  spewakR.I.P DadkinsPremium
join:2001-08-07
Elk Grove, CA
kudos:1 | Full weight Bill o"dummy, sean douchity, et al will liken the Hopper to al qaeda, communism, whatever it takes.  | |
|
 | |
| | Mr Matt
join:2008-01-29
Eustis, FL
kudos:1 | Re: Full weight Remember with Rupert Murdoch and Roger Ailes at the helm it is like having two Captain Queegs running Fox networks. | |
|
| | | |
| |  CylonRedPremium,MVM
join:2000-07-06
Bloom County | He did not say it was run by O'Reilly - just posted what they thought how he would spin it... | |
|
| | | |
|  elios
join:2005-11-15
Springfield, MO | i dont see the issue here it only streams locally (you can get it to do more but Joe Sixpack isnt going to figure that out by them selves) over Wi-Fi
but im sure News Corp will just pay off the Judge or get it heard in middle of no where TX again | |
|
| | | | Re: Full weight This is not true. The Hopper w/Sling, just like the 922 before it, and just like the old/original Hopper or the VIP722 line of Dish DVR receivers which accept the Sling Adapter, will most definitely "sling" the program offsite. | |
|
| | | elios
join:2005-11-15
Springfield, MO | Re: Full weight as far as i know it only works over wi-fi and not off site
not that you couldnt make that work your self | |
|
| | | | Reviews:
 ·Charter
| Re: Full weight said by elios:as far as i know it only works over wi-fi and not off site
not that you couldnt make that work your self
With a slingbox, you can send it offsite, but the problem is, is that the slingbox was ruled legal, and if its just built in, then its a user set up thing, and Fox has NO legal feet to stand on. | |
|
| | | | | | its pretty much useless to keep it on your own wifi, it has always been able to sling it off site, that was why it was invented -- need to watch your DVR while at the hotel on business travel to catch up on your recorded tv - sling player to the rescue. | |
|
| | Rekrul
join:2007-04-21
Milford, CT Reviews:
 ·AT&T U-Verse
| said by elios:i dont see the issue here it only streams locally (you can get it to do more but Joe Sixpack isnt going to figure that out by them selves) over Wi-Fi The issue is that the copyright industry wants full and total control over what the average person is allowed to do with their content and they don't want anyone doing anything that they haven't paid a separate fee for. | |
|
rradina
join:2000-08-08
Chesterfield, MO | What's The Alternative? I understand that Fox wants to use their programming to monetize these types of services themselves. However, do they offer this ability and if they do, what does it cost? If they don't, then build it and perhaps even cable customers will come and you can strike a deal with satellite and cable that passes a small fee to the consumer to activate these services.
An overwhelming majority of consumers pay 99 cents for a song rather than doing something that doesn't generate revenue. However, they cannot do this if such an option isn't offered. If Fox isn't offering this to their consumers, what do they expect?
Rather than doing this themselves, could Dish offer Hopper on an open platform (i.e. Android) and let developers create a streaming app that enables consumers? Is Dish still liable or is Fox's beef now with the consumer? How do they claim damages if they don't offer a competitive option?
Microsoft does something similar to Hopper with Media Center. You can record shows on a PC equipped with a tuner card and watch them on a networked XBox in another room. Is this OK with Fox? | |
|
 IowaCowboyWant to go back to IowaPremium
join:2010-10-16
Springfield, MA | They can just yank their content Fox can always yank their content from dish and CBS can do the same. | |
|
| | | Re: They can just yank their content They won't yank it. They will just have their affiliates charge astronomical retransmission rates. Really quite stupid of Dish to offer the hopper. No matter how great it is, the networks have Dish in a bind and it is going to get worse. | |
|
| |  firephotoFacts hurtPremium
join:2003-03-18
Brewster, WA | Re: They can just yank their content said by silbaco:They won't yank it. They will just have their affiliates charge astronomical retransmission rates. Really quite stupid of Dish to offer the hopper. No matter how great it is, the networks have Dish in a bind and it is going to get worse.
No, they don't. Those whining the loudest are also those that can be picked up on an antenna locally and on some Dish hardware recorded to your dvr without paying jack squat to the whiners.
They are banking on consumer stupidity just like they do every time they hijack a channel during a sports playoff season or when a popular show is on or some other popular content of the month is going and they get a bunch of vocal viewers to hate on Dish.
Innovate or shut up because the days of the lazy cash cow are going away.
--
Say no to astroturfing. actions > Ignore Author | |
|
| | | |
| | | | firephotoFacts hurtPremium
join:2003-03-18
Brewster, WA | Re: They can just yank their content Like you said, a lot of people can't or won't get their most popular channels of the air and a lot of these people don't have access to cable either so it is FOX, CBS, all of them that are the ones that will be losing millions of viewers.
