Slashdot Mirror
Cable Companies Despise PVRs
My position that I expressed in my speech and that was inaccurately portrayed: PVR functionality should be provisioned from the headend for the following reasons (which ultimately will benefit consumers):
-
VOD servers cost much less
- If video servers @ $350/stream (Soon Component cost declining 40%/year
- @ 10% simultaneous use, costs $35/sub.
- PVRs cost >10X more
- When simultaneous use = 50%, server costs will have declined >5X
- Disk noise wakes my wife
- Replay box hot enough to fry an egg -- Is that a feature?
- Disk size limitations mean obsolescence, esp. with HDTV
- Available on every set-top in house Average of 1.7 PVRs/PVR household
- No pro-activity/anticipation required
- Records multiple concurrent shows
- NW storage could always have max. res.
- Uses existing deployed base
- Moving parts break more often
- Box complexity means more crashes & customer support costs
My basic thesis is that PVRs + Satellite will eat cable's lunch, and since it's unambiguous that cable needs to get the copyright clearances to offer programming from the head-end, they should start now. It is the case that I suggested that if a Supreme Court case was brought on the legality of each feature of PVRs were brought, some would lose. I also suggested an alternative business model to make everybody happy to avoid the all-or-nothing result that has been occurring in the RIAA vs. Napster wars.
I suggested that consumers pay 1 cent per commercial skipped (which is about the same as what advertisers pay). That would be equivalent to $10/thousand commercials skipped. I think that's reasonable. I also suggested that targeted advertising could be a win-win for all involved by delivering ads in areas that are of greater interest to the viewer so that there would be less incentive to skip and fewer ads would have to be delivered due to the higher prices paid for the targeted group. I also predicted that this dynamic combined with competition between satellite and cable would ultimately make both services free."
If cable companies despise PVRs, why does AT&T sell Tivo, branded under their cable service?
So what about the fact that AT&T Broadband is selling their own branded TiVos? This kind of makes it difficult to say that they hate them.
If you love your PVR, the cable industry is not your friend.
Like they were my friend before... I find a new reason why I want to rip all their heads off every month and I don't even watch much TV...
I am willing to bet that most people don't like their cable company... It is just one of those types of companies that nobody likes I think.
I love the two-faced approach of the cable industry. A while back AT&T partnered with ReplayTV to provide OEM'd ReplayTV boxes to some their cable customers.
My mom always said, "Jim, you're 1 in a million." Given the current population, there are 7000 of me. God help us all!
PVRs are in no way like Napster, in the past, present or future. PVRs are like tape decks, VCRs, etc.
PVRs make the TV viewer happier, so that they WATCH MORE TV.
What do the cable companies and advertisers want you to do? WATCH MORE TV!
They need to get their heads out of their asses and realize just like how they were wrong about VCRs destroying the movie industry, they're wrong about this now.
It's amazing how these companies stay in business... One might think their monopolies had something to do with it.
is to go dish!
"Some fight for law. Some fight for justice. What will you fight for? One day, you will see."
Seeing how Time Warner is one of the largest, and still rapidly taking over smaller companies. It would seem this article is bogus as they are happily introducing their own PVRs. I submitted this awhile ago but you know the good ole slashdot editors!
Charter Communications is distributing these to thier customers, and they're linux based to boot, so get your facts right before you slam an entire industry.
Carpe Deez
The words of one CEO shouldn't always reflect the opinion of the industry. AT&T has sent me a few offers to buy a TiVo directly through them.
What I don't understand is if I pay for cable programming, why the hell am I double-taxed by having to watch ads?!!!
They've been ripping me off for years, even before PVRs existed!
BASTARDS!
Hey, I'm only applying the same specious reasiong the media companies use to call me a pirate, a criminal and an ingrate!
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
The real reason for cable woes is that they reduce their service and increase their prices.
Instead of doing the obvious thing like actually try to provide a better product, they instead encourage frivolous lawsuits against the competition.
(A case of lack of improvement: the new downgrade of digital cable. Sorry, cable companies, I like to channel surf. And a machine that requires an extra remote and takes 6 seconds to switch between channels is a No Go!)
The napster of the future refrence is just to start things up. PVR's encourage useage of TV that cabel company's can't profit from. Mabey they should come out with their own PVR to counter act TiVo and them that'll only work on their own networks.
Who is The Mole? Visit JulesTM for a new edgy Mac site!
sbombay is a very talkative and overreactive nance.
hoping your rules and wisdom choke you, since 1976
(It's a Scientific Atlanta Explorer 8000 I think.)
I much prefer my Tivo, but the cable box/PVR is nice too (mostly because it's the cable box as well, and can record two things at once. And it has an 80GB drive, larger than the 20GB my Tivo came with (it has 60GB now.))
Still, I'm planning on switching to DTV soon -- I want two of the Tivos that go with DTV (they're sweet -- they record the mpeg stream directly, so the quality is exactly the same. And of course they can record two things at once, which the SAE 8000 can, but my Tivo cannot.) Anybody know of a good DTV deal that includes two or three DTV Tivos at a good price if I sign up for a year or so?
Sounds like a good reason for me to go and buy a TiVo today!
how these people throw around with words like napster and copyright infridgement. first they put them out of context with their media influence and now they use them spread fud and secure their business.
You're going to watch these commercials and you're going to like it! If you don't you'll be getting no desert. Also, we will cancel your cable subscription and take you to court and make it a law that you are required to enjoy advertising.
is the cable company ANYBODY's friend?
Yea ok, they provide cable internet access, good for them. Of course, they're also capping it and restricting its use in every way they can.
I'll admit, we have cable at home, but only because DSL isnt available. Is the phone company evil too? Absolutely, but it's the lesser of the two evils in my opinion.
These people (Roberts) along with AT&T are fools.
They cornered the cable modem and set top box
market only to shoot their own leg off trying to
prevent any progress.
HOW COULD BRIAN ROBERTS BE SO FOOLISH?
Man, cable companies really have their heads planted firmly up their ass. From the day that I got my TiVo I saw the potential of the PVR tailored for their market that would allow all kinds of value adding services. For instance, build a cable box where some of the storage capacity is used to store PPV moives. Instead of tying up cable channels with a limited set of monthly PPV moives you instead pipe down any movie they have in a catalogue down the TCP/IP data pipe and store it on the PVR. Thus, folks can stop, FF, RW pause a movie (just like a VCR/DVD), watch it multiple times over the course of a few days (or however long you allow them to view the movie) and allow subscribers to download any number of movies, not just the new releases. And it frees up cable channels to boot. If I ran a cable company I'd LOVE PVRs, and would be working with SonicBlue, TiVo, or Moto. design me a box and a back end post haste.
I remember when the great thing about cable was the absence of commericals, movies running their entire length etc. (At least, that was the rumor -- my household didn't get cable until far later).
...)
But it's like buying the Sunday paper -- the ads subsidize the (fairly low) cover price. Cable TV would cost more (or very well could) if they didn't also get funding from ads. (And Premium channels that *do* run uninterrupted movies are one example
timothy
jrnl: http://tinyurl.com/c2l8yr / foes: http://tinyurl.com/ckjno5
I can understand why cable companies are openly against PVRs with commercial skip and commercial removal capabilities, but why wasn't there this much of an outcry over VHS devices with the same commercial avoidance features?
The bottom line here is FairUse and the unfortunate news for them is once that signal enters your home (provided you haven't used any illegal methods for decoding it) its yours to do whatever you personally want to do with it (i.e. not rebroadcasting).
that they are not making big bucks off of them yet. PVR's have not exploded onto the market.
There are 100+ million TV's in the USA, and only 500,000 PVR's. How long ago did they come to market? Much slower growth than either the VCR or the DVD player enjoyed.
People in cable and tv industry bitch about PVR's because people can skip commercials. what they fail to realise is that i only go to the bathroom/kitchen/whatever during the commercials to begin with! i am reasonably confidant that they do the same thing.
i pay the cable company for access to the shows, not access to the commercials.
See subject. PVR companies should sue this guy for libel and slander.
They really are getting more ridiculous every day... dangerously ridiculous.
If you love your PVR, the cable industry is not your friend.
/rant
I don't have a PVR, but I can't recall a time when the cable industry has ever been my friend. $45 for exteneded basic cable services, and what do you get? 70 channels of ads. I can't stand watching TV! Slowly but surely commercial length is increasing while show time is decreasing. 1/3 of a 30 minute segment is commercials. Sure the PVR would fix that but even before this article everyone knew that someone was going to cry foul. The cable industry is just like the rest of the content industries, as soon as the content control is in our hands they bring in the lawsuits because they don't want to change.
Screw it! I'm about to move and I've already decided that I'm not going to pay the money every month to have junk piped to my home.
The Anti-Blog
Just smells like fear to me. Well, gentlemen, wake up and smell the coffee. It is time to adapt (come up with a better business model that recognizes the range of technology choices available to consumeers) or die. Which is a lot tougher than putting Fritz Hollings in your pocket, isn't it?
And if so... do they REALLY think we're that stupid?
In Central New York (upstate, not the city), Time Warner Cable is offering a combination Digital Reciever/PVR.
I don't know much about the units, other than hearing they hold 40 hours, and integrate with the digital cable TV Guide type thing.
They must have the if you can't beat them, join them attitude when it comes to PVR's. The devices cost about $10 a month, on top of digital cable. All in all, that does not sound like a bad price to me , when your consider that is what the service alone costs for most third party PVR's like TiVo.
Does anyone know more about this unit? Is the software crap? Is it smart like Tivo, recording things you might like?
Anyway, they don't ALL hate EVERYTHING about PVR's.
-Pete
Soccer Goal Plans
Is it just me or have other people also been noticing a lot of anti-TiVo news stories lately like this? I feel like there has been a big uptick in the number of "TiVo is Big Brother" articles lately. Since many publishing and news agencies are in bed with cable companies, I wonder if they are trying to use the media to promote a negative image for PVRs.
