1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Dish AutoHop vs Networks Commercial Skipping Discussion

Discussion in 'General DISH™ Discussion' started by phrelin, May 15, 2012.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. 356B

    356B Icon

    908
    1
    Oct 11, 2008
    Northern...
    So most people would vote no....but commercials are unpopular?
    Well that's clear as mud....:lol:
    Hey public opinion always matters in America....ain't that why we vote for stuff?

    PS... your pissed caused DirectTV ain't got it...
     
  2. sigma1914

    sigma1914 Well-Known Member DBSTalk Club

    14,599
    370
    Sep 5, 2006
    Allen, TX
    Not every topic is DirecTV vs Dish so don't make what's been great discussion into that.
     
  3. 356B

    356B Icon

    908
    1
    Oct 11, 2008
    Northern...
    Shucks....I guess that means no poll.....:( ......:eek2:
     
  4. Shades228

    Shades228 DaBears

    6,081
    45
    Mar 18, 2008
    Sorry let me break it down for you.

    Most people aint got a hopper because only 14 million people (technically less but it's the advertised number) in America have Dish service and a very small fraction of a fraction have a hopper out of that 14 million.

    Making a poll asking if people like commercials would only be about as enlightening as asking people in northern California if there is a southern California.

    People vote for many reasons however the vote on a public poll on if a company should do something is about as relevant as someone voting if you should quit your job just because. You're going to do what is necessary for you to maintain a lifestyle you choose to do.

    Hopefully that adds some transparency to your wet dirt.

    I would be concerned if DIRECTV implimented something like this as I don't think that the situation will be a good one for consumers. However if it makes you giddy to think that I might take personally what happens between two rival companies than who am I to ruin that.
     
  5. Herdfan

    Herdfan Well-Known Member

    6,500
    98
    Mar 18, 2006
    Teays...
    I'm not. Given that it can only be done on the special recording of the networks, no thanks.
     
  6. 356B

    356B Icon

    908
    1
    Oct 11, 2008
    Northern...
    We run Newspapers, among other things, I wish we could ditch the ads, just write award winners and still charge, a lot.. we can't....for Dish to do this, they've got something figured out...that the others don't.
    Safe travels...:grin:
     
  7. Stewart Vernon

    Stewart Vernon Roving Reporter Staff Member Super Moderator DBSTalk Club

    21,609
    380
    Jan 7, 2005
    Kittrell, NC
    The ABC, FOX, CBS, and NBC programs that air on the OTA networks are not on any of those packages you mention are they?

    No...

    The funding for the programs that air on the OTA channels comes from a different source... primarily the ad-revenue on those OTA channels.

    Trying to say you pay $15 for existing Disney/ABC/ESPN channels entitles you to free ABC OTA programming is not even apples vs oranges.

    It would be like saying I bought an Apple iPad so they should give me an iMac to synch it to for free because I already paid Apple $800 for my iPad... why should I also have to buy an iMac?

    You pay for other Disney-owned channels in other packages... those have nothing to do with the money that goes to the ABC OTA broadcast network.

    It shouldn't be rocket science, but I guess it is. I don't understand why so many have a difficult time grasping the concept that commercials pay for the bulk of the costs of producing much of the quality TV programming we watch... and without those commercials we would either have to pay a lot more OR view a lot less OR quite possibly both!
     
  8. phrelin

    phrelin Hall Of Fame DBSTalk Club

    15,012
    307
    Jan 18, 2007
    Northern...
    Hmmm. I must not communicate well. Sorry.

    The package I buy is from Dish Network and not only does it include the NBCU cable channels, but it also includes NBC. In fact, I can't buy a package of NBCU cable channels with or without NBC. And I can't buy a cable package without the local NBC channel. The same facts are true for ABC, Fox, and CBS.

    And it's funny how Disney suits deals with their corporate financials. The company's last quarter net income was $1.1 billion. According to news stories:
    For corporate PR purposes, they simply don't separate ABC from their cable channels.

    If you ask the suits at News Corp they will tell you that commercials aren't cutting it. From their perspective it is so bad that they not only refused to negotiate with affiliates who balked at gathering on their behalf from cable and satellite providers a $1 per month per subscriber retrans fee. They simply notified them that their affiliation would not be renewed.

    Most cable channels don't get anything like a $1 a month.
    • I'd prefer to see Disney's television networks, including ABC, marketed and offered as packages with specified conditions related to advertising.
    • I'd prefer to see NBCU's television networks, including NBC, marketed and offered as packages with specified conditions related to advertising.
    • I'd prefer to see News Corp's television networks, including Fox, marketed and offered as packages with specified conditions related to advertising.
    • I'd prefer to see some package arrangements involving CBS, The CW, Time Warner channels, and Viacom channels with specified conditions related to advertising.
    Let them stand on their own as corporations functioning in the free market, unsubsidized by mish-mash cable/satellite company bundling and government licensing.

