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

DISH Disappointed with CBS' Interference with CNET's "Best of CES" Awards

Discussion in 'General DISH™ Discussion' started by tsmacro, Jan 10, 2013.

  1. Jan 21, 2013 #81 of 126
    fudpucker

    fudpucker Godfather

    1,072
    54
    Jul 23, 2007
    NW Iowa
    It's not like it is your "right" to have TV shows. Someone has to pay the costs of making the shows and broadcasting them. They are not free to make, and they will continue to be made only if someone can make more money than they cost to make and put on the air.

    One model would be that all of the income comes from direct fees and no income from commercials. If that happens, the cost to rent the programs would go up astronomically. Same for the cost of legitimate downloads.

    Another way to look at it: Right now, Ford, G.E., Target, McDonalds, etc. all pay for a lot of the costs for the programs you watch. If they don't pay, you will.
     
  2. Jan 21, 2013 #82 of 126
    P Smith

    P Smith Mr. FixAnything

    21,638
    145
    Jul 25, 2002
    W.Mdtrn Sea
    nope, Netflix and RedBox are my primary source of entertainment - I'm not watching ads
     
  3. Jan 21, 2013 #83 of 126
    fudpucker

    fudpucker Godfather

    1,072
    54
    Jul 23, 2007
    NW Iowa
    I have Netflix too. But if the people who put commercials on network TV stopped doing that, our Netflix subscription would cost a LOT more. Because most of the money the networks get to pay for the shows comes from commercials. We get to enjoy low Netflix sub costs because of those commercials on the networks.

    So the companies behind the commercials subsidize your Netflix subscription to some significant amount. If they decide one day that no one is watching commercials on TV and stop buying commercial time, you and I will end up paying the costs.
     
  4. Jan 21, 2013 #84 of 126
    tonyd79

    tonyd79 Hall Of Fame

    12,971
    204
    Jul 24, 2006
    Columbia, MD
    Interesting topic.

    I am of mixed mind.

    1. CNet is overrated when it comes to reviews and ratings. And their reviews have been anything but unbiased in the past. They are NOT Consumer Reports in that they accept advertising, which makes them dubious at best.

    2. A policy from a corporate entity to not engage in any reviews or awards one way or another of products for a company they are in active litigation with is not a bad idea. Who would think the review was unbiased even if it was glowing. It could have a more devious intent. Like praising the Hopper as terrific for consumers to avoid commercials, helping establish injury in a court of law.

    3. However, CBS did NOT set up a set of rules until they saw that CNet was going to praise the Hopper. This is where CBS fails and damages itself in several ways. Bad move.

    4. Charlie is NOT defending the customer any more than any carrier is other than he wants to sell and the commercial skipping is a selling point, nothing more. He is a feisty SOB and his tactics are not my taste at all, so I have no sympathy for him when another company pulls crap on him. His short term gain may cause us all issues down the road, but that is another discussion. But, he is NOT the good guy here and is milking this for all the pub he can get.

    No good guys here.
     
  5. Jan 21, 2013 #85 of 126
    James Long

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

    45,328
    915
    Apr 17, 2003
    Michiana
    Good. I hope you do not have a DVR. DVRs contain commercial skipping technology ... it may be more cumbersome to use 30 second skip or slip than to choose to skip all the commercials in enabled shows, but it remains commercial skipping technology.

    So right here in the DISH forum are you making a pledge that in support of television stations and networks that you will NEVER use technology to skip a commercial?

    One thing I expect ... that as soon as DISH wins the fight DirecTV will pull out their Replay patents and either sue DISH for copying Replay or introduce their own "Hopping" technology. This is the next step in DVRs.
     
  6. Jan 21, 2013 #86 of 126
    Hoosier205

    Hoosier205 New Member

    6,659
    14
    Sep 3, 2007
    I'd explain the differences, but you would choose to ignore them.
     
  7. Jan 21, 2013 #87 of 126
    lparsons21

    lparsons21 Hall Of Fame

    4,254
    191
    Mar 4, 2006
    Herrin, IL
    The difference between auto hop and skipping through manually are very minimal. Auto hop is not a global selection, nor is it persistent. You must select it each and every time you start watching a show that has it available. I doubt that anyone that would use autohop would watch an ad even if it were not there.

    To think otherwise is just to have an argument against it!
     
  8. Jan 22, 2013 #88 of 126
    JR_Baas

    JR_Baas AllStar

    69
    0
    May 5, 2005
    With my new hopper, I am watching more commercials than I did with my 722. I see the start of the commercial before the hop and the end of a commercial before the show starts. With the 722, as soon as a commercial came on, i used the skip button until I saw the show start.
     
  9. Jan 22, 2013 #89 of 126
    SayWhat?

    SayWhat? Know Nothing

    6,259
    133
    Jun 6, 2009
    There really is no difference, but that's been discussed several times in different threads here and it isn't what this thread is about.

    This thread is about CBS interference in a CNET program and decision.
     
  10. Jan 22, 2013 #90 of 126
    Hoosier205

    Hoosier205 New Member

    6,659
    14
    Sep 3, 2007
    Sure Charlie...