When violence rules the world outside / And the headlines make me want to cry / It's not the time to just keep quiet
You didn't read the fine print. It is a non-fuction TiVo for display purposes only. This allow you to tell your friends "Yes, I have a TiVo." and even show it to them. Isn't that worth paying money for?
If cable companies would just learn to work WITH PVR's, they would actually make MORE money with their pay-per-view/VOD offerings. It's simple. The advertisement for it would go like this: "Order SuperBowl ZZZZ now on pay-per-view, and we will program your TiVo/ReplayTV to record it for you automatically!" They could then extend that to say "you can now order your cable TV BY THE SHOW instead of by the channel. The cost is $XX.XX per season, or $X.XX per show." Then they wouldn't have to worry about commercials as much since they have people only paying for what they want to watch. But then again, cable companies are too lazy to be creative, being too interested in maintaining current business models and not finding new ones.
Sounds like the small boys are the ones who are getting mad. Too bad the big boys are already enbracing it.
Lauder slammed his Replay box, 'it's too hot,' 'my wife doesn't know how to use it,' and he even tried to fry an egg on his PVR.
So, he doesn't like them. He thinks they are for copyright violation. He thinks cable companies should sue the PVR manufacturers. So, why does he own one and why is he pissed that his wife can't operate it.
Hey Gary, can she set the clock on your old VCR?
Especially the words of a CEO whose company (Comcast) is starting to roll out their video on demand service. The basket in which they've put most of their eggs, as it were...
"Karma can only be portioned out by the cosmos." -Homer Simpson
I don't think every cable company hates PVRs. In fact, Time Warner Cable is rolling out their own PVR, called iControl. It has basic PVR functionality, but it's main purpose for the cable company is pushing on-demand movings that you can pause, etc. as if you rented it.
Ironic that Time Warner Cable would do this, as it's part of the much larger AOL Time Warner which seems torn between the content provider and the content producer mode - the company owns lots of record companies and movie studios. Yet AOL and Time Warner Cable seem to be doing things the content part of the company doesn't like. It's like watching Sony make mp3 players and yet be distributing copy-restricted CDs.
"The universe seems neither benign nor hostile, merely indifferent." --Carl Sagan
They just have a far less anticompetitive nature than cable providers. The cable companies were happy with their respective monopolies they had a few years back, but now they are pissed because "outsiders" are competing with em, and they can't rip off the customer as much as they used to anymore. Now that this has arrisen, I now KNOW with zero doubt that cable providers are evil :)
In my area, Cable Modem speeds blow away DSL (epically when you look at the price/performance factors). So, to get a $10/month discount on my cable internet, I'm going to keep the $9.95 basic local channel option on my cable TV bill.
It strikes me very odd that Cable has the best potential tap into mass market broadband, and they are wasting any time worried about Satellite TV or PVR's. Satellite is not threat in the broadband department. And, if we ever do get to mass sharing of TV broadcast ala Napster like stuff, we will need broadband more than ever (even if the shows come from satellite). Even thought I am one of the people switching, I'm still keeping my broadband with the cable company.
In the UK, Sky ( a major cable provider ) actually sells this as a service...
Score:-1, Funny
is that for some reason I am ok with paying money to watch commercials, I mean aside from HBO and their ilk, I watch more commercials on channels that I have to pay for than I do for local channels, how I justify this, I don't know
I live in Austin, TX and Time Warner Cable offers a PVR set-top digital cable service for an additional $9.00 a month. It's a beta run that they plan on expanding to the rest of the US. I've played with one and it's nice. I believe it has like 40 hours of HQ. So, not all cable companies hate PVR...
A good consumer will WATCH MORE ADS !
Sorry guys, but that just has no value to me. Watching TV shows does have some value to me, such that I will pay for cable, and (maybe) watch ads. But the whole point of the broadcast system is to get people to buy stuff.
[important]
(Of course, the FCC grants licenses to broadcasters with the understanding that they will serve the public good. Hey, kind of like how copyright law gives someone a grant on a public domain with the view that it will serve the public good. And just like copyright, these companies have forgotten (or ignored) that they're being a special dispensation with the understanding that they will give something back in return.)
[/important]
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
the movie/TV industry hated VCR's. And they now make most of their revenue off of it.
If you love your PVR, the cable industry is not your friend.
LOL. I don't have a PVR and don't love it, but I have very strong doubts the cable industry is my friend, anyway.
But is anyone surprised by cable industry's attitude? They (and the most of content industry) really want to sell you "views" -- opportunity to watch (or hear) something once and once only. Want to watch or hear it again? Pay again.
Kaa
Kaa's Law: In any sufficiently large group of people most are idiots.
They rased SF Bay Area cable rates by about $0.10 a month because of "rising costs" and they want me to be their friend?? SCrew them and thanks to my Sony TiVo I can "google" my way and record shows I only want to watch. If they don't like me fast forwarding through their commercials, then ban those retared Old Navy commercials!
Sounds like I need to build my own and hook it up to my cable connection QUICK!
Eve Fairbanks says I drive a hybrid!LOL
This is why I don't give any cable company my money.
Kent
At least it's not a perfectly clear-cut issue of right and wrong.
Back in the early days of broadcasting, there was quite a bit of debate as to how broadcasters should pay their expenses. Right or wrong, the system that emerged had broadcasters selling air time to advertisers. Thus, consumers get the content "free" on the assumption that they will hear/see the ads and go spend money.
The television delivery system has now evolved to the point where most people pay a third party (cable company, satellite company) to deliver a high-quality signal straight into their home, negating the need for an actual broadcast signal. So now consumers pay the third party, the third party has a financial arrangement with the "broadcasters", and the "broadcasters" still sell ad time.
The question is now, what do the consumers owe the broadcasters? Are all the monthly cable bills enough to cover the expenses of the cable companies and content providers? If so, there's no need for ads. If not, would you pay a higher cable bill to have ad-free content?
In the beginning, broadcasters sold ads to pay for content. Now, broadcasters work on content to sell ads. Personally, I figure once the signal I've paid for is in my home, it's mine to do with as I please, so long as the use is strictly personal.
Too fucking bad. We're the consumers, it's what we want, deal with it.
Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
The cable monopolies are just like any other service provider monopolies - terrified of change, and totally freaked out when people don't buy %100 into their latest revenue generation scheme.
I find particularly funny the latest "don't get a satellite dish!" ads (even though IMO dishes offer much better service) There's one in particular playing here in Boston (On broadcast TV mind you) where these two parents say how "they have 5 kids and going 5 minutes without TV would be worse than cancer"
Fsck the millennium, we want it now.
Millennium Crisis Line: 0890 900 2000 [calls cost 50p/min]
The words of one CEO shouldn't always reflect the opinion of the industry
Key word there kids is SHOULD. I don't give a fuck what you think it SHOULD reflect. The fact of the matter is, the words of that ceo DO reflect the opinion of the industry.
"During his 15-minute presentation, Lauder slammed his Replay box, 'it's too hot,' 'my wife doesn't know how to use it,' and he even tried to fry an egg on his PVR. He also openly called on the cable companies and Hollywood to sue the PVR companies for copyright infringement. If you love your PVR, the cable industry is not your friend."
I don't know how anyone else views this, but to nearly anyone who's had any experience, a statement like this sounds more like "I'm trying to find something wrong with it". The average user doesn't notice the heat buildup (and I know I've never noticed any heat buildup on my ReplayTV 4000). And his wife can't understand it? Can his wife understand the TV Guide? It's a lot more difficult to follow.
Then again, telling this at a convention made for cable companies is preaching to the converted.
Dunno. Just my 2 cents.
"If the good lord had intended us to walk, he wouldn't have invented roller skates." -Willy Wonka
When am I gonna find time to go get a snack, piss, or browse competing stations for a new show?!
Because the enemy of your enemy is your friend. AT&T and Time Warner dosen't like TiVO. TiVO, presumably being a business and wanting to corner the market, dosen't like competition. By intoducing their own PVRs, the cable companies can hope to get a share of the market, eventually hoping to control the market and use it to suit their own agenda.
You could easily place a PPV order for a fight, sports game or movie to be viewed whenever you wanted it, and have the PVR download it. If they are really being snooty about it, but a time limit on it. Such as an in-demand movie. Just send it to the pvr and give you x number of days to view it. Makes money for the companies.
Unless you're a high paid executive in the industry or a congressman receiving extreme donations, the cable industry is not your friend!
-Rob
I'm pretty sure that show is ad-free (atleast in the initial airing), except for a small mention about Ford sponsoring it. They also use only Ford vehicles. ("Get those terrorists... they're driving a NEW Ford Thunderbird, James Bond Edition.") If they can do that, why can't other networks? Friends could endorse a particular coffee. ("Mmmm, Chandler, this Yuban is delicious.")
It has a HD for about 40 hours of video. The quality is quite good, but then I expect it just grabs the stream and save it to the HD since it doesn't have to decode the video and then re-encode it onto the HD.
It can record two shows at the same time but your box has to be tuned to the 2nd show. It has instant replay, you can program in the times/dates to record and yes, you can fast forward through commercials. You can't press a button and "magically" skip them, but at least they're not blocking that feature... yet.
As for programming, you just use what they provide with the onscreen channel guide. I've noticed that it has a little trouble selecting some items for recording unless that show is on. For example, you select "Friends" a day before and it just shows you it want's to record from 3:27-4:27 (the time when you select Friends) as opposed to the correct time. We'll see if they fix this later.
It also has PIP functionality without the need for a 2nd tuner or cable box. It has 2 firewire and 1 or 2 USB ports. No ethernet though as with the Explorer 1000.