This is fully a case of the old guard holding technology hostage and Dish trying to push out some actually not-so-new tech which has existed since the early 1980's and was killed by the television networks then.
--
Say no to astroturfing. actions > Ignore Author | |
|
| | | | | | not really, the reason dish doesn't want you to use the local antenna is they inject their own ads (similar to how cable does too)
if it came down to it, they'd have the locals via antenna and forfeit the ads vs losing a lot of customers like with AMC (but worse I suppose) - they didn't have locals for a long time, then finally got it,the their own dish injected ads helped pay for it. | |
|
| | | | | No, they don't. Those whining the loudest are also those that can be picked up on an antenna locally and on some Dish hardware recorded to your dvr without paying jack squat to the whiners. Except with the Dish "Hopper" they removed the Antenna connection. It won't let you connect local over the air signals. Content all comes from Dish, no exceptions now. | |
|
| | | |  belawrenceThey'll never let you in
join:2000-08-06
Santee, CA | Re: They can just yank their content said by PacNWE97 :Except with the Dish "Hopper" they removed the Antenna connection. It won't let you connect local over the air signals. Content all comes from Dish, no exceptions now.
Wrong:
»www.solidsignal.com/pview.asp?mc···60013176 | |
|
| | | | | | | Re: They can just yank their content Wasn't aware of this or that having over-the-air now makes Dish money by selling what was built in. Clever Dish... | |
|
neftv
join:2000-10-01
Broomall, PA | Still have the skip button I dont have hopper but I still have the Skip button. I think it skips every 30 seconds so one way or ther other commercials are being skipped. | |
|
| WHT
join:2010-03-26
Rosston, TX
kudos:5 | Re: Still have the skip button said by neftv:I dont have hopper but I still have the Skip button.
Until even that is prohibited.  | |
|
| | neftv
join:2000-10-01
Broomall, PA Reviews:
 ·SIP Global Phone
·QuantumVoice
| Re: Still have the skip button said by WHT:said by neftv:I dont have hopper but I still have the Skip button.
Until even that is prohibited. Shhh dont give them ideas or I might have to drop dish. | |
|
| |  joakoPremium
join:2000-09-07
/dev/null
kudos:5
·Comcast
| said by WHT:said by neftv:I dont have hopper but I still have the Skip button.
Until even that is prohibited. Back in the TiVO days I remember you had to hack this feature.
--
PRescott7-2097 | |
|
| | Dish is only hurting us. Dish is pretty much screwing the customer on this one. They are forcing a model of higher carriage fees so everyone has the right to skip commercials. Those of us with no interest in network prime time programming are going to be forced to foot the bill so everyone can enjoy ad free network programming. A model where people can choose to pay for ad free network programming, while keeping an ad supported stream for those who have no use for skipping ads (ie sports viewers), is much better for the csutomer. | |
|
| elios
join:2005-11-15
Springfield, MO | Re: Dish is only hurting us. Dish isnt forcing any thing News Corp is
Dish is doing the unthinkable its actually INNOVATING i know foreign concept
cant have people going around doing that might upset the markets...and have to come up with new business models and do real work | |
|
| | |
| firephotoFacts hurtPremium
join:2003-03-18
Brewster, WA | No, I choose to take in advertising or not to. This veiled mandatory advertising bs is something pushed on consumers to make them think it's the only way and that is not true.
If I can mash the skip button 8 times and be right back at the programming I want to enjoy then it's no different than software doing a more precise version.
Technology advances and the "way it has been" crowd always whines except in these cases they have billions of dollars to skew the truth.
--
Say no to astroturfing. actions > Ignore Author | |
|
| | | | Re: Dish is only hurting us. Who do you think is going to pay for programming. Your sense of entitlement is sickening. Programming doesn't get produced for free, the content owners either make the money through advertising or charging for their product.
It is laughable that people think they have the right to free, ad-free programming, and just expect everyone else to pick up the tab. | |
|
| | | elios
join:2005-11-15
Springfield, MO | Re: Dish is only hurting us. start by putting some i want to watch on first fox could drop off the plant and id never know same goes for NBC and CBS
OR we could pick the BBC model which seems work as the BBC turns out stuff i WANT to watch id be more then happy to pay a yearly fee for good TV | |
|
| | | firephotoFacts hurtPremium
join:2003-03-18
Brewster, WA | said by nfotiu:Who do you think is going to pay for programming. Your sense of entitlement is sickening. Programming doesn't get produced for free, the content owners either make the money through advertising or charging for their product.
It is laughable that people think they have the right to free, ad-free programming, and just expect everyone else to pick up the tab.