    You say that as if they are not their parent company. Charlie is used to second place...or worse. As long as he himself is making money, nothing else matters.
     
  11. Jan 22, 2013 #91 of 126
    lparsons21

    lparsons21 Hall Of Fame

    4,254
    191
    Mar 4, 2006
    Herrin, IL
    Here's the big difference.

    Manual skipping was a battle won and lost already. Autohop is just another chance to lose but enrich plenty of lawyers in the process! :)
     
  12. Jan 22, 2013 #92 of 126
    SayWhat?

    SayWhat? Know Nothing

    6,259
    133
    Jun 6, 2009
    Again, a perfect argument against cross-media ownership. A broadcast company should not be able to own a print company so that these types of conflicts of interest couldn't happen.
     
  13. Jan 23, 2013 #93 of 126
    sregener

    sregener Godfather

    630
    26
    Apr 17, 2012
    Is it a conflict of interest? Yes. But there's no need to regulate this or say, "This type of thing should not be allowed." The market has worked. The news is out that CNET had selected the Hopper with Sling as best in show. The news is also out that CBS interfered with that decision. People will now look skeptically at CNET (and, I hope, CBS's other news products as well) in the future. That skepticism essentially kills CNET's credibility, which will ultimately destroy any media company. The free market will destroy a company for its abuse of power, and there's no need for a government entity to step in.

    At this point, the only thing I think CBS can do to restore credibility is to publicly apologize to Dish and CNET employees and sign a public pledge to never interfere again. They'd still have a black eye, but over time it could heal. Right now, they have a gushing, mortal wound.

    Where this would have been a problem is if CBS had managed to do all of this on the hush-hush, and we would never have found out about it. But right now, Dish has some marketing fodder: "You have to see the new Hopper - it's so good, even CBS doesn't want you to know about it!" The perfect message for the rebel-minded American viewer.

    However, I don't think there has to be an inherent conflict-of-interest for ownership of media companies. It is entirely possible to have a stone wall between marketing and editing. But I also think the reality is that we all have to maintain a certain skepticism of all news outlets, whether they have a conflict-of-interest or not.
     
  14. Jan 23, 2013 #94 of 126
    djlong

    djlong Hall Of Fame

    4,343
    57
    Jul 8, 2002
    New Hampshire
    The "free market" didn't stop Time-Warner cable from blocking internet access to streaming sites when certain channels were lost in carriage disputes.
     
  15. Jan 23, 2013 #95 of 126
    AZ.

    AZ. Legend

    155
    5
    Mar 27, 2011
    Yep, the " Free Market " is just a talking point! Sounds good tho. lol :lol:
     
  16. Jan 23, 2013 #96 of 126
    Jim5506

    Jim5506 Hall Of Fame

    3,652
    34
    Jun 7, 2004
    "Free Market" does not mean it is free, it means that each element in the market is governed by price and subscriber pressures, not by edicts from some outside authority.

    Time-Warner's action was a method of putting pressure on those channels to come to the barganing table and make an agreement, it was one of their pressure tools, just like TV stations whining and puttin a scroll at the bottom of the picture that your system is going to deprive you of their channel because they are cheap, ect.

    If a channel is allowed to use the Time-Warner internet system to bypass negotiations on the Time-Warner cable system it weakens their hand.
     
  17. Jan 23, 2013 #97 of 126
    James Long

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

    45,328
    915
    Apr 17, 2003
    Michiana
    It did not, but net neutrality should have. People subscribe to Time-Warner internet for connectivity ... and while TWC may bundle additional content with that connectivity, blocking sites that are available on the Internet outside of TWC is not appropriate.
     
  18. Jan 24, 2013 #98 of 126
    sregener

    sregener Godfather

    630
    26
    Apr 17, 2012
    And who, exactly, is forced to do business with Time-Warner? There is an underlying assumption that a free market will be perfect. It won't be. What needs to be free is the flow of information, so consumers can make the choices they want to, based on the things they value. If TW blocked some things, but nobody knew those things were being blocked, then the free market would have failed. But if TW blocked those things and TW customers knew that those things were being blocked, then the free market has not failed. The free market is not a failure when a customer cannot have exactly what they want at the price they want, nor is the free market a failure when the customer's only choices are to do without or accept a less-than-ideal solution. In this case, it would be necessary for a large number of customers to cancel service, which would effectively send a signal to TW that their actions are counterproductive. Customers vote with their wallet. The rest is just posturing.
     
  19. Jan 24, 2013 #99 of 126
    SayWhat?

    SayWhat? Know Nothing

    6,259
    133
    Jun 6, 2009
    That depends on your definition of 'forced'. If they're the only provider in town, you either use them or you go without cable TV and/or internet.
     
  20. djlong

    djlong Hall Of Fame

    4,343
    57
    Jul 8, 2002
    New Hampshire
    Franchising agreements (which may have made sense in the 70s and 80s) have long inhibited competition in cable service. I can't deal with Time-Warner if I want their service. My choices in an aparment building are: Comcast. That's it. They have the franchise in this town. Fortunately I'm in a single family home and I have the option of satellite for TV service and Fairpoint's fiber for internet connectivity.
     

Share This Page