One of my coworkers got VOD around the same time I got TiVo. I LOVE my TiVo but my coworker ended up dumping his VOD service because of the lousy selection of shows. Yes, the service was "on demand", but the movies never changed from month to month. He probably would have kept it if the selection was actually good.
Once again, maybe cable companies should consider taking a look at improving their own products instead of trying to shut down technology they don't like. Other industries actually have to produce a better product to ensure they get customers' money. I hate that the entertainment industry is taking the approach that it is better to just shut down any technology that threatens their desired business model than to react to the market and improve their product. How anti-capitalist.
When violence rules the world outside / And the headlines make me want to cry / It's not the time to just keep quiet
As if I need another reason to switch from Rogers Cable. At least this article answers my question about whether Rogers was planning a competitive product for Bell ExpressVu Satellites PVR system. Rogers sales reps are less than upfront about this, stating that there's always a possibility they'll offer this service in the future. Now I know for sure given Ted Rogers reaction to PVR in this article. If Video-On-Demand is anything like their Digital cable pay-per-view offering, I think I'll jump ship and get ExpressVu with PVR instead.
You gotta wonder if these people know about VCRs?
Yes, the TimeWarnerAOL cable company is stopping by my place tomorrow to install the Scientific Atlanta DVR/PVR. With no phone line connection - gets all of its data from the cable line, and can program from the Digital guide. And it just takes the place of my existing Digital Terminal thingy... :) As long as I can tell it to record every episode of Firefly, life is good.
My opinions are just that.
Than oligopolies are not your friend. Any time you have a cartel that makes their money by controlling a means of distribution, they will fight tooth and nail against anything that threatens to make the distribution DIFFERENT in any way (except in exact ways of their choosing, of course). Just different - they hate open-ness, too, but it's change that they hate. Why?
Because they derive their profits by gaming the system. Any change in the rules by which the system works is a threat to them - the fact that their sector, whatever it may be, might expand overall is irrelevant. They're on top now because they're perfectly situated to control things as they stand. Now that an oligopoly is in place, and everything is arranged to their liking, they don't want to rock the boat.
In IT you notice it particularly, but it is also true in energy, in agriculture, in real eastate and even in manufacturing.
My personal belief is that if this goes unchecked it will be the death of western civilization (assuming our contempt for our own environment doesn't get us first, except that is really part and parcel of the same phenomenon.)
The good and new comes from no quarter where it is looked for, and is always something different from what is expected.
You should be aware that DirecTV is now rebranding it's TiVo units/service...they've changed a few of the menus but all the functionality and usability is still there...plus you can avoid the monthly TiVo service fee, if you get the more expensive packages.
Give a hand, not a hand-out.
As long as that's their strategy, then this is a non-issue. I'll still have my PVR and skip all commercials (my VCR does that for me too) and timeshift/spaceshift 3/4 of what I watch. But if they have some other plan for getting rid of PVRs, then that could be cause for concern.
Our intelligent designer has never created an animal that we couldn't improve by strapping a bomb to it.
now that both of the major Dish based companies use PVRs, and market them, they have another avenue to attack them.
Just like their other attack ads about 'get the whole story' they can add that the set top box that gives you freedom to record multiple shows at once fries an egg on top of it! Oh now, why ever shall I keep this device.
As a dual tuner DirecTV user, I can finally say FORK the broadcast companies that move good TV shows 'against' each other in competition to force me to pick one over the other.
not with my TiVo they don't.
I have a dual tuner DirecTV and a regular TiVo, I can record 3 shows at once if needed.
As a rock-in-roll Physicist once said, No matter where you go, there you are.
All of these new, consumer-enabling devices pissing off old economy thinking. I love it! Napster may be dead but I love how old economy thinkers use it in their FUD speeches. Everything that threatens them is named "The Napster of..."
Why the cable companies aren't upset over a VCR. If the only reason is the commercial skip then that's unfounded. Alot of the newer VCR's are coming out with this. My Sony VCR is broke and I was shopping for a new one this past weekend in Best Buy and only the low end ones don't come with this feature.
I would think that cable companies would like this technology. For the longest time I wouldn't get satellite (I live too far out to get cable) because I would miss a lot of the shows I would get the satellite for in the first place. But I finally got a Tivo and now I don't mind paying the satellite fee since I don't miss the shows. Same thing with cable, if it was available in my area I wouldn't have got it until I could watch what I wanted.
Abiit, excessit, evasit, erupit.
And in case anyone is curious, Time Warner Cable has been testing their own PVR and is due to release them in Q1 of 2003. Maybe its just Comcase being paranoid.
I much prefer my Tivo, but the cable box/PVR is nice too (mostly because it's the cable box as well, and can record two things at once. And it has an 80GB drive, larger than the 20GB my Tivo came with (it has 60GB now.))
Currently, the most advanced thing I've got is a DVD player. Time Warner's rolling out the S.A. Explorer 8000, and I'm considering picking one up.
Do you think it's worth it? Does the "DVR" give out a macrovision-esque signal that would keep me from archiving the shows I want to keep a tape of?
The fact of the matter is that watching more TV doesn't actually help the cable companies. If you never turn your TV on but send a $60 check to the cable company every month, they are pretty ecstatic. The advertisers might be happier except that, along with the PVR, comes commercial skipping, which means that their marketing may be adversely impacted even though more people are watching.
It might benefit cable companies if the usefulness of the PVR increases the desire of viewers to upgrade their subscriptions. If by getting Tivo, HBO suddenly becomes very valuable for me, then that's a big bonus for my local cable company. I'd be curious to see if the statistics support that conclusion. My thinking would be that a Tivo would allow somebody to make more effecitve use of less channels. Why get the premium channels when you can keep your TV schedule filled with all of the obscure programs from non-premium channels that you didn't know were on before.
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
Thanks for keeping me honest.
Yes, I am aware that although I do pay the cable company, the broadcasters get their money from their ads. (That still doesn't quite justify cable only channels having ads.) And that the ads subsidize the cost of programming.
Cable is a even murkier battleground for the media wars in that you have a mix of broadcasters (given a grant of the public airwaves by the FCC with the agreement that they will serve the public good) and pure cable-only channels.
I've been trying to make the point lately that both broadcast licenses and copyright are government grants of publicly owned resources given with the understanding that the PUBLIC gains some benefit in return.
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
So enjoy it while you can. I do. I watch (some) commercial TV and I don't watch the ads. Many execs would have you believe that this is some sort of theft. But as Robert Heinlein said:
"There has grown in the minds of certain groups in this country the idea that just because a man or corporation has made a profit out of the public for a number of years, the government and the courts are charged with guaranteeing such profit in the future, even in the face of changing circumstances and contrary to public interest. This strange doctrine is supported by neither statue or common law. Neither corporations or individuals have the right to come into court and ask that the clock of history be stopped, or turned back."
After reading and hearing so much about PVR's, I decided the time was right to try one out. The main problem was that I only had a cell phone so it looked like the replaytv was my only option. After doing some digging, I found that the Tivo series 2 works with a few USB network adapters. I decided to go with Tivo since I preferred the interface, plus it is the stronger of the two companies.
I received my Tivo a week ago today, and I can not stop watching television. The amount of TV I watch has doubled because with the Tivo. I can find interesting programs to watch, where before I would only have a small chance of stumbling on the program accidentally. I FF through probably 1/2 the commercials , but there are plenty of times when I don't.
My potential exposure to advertisers has doubled since purchasing my Tivo. I'm watching programs I normally wouldn't see because of the time-slot. With the scheduling features, I'm catching many live programs that I would not watch if the Tivo guide wasn't available plus I can't FF the commercials. The short sidedness of established industries to recognize the value of disruptive technologies has been well documented, and the cable industry's aversion towards the PVR is a classic example. The companies that are first to embrace the PVR will succeed.
....and here is Time Warner Cable advertising a digital PVR/tuner combo from my local carrier. And for the low, low price of $9.95 a month!
Yeah, all cable is evil.
Cruising the internet on my TI-99/4A @ a whopping 300 baud!
so get your facts right before you slam an entire industry.
...facts straight....
/.
haha hahahahha hahahaha hahah
hahahaha hahahahha hahahahahhahaha hahah
haha hahahahahaha hahhahahahaha hahahahhaha hahahahaha
haha hahahahha hahahaha hahah hahah
hahahaha hahahahha hahahahahhahaha
on
haha hahahahha hahahaha hahah hahah
hahahaha hahahahha hahahahahhahaha
haha hahahahha hahahaha hahah hahah
I'll have something intelligent to add one of these days...
"And if we don't develop a viable, secure pay model, I think the technology will be used in a way to destabilize the existing businesses."
I think it's called innovation.
I'm not sure if anyone else feels this way, but I would say in the next 3-5 years, maybe a bit sooner, maybe a bit later, there is going to be a showdown of sorts between the media industry (music and video) and the public masses.
Unless the record companies, the cable companies, and all the rest of these multi-billion dollar industries can figure out a way to keep their revenue streams at current levels or at least something they're happy with without trying to hold back technology or control how it is used, something will happen. Technology - better said 'invention' - is just like nature: you can't hold it back. Once something is available, the public, and not a select group of high-riding jerks, control it. The only way to keep technology from taking on a life of it's own is to keep a lid on it in the first place, and that option never existed/is already past.
What the showdown will be, or what will happen is beyond me. How the unthinking masses (those who listen to N'Sync; those who could care less how much control Microsoft has over what they do with their own computer and the things they create with it; those who don't mind watching hours upon hours of crappy commercials - and they're not all bad commercials, just most - during their days/weeks/months/years) will affect this, I don't know either. But even they will eventually see the light.
And just like technology and nature and all the rest, there's no stopping public opinion/demand.
Ack!
But now that Comcast has acquired AT&T Broadband, they may well kill this offer.
sulli
RTFJ.