    If as an option, at a high cost the Disney folks want to offer only one package including all their channels, with the ESPN channels and Disney channels included, allowing access through all sources including internet sites, so be it. I wouldn't buy it, but people who wanted it would.

    If as an option, CBS were willing to sell their broadcast network content solely through local broadcast channels with the ability to skip commercials disabled, so be it. I'd buy it, commercials and all.

    Just as Comcast is my ISP, I'd be perfectly willing to pay them or Dish Network to be my TSP, renting equipment, etc.

    That's one vision of what TV could look like in 2025. I know it won't.

    But I certainly do not think affordable, quality home entertainment content won't be there in 2025 because Dish told the four broadcast networks "yeah, sure, we'll collect from our subscribers $1 per month for each of you, plus whatever the local local channel wants in addition, all for what people thought would be free, but we will allow those subscribers now involuntarily paying that amount to skip the commercials in prime time only - it all seems fair and good."

    In fact, I think in 2025 this whole issue will be irrelevant except to the extent that through it Charlie Ergen helped formulate the outcome of the whole transformation of the home entertainment delivery system.
     
  9. Stewart Vernon

    Stewart Vernon Roving Reporter Staff Member Super Moderator DBSTalk Club

    21,609
    380
    Jan 7, 2005
    Kittrell, NC
    I don't even know where to begin. There's so much not quite right in there. You've got things so muddled it is impossible for me to untangle to reply.

    Since you think you are paying NBC directly (and ABC and CBS and FOX) when you very clearly should know you are not... I don't know how to proceed.

    We can disagree on opinions, but when your mind is closed to actual facts, I don't know how to discuss it.

    All I can say is... I hope you don't get your wish. I hope we don't see the end of TV as we know it, because I feel confident that TV as you suggest will cost more and not provide as much quality entertainment for that dollar value.
     
  10. Davenlr

    Davenlr Geek til I die

    9,136
    27
    Sep 16, 2006
    You dont think if the big 4 were to go to a single point distro like the rest of the "cable" channels, leaving the OTA stations to the news, local sports, and independent operation, it would be a major entertainment problem? I think the big 4 would do just fine as a "cable" channel, and would prefer the locals to be local anyway.
     
  11. Stewart Vernon

    Stewart Vernon Roving Reporter Staff Member Super Moderator DBSTalk Club

    21,609
    380
    Jan 7, 2005
    Kittrell, NC
    That is certainly a possibility... but again, without the advertising revenue they would still have to charge more than they do today.

    The "big four" have way more original programming than any of the other cable/satellite channels. The money to pay for all of that has to come from somewhere... and today it mostly comes from advertising. So if you take commercials away as a viable source of revenue, then up go the subscription rates. That's just basic math.

    Meanwhile... IF this path were chosen by the networks... then what would be left to sustain the local channels? Without the network programming, there would be no reason to watch your local channel except for the local interest stuff... and they wouldn't be able to afford to do that in most markets without the revenue that comes from having the network affiliation.

    Just look at any local channel you have that is an independent station and see how well they do compared to the network affiliates. Yeah, there are other channels, but not much to watch on them... and if you suddenly had 4 more channels in your market become independent if the "big four" drop them... a bunch of channels would likely fall off the map.

    Maybe that needs to happen in some markets... maybe it even needs to happen for TV in general... but I think a lot of people won't like what they get if they get what they wish for, because the prices are only going to go up. This isn't going to benefit the consumer, you can bet on that.

    Consider the AMC dispute where AMC has been tossing around the idea of wanting 75 cents for that channel instead of 25 cents (there's an article somewhere quoting an AMC rep stating that)... and AMC doesn't have anywhere near the ratings of shows on the "big four" and while it does have some high quality original programs, it doesn't have nearly as much as the "big four"... so if AMC thinks it is worth 75 cents... start taking guesses as to there ABC, CBS, FOX, and NBC will start the negotiations.
     
  12. sregener

    sregener Godfather

    630
    27
    Apr 17, 2012
    Really? Then why does Disney demand that satellite and cable providers place ESPN in a specific tier in order to permit them to retransmit ABC OTA? This is the point - the broadcast locals are used as the sword to force Dish to pay outrageous amounts to Disney/Fox/Whoever for channels that are rather unpopular. If they have nothing to do with each other, than the sword should be rather dull.

    I agree with your basic point that the costs for broadcast channels will have to go up if commercial-skipping becomes even more prevalent. The question is whether we want to restrict freedom and technological innovation to protect one business' primary source of revenue. That there are implications and changes due to technology advances is logical. That we should therefore not innovate seems rather protectionist.

    FWIW, I wish I could unsubscribe from LiL. I have a perfectly working antenna setup, and the picture OTA is much, much better than the retransmitted one.
     
  13. phrelin

    phrelin Hall Of Fame DBSTalk Club

    15,012
    307
    Jan 18, 2007
    Northern...
    Of course, Stewart, you are correct. Technically we aren't paying "directly." In fact, I'm paying Dish. But even Dish isn't paying directly. That's because Dish and the other signal providers have no contracts with the broadcast networks, just with their federally protected affiliates and Owned & Operated (O&O) local stations. But either you're arguing semantics or you haven't been following the media conglomerate business news.

