Jump to content


Welcome to DBSTalk


Sign In 

Create Account
Welcome to DBSTalk. Our community covers all aspects of video delivery solutions including: Direct Broadcast Satellite (DBS), Cable Television, and Internet Protocol Television (IPTV). We also have forums to discuss popular television programs, home theater equipment, and internet streaming service providers. Members of our community include experts who can help you solve technical problems, industry professionals, company representatives, and novices who are here to learn.

Like most online communities you must register to view or post in our community. Sign-up is a free and simple process that requires minimal information. Be a part of our community by signing in or creating an account. The Digital Bit Stream starts here!
  • Reply to existing topics or start a discussion of your own
  • Subscribe to topics and forums and get email updates
  • Send private personal messages (PM) to other forum members
  • Customize your profile page and make new friends
 
Guest Message by DevFuse

Photo

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


  • Please log in to reply
186 replies to this topic

#181 OFFLINE   patmurphey

patmurphey

    Godfather

  • Registered
  • 552 posts
Joined: Dec 21, 2006

Posted 11 October 2012 - 08:52 AM

Yes my comment was based on anyone that has two or more tv's (most customers) will pay on average $11/mo more for Dish service with a Hopper system than without because the DVR cost is $4/mo more and there'll be one additional outlet fee ($7) over a typical install using previous equipment as most installs that have two or more tv's usually start with a *22 receiver which powers two tv's with one receiver. So yes obviously there are scenarios where it wouldn't be exactly $11 more for Hopper customers but that is the most common one.


Average $11 more is an overstatement except for one HD TV and one or more SD TVs. The Hopper/Joey is only slightly more than *22s for two HD TVs, less for more than 2 HD TVs, and a lot less compared to multiple tuner DVRs for more than 2 HD TVs. The only circumstance where *22s make sense is if extra TVs are SD. The Hopper/Joey is designed for, and reasonably priced for, HD households and has many more features than any previous DVR combination.

...Ads Help To Support This SIte...

#182 OFFLINE   runner861

runner861

    Icon

  • Registered
  • 859 posts
Joined: Mar 19, 2010

Posted 11 October 2012 - 10:22 AM

What if anything has the NAB done with regard to the hopper? We all know how the NAB has fought tooth and nail to eliminate and minimize the importation of any distant stations into another market. How is the hopper any different? If one watches TV with the ads eliminated, the local station gets nothing from that viewer. Likewise, if one watches programming on a distant station, the local station gets nothing from that viewer. If I am in Portland but am watching CBS out of LA, is that any different than watching CBS locally in Portland but cutting all the ads out?

#183 OFFLINE   jdskycaster

jdskycaster

    Legend

  • Registered
  • 272 posts
Joined: Sep 01, 2008

Posted 11 October 2012 - 11:04 AM

^You are assuming too much. The DVR already determines if someone watches ads or not. There is not proof that autohop means fewer ads watched.

#184 OFFLINE   Henry

Henry

    Retired Member

  • DBSTalk Club
  • 3,276 posts
  • LocationPine, CO
Joined: Nov 15, 2007

Posted 11 October 2012 - 11:11 AM

What if anything has the NAB done with regard to the hopper? We all know how the NAB has fought tooth and nail to eliminate and minimize the importation of any distant stations into another market. How is the hopper any different? If one watches TV with the ads eliminated, the local station gets nothing from that viewer. Likewise, if one watches programming on a distant station, the local station gets nothing from that viewer. If I am in Portland but am watching CBS out of LA, is that any different than watching CBS locally in Portland but cutting all the ads out?


Your argument leaves out the fees we pay to our sat providers that then are paid to the station even after they have been paid by the advertisers. In addition to that, they also get ever-increasing revenues from cable subscribers. How about on-line content fees?

What rights do we get for that other than the privilege of watching commercials in exchange for programming? Why must I stay home in order to legally watch? If my watching ads on TV were that critical to a network's survival, then why haven't any of them gone bankrupt in the last 3 or 4 years that I (among millions) have been skipping ads?

The Hopper issue aside, all I read here are people defending an obsolete business model. The NAB is basically a member-driven lobby group only too happy to perpetuate this model for its members ... and at my expense. As far as I'm concerned, they are just an arm of the broadcasters whose interests have nothing to do with mine.

[Guglielmo and Philo must be spinning in their graves.]
VIP722kDVR (Living Room)
VIP211 (Bedroom)
VIP622DVR (Art Room)

DMA 18 (Denver)

#185 OFFLINE   runner861

runner861

    Icon

  • Registered
  • 859 posts
Joined: Mar 19, 2010

Posted 11 October 2012 - 11:23 AM

^You are assuming too much. The DVR already determines if someone watches ads or not. There is not proof that autohop means fewer ads watched.


Your argument leaves out the fees we pay to our sat providers that then are paid to the station even after they have been paid by the advertisers. In addition to that, they also get ever-increasing revenues from cable subscribers. How about on-line content fees?

What rights do we get for that other than the privilege of watching commercials in exchange for programming? Why must I stay home in order to legally watch? If my watching ads on TV were that critical to a network's survival, then why haven't any of them gone bankrupt in the last 3 or 4 years that I (among millions) have been skipping ads?

The Hopper issue aside, all I read here are people defending an obsolete business model. The NAB is basically a member-driven lobby group only too happy to perpetuate this model for its members ... and at my expense. As far as I'm concerned, they are just an arm of the broadcasters whose interests have nothing to do with mine.

[Guglielmo and Philo must be spinning in their graves.]


I'm not making an argument. I am asking a question. Does anybody know if the NAB has taken any action with regard to the hopper? It is a question to further the discussion.

#186 OFFLINE   darkpowrjd

darkpowrjd

    Mentor

  • Registered
  • 43 posts
Joined: Jul 10, 2012

Posted 25 December 2012 - 05:23 PM

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 bolded the thing I wanted to respond to here.

This would be a good thing to support the AMC debacle if the issue was just about money. But it has been known for a while now that the issue with Dish and AMC has been more of holding a grudge and more political than financial. I wouldn't support a side that decided to be petty about things and move the channel to some ungodly channel number and choose to not advertise the move to sabotage the standing of a channel with the customers of the satellite company.

They said that no one noticed the move, thus no one gave a crap about AMC, so Dish didn't see any reason to NOT remove the channel. I'm pretty sure if Dish moved it to a number that people could easily find it while scanning the guide then told people where it was, then I'm sure people would've watched the channel. We shouldn't be approving or supporting that one.

The Gannet issue, though, was stupid to do, and I'm glad that's resolved and Dish stood firm there. But AMC is in the right with THEIR dispute because Dish needs to just let the NY issue go already!

#187 OFFLINE   James Long

James Long

    Ready for Uplink!

  • Super Moderators
  • 40,266 posts
Joined: Apr 17, 2003

Posted 25 December 2012 - 09:32 PM

But AMC is in the right with THEIR dispute because Dish needs to just let the NY issue go already!

The thing with AMC was not a "NY issue" ... it was the long standing lawsuit over the Voom channels. That has now been settled, the AMC channels are back on the air and all is well between DISH and AMC.

DISH and the NY sports networks is a separate issue.




Protected By... spam firewall...And...