in time before the show resumes. I swear no matter the channel or the content being shown I see more of the pharma ads these days than anything else.
Football for example used to be mostly frogs saying Budweiser between plays. Now its some pharma corp trying to convince people they have some horrible disease.
Pharma advertising should be illegal(and it is in most other western nations) It only exists to try and make people think they are sick. -- [65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports | |
|
 |  |  |  aaronwtPremium join:2004-11-07 Woodbridge, VA Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
| Re: I can't speak for everyone but... said by Kearnstd:said by seamore:said by JRW2:I'm old enough to remember when commercial breaks were just long enough to make a QUICK run to the kitchen for a snack, or to grab a drink. Now, I could paint a room and wait for it to dry before the commercials stop.  And during those medical (pharmaceutical) commercials, you can take a 2 week vacation to England and still be back in time before the show resumes. I swear no matter the channel or the content being shown I see more of the pharma ads these days than anything else. Football for example used to be mostly frogs saying Budweiser between plays. Now its some pharma corp trying to convince people they have some horrible disease. Pharma advertising should be illegal(and it is in most other western nations) It only exists to try and make people think they are sick. How do any of those ads make you think that you are sick? It's mostly just advertising a specific drug. | |
|
 |  |  |  CylonRedPremium,MVM join:2000-07-06 Bloom County | quote: Pharma advertising should be illegal(and it is in most other western nations) It only exists to try and make people think they are sick.
It was illegal for a good number of years till the industry paid enough people to have the law overturned a few years back. -- Brian
"It drops into your stomach like a Abrams's tank.... driven by Rosanne Barr..." A. Bourdain | |
|
 |  Reviews:
·Comcast
| No kidding. When I was a child I can recall there literally being about 24 minutes of actual programming for every 30 minutes of air time. Now it's closer to 20 minutes.
I won't even watch anything live on AMC they have so many commercials. (it literally seems to be in about a 1:1 ratio. Watch 5 minutes of movie, watch 5 minutes of commercials)
I've redubbed their network "Always More Commercials". | |
|
 |  |  JRW2R.I.P. Mom, Brian, Ziggy, Max and Zen.Premium join:2004-12-20 La La Land kudos:5 Reviews:
·Optimum Online
| Re: I can't speak for everyone but... While I have an issue with the number of commercials per break, and the number of breaks, I have a BIGGER issue with how poor the ads are...  When I fast forward through commercials on my DVR, I actually watch them, and if one catches my eye, I stop and rewind to watch it.... Yes, I actually WILL watch a commercial, but it has to be entertaining or informative in some way. Sadly, the VAST MAJORITY of commercials are not, and that to me, explains why revenues are down. As an excellent example of people willing to watch commercials, just look at the commercials done during the Super Bowl, nearly no one misses those.  -- Politics is a disease, we need a cure! In constant search for intelligent life on Earth! | |
|
 |  |  | | said by Angrychair:No kidding. When I was a child I can recall there literally being about 24 minutes of actual programming for every 30 minutes of air time. Now it's closer to 20 minutes.
I won't even watch anything live on AMC they have so many commercials. (it literally seems to be in about a 1:1 ratio. Watch 5 minutes of movie, watch 5 minutes of commercials)
I've redubbed their network "Always More Commercials". God Syfy is one of the worst I swear. Try to watch a movie on that channel and you get 2 hours for a movie and like another 2 hours worth of commercials, literally. | |
|
 |  |  |  HallPremium,MVM join:2000-04-28 Dayton, OH kudos:2 | Re: I can't speak for everyone but... It's easy... Just look at their programming schedule and see how long a movie is slotted for vs how long the movie really is. Worse, they may edit the movie's length to make it even shorter than standard !!
Wierd, I just checked Amityville Horror ('79 version) that's on Saturday night/Sunday morning in a 2-hour (120 minute) slot. IMDB says it's 117 minutes long. That can't be right !
