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

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

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

  1. Oct 6, 2012 #61 of 187
    sregener

    sregener Godfather

    630
    26
    Apr 17, 2012
    It is not illegal to open source your invention and to remove all patent applications for it. There is no law that requires Dish to keep the technology that enables Hopper private.
     
  2. Oct 6, 2012 #62 of 187
    Hoosier205

    Hoosier205 New Member

    6,659
    14
    Sep 3, 2007
    That's not the collusion part. This is...

     
  3. Oct 6, 2012 #63 of 187
    Inkosaurus

    Inkosaurus Icon

    678
    1
    Jul 29, 2011
    I think ultimately this is what he was implying though (about letting the tech be open source.)
     
  4. Oct 6, 2012 #64 of 187
    SayWhat?

    SayWhat? Know Nothing

    6,259
    133
    Jun 6, 2009
    Only if they plan it ahead, or if Dish were to put such a condition on the release.

    If Dish were to release or sell the technology without conditions and the others decided to use it by their own choice, there would be no problem.
     
  5. Oct 6, 2012 #65 of 187
    Hoosier205

    Hoosier205 New Member

    6,659
    14
    Sep 3, 2007
    Which isn't what you suggested. You suggested they work together to squeeze content providers.
     
  6. Oct 6, 2012 #66 of 187
    scooper

    scooper Hall Of Fame

    6,272
    30
    Apr 22, 2002
    Youngsville NC
    What's wrong with all the cable / satellite companies / consumers getting together to squeeze that ? I don't see anything wrong with it. After all - they have their broadcaster associations, where their probably discussing this .
     
  7. Oct 6, 2012 #67 of 187
    SayWhat?

    SayWhat? Know Nothing

    6,259
    133
    Jun 6, 2009
    they're :sure:

    But yeah, if NAB isn't collusion, I don't know what is.

    If several networks getting together to file suit isn't collusion, I don't know what is.

    Maybe a little collusion is needed to bring costs down and smack the network suits back into line.
     
  8. Oct 6, 2012 #68 of 187
    Hoosier205

    Hoosier205 New Member

    6,659
    14
    Sep 3, 2007
    Sounds more like, once again, Dish will be the one smacked back into line. Talk about an ethically bankrupt group of executives. They learned that from Charlie.
     
  9. Oct 6, 2012 #69 of 187
    dakeeney

    dakeeney Legend

    177
    0
    Aug 29, 2004
    As long as commercial skipping is activated by consumers on ANY DVR there is probably nothing networks can do. THIS ALREADY HAS BEEN UPHELD IN COURT AS LEGAL. If networks refuse carriage because of commercial skipping then either there will be huge lawsuits against all networks that engage in dropping carriage or ALL DVR'S IN THE COUNTRY WILL HAVE DISCONTINUE commercial skipping or it goes back to court.
     
  10. Oct 6, 2012 #70 of 187
    darinpaul1

    darinpaul1 New Member

    7
    0
    Jul 13, 2005
    So this boils down to content providers are losing revenue because I have the ability to skip commercials. Well lets take it one step farther then because we need to be fair to em".
    Contracts better be negotiated with the TV manufacturers because they gave me a the ability to change channels during the commercials to a channel that is not airing commercials at that time. Also the toilet manufacturers because I should not have the ability to go to the bathroom during these commercials as that might cause them bankruptcy. (or perhaps force them to put TV's on the toilet so I won't miss any of the ads) I also think my local station should charge the other network when I do switch to them during commercials because apparently I have caused them great financial hardship. And to anyone who owns a remote that makes it to easy to change that channel we should charge $5 or $10 a month because it does make it to easy to change the channel DURING COMMERCIALS. Talk about a can of worms. I find it funny that a company(that I don't subscribe to) or watch their particular stations feels its ok to disrupt my viewing habits and cause me to pay more. If they need more ad revenue maybe they should search for a way of creating more revenue. Put a can of Coke on the anchor desk during the news. It's not that hard.
     
  11. Oct 6, 2012 #71 of 187
    darinpaul1

    darinpaul1 New Member

    7
    0
    Jul 13, 2005
    Wait another great idea. how about you make the one hour program 1 hour and scroll ads on the bottom. Of course they will have to come up with the technology to make sure my eyes look at the ad so if not they can send me a bill. I'm sure you won't have any issue making the service providers pay for the technology, after all it's only fair.
     