I can close my eyes, I can cover my ears, I can walk out of the room, I can turn the tv off for 5 minutes, I can walk the dog, I can get a snack, I can do absolutely anything I want besides watching commercial advertising because it is MY CHOICE.
Television advertising is a risk, a chance that enough people are going to respond to it's content that they will provide the "product" owner a return on their investment in the advertising. That's how it is sold, that's how it is bought, that is how it works. It is not and never has been and never will be guaranteed!
Next you're going to tell me that FOX should get a cut of the $200 I spent on hardware to watch HD television. Hell maybe I should have them cut my channel off, they can send a guy over to slap my hands everytime I try to tune their channel without paying or if I don't watch a commercial.
There is a reality out there, some people are oblivious to it.
--
Say no to astroturfing. actions > Ignore Author | |
|
| | |  tim_kButtons, Bows, Beamer, Shadow, KaseyPremium,VIP
join:2002-02-02
Stewartstown, PA
kudos:25 | said by nfotiu:Who do you think is going to pay for programming. Your sense of entitlement is sickening. Programming doesn't get produced for free, the content owners either make the money through advertising or charging for their product.
It is laughable that people think they have the right to free, ad-free programming, and just expect everyone else to pick up the tab.
I pay $90/mo for DISH, how is that free?
--
RIP my babies Buttons 1/15/94-2/9/07, Beamer 7/24/08, & Bows 12/17/94-10/11/09 | |
|
| | | joakoPremium
join:2000-09-07
/dev/null
kudos:5 | The content owners already charge the content distributors (DirecTV, AT&T, Comcast, etc) for their content who in turn charge the subscribers.
--
PRescott7-2097 | |
|
| |
| |
See 13 replies to this post |
|
| joakoPremium
join:2000-09-07
/dev/null
kudos:5 Reviews:
·Comcast
| Do you even understand how it works? Dish broadcastst the content exactly how they did before.
IF you have their DVR and IF there is enough buffer than and only then can you "skip" the commercials. All this "new technology" does is automate pressing fast-forward buttons.
If anyone is to blame, it is ReplayTV.
--
PRescott7-2097 | |
|
Mr Matt
join:2008-01-29
Eustis, FL
kudos:1 Reviews:
 ·CenturyLink
·Comcast
·Embarq Now Centu..
| Another attack on innovation. Fox and all the cable entertainment providers have limited intelligence. Customers are paying for the programming they are receiving. In many cases subscribers would like to record programming that will never be offered for purchase. The problem is greed.
Why don't all cable home entertainment providers file suit against all companies manufacturing television sets to force them to remove the mute and last channel button from remote controls. In fact why not just outlaw remote controls entirely. That way the only way a viewer will be able to avoid listening or viewing any offensive material, is to get up and go to the television and select another channel or turn down the volume. Simply install a three foot in diameter 1,000 position knob on each television to make it easy to select a channel. I presume there are a few readers of DSL Reports that remember what a pleasure it was to try to tune in a UHF station when the television had a UHF selector knob with positions from 14 to 83. Fine tuning a UHF channel was always a challenge.
Of course was the earliest attack on innovation was ASCAP's attack on the Player Piano about one hundred years ago. Musicians said it would send them all to the poor house. Obviously that did not happen. The first recent legal attack on innovation was the MPAA's attack on Sony's Betamax home video recorder which fortunately the MPAA lost. Valenti, now deceased, the then president of the MPAA went or a rant on one of the TV news magazines, how the
Betamax VCR would destroy the movie industry and recording a movie was stealing. Valenti demonstrate lack of the ability of critical thinking. He was to dense to realize that once enough VCR's were in the home renting movies could become a profit center. | |
|
 AVDRespice, Adspice, ProspicePremium
join:2003-02-06
Onion, NJ
kudos:1 | New Law You must, under penalty of Civil prosecution, read all advertisements on your print magazines.
--
* seek help if having trouble coping
--Standard disclaimers apply.-- | |
|
| | | Re: New Law Very effective use of the English language. | |
|
| | AVDRespice, Adspice, ProspicePremium
join:2003-02-06
Onion, NJ
kudos:1 | Re: New Law not sure if you are being sarcastic | |
|
| | Cut irritating advertising like... Geico, and progressive, bragging lawyer ads, the competition for worlds most stupid advertisement has got to end. | |
|
 TransitManPremium,MVM
join:2000-09-05
Dayton, OH
kudos:1
·RoadRunner Cable
| Can Anyone Say VHS/BetaMax? This is so stupid.
Since the VHS/BetaMax issue of years ago, people recorded shows to be watched later, whether at home or at a friends house.