AMC is definitely a really bad one... Behind Enemy Lines is in a 2-1/2 hour slot but only runs a little over 1-1/2 hours (106 minutes). Almost one hour of commercials !! | |
|
 |  mogamer join:2011-04-20 Royal Oak, MI | said by JRW2:.. the reason I skip the commercials is... 1)There are too many of them. 2)Most are just stupid or insulting.
Basically, these are the only reasons I skip commercials...
I'm old enough to remember when commercial breaks were just long enough to make a QUICK run to the kitchen for a snack, or to grab a drink. Now, I could paint a room and wait for it to dry before the commercials stop.  I was looking at some Mission Impossible episodes over at Amazon Prime and they were all around 51 minutes long. Now most hour long shows are around 42-44 minutes. And they wonder why people want to skip them. If the networks used common sense and not get greedy in the first place, this type of technology wouldn't have had much demand. Hell, they load up on commercials and still use some product placement. Production companies need to pay more attention to their costs and spend less time whining. Most actors and directors are interchangable anyway. | |
|
 |  |  JRW2R.I.P. Mom, Brian, Ziggy, Max and Zen.Premium join:2004-12-20 La La Land kudos:5 Reviews:
·Optimum Online
| Re: I can't speak for everyone but... said by mogamer:said by JRW2:.. the reason I skip the commercials is... 1)There are too many of them. 2)Most are just stupid or insulting.
Basically, these are the only reasons I skip commercials...
I'm old enough to remember when commercial breaks were just long enough to make a QUICK run to the kitchen for a snack, or to grab a drink. Now, I could paint a room and wait for it to dry before the commercials stop.  I was looking at some Mission Impossible episodes over at Amazon Prime and they were all around 51 minutes long. Now most hour long shows are around 42-44 minutes. And they wonder why people want to skip them. Yep, I've noticed that too. And it is a recent occurrence, as in like the last 20 years or so. If the networks used common sense and not get greedy in the first place, this type of technology wouldn't have had much demand. Hell, they load up on commercials and still use some product placement. Production companies need to pay more attention to their costs and spend less time whining. Most actors and directors are interchangeable anyway. My thoughts exactly, and this is a beast they created, like the often overpriced free agents in sports. They need to concentrate on improving the shows they put on, instead of all these scripted reality shows. 
I've seen too many good shows canned that died because they refused to pay to get/keep the good writers.  -- Politics is a disease, we need a cure! In constant search for intelligent life on Earth! | |
|
 Reviews:
·Mediacom
·RoadRunner Cable
| Just a preliminary injunction, don't get all excited To issue a preliminary injunction, a judge must assume that the defendant's arguments are valid, and still find irreparable harm to the plaintiff. This is a very high legal barrier, and the fact that the judge did not issue a preliminary injunction does not say that the plaintiffs won't win at trial. | |
|
 |  tkdslr join:2004-04-24 Pompano Beach, FL Reviews:
·T-Mobile US
·Speakeasy
| Re: Just a preliminary injunction, don't get all excited That would be "plaintiff" not defendant, and their are no significant issues of fact in dispute.
Like Dish paid the plaintiff's the right to retransmit (contract). Technically the dish hopper still records the commercials. It just allows the viewer to automatically skip them after the program has been recorded.. | |
|
 |  |  Reviews:
·Mediacom
·RoadRunner Cable
| Re: Just a preliminary injunction, don't get all excited Um, what? Plaintiff = Fox. Defendant = Dish. Fox suing Dish and filed a motion for preliminary injunction. Under rules, judge must assume defendant's best case and still find irreparable harm to plaintiff. Judge denied the motion. But the case continues and Dish will have to prove a preponderance of evidence for it to win at trial. Court system 101. What about what I said was wrong? | |
|
 |  |  |  Reviews:
·Mediacom
·RoadRunner Cable
| Re: Just a preliminary injunction, don't get all excited Update, a redacted ruling has been published.
The decision to deny a preliminary injunction has been appealed by Fox to the 9th Circuit Court.
