Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'General DISH™ Discussion' started by sat01, Feb 12, 2013.
Some content would help instead of just a link.
Three questionable comments from the article:
1) That it isn't technically possible to skip commercials on anything but broadcast stations. The reason given sounded like a PTAT limitation rather than a commercial-skipping one.
2) Dish helped invent the DVR. Really? When did Dish's first DVR come out, since I know that Tivo and Replay had theirs in 1998.
3) They don't want customers to have to pay for extra devices? So why does Dish charge a per-receiver fee for extra Hoppers and Joeys? While I'm glad they don't charge for streaming access, this idea that customers shouldn't have to pay for multiple viewing devices seems disingenuous.
Thanks for bringing that to our attention. Interesting interview with Charlie.
Charlie seems to not know how his own technology works...
Ad-skipping has zero to do with the local channels being on the same transponder.
The "PTAT" recording simultaneous channels IS a function of that... but the ad-skipping is possible on any channel they choose.
Charlie either exposed some ignorance OR dodged the question, and the interviewer let him off the hook... perhaps because the interviewer doesn't understand the tech either.
I think one thing that CBS and others ought to bring up in court is why is Dish targeting only those channels and not all channels with their commercial skipping feature. That's the one avenue that I think the OTA networks have a leg to stand on.
As was Hoosier205's mostly irrelevant comment on the article. Seems to be on some kind of mission.
The answer is fairly simple - almost every subscriber gets those four networks on broadcast local channels and they're nice and neatly grouped on one transponder in each DMA. And since Dish is using complex algorithms to automatically record and organize them, hey, stick in a ad skipping one also.
And, making a political statement on my behalf, Dish can simply make a point about these advertising supported channels that originally were free to viewers because they used the public's airwaves with a license from the government. Unlike with cable channels, I never agreed to both watch ads and pay a monthly charge for broadcast channels. So, if they want to charge, let's just bypass the ads. Seems incredibly fair to me.
Yes and triple the monthly charge.
Or better yet, just pull all the broadcast channels and provide programming using the cable and Netflix economic models. That would free up a lot of bandwidth for uses not so outdated.
Except that you did agree to do just that... You agreed to pay Dish (in this case) for them to provide you with your LiLs.
It's the same argument. It isn't like LiLs were ever free on cable or satellite. They are free OTA and you can get them all day long if you put up an antenna... but if you want them via Dish, you pay... and Dish pays too.
And it still doesn't explain why Dish is all about "customers shouldn't have to watch commercials" on just the OTA networks... What about USA, TNT, TBS, SyFy, Disney, and any of the other several hundred channels that we pay for AND also air commercials?
It is a fair point... to ask, from CBS's perspective, why they are being singled out (CBS, FOX, ABC, NBC) for these commercial-skipping features and NOT the entirety of commercial television.
Ok. Here it goes. Instead of an expensive antenna I paid cable companies and later Dish to serve as my antenna to receive those local TV stations. The deal was those station owners got a license from the government for an exclusive right to broadcast within my region, and in return I could buy or "rent" equipment to receive them at no charge from their transmissions - I didn't have to pay anything that would go to those stations.
Congress changed the rules. Technology altered the reception footprint. Some would argue "times have changed." Ok. So they have. We now have technology making it easier to skip commercials. From the late 1970's we had to ff or, as we shifted from VHS to DVR, press a skip button several times. This improvement is just that - an improvement.
It goes right along with charging for what my generation understood was free because of an agreement between us - the airwave owners - and station owners, an agreement abrogated by those with the wealth and political power.
And when all is said and done, the local broadcast station 1950 economic model doesn't work on a national basis anymore. We're all just discussing something that will be a memory by 2050.
As will you and I, Phrelin, if that. :lol:
At the end of the day, someone will pay for the programming on the networks. Someone has to pay the cast and crews and production costs, etc. etc.
The traditional model for the networks is that advertisers would pay. They felt it was worth the millions they pay for advertising to be able to put ads on TV that consumers would see.
If the advertisers determine that not enough people are watching the ads to continue to pay the networks the millions it cost to pay the costs of the shows, they will stop paying for the ads.
At this point someone else will pay for the cost of the productions. Guess who that will be? Or the ads will be things you can't skip, such as banners that take up the bottom third of the page. But in the end, someone has to pay the costs of production, and the model for the networks today is the advertisers pay. If we squeeze them out, then the costs will come from someone else. Guess who.
For that matter, they pay-TV model doesn't work anymore, either. More and more people are switching to streaming as their primary television source. Ironically, those who do cut the cord frequently put up antennas to keep their broadcast networks, making broadcasting more relevant over time than cable or satellite. The pay-TV programming companies fought a la carte channels to the teeth, and the response of more and more people is a la carte programs.
If I could get NASCAR and pro tennis by streaming or antenna, I'd be sorely tempted to leave pay TV behind.
Streaming isn't a la carte. Also, content owners and providers are not fighting it. It simply does not and will not work. It isn't a viable option.
Maybe we'll go back to the future and see a return of the old sponsor model from the old time radio and early TV days. Most programs had a single sponsor and the advertising was usually built into the show.
No, and that was my first question when I heard about this. Why only OTA and not all delivered channels?
Sure it is. It's an enhanced version, sort of 'on steroids' if you will.
I can select not only a specific channel, but a specific program and a specific episode. I don't have to stream the entire distributor's package of channels to see one program.
No, streaming is not a la carte. You are still subscribing to content from channels you may not want. A la carte is the ability to choose which individual channels you subscribe or do not subscribe to. "Cutting the cord" is a different concept from a la carte.
The distinctions are moot when it comes to Netflix, Amazon Prime, and others. You watch what you want when you want, and episodes are not constrained to an arbitrary length of time. These are early times, but it is the future.
Streaming is absolutely a la carte. It works very well for me and is a very viable option, even an alternative for some, provided one has an adequate internet connection. For those who don't, stick with traditional tv.
Get Roku and discover a whole 'nuther world of entertainment.