I doubt there are any cable execs reading /., but if there were, the first thing I would say to them is: Rather than blow all that energy hating something that's never going to go away, why not find a way to work with it instead?
... wow! ... Watch More TV! No-brainer, right?
Others have pointed out that the Big Thing with cable and satellite companies alike is to get people to
So... USE that energy and funding, that would otherwise be spent fighting what consumers have been doing since the Betamax was invented, to develop programs that have good writing, good stories, and that will be INTERESTING for people to watch AND that they will want to record. Duh!
Even if they do record it, they may opt to go out and buy a DVD of the program anyway. I know that's what we did in the case of Hallmark's 'Dinotopia' movie (the later series sucks pterodactyl eggs, 'cause they changed the whole cast, but that's another story).
Bruce Lane, KC7GR,
Blue Feather Technologies
part of the business model is to license the content once and play it into the (*&(*&@ ground? With a PVR, you record desired content once, and then the other 538 times they play Mr. Deeds is of no value to you. I mean really, now that the Sopranos is off for the next year, what do you have HBO for? Why don't you rent or pay per view? Band of Brothers kicked ass, but there's nothing like that on the horizon.
If your bitterest enemies are people who hack the heads off civilians, then I would say you're doing something right.
It's called things like hiking, boating, kayaking, coding, reading, writing, walking in Nature, and living a productive life. Communication improves, consumption of garbage, while on your butt on the couch goes down. Children are more creative and more likely to want to do the things listed above. I guess I'm not seeing the problem for anyone but the cable companies who would lose a lot of revenue if people like me became more prevalent.
We gave up broadcast TV and cable in 1996 and we never looked back.
In space, no one can hear you moo.
When I read that I imagined him standing in a bright silver jumpsuit with neelybobbers on his head, in a booming, resonant voice with lots of echo.
With a big orchestral DA DA DUMMMMM!!! hit right after.
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
You're describing Adelphia in Manhattan Beach, CA exactly. All that and my total bill comes out to a little over $81 with cable modem access. I've been praying for Cox or Comcast to take over this area for years but apparently theyre (Cox) pulling out of Palos Verdes now too. Adelphia's service is so awful its ridiculous. ANYTHING especially DirecTV is better than this sh!t.
http://www.livejournal.com/users/cixel
He also openly called on the cable companies and Hollywood to sue the PVR companies for copyright infringement.
They already are. See also what device owners are doing to help. Donate and help the EFF give Hollywood a black eye when it comes to fighting PVR technology.
I've had a Tivo for years now, and can't imagine watching TV without it. The only problem I have is what happens when everybody gets a Tivo (i.e. they're in every cable box, etc)? Nobody will be watching ads any more. Would that mean that every channel would have to become subscription-based or pay-per-view? I really like the idea, but I think it only works when the number of people using them is small enough that it doesn't affect the advertising market.
The title should say "Comcast Despises PVRs" not "Cable Companies Despise PVRs." Comcast is the only cable company with a real problem with this, because they're the ones at the forefront of VOD (Video On Demand) and a PVR obviates the, um, demand for Video on Demand.
I have VOD in Philadelphia and although the technology is good, the selection of programs is pathetic. You're limited to the programs THEY have available on VOD, you can't just record any show you want like you can on a PVR. And, oh yeah, you can't skip commercials automatically.
What are they going to do next, sue people who own VCR's for "piracy?" How is a PVR any different, aside from the fact that it's digital?
both DirecTV and Time Warner Digital Cable. i have the sony sat-t60 directivo and my father has the new scientific atlanta explorer 8000 (6000?). while i still love my tivo over that laggy pos pvr, its nice to see cable coming around. i know that scientific atlanta trys to not work with tivo, as some other cable boxes can interface directly with the stand alone tivos. check out tivocommunity.com for more detailed info.
JediLuke
-Do or Do Not, There is no Try
Let him keep his stubborn, pig-headed attitude... and let him fail with it.
Who ever said that in business, you are guaranteed to make money forever doing the same old shit? It takes innovation to keep alive, and those people who give the customer new, interesting things, without trying to extort them for every last cent, will be the ones to succeed.
So I say let him go on despising Tivo and all these technologies we like. It will only make better companies stand out more.
..a PVR in a cable home cuts into VOD revenue...
How does taping Friends on Thursday night with my PVR have anything to do with renting a VOD movie on Saturday??
It strange that they say that using a PVR is stealing. If you want to access premium stuff you must PAY for it.
I saw many comment about advertisement... Cable cie don't make any money with advertisement with the channels they provide. They charge the channel provider and you to make money. The advertisment money goes only to the channel provider.
As for the video on demand, if the satelite cie can use a PVR to help get video on demand, then the cable cie can do the same thing!
I don't understand why they are complaining. Probably only because the satelite cie are moving faster than they are. That not very surprising... Cable cie were never very customer oriented.
AT&T Broadband was acquired by Comcast in what was essentially a hostile takeover. AT&T had been considering spinning of the Broadband division, but decided not to. Comcast put together an offer that the AT&T board, under pressure from shareholders, felt they could not afford to refuse. Comcast as a result become by far the largest cable co, with a near monopoly on the East Coast (aside from NYC). Much of AT&T Broadband's staff is about to be fired, btw. Comcast wanted the customers, not the employees. They have no reason to embrace AT&T's attitude towards PVR; they'll be happy to scuttle it.
"with their freedom lost all virtue lose" - Milton
The cable industry is nobody's friend. If it were an ice cream flavor, it'd be pralines and dick.
I mean, duh. How does owning a TiVo enable me to do P2P filesharing?
You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!
If the cable industry was my friend I wouldn't have to pay $115 a month for cable internet + digital cable..
Times are changing..
Given than most Americans have cable, you'll save money every month. You'll be cutting support for the media companies that depend on your mindless patronage. You'll find yourself with a whole lot of time to try all sorts of new hobbies that will end up being a lot more rewarding than sitting back with a remote control ever did.
It's always surprising to me how many people waste so much of their lives watching stuff they acknowledge is not worth their time.
How does a PVR pose more of a threat than a VCR? Both can be programmed to record a show for later viewing (time shifting), though admittedly a PVR is more sophisticated and flexible. But the essence of the two is the same. You program it to record your favorite shows and you watch them when you want to. Nothing new there.
This is just corporate bellyaching. The economy sucks, and the true nature of the evil bastards running big business is becoming apparent. It was easier for them to hide it when everything was good, but now they're desperate.
I'm sorry, the guy just lost his credibility with me; i mean, he just lost any base credibility that he might have had just as a speaker with something to say.
If the implement of theoretically-impending broadcast doom had in fact been functioning at a heat hot enough to successfully fry an egg, that would be one thing. But... Here's this crackpot spouting doomsday prophesy about the 'napster of the future,' says that his wife can't use it anyway, and then tries to fry an egg on it?
Oke. there's so much wrong with this picture that i don't know where to start. 1.) if his wife can't use it, then why is he worried about it, since obviously the average consumer will give up anyway. (or else he's just royally insulted his wife.) 2.) if he's so concerned with the heat at which they operate, why did he bring one home to his wife in the first place?
and 3.) did this guy do a test run? did it work the first time he tried to fry an egg on it? And they take this person seriously? he also completely undermined everything he had to say, with a visual demonstration that his hot-enough-to-fry-an-egg thing didn't work out... On the other hand, i'd have paid to see that on cable!!
"I'd say 'Have a good time,' but arson is still illegal.
Aren't they going to create a bandwidth crunch with 90% of the video being "demanded" in prime time?
Why wouldn't it be very much more to their advantage to have "offpeak pricing" for customers with PVR's that were willing to record content at times convenient for the cable company? And have the PVR owner pay for the storage facility?
Seems to me that if video-on-demand takes off cable companies will be faced with either expensive infrastructure costs... OR ticked-off customers trying to explain to their kids why they can't watch "Lilo and Stitch" tonight.
Or are the cable companies planning to build special you-don't-control-it-we-do PVR's? In which case you'd think they wouldn't want to make the PVR companies angry, unless the cable companies want to do all their own R&D...
Or are the cable companies just planless and clueless?
"How to Do Nothing," kids activities, back in print!
This article reminded me of the classic "History Today" sketch from the British comedy show "The Mary Whitehouse Experience".
RN: See those cable companies?
DB: I am aware of them...
RN: They're like, your best friends, they are.
I guess I've had too much coffee today.
Script here:
http://www.micaelita.com/historytoday/mwe1
People think Microsoft is the answer. Microsoft is just the question, "No" is the answer.
This is yet another reason to dump cable TV for satellite LIKE I DID!
It is not enough that my local cable provider (Comcast) charges about 40-50% more for digital cable for programming equivalent to what I get on Dish Network, but local digtal cable subscribers get spammed with advertising on the program guide and channel info display!
Want to know what channel you are looking at? Here you go, along with a few words from our sponsors... Click here for septic tank help!
At least Dish Network has not (yet) done that crap, and they are happy to sell you a PVR.
Comcast even sends sales people knocking on doors of houses with satellite dishes trying assimilate more drones. I get pestered about 6 or 7 times a year by them.
Funny - I had one of the sales guys ask what I paid for satellite service. I told him $39.99/mo for about 160 channels (Dish Top 150) He said, "Damn. Thats not bad." and walked off! I laughed my ass off!!
----
Out of order? Fuck! Even in the future nothing works! - Dark Helmet (Rick Moranis) "Spaceballs"
I'm surprised that no-one's gone this way with it:
make a PVR. All the cool functionality, but VERY limited fastforward/rewind. Make it so you can't skip commercials if you're watching the show. Then, put 2-3 tuners in it, and advertise the hell out of it. Charge people $5 a month for it. More TV watched, and more ads watched. I'm surprised the networks haven't done this - yes, it ends prime time and nielsens, but you can easily watch anything on the big 4 ("they still call Fox a network?") at anytime, making it easier than cable.
