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

Dish DVR Adds Ad-Zapper

Discussion in 'TiVo Coffee House - TiVo Discussion' started by moyekj, May 11, 2012.

  1. Krandor

    Krandor Member

    Jun 9, 2004
    The network "adapting" will likely mean then adapting in ways we as consumers don't like. More bottom third ads during programs (I really dislike those), more product placements, higher carriage fees to cable providers resulting in higher monthly fees for us....

    The networks have to make money and their main options are either fees to cable providers/consumers or ads. We as consumers don't like either option but one of them has to be there.
  2. unitron

    unitron Active Member

    Apr 28, 2006
    semi-coastal NC
    Generally it seems it's not one of them being there, it's all of them.

    Once upon a time you paid the cable company to act as your antenna instead of putting up your own for the local over the (publicly owned) air broadcasts which you could receive at no charge over said antenna, and then the National Association of Broadcasters buys enough congresscritters to get "must carry, must pay" put in place, so that the extra viewers they got by being on the cable had to pay the local stations for the "privilege" of using cable instead of erecting their own antenna.

    And of course all of those non-broadcast cable channels we have to pay money that the cable company has to pay to them for are just as full of ads, if not more so, as the broadcast channels.

    The entire industry's reaction to screwing us every chance they get is to complain that they don't get enough chances.
  3. lrhorer

    lrhorer Active Member

    Aug 31, 2003
    That doesn't bother me, at all, or it wouldn't if the higher fees were for channels I want to watch. Higher fees for chanenls in which I have no interest whatsoever really grinds my 'nards.

    No they don't. Not on me, at least. Shut them down, I say, and good riddance.

    No, they don't. As far as I am concerned, you can pay for that steaming pile of crap any way you like, but don't foist the programming or especially the programming costs on me - doubly especially when it includes thnigs like forking out a quarter of a $Billion to Oprah Winfrey.
  4. aadam101

    aadam101 Tell me a joke

    Jul 14, 2002
    I honestly don't know what the solution is. What I do know is that it is often easier to "steal" content via BT than it is to pay for it legally. This is something the industry should be concerned with.

    The Louis CK experiment was rather interesting and pretty is pretty much a slap in the face to both broadcast and cable execs. He self financed his program, made it available to download for a small fee and made a million bucks in just a week. He also turned around and licensed it to FX for a hefty fee.
  5. pdhenry

    pdhenry Now 15% off

    Feb 27, 2005
    After having dropped to limited basic cable I realize that I'm not really paying more than I paid 30 years ago for more local channels (including the digital x.2 and x.3 channels) than existed at that time. It's significantly cheaper after inflation.
  6. Krandor

    Krandor Member

    Jun 9, 2004
    Unfortunately their main answer is SOPA and things like that. :mad:

    For giving people the abiltiy to watch a show they missed when it first aired, they really should look at HBO GO. That is an on-demand app for shows that did things right and did things well.

    I do agree some of the crap they pull like saying a show isn't going to be available for viewing online until AFTER the next episode airs is stupid. If people miss episode 1 they want to watch episode 1 before episode 2 airs. The logic on stuff like that confuses me.

    So I think for stuff like that, the best option is to put it on websites that validate you subscribe to the channel through your cable company and then give you access to the shows online the next day. That prevents people from "cutting the cord" and just watching stuff online for free which I know is their big fear so put it behind a portal that requires your cable company login to access. If I am already paying for your channel there is no reason I shouldn't be able to watch online the next day if I miss it.
  7. dtle

    dtle Active Member

    Dec 12, 2001
    Fram, MA
    It's funny how the networks are all up in arms about this, even though it's not any different than Fast Forwarding through the DVRed shows.

    I think it's telling that they are still clinging on to a number of people are still too lazy or busy to FF (like my roommate, who "watch" DVR shows while working on her laptop).
  8. Adam1115

    Adam1115 20,000!!! TCF Club

    Dec 15, 2003
    Denver ish
    HUGE difference. I stop and rewind commercials that are of interest to me all the time when I ff through commercials.
  9. Krandor

    Krandor Member

    Jun 9, 2004
    It is different because if you FF you are still going to see some of the commercial through the FF and might see something that makes you stop. With this you see zero of the commercial. It is also why they hated the 30-second skip and TiVo made it an "undocumented feature" because you completely bypass the commercial.
  10. allan

    allan Just someone TCF Club

    Oct 13, 2002
    As I understand it, this is even worse (for the ad bozos) than 30 second skip. On 30 SS, you still have to press the button. With Dish, you don't.
  11. mattack

    mattack Well-Known Member

    Apr 9, 2001
    Reading the wikipedia page about this, the station has to ask to be carried under this clause, it's not automatic.
  12. unitron

    unitron Active Member

    Apr 28, 2006
    semi-coastal NC
    Back in the '80s when the NAB first got it enacted there was a reason they called it "Must Carry".

