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

DISH Cheers Ruling on AutoHop, PrimeTime Anytime

Discussion in 'General DISH™ Discussion' started by Stewart Vernon, Nov 7, 2012.

  1. rocat1997

    rocat1997 Cool Member

    34
    0
    May 17, 2011
    Quality of programming. Interesting subject. Quality is quite low. Most channels run movies from many years ago. Plus they run them over and over and over. Quality is at its lowest. We pay for tons of commercials and old programming we've seen a dozen times. I read an article a couple of months ago that cable will be at $200 a month by the year 2020. Satellites not far behind. i believe this as we are heading their already. I don't have every channel and am already at $130. I used to pay $50 for dish. Granted I didn't have a dvr at the time, but, don't feel that it's worth $80 a month. Plus more commercials and reruns.
     
  2. Stewart Vernon

    Stewart Vernon Roving Reporter Staff Member Super Moderator DBSTalk Club

    21,579
    376
    Jan 7, 2005
    Kittrell, NC
    That begs the obvious question... if you think current tv is overpriced and only shows old stuff that you don't want to watch... then why would you be subscribing now?
     
  3. rocat1997

    rocat1997 Cool Member

    34
    0
    May 17, 2011
    Good question. I do pay a big price to not watch it. I primarily watch hgtv, DIY, and our locals. Also, some hbo. My wife only watches encore westerns. she likes old stuff. Truthfully, it is too expensive.
     
  4. Stewart Vernon

    Stewart Vernon Roving Reporter Staff Member Super Moderator DBSTalk Club

    21,579
    376
    Jan 7, 2005
    Kittrell, NC
    I hope I didn't seem like a smart-you-know for asking... but it was logical.

    I too don't like the price-creeping that keeps going upwards slowly but surely... but for the moment am still happy with the value I get for the price I pay.

    One day that might change, though, and I'll be asking myself that very "is it worth it" question.
     
  5. djlong

    djlong Hall Of Fame

    4,343
    57
    Jul 8, 2002
    New Hampshire
    If it wasn't for the DVR, I doubt I'd have a subscription these days.

    When I was growing up, it was 6 minutes of commercials per hour. Now it's almost 20.

    I can count the number of 'live' (non-sports) programs that I've watched in the past year on one hand. When my wife and I were watching a show live, she commented on how jarring it was to be FORCED to watch commercials, as opposed to seeing one flip by and MAYBE being interested enough to go back and watch it.

    I've watched MAYBE two or three sports programs live and I end up putting them on pause and going to do something else, then returning when I can skip the 'dead time'.
     
  6. Wilf

    Wilf Legend

    442
    22
    Oct 15, 2008
    That is one of reasons it was called the "Golden Age of Television." Television was B&W, and screens were small, but the programs were not fragmented like they are now. Even many of the commercials were entertaining.
     
  7. Laxguy

    Laxguy Honi Soit Qui Mal Y Pense.

    15,243
    553
    Dec 2, 2010
    Winters,...
    It was golden because it was live, it was novel, and all commercials were "new".

    You could barely see the football, much less a tennis ball or hockey puck.

    And, yes, there was much to be like about TV in the 50's, but I think there's much to be liked today. Esp. with a good DVR.....
     
  8. Grandude

    Grandude RichardParker II

    938
    12
    Oct 21, 2004
    You certainly aren't alone. I also have a use for the standard 30 second skip.
    If I want to watch a football game that isn't important enough for me to watch live, I record it and use the 30 second skip at the end of each play which brings me to the start of the next play. Almost perfect. I can watch a game in one hour instead of the 3 1/2 hours live.

    I also installed a HDHOMERUN (thanks to your suggestion JL) and have another way to record and watch events on my PCs.

    My next step, now that the OTA dongle for the H/J systems has arrived, I can get serious about getting upgraded from my VIPs. Cabling nightmares ahead untangling the mess I have now.:grin:
     
  9. TMan

    TMan Legend

    216
    1
    Oct 30, 2007
    Television viewing without a DVR has become an almost intolerable exercise. The continuity is so jarring with the long, frequent commercial breaks. Not to mention that roughly one third of the viewing time is not even the program itself. It almost feels like theft of my time and attention.

    I don't watch much sports, but even then, I prefer to get well behind live TV and zip through downtime and commercials and catch up before the game ends. A football game is one hour on the game clock, yet its broadcast regularly exceeds three, though obviously part of that is the nature of the game with normal clock stoppages. Grandude is quite right about the convenience of 30-sec. skip being almost perfect between plays.