"Sometimes a woman is a kind of religion, she can save your soul & set you free from all your sins" - Bad Examples
iControl is not a PVR - it's an S(erver)VR. You can do all kinds of neat tricks on the video stream, but only the ones they want to send (sell) you. TW is running a free trial in our area, with about a dozen channels, 5-20 shows per channel. They also have dozens of pay movies. However, you can't get just any show they've sent you.
Envy my 5 digit Slashdot User ID!
It's often said that satellite services benefit and cable services suffer from PVR. It's never been clear why this is the case other than the idea that satellite services have embraced PVR while cable services have shunned it. Maybe the satellite services require users to own equipment while cable services lease equipment. Leasing equipment isn't profitable because cable companies go out of business every 10 seconds. Maybe by association with user liability, the PVR is more profitable. It's sure not a technological issue.
It not has gotten to the point where I actually tune out commercials. I might watch the commercial, but the rentention of the commercial is ZERO.... Now I am even in the habit of doing something else during the commercial, since they take so long. It is really interesting to see.
If I see the commercial again I will remember it, but if not in the context of the commercial I do not even remember it. Does it influence me to buy the product? Absolutely not. In the grocery store or shopping mall I do compartive shopping and ask the store help. At that point I will make a decision. And if I like the product then I will buy it again.
I think the problem with the big cable companies is that advertising in the current model DOES NOT WORK anymore. People get so much advertising that they have taught themselves to tune out...
"You can't make a race horse of a pig"
"No," said Samuel, "but you can make very fast pig"
Anyone stopped to think that we're not the only ones with rights?
The cable companies have invested a great deal in infrastructure and services to provide what they provide. Goal? To make money.
Anything that could be percieved as a threat to that goal will naturally draw their ire.
Don't be stupid enough to think they want to restrict your rights. They could care less.
They're interested JUST in making sure the market for their product and service is wide as it can be. The majority of the cable companies targeted market doesn't own a PVR.
Heck---most people probably think a PVR is something Saddam is not supposed to own. Once the cable companies get their product out and see it reasonably successful---PVR doom and gloom from them will go away.
So, it doesn't have a hard drive, and you can't record anything you want?
If so, there website is full of crap.
Turns out I despise my cable company too! :) AT&T Broadband (now Comcast) has been nothing but a pain in the ass to deal with. Not only did their CR sales staff blatantly lie through their teeth about HDTV availability through digital cable by claiming that HBO, Showtime, and the major networks had no HDTV service (I get it over the air, bitch. And Both Dish and DirecTV sell HBO and Showtime HD right now!). And when I caught her on it she simply repeated the same line as if reading from a talking points memo instead of responding to my question. To add insult to injurty, they're upping the cable rates way above inflation. Fuck that. I recently installed DirecTV, have ordered Earthlink DSL with a static IP, and will cancel my cable subscription as soon as DSL is installed. I can't tell you what a relief it was to see Linux listed as an accepted OS on Earthlink's ordering page. God forbid I might want to run something other than Windows on my computer. I've had it with cable, they're not getting my money any more.
--Maynard
"One of the ReplayTV lobbyists has said that the PVR is the greatest friend that the American film producer and cable company ever had.
I say to you that the PVR is to the American film producer, the American cable company, and the American public as the Boston strangler is to the woman home alone."
Oh, wait, that was the VCR. My bad.
Tuck
Tuck's Journal.
I guess he's never used a Motorola DCT-2000 (AT&T Broadband)... i've nearly burned myself on the fucking thing. Oh, and by the way, they have a faulty power plug which can cause electric shock. No, i'm not kidding.
Oh yeah, and he hates PVR's enough to even OWN one I suppose. Heh
WHAAAAAAA whaaaWHAAAAAA, *sniffle*, WHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!
This is pretty funny to hear since Time-Warner Cable is advertising commercials for a Time-Warner branded pvr. They are even stating that it will replace the normal cable setup box.
"During his 15-minute presentation, Lauder slammed his Replay box, 'it's too hot,' 'my wife doesn't know how to use it,' and he even tried to fry an egg on his PVR. He also openly called on the cable companies and Hollywood to sue the PVR companies for copyright infringement. If you love your PVR, the cable industry is not your friend."
- Maybe he should find a new wife.
...horse and cart salesman Brian Stoneage in a speech today slammed manufacturers of horseless carriages. Speaking to a horse industry conference, Mr Stoneage said "These so-called 'cars' are destroying my business. They're horrible things - I could fry an egg on the engine of one."
...de-centralizing the market. This is why there is no little support for solar power - no one can put a meter on the sun.
In the long run, they are doomed. We will develop independent technologies and we will share these with our friends for free and there is nothing the MegaCorps can do about it, unless they totally destory freedom.
Do let them take away your freedom!
The cable Industry hates just about everyone, which is why so many people hate them (back)! First off:, they hate the consumer. They think that the consumer should be married to them and pay whatever they want to charge. The fact is that basic cable now costs close to 40 bucks a month these days, almost three times what it did five years ago. Why? because of consolidation in the industry where these clowns now pay close to $4000 bucks PER subscriber when they buy a cable system. Second: They hate the satellite industry because they give the consumer an alternative choice, usually at a better price. When my friend cancelled his cable for DirecTv the cable rep groused: WE have to charge more because we have to pay a franchise fee to the town. My friend said: Ask me if I care? In reality, the franchise fees average about 5% of their net revenue. Third: They hate DTV, because they have to provide all this extra channel space to it. Fourth: They hate the antenna industry because they help the satellite industry break their lock on local TV carriage. Besides, these days a person with a half decent outdoor antenna might well find that he picks up more over the air stations then his cable system carries. Fifth: The hate Congress for giving parity to the satellite industry. Sixth: They hate the DSL industry, the RBOC's, the ISP's and everyone else connected with it, because they provide a viable alternative to their (now) overpriced, capped, unreliable Internet service. I'm sure that I could come up with another dozen examples upon a few minutes reflection. Hmm..maybe they should change theitr name to the MIKEY industry? After all they do seem to hate everything!
Direct from McKinsey Quarterly, there is a piece on how marketers and those who generate profits from advertising should NOT worry about such things as TiVo. Providing examples on how to embrace technology rather than neglect it, this article is one that should be read by those who just don't get that consumers voice their collective opinions using technology that is available.
Here is the article.
He also openly called on the cable companies and Hollywood to sue the PVR companies for copyright infringement.
1. Most of the content is not the copyright property of the cable companies.
2. It will be transparent that the suit is intended not to protect copyrights but to protect the VOD business model, which (since VCRs are NOT illegal) is a stupid business model anyway.
3. Despite this, you can expect Fritz Hollings to introduce a bill banning the PVR some time next week.
4. IANAL.
iControl is not a PVR. Some Time Warner outlets (like Time Warner Austin) are deploying the new Scientific Atlanta Explorer 8000 box, which comes with a (nominal) 80 gigabyte hard drive, and can function as an honest PVR.
- jon
Ganymede, a GPL'ed metadirectory for UNIX
Initially they weren't sure how to pay for it, and this solution evolved.
Now after many decades, and lots of profit things are changing, they will find a way.
Paid placements (Truman Show type adds), Sponsored programs (No Boundaries (Ford)), ads in the corner, a little box (like the 24 hour news channel).
And well if they can't make big profits, they'll leave and someone else will pick it up.
If all the big broadcasters give up a local community group may do educational or informational programming, or promote local talent.
The resource will remain available, and someone will find a use for it, probaly a better use.
I have an easy answer for all of you lamers. Throw away your television. Pick the damned thing up right now, carry it out to the curb, and drop it hard enough to shatter the tube.
If everyone did that, at least 25% of the gloom-and-doom articles here on slashdot would immediately become irrelevant.
Slashdot is jumping the shark. I'm just driving the boat.
If you love your PVR, the cable industry is not your friend.
Heh... that just gave me a whole new reason to consider buying a PVR. Previously, I just thought they were just interesting; now they're cool.
Please mod this post only if you think others should/n't read this. I have enough ego^H^H^Hkarma. Thanks!
"Cable Companies Despise PVRs"... oh really. My cable co. (Shaw Cable in Canada) is prepping a rollout of PVR/digital cable/VoD devices. I believe they're the Motorola DCTxxxx boxes.
Finally, I have a PVR option that doesn't involve cross-border purchasing of a device that won't even have listings for my local channels. And hopefully I'll get to rent it monthly... which, for me, means I can dump it later for better technology.
Yet Another Broken Business Model?
Hey... wait a second. We used to get TV for *nothing*. Yep, just pulled it right out of thin air. They always told us this worked because the advertisers paid for the commercials we saw. You know, "Plop-plop Fizz-fizz, oh what a relief it is" and so on and so forth.
Then, these guys come along and show stuff without commercials through a cable, but only in wierd places where you can't get TV out of the air. Then, people start to realize that paying for TV to avoid the commercials and get a clean picture is a good business and around 1985 or so they started selling it here in my 'burb.
Now, by the time we got the cable a lot of the channels on it were showing commercials. Icing on the cake, you know. There were 3 different "tiers" of cable and for a while we had the one with HBO and some other premium channel. We eventually decided that premium stuff wasn't worth the extra dough, so now most of the stuff we see on cable has commercials.
Not only that, some of them have annoying little flash demos during the show, right on top of the screen. Speedy was a nice guy, he understood how things work. He never would have stepped on top of the show. Speedy must be fizzing in his grave.
So, what's the point? Well, I liked the idea of paying for cable so we didn't have to get commercials. Whatever happened to that? If they want to make us pay for the cable and still watch ads, maybe we'll just start pulling TV out of the air again. There's still some TV in the air. Really, with FOX, the big 3, PBS and AM talk radio that's probably more media exposure than we really need anyway. You've got all your political perspective there, and some pretty good mind-rotting tripe for when you just don't feel like thinking.