Like I said before, the rules for granting a preliminary injunction are significantly more tilted towards the defendant than the rules at trial. In particular, to grant a preliminary injunction, the plaintiff must show:
1) their case is likely to succeed on its merits 2) They are likely to suffer irreparable harm without the injunction 3) the harm done to them outweighs the harm done to the defendants if the injunction was granted 4) an injunction is "in the public interest" | |
|
 RARPSL join:1999-12-08 Suffern, NY | Ad Skipping not Ad Non-Recording I fail to see how the use of Hopper differs from a normal DVR or VHS recording. In all these cases the TOTAL show is recorded and when viewed the commercial is (can be) skipped past. If Hopper did not record the Ads, then FOX might have a case but it DOES record the Ads. All the payment for Ads buys is the right to present them to the viewer NOT the insuring that the viewer will actually watch the Ad. | |
|
 | | . I wouldn't mind getting rid of all commercials and just have some product placement in the show. Not an obvious camera zoom to showcase anything or something intrusive. Just have a bottle of Dawn dish soap on the kitchen sink or a bag of Doritos on the counter. | |
|
 |
 |  jmn1207Premium join:2000-07-19 Ashburn, VA kudos:1 | Re: Look for Side by Side Coming to You said by meskinct: look for your broadcast networks to start airing their ads side by side along with programming.
Bye bye ad skipping. If the ads annoyingly encroach upon the screen space too frequently, it will be bye bye viewers. | |
|
 |  |  | | Re: Look for Side by Side Coming to You Exactly. I've been spending more time watching TV shows on DVD/Blu-ray and streaming. Not only do I skip the ads, but I don't even have to fast-forward past them. This lets me just sit back and cruise through the number of episodes I want. I'm watching Season 2 of The Walking Dead this way right now.
Some would argue that this means I'm always a season behind. So? It's not as if these shows are some sort of live event that won't be relevant later on. | |
|
 |  |  |  jmn1207Premium join:2000-07-19 Ashburn, VA kudos:1 | Re: Look for Side by Side Coming to You I do the same thing. I watched season 1 of Walking Dead on Netflix and then attempted to watch season 2 when the season premiered on AMC HD. After watching the first couple of episodes recorded on my DVR, even 30-second skips of commercials became too annoying for me to handle, and I cancelled my DVR series recording and waited a year for Season 2 to be available on Netflix.
Even my own cable TV's On Demand service injects ads into the shows in spots, usually at the beginning and again later in the program. I can live with a few ads here and there, but the problem is that the networks are too greedy and push too far.
All of my favorite shows are either found on pay TV, like HBO, Showtime, Starz, or any series in HD that I can stream with Netflix, like Breaking Bad, Vampire Diaries, Supernatural, Walking Dead, etc. Lots of entertaining stuff available, even if I'm not in sync with everyone else at the water cooler.
I go one step further and hold out for movies as well, only going out to the theater for those rare films that deserve a more cinematic experience. Even then, those types of movies are becoming increasingly rare, and my home entertainment system is really not that far off from what I get at a nice stadium seating theater. | |
|
 |  |  SarickIt's Only LogicalPremium join:2003-06-03 USA 1 edit | Side by side viewing will bring about window matching.
Basically, the technology will be like this.the user clicks the screen the content is in a window the system will auto stretch and crop the window to full screen.
Boom no more adds AT ALL they get hidden completely from the auto-cropping.
Then again this side by side video doesn't have an actual story to it. It's just maintaining live content while the commercial runs. In this case they're actually doing a good thing because the viewer can still watch the content effectively while the commercial runs.
If this was something like Lost, Star Wars etc. It would destroy the content because the adv. would interfere with content recognition. You can't watch a story and hear the words if the commercial overwhelms the main content. | |
|
 rradina join:2000-08-08 Chesterfield, MO | What I Find Silly While there are a lots of issues, feelings, opinions and several sides with which we can align ourselves, the fact that Hopper only works the day after the show airs is silly and almost hypocritical.