  12. Oct 6, 2012 #72 of 187
    darinpaul1

    darinpaul1 New Member

    7
    0
    Jul 13, 2005
    And damnit I want my galsses that can air their shows no matter what I'm doing. If I miss another ad I may just have to send them a check because of the guilt I'm feeling. Now I'm a Directv customer currently watching Comcast ( between houses) but feel Sorry for Charlie. Who do I send the check too?
     
  13. Oct 6, 2012 #73 of 187
    darinpaul1

    darinpaul1 New Member

    7
    0
    Jul 13, 2005
    Most companies who begin losing revenue seek new and creative streams of new revenue! I think they should hire supermodels to do the news in swimsuits and change them out frequently so I don't get bored. Also I would recommend only one commercial between stories as I might get bored and change the channel (or just take away the ability to change the channel). If all ads were Superbowl ads I wouldn't change the channel or fast forward through them. Of course I did go to the bathroom (I was drinking beer) but if the content providers would just listen to me and add TV's to toilets there wouldn't be an issue. Of course I did DVR the Superbowl commercials and watched some more than once. Maybe I should send a bill to them for watching more than I was supposed too. SUPPOSE THEY'LL PAY IT!
     
  14. Oct 6, 2012 #74 of 187
    chris83

    chris83 Legend

    188
    0
    Aug 16, 2006
    I can watch my watch and record KARE-11 (Gannett in the Twin Cities) via OTA, so it doesn't affect me much, other than not having guide info and having to do so manually.

    I understand the point of contention, but regardless of whether the Hopper feature can "eliminate" commercials with the push of ONE button or MY DVR requires me to push the "Skip Ahead" button 2-3 times, I'm still not viewing them.

    If there are people out there who record programs and actually DO still watch the commercials, they CAN do that with the Hopper; they just would not enable the "AutoHop" feature, correct?
     
  15. Oct 6, 2012 #75 of 187
    Laxguy

    Laxguy Honi Soit Qui Mal Y Pense.

    15,231
    552
    Dec 2, 2010
    Winters,...
    Right.

    But I doubt the technology is that special that others couldn't create their own. That they choose to not do so is a good thing.
     
  16. Oct 6, 2012 #76 of 187
    Satelliteracer

    Satelliteracer Hall Of Fame

    3,042
    37
    Dec 6, 2006
  17. Oct 6, 2012 #77 of 187
    dakeeney

    dakeeney Legend

    177
    0
    Aug 29, 2004
    All this skipping commercials bs has been upheld in court as legal as long as the as long as the public does the skip and not the company like Dish or Dtv.
    You can enable the commercial skip or not. Dish does not force you to do it so the networks will be held liable if they stop carriage because of that feature. I don't see where networks have leg to stand on unless it goes back to court.
     
  18. Oct 6, 2012 #78 of 187
    Diana C

    Diana C Hall Of Fame DBSTalk Club

    2,117
    293
    Mar 30, 2007
    New Jersey
    What is legal or not has nothing to do with this. This is a contract negotiation. Gannet is not saying the Dish is breaking the law, they are simply saying "disable autohop or else pay us 3 times as much to compensate for lost ad impressions." At the moment, Dish has declined that "offer."

    This is a very complex issue. Local stations are low profit operations, certainly those outside major metro areas. The operational costs are rising steadily - FCC license fees, regulatory reporting costs, network affiliation fees, electricity, equipment costs, salaries and more just keep going up. Meanwhile, ad revenues are shrinking, driven by many favors - competition from Internet streaming and cable channels being a major component. But do you think advertisers are stupid? They have been pushing back on ad rates for years, citing the rise of DVRs as justification for discounting a portion of the viewership a station gets. Having a system that auto-skips ads is just adding insult to injury.

    Nobody is good or evil in this dispute...all parties are businesses, trying to do whatever they can to provide value to their respective stockholders. "The public interest" is a lovely concept, but it really doesn't enter into this equation - no matter who we're referring to.
     
  19. Oct 6, 2012 #79 of 187
    scooper

    scooper Hall Of Fame

    6,272
    30
    Apr 22, 2002
    Youngsville NC
    I don't see where the networks have a leg to stand on - period. The Sony Betamax decision, the FACT that the whole program (including commercials) is stored on the DVR - this can be easily demonstrated in court, and there's not a jury in the USA that would side with the Networks as to whether it is legal or not.

    If the networks want to take their ball and go home - that's their decision.
     
  20. Oct 6, 2012 #80 of 187
    coldsteel

    coldsteel Hall Of Fame

    1,984
    0
    Mar 29, 2007
    when it started, it was active by default. After complaints/whining, DISH changed the default to 'off' and forced the consumer to enable it.
     

Share This Page