Too bad the cable companies couldn't make the "pay more for better signal and no commercials" business model work. Must be YABBM.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
With ever increasing rates, cutting channels, and poor customer service. I knew this a while back, but what can I/you do? Nothing ever gets resuts.
we have companies complaining because their businesses are suffering due to their lack of vision. Since they can't figure out how to make money with new technology, they slam everyone else who provides the services they are perfectly capable of providing.
Why a PVR is nothing like Napster, the issue is more or less the same. The RIAA and associated companies have completely failed to provide online music at a reasonable price and distribution format, so they bitch about people using whatever they can find.
Personally I have no sympathy for any of them. The movie companies had teh same complaint when VCRs came out. They talked about how piracy was going to kill the movie industry. Then the rental market became a huge source of revenue. If they'd spend even a perecentage of what they spend on complaining and sueing, and put that towards figuring out where the markets are, and capitalizing on it, they could actually make more money. Unfortunately, they have knee-jerk reactions and commit themselves to that reaction.
Yet another example of how cable companies continnue to provide less-than-cutting-edge technology with ever increasing prices and subscription fees. Why would they ever want to replace the Zenith box from 1973 with a new PVR? They would have to change everything on the backend and replace everyone's boxes. DirecTV/DISH had it right all along - let the consumer choose their receiver. If they want the bargain RCA brand, then they get it, if they want the UltimateTV receiver, then they get it. HDTV? Get the HDTV receiver. You have dozens to choose from, TiVo/UltimateTV/HDTV/DolbyDigital/etc. made by dozens of different companies. If the cable companies would adopt this type of mentality, perhaps I wouldn't hate them so much.
Portions of large companies do nto always work in concert. It is very possible for a large conglomerate to own companies or have divisons that are on opposite sides of a technology or social issue.
...but themselves.
If you own a PVR the cable companies aren't your friend?
Until the advent of satellite TV cable companies were usually a monopoly in any given area, free to offer crappy service with grainy, fuzzy and/or snowy pictures and raise prices apparently with impunity (I'm sure there was some legislation in place, but it never seemed to help). No matter how much you hated the service, they were the only game in town if you wanted more than the local broadcasts.
Now that they are competing on merits (I'm sure they have bought and are buying legislators, too) against the likes of DirecTV, which is a completely new generation of TV, a quantum leap ahead of cable, IMO, they are complaining and whining to anyone who will listen.
Once the Feds relaxed that screw-the-consumer law regarding satellite companies not being allowed to deliver local channels (an issue for Simpsons fan like me!), there was no reason at all for me to keep cable. Satellite has broadcast-quality, even DVD quality picture, much less outage time (when cable goes out, it's often out for a day or more till they can dig up and repair the problem), in 3 years I've only seen DirecTV off for much more than hour once. In each case satellite outages was caused by a big thunderstorm, and the reception problems seldom last more than 30-60 minutes.
I know many people have issues with DirecTV and their ilk, but cable companies are like horse and buggy manufacturers in the early 1900's. They'd better adapt fast* rather than sitting around griping about PVR's (which are here to stay in one form or another DMCA be damned), or they will die out quickly and no one but they will be crying.
* Ever see "Body by Fisher" in a car? Fisher started out in the buggy business.
You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
WRONG!
The cable company has no interest in the amount of TV you watch. They only care about the advertisments.
Just wait till some crappy band steals your nic.
Betamax is the wave of the future! The entire industry is moving to Betamax!
Uh...but sir, the consumers don't like Betamax. VHS is cheaper, longer playing, and more readily available.
Push content is the wave of the future! The entire industry will someday be based upon Pushing content!
Uh, sir, the consumers don't like Push content. They'd rather have some control over their own bandwidth and processor time. And flashing porn ads to little Timmy didn't win you any friends.
Video On Demand is the wave of the future! The entire industry must gear ourselves for Video On Demand!
Uh, sir, the consumers don't care about Video on Demand. They'd prefer 'video whenever', and just record the programs they want with PVRs, which also allow them to fast forward and replay, which you can't do with VOD.
Fucking consumers, always ruining marketer's plans with their intelligence and common sense.
Genocide Man -- Life is funny. Death is funnier. Mass murder can be hilarious.
Cable companies encounter the same thing I sometimes encounter as a web designer...dealing with the lowest common denominator.
There are still alot of simple minded people out there that they have to continue supporting as far as how the method of delivery is concerned. I wouldn't necessarily call these people dummies, but I know that my grandmother isn't up to the challenge a TiVo might present to her. What I'm getting at is that only the largest of companies may be in a financially suitable position to develop products/programming that coinsides with the PVR. It's like having to write code to support an old browser, while not having the money or resources to make a second, more updated version of the same code. The only difference is that I don't go around saying the new browsers are the devil.
The other side of that coin is technology expansion rate. If you build something that works with the current technology now, how long will it be before that is old and you have to build/create new stuff for the new technology. I am all for new stuff, new tech, new anything. New is in, but from a business standpoint, I'd hate to be in a position where what I've spent money to develop will only apply for a short period of time before I have to spend the same, or even more money to continue to support it.
Future and unknown factors are major concerns for business. Proven models of income are what keep companies afloat.
Hades, PoD: Official Advocate
I think iControl and the DVR they offer are two different things.
iControl is video on demand.
They also have a DVR with 80 gig hd.
More info at their site.
Error: PANTS NOT FOUND. Press <F1> to continue.
After testing PVRs in 2000, Comcast found that downloading programming to a hard drive in a consumer's home via a PVR such as TiVo, which satellite leader DirecTV uses, threatens the lifeblood of TV entertainment, Roberts said.
After reading this, one might walk away thinking that that Comcast invented TV entertainment. While nothing could be further from the truth, it's precisely this kind of arrogance that will lead to the demise of companies who, rather than seeking to understand what consumers value, work to shackle them with tight controls over how, when, and for how much various shows can be viewed.
Is it any mystery that consumers will attempt to minimize the level of harrassment by commercial entities attempting to sell them the latest and greatest of everything from the latest super-steam-powered convection oven to tampons? The reason that cable owners are concerned is that they assumed that they would be able burn the candle at both ends, charging for both content and ads, ad infinitum. PVRs enter the market, and now PVR owners, who maximize their enjoyment by skipping the cruft, are being branded criminals.
What can be learned here? For starters, there is no comparison between Napster users and PVR owners. Perhaps most important, though, is that there's a real honest-to-goodness clue here with respect to consumer interests. The issue is not that people are using PVRs, but whether or not the cable industry will have the foresight to adapt their business model, rather than force feed its 'content' - replete with all of the ad-gak - to its customers.
So cable companies despise PVRs. I expect theater owners in the '40's and '50's despised television, horse tack manufacturers despised automobiles, RIAA despises MP3s, etc, etc.
They can hate it and sue manufacturers all they want. In the end it won't stop anything. It's been said a million times on Slashdot, so here's one more: spend your time developing new markets instead of hating them.
OK, so he hates PVRs.....
BUT HE OWNS ONE!
What a wacko
remember, these are the same guys who said that not watching ads is the same as stealing. most pvr's have ad skipping, or you can FF in 30 second blocks. i believe tivo has this feature.
My problem? I was perfectly gruntled, until some numbnuts came by and dissed me.
First of all, I think just about EVERYONE who owns a PVR can say that the device has INCREASED their TV viewing. Speaking for my wife and I, we watch about 3x more TV than we used to (not necessarily a good thing ;) ). Not only that, we we are able to follow a weekly series better because we can "catch up" because of the TiVo.
When in the past I would TAPE a show, I would zip ahead about 2 minutes & watch the show.. only seeing about 20 seconds worth of commercials per break because when you record at the slow speed you can't really "view" anything when you FF. W/TiVo I FF but can see the gist of the commercial. Sometimes I will go back & watch the commercial if it or the product interests me. I'm sure I'm not alone in this, several of my friends agree. SO ACTUALLY... TiVo causes me to WATCH MORE COMMERCIALS THAN I USED TO. When I used to watch LIVE TV, those were 2 minute bathroom or kitchen breaks, so I didn't watch commercials then either. If the companies got smart they would take advantage of the 2-way communication available with this technology & target their ads better!
But they won't because they are idiots & would rather I went back to my old ways of not watching any commercials at all.
AS for VOD from cable... yeah right!! They get enough of my money every month, no way I'm gonna pay per view a movie that I already rented from BlockBuster 3 months ago! The PPV is always WAY WAY behind the video release.. That's why they dont get MY money. Anyone else agree?
Or should it say wah wah wah?
My don't you go to McDonalds and get yourself a waahburger and some french cries! Maybe even a Whinekein!
Wow.
/. ID number 2066. I think that's the lowest, non-editor ID I've ever seen.
Your
You must be really cool.
PVR's makes is so the viewer plans what he's going to watch. He plugs in what shows he wants and then PVR gets em good as new. So this means that people won't be as likely to sit through a show they don't normally watch in order to watch thier favorite shows. (Remember the time slot between Seinfeld and ER?) So now they can't move bad shows next to good shows hoping the ratings will leek over. PVR's in my opinion will increase the quality of TV shows in the future.
...unless you're hawking a GM piece of garbage car. BMW films is brilliant because that type of advert appeals to the types of people who enjoy that kind of thing, i.e. film and directing.
I think the Ads are brilliant, and I had seriously considered buying a BMW, it prolly won't happen cuz I like the Audis, but anyhoo, I digress.
