1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Welcome to the new DBSTalk community platform. We have recently migrated to a community platform called Xenfono and hope you will find this change to your liking. There are some differences, but for the most part, if you just post and read, that will all be the same. If you have questions, please post them in the Forum Support area. Thanks!

Gannett Hopping Mad Over 'Hopper' -- Longterm agreement reached!

Discussion in 'General DISH™ Discussion' started by Nick, Oct 5, 2012.

  1. Oct 5, 2012 #1 of 187
    Nick

    Nick Retired, part-time PITA DBSTalk Club

    21,812
    180
    Apr 23, 2002
    The...
    Gannett to stop broadcasting on Dish if ad-skipping feature not removed

    "Gannett's demands translate into
    more than a 300 percent increase..."


    More here.
     
  2. Oct 5, 2012 #2 of 187
    retiredTech

    retiredTech Icon

    654
    0
    Oct 27, 2003
  3. Oct 5, 2012 #3 of 187
    FarmerBob

    FarmerBob Godfather

    670
    10
    Nov 27, 2002
    Same in Denver. But I think it's strange that they want a 300% increase. It seems they all want a 300% increase. Is that Charlie's go to number?

    If they lose it in Denver they will lose a lot of subs. Including me (18 years). First AMC and now this. How many Dragons does he have to slay? Already made arrangements in case.
     
  4. Oct 5, 2012 #4 of 187
    Marcus S

    Marcus S Icon

    708
    0
    Apr 23, 2002
    There is a dispute over two NBC denver stations 9 & 20 as well. Personally and I mean personally I am tired of my bill going up each year to the extent that I may just start hopping back and forth between Dish & DirecTV every two years. What I get is a brand new installation with the latest equipment and at least a 1 year discount under a two year contract.

    I support Dish playing hard ball with Gannet, AMC networks and others that may come up in the future provided it keeps my bill lower than DirecTV or cable. The content providers have needed a big wake up call for over a decade and maybe lossing 20 million customers in their revenue stream may provide that. This is not going to be the same goal for everyone, some people are willing to pay whatever the cost will be.

    I read over and over again that neither cable or satellite are growing at rates they did 10 years ago. Many wonder if the subscriber rates will actually start falling. Keep in mind that many of the younger folk buying their first home are choosing streaming sources over satellite or cable and pay as you go may be the only audience left for content providers if they don't change their position. I think a perfect example of this is the music industry. When was the last time anyone bought a CD? Now days people buy the specific songs they want.

    http://www.9news.com/life/programming/dish.aspx
     
  5. Oct 5, 2012 #5 of 187
    Hoosier205

    Hoosier205 New Member

    6,659
    14
    Sep 3, 2007
    I just don't understand the strategy behind openly inviting/encouraging lawsuits and strained business relationships with things like the Hopper.
     
  6. Oct 5, 2012 #6 of 187
    tcatdbs

    tcatdbs Icon

    617
    4
    Jul 10, 2008
    Me either... we just keep getting fatter because we don't have to get off the couch to change the channel... now our thumbs are getting fatter because we don't have to hit the forward button 5 times every 15 minutes. Yeah it's a nice "free" feature for us couch potatoes, but if it causes a 1 cent increase in cost, I'd rather not have it. I'd rather see better guide interface (like delete 10 PTAT shows at once; and more folder options).

     
  7. Oct 5, 2012 #7 of 187
    Nick

    Nick Retired, part-time PITA DBSTalk Club

    21,812
    180
    Apr 23, 2002
    The...
    Dish subs in Atlanta, Washington, D.C., Denver, Minneapolis, Cleveland, Phoenix and Sacramento would lose access to Gannett stations in their market.

    Other cities that could be affected by a blockage are St. Louis, Little Rock, Tampa, Jacksonville, Macon, Bangor and Portland, Me, Grand Rapids, Buffalo, Greensboro, NC, Columbia, SC, and Knoxville,TN.

    That's a ton of viewers, read 'ad revenues' for Gannett to forfeit and, potentially, a lot of programming content, read 'subscribers' for Dish to lose.
     
