Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'General DISH™ Discussion' started by tsmacro, Jan 10, 2013.
That you can say that with a theoretically straight face is remarkable.
That's right. Either you choose one of the choices offered, or you choose none of them. It isn't as though having high-speed Internet and cable television are necessities we cannot live without. In fact, for most of us, they are luxury goods that the vast majority of the world could not afford, even if they were offered to them. Now, that's an unpopular viewpoint to the typical American, who cannot imagine a house without running water or electricity, a dishwasher, microwave, stove and clothes washing machine, let alone a television or computer.
If what Time-Warner did was so horrible that you could not continue to do business with them, dial-up Internet would be an acceptable alternative. Or Dish's new satellite Internet service. You might even consider relocating so you'd never have to do business with them again. The reality, however, is that compared to the vast value you derive from having High-Speed Internet, the temporary pain of having a few channels blocked fails to motivate you to action. That's a market-based decision, and as much as we all hate to compromise, that's what it is: a compromise. Not your ideal. And not theirs, either, for that matter.
Asking the government to step in and fix every compromise that exists is only asking for trouble, because then we have no one left to appeal to when the government itself forces us to accept their chosen compromise. Which, in a sense, is what some of you are protesting when it comes to cable companies to begin with. In effect: "Government, you've screwed things up and made a royal mess of things as you always do, so please come and fix it right for a change."
To be fair, though.. sometimes it is the government imposing the restrictions that results in Time-Warner (or Comcast or whomever) being your only options.
Many areas have local-government-imposed mini-monopolies where other companies that want to compete are not allowed to compete.
So... while I agree that such things are luxuries and not necessities... I can't agree that everyone has equal options in a true "free market."
Tv and cable can still be seen as a luxury sure..
But High Speed internet? No way, not in this day and age. Its definitely a necessity for a lot of folks. Im a full time youtuber and get paid by a partner network to upload content regularly. If I didnt have high speed internet I wouldnt be able to entertain my subscribers, much less compete with other youtubers..
I know my current job isnt what the average American does but I can think of several job titles that require high speed net access in the home to function too.
Being locked into either High speed through 1 provider, or choosing to either move or pay more for slower internet via satellite is not ideal at all.
Germany and several other countries disagree with the notion that internet access is a luxury...Going so far as to create a law that says internet providers have to pay customers for outages.
Internet access might fall closer into a category like phones have been... in that they are useful as much as they are entertaining... and as such are closer to necessity than luxury.
Is high-speed internet a necessity? OR merely enough access to get news, be connected via email/messenging, etc.?
It would be hard to argue that people "need" high-speed access... but I could be persuaded that people "need" some access.
But I think we have taken an exit and gone WAY down an off-topic off-ramp here!
Back to CNET... I read somewhere that CBS put the kibosh on Aero (sp?) product reviews going forward too... so CBS is choosing to double-down on the interference policy.
CES and the CEA has announced that the Hopper will be the co-winner of Best of CES, and that they will look for a new partner to replace CNET for the awards program.
Dish Network's release about this:
DISH Honored to Accept CES "Best of Show" Award
CEA stands with consumers and innovation
ENGLEWOOD, Colo.--(BUSINESS WIRE)-- Today the International CES® announced DISH's Hopper™ with Sling® Whole-Home HD DVR as an official co-recipient of "Best of Show" out of 20,000 products featured at the 2013 International CES. In response, DISH issued the following statement attributable to DISH President and CEO, Joseph Clayton:
DISH's Hopper with Sling. (Photo: Business Wire)
"We appreciate the International CES' decision to stand with the consumer in the acknowledgement of this award. With today's announcement, the Consumer Electronics Association demonstrates the roles innovation and leadership must play in our industry.
"I regret that the award has come in the face of CBS' undermining of CNET's editorial independence. We look forward to continuing our longstanding relationship with CNET's editorial staff and hope they are able to return to their long tradition of unbiased evaluation and commentary of the industry's products and services."
DISH Network Corporation (NASDAQ: DISH), through its subsidiary DISH Network L.L.C., provides approximately 14.042 million satellite TV customers, as of Sept. 30, 2012, with the highest quality programming and technology with the most choices at the best value, including HD Free for Life. Subscribers enjoy the largest high definition line-up with more than 200 national HD channels, the most international channels, and award-winning HD and DVR technology. DISH Network Corporation's subsidiary, Blockbuster L.L.C., delivers family entertainment to millions of customers around the world. DISH Network Corporation is a Fortune 200 company. Visit www.dish.com.
The ironic thing about all of this is that Dish has gotten more publicity with CBS interference than they ever would have if they had just allowed CNET to give them the award in the first place!
I kind of feel sorry for the company that made the Razer Edge tablet. They may be co-winner, but no press.
They would not have been "co-winner" if the contest had not been rigged by CBS.
That's gotta hurt somebody's wallet.
And now the SodaStream issue, certainly crossing a line.
Out of control
CBS Bans SodaStream Ad. Where's The Outrage?http://www.forbes.com/sites/willburns/2013/01/31/cbs-bans-sodastream-ad-wheres-the-outrage/
To be fair... that is apples vs oranges.
I could be wrong but I do not believe any particular program or channel/network is required to accept advertising from any particular company.
As such... If Coke and/or Pepsi pay more for advertising, then it is a prerogative of CBS if they choose not to sell advertising to another beverage.
This is different than the CNET situation because CNET professes to be an unbiased product review source... so when you pull back the covers and see CBS overseeing and making decisions of what not to review, it takes the unbiased nature out of it.
Commercials were never sold or suspected to be an unbiased marketplace. Commercials are for whomever pays for the spot and whomever the spot is sold to... outside of political campaigns where generally "equal time" rules are in play... there is no otherwise requirement or expectation for any company to get equal advertising time.
It is possible to be the "exclusive" advertiser in a category ... and Coke and Pepsi are large enough that they would not be able to buy a completely exclusive contract barring the other. No exec would turn down all of Coke's or Pepsi's dollars unless the other company was willing to pay more than the two companies combined AND they could sell all of the inventory.
It seems sad that the big companies have to compete by excluding others. SodaStream must really be a threat for such big companies to take them seriously. Just like The Hopper being such a threat to CBS that CBS has to go out of their way to try to prevent people from finding out how good a product it is.
Whatever happened to competing on the merits of your product?
This would be the third similar item on CBS recently. There was another item along these lines in the last week, but I don't remember the details and I can't find it now to post a link.
I heard a pundit mention Soda Stream on a news channel with the statement that they never intended to air an ad and were getting a lot of free publicity. But I have been able to find reports that Soda Stream will be airing a different ad in the place of the "offensive" one "banned" by CBS.
The replacement ad will show bottles of soda exploding every time their machine is used ... getting the point across that the use of the machine replaces store bought soda while providing compelling images of explosions similar to the banned ad.
Allowing a replacement commercial changes the focus of the ban ... it isn't the product itself that CBS banned - it was the attack on Coke and Pepsi. CBS is not the government, so first amendment promises of free speech mean nothing as it is not their promise - but I suspect that we will see attacks on Coke by Pepsi and vice versa. It appears what CBS won't allow is an attack by an underdog. Somehow Coke and Pepsi can show a competitor's product but SodaStream can't? Strange.