Even regular 30 second spots for BMW and Mercedes are not geared to get you to go out and buy a car tomorrow. Ford and GM ads certainly are ("SUNDAY, SUNDAY, SUNDAYYYYY!"), but Audi, Mercedes, BMW...those companies are selling user experience, not cars. They want you to see their car climbing switchbacks in the Alps. They want you to see their car flying over railroad tracks and speeding through the streets of San Francisco, London, Berlin, et al.
Also, it's not like those 8 minute films cost $20 million to shoot. I'd almost bet that those fancy Brittney Spears Pepsi ads, with all those elaborate sets and dozens of extras are much more complicated and expensive. A good crew could knock out one of those BMW films in two weeks...mebbe less.
And, distribution of the spot is mainly through word-of-mouth. They'd have been smart to wedge one of those in with the movie trailers, but most of the distribution is done on the Internet. Very cheap. I am pleased that they started playing the shorts, several of them at once in 30 minute blocks, on DirecTV. I enjoy watching them much more on a 32" TV than a 21" computer monitor.
The tech industry loves PVRs. They get a new product to sell to all the customers that already have a VCR.
And the trechnology industry is bigger than the cable industry. Besides, this will just meant that the cable companies will have to charge a subscription instead of advertising. The transistion will be tricky, but they'll still be able to make a profit, and many of their customers will be a lot happier.
the cable companies watch the PVR watching YOU!
receiver; Congress passed law saying so. Did good for once.
BC
Most PVRs are proprietary pieces of crap with too many DRM restrictions, subscription fees, and privacy violations. Build your own. Sooner or later PC manufacturers will catch on and start selling machines designed as media centers.. well they already are. There's going to be tons of free/open projects for PVR software and bare in mind that if you build your own, you could also use it as a DVD, mp3, DivX, and games player. You can add in a cd-r or dvd-r without having to worry about those pesky DRM restrictions on what you can record. You'll instantly become worst enemies with the RIAA, MPAA, tv networks and Microsoft (whos OS your not running). maybe you could throw in WINE or a pirate windows install for all your gaming needs too, and a network card /internet connection and you have the perfect entertainment center.
This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
The issue of whether consumers have a 'fair use' right to time-shift was already settled in the vcr days. Don't like the fact viewers can skip commercials? Too bad -- viewers are not obligated to watch commercials.
Exactly! Why DOES he own one? I come across the same paradigm in my work where we build transmitters for HDTV for broadcast television. People get all wrapped up about certain issues and then I ask them how THEY watch tv at home. The answer is invariable cable. Aside from satellites, how many people actually just suck this stuff out of the sky with a rotor antenna on their roof anymore? Not very many. And the consumer will go where the the best cost/convenience/time ratio is. VOD is cool, but it better be cheaper than Blockbuster and take less time to order than it takes to make it to the fridge and back with your soda or people won't use it.
As far as the copyright part goes, in that respect I don't see PVR's as being all that different than VCR's in terms of being a time machine. They are just more flexible time machines. I think the real problem is that 20 years ago, when VCR's were really starting to hit big, cable companies were not in the local advertising business, so they didn't mind when the broadcast channels screamed about VCR's and people fast forwarding through commercials. Now they are in that business in a huge way, and PVR's are an even more adept way for people to avoid viewing commercials.
"I went on a diet, swore off drinking and heavy eating. And in fourteen days, I had lost exactly two weeks. Joe E. Lewis
It's the ReplayTV that they hate. Take a look at its feature list, and it is pretty clear that it is designed to aid people spreading copies of programs around.
I wouldn't say that ReplayTV is trying to be the Napster of video, though. Napster did have substantial non-piracy uses, such as independent bands using it to promote their music. It's hard to even pretend that ReplayTV's video sharing features will have any significant non-infringing use.
It's $10/month, where the Tivo is $13/month, and you don't have to buy it. It doesn't have all the Tivo functionality, and at least here there are some minor technical glitches, but it's ok.
I don't know -- never thought of it.I tend to doubt it though -- the standard cable box doesn't, does it? (not yet, anyways. Sounds like it's only a matter of time ...)
Buy Dish Network of DirecTV It's the only way to go :D
There is nothing inherently safe about liberty. That's why so many people died protecting it.
I get "basic" cable (70+ channels compared to the 10/12 I get at home in Italy). That means that there are at least two things of interest going on during the times when I have time to watch TV. What usually happens is that I watch the best one and switch to the other one when there are commercials. What's the big deal?
The 8000 is not getting good reviews at all. Here are a few:
Time Warner Cable of Maine is also renting Scientific Atlanta 8000 PVR's with an 80GB hard drive. The cost per month is only $4.95. Pretty compelling for home users but it also seems some what conflicting with their InDemand and IControl initiatives.
See, that's tweny minutes, or thirty-three percent crap. Now, if you look at old episodes of, say, Star Trek (the original series), they average fifty-two to fifty-six minutes per episode. Let's say fifty-four, to make a nice average. That means that television was about ten percent crap.
Conclusion: the amount of commercial-minute per actual TV-minute is now three times what it was in the sixties.
One more time: we are watching three times as many commercials. And they dare to call it an "hour"? Pfah!
--grendel drago
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
Last night my wife and I started watching 10 hours of recordings of "Taken" from our PVR". After watching 3 straight shows, which took 4.5 hours, not 6, she mentioned that the PVR is her favorite piece of equipment ever made.
I had to agree, as the night before I watched "Full Metal Jacket" on BBC America, in live mode. The same tacky commercials every 20 minutes. Maybe if the commercials weren't so insulting to my intelligence I might watch them. But as it is, nothing I care about is advertised, and the advertisements I don't care about are so unbearable (seen the BowFlex commercial lately?) that I end up hating whatever show I am watching.
I am sure that Hollywood and the Cable companies will figure out a way to make a PVR a pain in the arse, but until then I am happy to own my PVR.
Opinions change daily as new information arrives. Stay tuned.
It was recently implemented in my area of philadelphia. it is a good idea, but it cannot compare to a PVr. comcast doesn't offer many shows. a fair amount of movies, but no simpsons. a few episodes of comedy central shiows, some A&E biographies, but why pick that you can select any show across the spectrum of channels. it is pretty nifty though considereing you dont have to buy anything new and you only have to pay for the movies.
So Cable Companies have decided once again to use their monopoly power to stifle innovation that would benefit the consumer. Big surprise. But my question is:
What can they do to stop PVRs?
As PVR software increases in functionality, anyone will be able to turn an old desktop with a new 80GB hard drive from Best Buy into a PVR. The cable companies can kill Tivo and ReplayTV but they can't stop independent PVR software like Freevo. Admittedly, there isn't software out there yet that is as good as Tivo's, but especially if PVRs come under serious attack, it'll get there.
All I can figure they could do is use something like CSS to scramble the signal and prevent any digital recording. But, we've seen how well scrambling works, so a new DeCSS will just come along and we'll be back in another DMCA debate. This time though we'd have a really sympathetic defendant. Their position would be, "My cable company killed my Tivo, so I just tried to get back the ability I had a few months ago. My VCR was legal, so my PVR should be too." It's a lot easier for Congress and the average person to understand that argument than it is to explain to them Dmitry's Elcomsoft case or what DeCSS is and why they should care...
So, can someone think of something else the Cable Companies can realistically do to stop PVRs? Isn't it another case of trying to put the toothpaste back in the tube?
BC
Like Digital Freedoms? Then donate to EFF before they're gone.
Well, at least in Quebec. The leader in cable TV, Videotron, recently launched a new service to it's users. It's a PVR system which lets you watch one TV show and record two other at the same time. And it's delivered over cable. That's the same company who delivers also digital TV over cable, and now they added PVR to the list of features. It's sooo good to live in Quebec right now.
That whole publicly owned airwaves stuff was only important when there were like 4 channels on the airwaves. In case you hadn't noticed, CABLE WIRES aren't publicly owned resources. They are the resources of the companies who paid to lay the cable. In such a case, there is no "civic" obligation to the public.
Mac OS X and Windows XP working side by side to fight back the night.
/me wonders what time the Lauder family's VCR reads
Television is life. Life is television. All hail the mighty transfer resistor, the TRANSISTOR! All hail the mighty Cathode Ray Tube! All hail popular culture brought to us via MTV and HBO!
People who do not watch television engage in TERRA and WILL get a visit from Baron Jon von Ashcroft, Lord of the House of DOJ.
Mac OS X and Windows XP working side by side to fight back the night.
My PVR has lots of storage.
As another user pointed out, the HOA cannot legally prevent any homeowner from putting up a dish. More specifically, a dish smaller than 1 meter in diameter.
s h. html
The FCC regulations are here:
http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/consumerfacts/consumerdi
-CausticPuppy "Of all the people I know, you're certainly one of them." -Somebody I don't know
I have a huge collection of DVD's exactly because I don't like to watch movies on someone else's timetable. Unfortunately, however, I'm starting to get so many that it's hard to keep track of them all. I'd sign up for netflix, but the thought of mailing all of those DVD's back and forth sounds like a pain. PVR's provide the perfect solution. Let me have 3 or 5 or 10 movies at any one time, and as soon I delete one from my PVR, the next one on my list gets downloaded automatically. Maybe it takes 8 or 12 hours to download, but that's still better than netflix can do. Hell, I'd even watch a commercial or two at the beginning of the feature, as long as I had to option to skip through an excessive list. Once again, we have to drag the media companies kicking and screaming into the future where they will make more money than ever. You could even set it up so each family member could have thier own listing of shows so that ad's could be targeted perfectly. I don't care how many commercials they force me to watch, I'm just not going to buy any tampons, get over it. Let me skip the commercial. If you want to throw them into my wife's shows, however, be my guest. I'd bet that's true for 80% of the commercials people watch. This technology could give advertisers direct feedback on how to get people to actually watch commercials. What could be a more powerful sales tool than that. Give me a 30 second commercial at the beginning of the show, and another 30 seconds at the end. I'll probably watch them rather than getting up to get a sandwich or take a bathroom break every 15 minutes.