If fast-forward isn't disabled until the day after the show airs, what's the point of disabling Hopper until the next day? Hopper defenders are trying to convince everyone that it just makes it easier to do what folks already do (fast-forward through commercials). Why, then, disable it on the day the show airs? | |
|
 kpfx join:2005-10-28 San Antonio, TX 1 edit | Dish is going to shoot itself in the foot... There's nothing illegal about Hopper in general (and I think it is very cool).... however...
When it's time for network renewals, there's also nothing that's going to keep Viacom/ Disney-ESPN/ NBC-Networks/ Turner/ Sinclair/ Discovery/ AMC Networks/ Etc... from asking for a major increase in their fees from Dish (more so than usual). I'll bet we'll see lots of demands for 100-200x increases in carrier fees and dropped channels on Dish due to disputes in the next year or two.
And the content companies would have a very good argument for justifying a major increase in fees should this get dragged out and fall into arbitration with Dish. All they have to do is prove that Hopper is decreasing the value or effectiveness of their advertising revenue with Dish customers when compared to a viewer on another provider.
Yes, we all hate commercials and would love to see all the channels go commercial-free. But if that happened, then every channel would cost $15-20/mo like HBO...
This is the kind of technology that a content provider would need to distance itself from. It would be better to have it roll out as a 3rd party option (like Myth TV or Slingbox). | |
|
 |  | | Re: Dish is going to shoot itself in the foot... So let it be and the market will decide.
Isnt that how it is suppose to work? | |
|
 |  |  | | Re: Dish is going to shoot itself in the foot... said by Skippy25:So let it be and the market will decide.
Isnt that how it is suppose to work? People will just whine about how TV is too expensive. After all, TV is supposed to be free and everyone who works in the industry is supposed to volunteer their time.
Screw that. I have to keep a roof over my head and put food on the table. | |
|
 |  |  |  | | Re: Dish is going to shoot itself in the foot... Wait... arent you one of those guys that always says let the market decide, yet now you are against letting the market decide?
So TV gets too expensive and many stop watching or begin limiting what the watch so some much needed changes will be made to the industry. | |
|
 | | VHS has been doing this for years Like 15 years ago I used to own a VHS box that could automatically skip commercials. Somehow it could sense when the commercials started and ended. It was roughly 95% on target. Sometimes I had to backtrack because it went too long on the skip. But I never had to push anything. It skipped them automatically.
I remember I paid $199 for the damn thing when others were below the $100 mark. It was worth the extra money. | |
|
 | | Ads, Ads, Ads Everywhere Ads. Them poor advertizes, no one wants to see that junk anymore. lol As technology advances they will probably come up with a way to somehow get it into our heads just by walking next to a sign. *rolls eyes* lol | |
|
 | | WebHopper If Dish's Hopper is allowed by the courts, could an ad skipping service be offered for the web by ISP's? | |
|
 |  KearnstdElf WizardPremium join:2002-01-22 Mullica Hill, NJ | Re: WebHopper Nobody would pay for such a thing when Firefox and Adblock Plus are free. -- [65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports | |
|
 elray join:2000-12-16 Santa Monica, CA | Common Sense and Consumer Choice? Sounds like ala carte. | |
|
 |  TransmasterDon't Blame Me I Voted For Bill and Opus join:2001-06-20 Cheyenne, WY Reviews:
·CenturyLink
| There is one commercial I would love to Hop over On iHeart Radio Dish has an ad' for the Hopper DVR which consists of a bunch of people sitting on a couch screaming at the top of their lungs. I used to wake up with iHeart radio with my iPod Touch and earbuds thanks to this GD-SOB ad' I now listen to a WQXR through their App, much better anyway. good bye iHeart Radio your App is gone. -- I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man's reasoning powers are not above the monkey's. - Mark Twain in Eruption | |
|
 |
|