    Someday, the lawyers and networks and providers will all conspire to disable our precious fast forward buttons. I've been a DVR user since 2003, and it'll be like having my eyeballs propped open in Clockwork Orange. Please pass the eye drops.
     
  10. Laxguy

    Laxguy Honi Soit Qui Mal Y Pense.

    15,243
    553
    Dec 2, 2010
    Winters,...
    I'll bet you 30:1 that FF will survive any nonsense.

    And the actual play time of a FB game is under 15 minutes.... that is, leaving out the time between whistling a dead ball and the next snap.
     
  11. Stewart Vernon

    Stewart Vernon Roving Reporter Staff Member Super Moderator DBSTalk Club

    21,579
    376
    Jan 7, 2005
    Kittrell, NC
    You mean under 15 minutes PER QUARTER, I assume... Each quarter has a timed 15 minutes of play time...

    So the minimum length of any football game is 60 minutes if you skip all the commercials, halftime, and other game stoppage times.
     
  12. TMan

    TMan Legend

    216
    1
    Oct 30, 2007
    You're not considering all the time after plays where the clock runs but nothing is happening. It is not a big challenge to burn off a recorded game in 30-40 minutes with aggressive DVR play.
     
  13. Stewart Vernon

    Stewart Vernon Roving Reporter Staff Member Super Moderator DBSTalk Club

    21,579
    376
    Jan 7, 2005
    Kittrell, NC
    But that is still game time. If we're going to start quibbling over time spent doing nothing with the clock running, then you'd probably also skip over plays that don't gain yardage... and ultimately don't we all really only care about big-gain plays and scoring plays?

    So... you could watch a highlights package in under 5 minutes for most games and get all the best/productive/scoring plays.
     
  14. James Long

    James Long Ready for Uplink! Staff Member Super Moderator DBSTalk Club

    45,324
    914
    Apr 17, 2003
    Michiana
    BIG-10 and PAC-12 each run a show called Football in 60 where they do the editing for you.

    bein Sports has a show called 90 in 30 ... but that form of football is much more compressible. :D
     
  15. Laxguy

    Laxguy Honi Soit Qui Mal Y Pense.

    15,243
    553
    Dec 2, 2010
    Winters,...
    Indeed that's what I meant. While studies have timed actual play time as closer to 12.5 minutes on average, watching a complete game in a half hour isn't hard. And that's every snap, every run, pass, fumble, field goal, etc.
    Purists may shudder at the thought of missing all the brilliant commentary during dead ball time.
     
  16. TMan

    TMan Legend

    216
    1
    Oct 30, 2007
    I am not a big sports guy, but there are a couple of local college football rivalries I'll burn through. I try not to skip more than a few actual plays, though.
     
  17. phrelin

    phrelin Hall Of Fame DBSTalk Club

    14,947
    296
    Jan 18, 2007
    Northern...
    Fox is back in court. The Hollywood Reporter indicated today:
    It will be interesting to see how this all plays out at the Supreme Court level.
     
  18. tampa8

    tampa8 Godfather/Supporter

    1,992
    32
    Mar 30, 2002
    The networks have lost viewership. NBC was actually the fifth watched network in the latest ratings, that has never happend to one of the big four. And the most watched shows on the the networks are all down, even if still doing well. You would think they would want their programming seen easily, not at a specific time or that you have to be in your living room.

    The networks fear is tied to ratings. If you watch at another time other than the original airing, credit isn't always being given for those viewers, thus advertising revenue goes down. Nielson is looking into capturing some of those viewers.

    It's worth mentioning, the Four major networks are supposed to be FREE. Again, FREE. For that they get the airwaves that TNT or USA etc do not get. And the advent of Satellite has done nothing but help them get their signal to people who otherwise might not get it. Yet they put up roadblocks to everything.
     
  19. James Long

    James Long Ready for Uplink! Staff Member Super Moderator DBSTalk Club

    45,324
    914
    Apr 17, 2003
    Michiana
    So which non-broadcast network beat NBC?

    And isn't there another thread (in the TV forum) that is predicting the death of all broadcast because of the woes of one network?
     
  20. phrelin

    phrelin Hall Of Fame DBSTalk Club

    14,947
    296
    Jan 18, 2007
    Northern...
    I'm not predicting the death of all broadcast. It looks to me like Univision is doing well. I do think the 1958 broadcast channel economic model is on life support - meaning we're all being taxed by Congressional mandate to fund a nationwide bunch of failing local broadcast channels.

    That's irrelevant to this thread though, and we have a new thread Fox is attacking the Hopper, Sling Adapter and Dish Anywhere now that picks up where this one left off.
     

Share This Page