What the hopper is offering is no different.
Fox et.al. need to come to the 21st Century, where we the people want to watch what we want when we want to, not according to the networks directives (scheduling). | |
|
 SnakeoilIgnore Button. The coward's feature.Premium
join:2000-08-05
Mentor, OH
kudos:1
·RoadRunner Cable
·magicjack.com
| And Fox wonders why it's so pirated. I guess they never learn.
I remember that shortly after Fox tried to lock up it's content and force people to wait a week, or a little more, before it allowed Hulu to stream the recently aired show. That the pirating rate of Fox shows went way up. All because Fox wanted to generate more money from Itunes/Amazon and other paid streaming sources for it's programing.
--
Is a person a failure for doing nothing? Or is he a failure for trying, and not succeeding at what he is attempting to do? What did you fail at today?. | |
|
| | higher prices Sure, go ahead and make it easy for everyone to skip commericals. I suppose the companies paying for the ad-space will soon realize this and just stop creating the ads. Then TV provider will have no choice but to raise the price, not by the $2-4 we all see annually, but by 20-40%. Maybe my numbers are off, but it sure won't be a small bump! | |
|
b10010011Whats a Posting tag?
join:2004-09-07
Bellingham, WA Reviews:
·Comcast Formerl..
| Why don't these networks want people to watch them? I just don't get it, you would think the more viewers the better? 
--
Bellingham Scanner Kicks Ass! »bhamscanner.kicks-ass.org/ | |
|
 RasgylePremium
join:2005-02-10
Troy, IL | Now I Know Why Fox News is Criminally Biased They see honest viewing as a legal no-no. | |
|
| | Skipping ads be damned Don't be surprised when commercial breaks take a backseat to an insane amount of product placement. Actors stepping out of character and doing a 20 sec spot for Massengill Disposable Douche. | |
|
| Rekrul
join:2007-04-21
Milford, CT Reviews:
·AT&T U-Verse
| Re: Skipping ads be damned said by Simiv :Don't be surprised when commercial breaks take a backseat to an insane amount of product placement. Actors stepping out of character and doing a 20 sec spot for Massengill Disposable Douche. Actually, I fully expect channels to start shrinking the screen, so that they can play ads below and next to the picture while the show is on. | |
|
| | | LOL. Yes, but this will drive "clever" product placement. You can see it already, eg Minivans given away during Survivor. | |
|
BiggA
join:2005-11-23
EARTH | Clearing the path I hope that Ergen clears the legal path for others, like TiVo, who I'm sure already have commercial skipping technology, they just don't want to turn it on, as they don't have the legal resources to defend against the massive media companies. | |
|
| | | Re: Clearing the path I am going to skip 6 commercials and then watch pr0n at a reduced bit rate. | |
|
| | BiggA
join:2005-11-23
EARTH | Re: Clearing the path ??? | |
|
| | It's all about the dollar for Dish and contol for Faux(Fox) However you want to view it, here is the skinny. Dish Network wants subscribers to their service and Faux wants viewers. Dish Network (DN) is seeing a huge potential in offering ad-free programing. DN does not care if people actually watch TV as long as they pay their subscription fee. Faux, on the other hand, needs viewers in mass amounts to attract advertisement dollars. Most people are paying a cable bill and bitching about commercials so moving to a dish without commercials... well, you get the picture. Its same old battle just worded a little different. If this doesnt explain the conflict well enough to you, you might need to surf over to a quilting site. | |
|
1 edit | Control of Prepaid Content Belongs to Subscriber Fox revenues for OTA broadcasts are ad-generated, but I can hook up a VTR to my digital tuner and skip commercials to my heart's delight.
Cable- and satellite retransmissions are underwritten by carriage fees. Fox is demanding control over the way prepaid content is viewed by the subscriber.
This hypocrisy should bring Fox a very public humiliation--if there is any justice in this world. As a fallback, Dish could make the Hopper a Sling-branded device and present it as a third-party offering--made exclusively for Dish. If they were particularly devious, they could make it plausibly inconvenient to hack for use on other networks and make a limited number available on the open market--at a preposterous margin.
Fox has a long history of bullying cable- and satellite subscribers. In October 2010, Dish refused to pass along a 50% carriage rate increase to the consumer--a stalemate which ended only after a four-week blackout of Fox channels. Cablevision customers endured a two-week blackout of the Fox lineup, drawing the attention of "175 government leaders" in the greater New York area. A year later, Fox narrowly avoided being dropped by DirecTV after demanding a 40% rate hike from the company they once owned.
I support Dish and their consumer-friendly policies. It's not always great for their employees, but it serves their subscribers well. | |
|
|
|
Re: Full weight
·