  8. Oct 5, 2012 #8 of 187
    Marcus S

    Marcus S Icon

    708
    0
    Apr 23, 2002
    While I think there are two issues in play over the dispute, cost to carry and commercial skipping, then why not offer the commercial skipping service as a fee option for those that want to pay it. Free Pandora includes commercials, $36 a year gives you commercial free music. I personally wouln't pay for add skipping if its going to raise my bill.

    Happy late anniversary to us Nick! We joined in the same yy/mm/dd. Still miss dbsforums, started there before talk was born.
     
  9. Oct 5, 2012 #9 of 187
    keifer27

    keifer27 New Member

    2
    0
    May 24, 2010
    Completely ridiculous to me. If I lose my channels, I will be switching.
     
  10. Oct 5, 2012 #10 of 187
    Stewart Vernon

    Stewart Vernon Doctor Whom Staff Member Super Moderator DBSTalk Club

    21,485
    360
    Jan 7, 2005
    Kittrell, NC
    Customers want to skip commercials, channels don't want you to... customers don't want to lose their channels.

    Dish can't win for losing.

    If Dish takes away trick play commercial skipping features, customers will complain too... I guarantee that.
     
  11. Oct 5, 2012 #11 of 187
    SayWhat?

    SayWhat? Know Nothing

    6,255
    133
    Jun 6, 2009
    Always support the carrier over the content providers. Always.
     
  12. Oct 5, 2012 #12 of 187
    Hoosier205

    Hoosier205 New Member

    6,659
    14
    Sep 3, 2007
    It just doesn't seem very well thought out. Thumbing their nose at content partners and looking for disputes.
     
  13. Oct 5, 2012 #13 of 187
    dpeters11

    dpeters11 Hall Of Fame

    16,184
    483
    May 30, 2007
    Cincinnati
    But it also doesn't make much sense to me the other way either. The customers that are likely to have a DVR (let alone a Hopper), are more likely to not watch commercials anyway, except maybe sports. How many people actually watch a recording and watch commercials? Other than stopping for an interesting looking commercial, watching it then continuing to fast forward, I don't really see it.

    Seems like a wash in ad viewing either way.
     
  14. Oct 5, 2012 #14 of 187
    Hoosier205

    Hoosier205 New Member

    6,659
    14
    Sep 3, 2007
    ...except those times when you shouldn't. That content isn't owned by the service provider. It's a retransmission agreement, not a license to edit out a valuable source of revenue. They've already taken a hit from the usage of DVR's. Automatically skipping commercials just makes matters worse.
     
  15. Oct 5, 2012 #15 of 187
    SayWhat?

    SayWhat? Know Nothing

    6,255
    133
    Jun 6, 2009

    I see it as thinking of their customers first.
     
  16. Oct 5, 2012 #16 of 187
    Hoosier205

    Hoosier205 New Member

    6,659
    14
    Sep 3, 2007
    By inviting potential lawsuits and negatively impact business relationships with content providers?
     
  17. Oct 5, 2012 #17 of 187
    SayWhat?

    SayWhat? Know Nothing

    6,255
    133
    Jun 6, 2009
    If you think about it, Gannett et al, should be offering to REDUCE rates in exchange for disabling Hopper, not blackmailing and extorting higher rates among threats.

    This is 2012. People don't like being forced to watch commercials. They're appreciative of tools to help make them go away.
     
  18. Oct 5, 2012 #18 of 187
    SayWhat?

    SayWhat? Know Nothing

    6,255
    133
    Jun 6, 2009
    Embraces Dish's efforts. Direct your ire at the content providers who are making the threats and enriching the lawyers.

    In fact, what Dish should do is offer the technology free to Direct and the cable companies, so they can all work together to stick their thumbs in the eyes of the content providers.
     
  19. Oct 5, 2012 #19 of 187
    Hoosier205

    Hoosier205 New Member

    6,659
    14
    Sep 3, 2007
    That's called collusion and it's illegal.
     
  20. Oct 5, 2012 #20 of 187
    Hoosier205

    Hoosier205 New Member

    6,659
    14
    Sep 3, 2007
    ...so your solution is for content providers to accept less in retrans fees AND voluntarily give up ad revenue? That doesn't make any sense. What you are proposing would have a direct impact on the quality of their product.
     

Share This Page