    There may have been some changes since.

    Also, note that, despite the overall topic, I am referring specifically to cable television when I talk about "must carry, must pay" rules.

    I don't think satellite companies "have" to carry anyone in particular, do they?
  13. lew

    lew Well-Known Member

    Mar 12, 2002
    Not the same. The poster you quoted was suggesting replacing a commercial with a different commercial. One reason why advertisers don't want to pay for DVR viewers is some commercials are time sensitive. An ad for a movie opening has little value a few weeks later. Same with an ad for a weekend sale.

    Right now there are two different issues with DVR viewers and commercials. The number of viewers who FF and the number of commercials which have reduced value if viewed later.

    People say the networks have to adapt. What if one solution is to require FF be disabled during some (or all) commercials? (Almost) all of us would have big problems with it but it makes sense from the networks viewpoint. Ads pay for the programs.
  14. lessd

    lessd Well-Known Member

    Jan 23, 2005
    They already do this with DVDs movies on parts they don't want you to skip, like the FBI warnings etc. IF they did this on DVRs that would stop one of the two great reasons for having a DVR.
  15. javabird

    javabird Active Member

    Oct 12, 2006
    I hate the lower thirds ads so much that I'm actually considering canceling my extended cable (and going to basic cable only for the news) and using Netflix or AppleTV to supplement my TV shows. I feel that I am paying good money to watch the programming, why should the networks ruin something I'm paying for? I just haven't figured out any way to fight it other than canceling.

    As far as product placement, I really don't mind it as long as it's well-done and doesn't become a mini-commercial. It's actually kind of fun to try to spot products -- remember the Mac v. PC placements during "24"? On the other hand, when the actors start talking about the product, it's really obnoxious. The stupid Subway ads in Chuck and the Toyota ads in Bones are over the top annoying.

    I often do FF stop and watch ads when I want to see them. I recently watched a lot of car ads when I was considering buying my car. And I always look for the latest episode of "The Most Interesting Man in the World." :)
  16. aaronwt

    aaronwt UHD Addict

    Jan 31, 2002
    Didn't a survey come out recently that said that people using DVRs actually watch more advertising?

    I know for me, since gettig my Premieres and switching to the 30 second scan, that Iwatch more commercials when I see one that interests me. With the 30 second skip I rarely saw any.
  17. MichaelK

    MichaelK New Member

    Jan 10, 2002
    it's been "by request" for as long as i can recall, the tv station has to demand "must carry" or they can instead ask for payment "must pay". either or.

    I forget what the deal is with satellite but i think that once they service a market with locals then the rules apply to them. I also forget what the regulation is for them and servicing particular markets- they might be able to ignore a particular market- BUT they can no longer sell the "big 4" to people unless they are in an area that has no coverage (eg the middle of montana). So Directv can ignore upstate NY as an example but if they want to sell "big 4" content then they have to provide the local channels from that area (either as must carry or must pay)
  18. DocNo

    DocNo Member

    Oct 10, 2001
    Bristow, VA
    yes you do - you cited it:

    Economic forces will more than likely even it all out. What I can't fathom is the television/movie execs that look at iTunes and what a boon it was to the music industry and can't say "hey, there's all we have to do to make even MORE money".

    Talk about a complete lack of vision...
  19. warrenn

    warrenn Member

    Jun 24, 2004
    I think the networks are much too concerned about when I see an ad. How many ads are really worthless if not seen immediately? A movie ad may entice me to rent it on DVD even if I don't see it that weekend in the theater. I may still visit a store even though their big weekend blowout sale is over. The only time an ad is worthless is if the thing being advertised no longer exists like a music festival or sporting event. But as long as the business still exists, there's value to the ad even if I don't watch it on the day it was aired.

    However, I don't think the device should automatically skip commercials. That makes it too easy for the entire viewing audience to not watch the advertising. If no one watches the ads, they won't make the show. So I think there should always be the ability to skip over the commercial, but it should take some effort. That way there will always some part of the audience who sees the commercial.
  20. davezatz

    davezatz Funkadelic

    Apr 18, 2002
    Fox, NBC, and CBS have filed suit:


    DISH has countersued:


Share This Page