    Perhaps you aren't aware that in a 2009 News Corp shareholders meeting Rupert Murdoch laid down the gauntlet saying Fox would be seeking through the local stations a piece of the retransmission fees. Once it was clear he wasn't going to be pilloried by the feds, others followed suit more quietly.

    In early 2011 we saw this from Bloomberg:
    The details can be understood from these letters, the first sent on Jan. 28, 2011 to all Fox affiliates (GM's and owners)from Brian Brady, president and CEO of Northwest Broadcasting and the chairman of the Fox Affiliate Board and the second Mike Hopkins, president of affiliate sales & marketing for Fox Networks.

    And then we started seeing stories like this story in the LA Times headlined Fox replaces two affiliates in smaller markets over fee dispute.

    New long-term affiliate agreements with Fox now require that a few years out the affiliates pay them $1 per month per cable/satellite subscriber.
     
  14. Davenlr

    Davenlr Geek til I die

    9,136
    27
    Sep 16, 2006
    The citizens (via the FCC) should require FOX to pay each and every person with a TV in each and every DMA for which they hold a public broadcast license, $1 per month for rental of the public airwaves, which could otherwise be leased/sold to cell companies to expand their 4LTE networks.

    Tie the price into the retransmission agreements, they raise the price of the agreement, the airspace lease fee increases at a matching rate.
     
  15. Stuart Sweet

    Stuart Sweet The Shadow Knows!

    37,060
    287
    Jun 18, 2006
    I am pretty sure that broadcasters already pay the FCC for licensing the airwaves.
     
  16. jsk

    jsk Icon

    779
    12
    Dec 27, 2006
    Fallston, MD
    I fear that the outcome of this lawsuit is that cable/satellite companies will not be able to offer the ability to fast forward or skip commercials without the authorization of the cable network or local station. I could see that happening, especially since they already force you to watch commercials if you watch a program on Hulu.

    In my opinion, DRM is going too far so that you can't use the programming that you pay for in the way you want to use it.
     
  17. Laxguy

    Laxguy Honi Soit Qui Mal Y Pense.

    15,345
    578
    Dec 2, 2010
    Winters,...
    I think that won't happen, but hope and pray it won't......
     
  18. Davenlr

    Davenlr Geek til I die

    9,136
    27
    Sep 16, 2006
    The local stations do, not the networks (except of course, those owned directly by the networks). If the networks are going to swipe all the revenue from the local affiliates, then they should be made to pay for the licenses, and the license fee should match the retransmission agreement fee.

    I am pretty sure the retransmission fees were put in place to assist the local stations which were not in large DMAs, to assist them in continuing to provide service, since satellite extends the reach of those stations 100's of miles further than the advertisers are interested in. A hometown car dealer isnt going to pay rates based upon viewers who arent even within reasonable driving distance to their dealership, for example. Our locals via satellite extend out 140 miles from the broadcast site. The actual broadcast signal is lucky to make it 60 miles. Forcing the affiliate to cough up $1 per satellite sub to their network for 2 or 3 hours of programming per night is not consistent with the intended purpose of the fee.
     
  19. xmguy

    xmguy New Member

    2,027
    6
    Mar 26, 2008
    Middle, TN
    I too grew up with a VCR. I remember having to set 2 VCRs if I wanted to record 2 shows at the same time and make sure the tape had atleast 2 hours.
    I don't mind fast-forwarding over commercials. The networks "accept" the current methods that all the DVRs offer now. I can see if Dish pushes this too far this could have HUGE effects with all DVR users. No matter Satellite, Cable or even OTA. I could see the providers BLOCKING FFWD for a set time after and during the recording. I wish Dish would stop while they are ahead.

    I will also add I had a Replay TV that offered Commercial Skip. Worked semi-well. Not perfect. Sometimes overshot or under shot when the show was back on. I remember when they removed it too. They then branded it "Show | Nav". I've still got my 5504. Fully works and all. Commercials could still be skipped however it was more like how modern day 30-skip works however the Replay TV could still sense when the show was back and and stop the skip unlike most 30 skip DVR functions today. Where it will go 30 seconds more like a VCR or other recordable media would aimlessly.
     
  20. inkahauts

    inkahauts Well-Known Member

    22,544
    1,088
    Nov 13, 2006
    Where did you hear those two things where tied together? They have demanded ESPN be on a basic tier since day one of any carriage agreement completely independent of abc carriage, since they don't run all their affiliates, that wouldn't be useful anyway across the entire country.

    Does the skipping commercials work on OTA, or just sat delivered locals right now?

    If Dish had implemented this so that it worked when you hit the skip button at the beginning of each commercial block, and then it would skip all the way through all the commercials in just that block, then I think they'd have a better chance at this lawsuit, if the networks would have even filed one, since it that would have required active interaction at each commercial point.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page