There's this guy named Zach thats #44. I see him around once in a while.
If you don't understand any of my sayings, come to me in private and I shall take you in my German mouth.
"Lauder slammed his Replay box"
"He also openly called on the cable companies and Hollywood to sue the PVR companies for copyright infringement"
So, he's openly calling for industry to sue, but he owns a PVR himself? That's pretty funny.
"A terrorist is someone who has a bomb but doesn't have an air force." -William Blum
PVR's will definitely cause a decrease in ad watching overall. This is mainly because there are too many ads for the viewer to sit through.
The result should be that ad costs are revisited. I'm sure that there are shows that people tend to watch in person such as live events and news shows. Commercials during these events should cost more and could potentially be more frequent.
Two other factors should also be weighed:
1. There is a point at which commercals are useful to the viewer (e.g. new items on the market, sales at food locations, upcoming shows, etc.)
2. There is a number of commercials per hour that would be non-intrusive enough that viwers would find it unnecessary to skip them. Charge more per commercial and reduce the # of commercials.
Advertisers will pay. They will have no choice.
The other option is legislation. It's easier and insures that current business practices stay practical. That's what I think they will do.
Surprise!
FYI: The monthly DirecTivo subscription price has beeen lowered to ~$4.95. Free if you subscribe to Total Choice Premier.
Doesn't work that way for a stand-alone unit, though.
I've had one for about two months now, and it's great. There are a few nits to pick in the user interface, and I've come across a couple bugs in the software, but overall, it works very well.
It doesn't have MacroVision, so you can record shows to tape for archive.
Best part about it is you can go ahead and get one (ask for the self-install option or they will charge $35 to send a tech out to hook up the box - oooh - three wires, did they have to go to special training for that?), and if you don't like it after a month or two, send it back, and you're only out the monthly fee. Try that with TiVo or ReplayTV.
Sad to say it, but ReplayTV and TiVo are going to get murdered by these things. TiVo will become synonymous with "BetaMax" - a superior product killed by bigger market forces.
" Cable is a even murkier battleground for the media wars in that you have a mix of broadcasters (given a grant of the public airwaves by the FCC with the agreement that they will serve the public good) and pure cable-only channels."
All the usual suspects (NBC/ABC/CBS/FOX) are normally carried from the local broadcaster on the local cable system. So, there are, broadcasters, that show ads, that are carried on the cable that you pay for.
Granted, that was a secondary issue, I guess I assumed too much when I figured that someone reading this was aware of the upheavel going on across society as a whole.
Napster was as much as anything a symptom that the music industry's 20 year old technology and even older business model . Was obsolete. If PVRs become the Napster of the television world, then this means much the same. The cable companies have to see what it is that customers actually want, and then give it to them.
Satellite companies seem to have no trouble with this concept. BSkyB in the UK is offering a combined Set Top Box / PVR, and charges an extra 10 pounds ($15) a month for customers who want this. DirecTV seems to offer something similar . Given that in the digital world cable and satellite are offering very similar things - essentially a box in your living room capable of decoding MPEG-2 signals, that also contains a CPU, some memory and maybe a hard disk, I cannot see why cable cannot also offer this, if it is what customers want.
As far as the cable companies are concerned, here we have an entrenched former monopoly that wants laws to be passed to protect an obsolete business model rather than attempting to find a new business model that works.
If the cable companies could only provide REAL video on demand, I'd drop my current DirecTV+Tivo solution. I mean, give me access to any episode of any of my favorite shows at any time I want. Okay, ANY episode is pushing it - make that any episode of the current season and at least half of the previous season.
Anyhow, my point is - I'd be perfectly willing to pay $1/month per show for this kind of service... If basic cable was $30/month and each "VOD" show was $1/month, I could afford access to around 40 shows for what I'm currently paying!
I'm sure there are technology reasons why this isn't already happening... In the meantime, my Tivo allows me to watch the last episode or two of my favorite shows at any time I want. I don't have to worry about being home and sitting in front of the TV at a particular time. I love it. I don't think I could watch TV without it! Cable VOD solutions will have to at LEAST match what my Tivo currently does for me before they have a chance in the market, IMHO.
-Zak
Because from what I've heard is next year is the year of the PVR on the cable box. Companies like ncube ( http://www.ncube.com ) are exploding in growth because cable companies all over the country are demanding their services. Ncube delivers content through the wire to your set top box, which will also have PVR capability.
Perhaps the poster went to some rogue conference where all the meanie cable operators hang out? by 2004 most people will have PVR capability whether they get a cable set top box, or a satellite box, for no extra charges. The competition between sat and cable is really goes to fire up next year.
fslg503-985-8686503-985-8686503-985-8686503-985-8
Well, my cable company doesn't offer any of this. Not even broadband internet access. This combined with the limited range of DSL means that most people in my mostly rural area have NO broad band whatsoever.
Northland Cable SUCKS. Crap selection, crap technology, crap innovation, and still $50 per month!
Surprise, yourself.
...phil
"For a list of the ways which technology has failed to improve our quality of life, press 3."
Possibly the reason he owns one, is because he wants to "know his enemy"?
"Politicians are interested in people. Not that this is always a virtue. Fleas are interested in dogs." P.J. O'Rourke
Of course Cable companies hate Tivo. They allow people to avoid those poorly placed ads that cable companies like to replace the national ads with. They even go as far as to replace actual content (like TVland retromercials, or the gavelsons) occasionally even cutting out the first few seconds of a program.
Thank you for reminding me why I should put a dish on top of my new house.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Allow the open source coders to build code for a multi-tuner Linux PVR, put it on a cheap PC with a card that can pull in a digital cable signal (perhaps a DOCSIS card?) and a good video card with TV out. Then you don't have to worry about TiVo (etc) going out of business. And, doesn't the FCC say that we can plug any box we want to into the cable demarc?
cabg x3 is a life changing event...
I think a hearty fuck you to the cable industry is a good way to burn karma. I always thought they were the most unresponsive of companies, even worse than phone companies.
And now they give me another reason to hate them. I'll never buy anything from a cable company as long as I live. Satellite is far better in every way.
If tits were wings it'd be flying around.
It never ceases to amaze me. The human capacity for hipocrisy and our inability to learn from history.
The same people who scream about keeping big government out of our business scream that we need new laws and regulations to protect our business. But that is mere political hipocrisy and we all suffer from that (I've caught myself holding the odd inconsistent belief).
No, in this case we're talking about price. Sure, there are a handful of people who are totally opposed to any form intellectual property. I think that is a small minority, however.
Basically the 'net has moved the cost of media distribution to nearly zero and the time delay nearly to zero. People want to get music they want and they want it now. CDs cost so much that people are willing to steal the music because the convenience is worth the very small risk that they will be caught and prosecuted. But people would rather be honest, or at least legal, if they could. I think most people would be willing to pay a small subscription or a small fee to download music, so long as they had their traditional "fair use" rights once they have it. To support this argument, I would point at the VCR. The industry fought it tooth and nail. They lost. My old man was an "early adopter." We had a VHS VCR the size of a small electric piano with big clunking mechanical keys and only SP and LP speeds. We used to trade movies taped off of HBO with friends because you couldn't yet buy or rent movies. When you could first buy movies, they were priced too high. By the early 1980's, however, the price had dropped to a reasonable level and I never traded another video. I bought 'em all. Hollywood began to make money on movies both at the initial release and again on video. They forget that they didn't used to get that double payoff. But the VCR was going to DESTROY THE WORLD!
Sure, there is video piracy. But most of us, I think, became legal consumers when the price got reasonable.
They claim digital technology by allowing perfect copies will DESTROY THE WORLD, but all it really means is that people will be slightly more willing to copy things if the price is too high. And it is. I guarantee you that the marginal cost of a DVD is a tiny fraction of the marginal cost of VHS videocassette, and yet DVDs cost more and VHS tapes are selling at half the price they used to. What does that tell you about the profitability of DVDs? It is huge.
The efforts to suppress copying and peer-to-peer and even PVRs is the effort to maintain a price structure that technology has undermined. They want to replace economics with regulation. Protectionism, but not nation to nation: instead producer to consumer.
They don't want to let the market set the price.
How anti-capitalist can you get?
The "theft" of their product would drop to a trivial level if they let market forces set the price. Instead, they build elaborate Rube Goldberg technologies (like the supressed synch copy protection on many DVDs and videotapes -- what's the brand name of that again? -- and CSS, which isn't even copy protection. It is a way to artificially create and maintain separate price markets and to prevent free trade between those markets) to keep the price where they think it needs to be.
The music industry is hurting badly. They say it is the fault of those people copying songs. It is not. It is the fault of the companies that have failed to realize that the market has changed fundamentally. Instead of adapting, they are attempting to get government to put the genie back in the bottle. Not even this liberal Democrat can love this extension of government (and you thought we loved every intrusive government program!) authority.
Consumers need to take action. Consider supporting the Electronic Frontier Foundation with your tax deductible contribution. No, I don't work for them, but I sent them what I could.
We need advocates for consumer rights in digital media. Without it, the common culture will become real estate, and culture will be nothing but a commodity. If I may also suggest, take a look at Stanford Law Professor Lawrence Lessig's Web Site and read his books, Code and Other Laws of Cyberspace and The Future of Ideas, The Fate of the Commons in a Connected World.
There is a cultural, political, and economic battle going on in our republic, and the media side has vast resources. The consumer side could use some. That means you.
Because in his ideal future, everything, every program, every show time and episode, is pay-per-view.
Everyone will start to cheer when you put on your sailin' shoes.
If people use technologies, like the PVR, to skip commercials, isn't that the networks problem? I can see why ABC, NBC, CBS, etc. would care but why does Comcast?
The cable companies are not your friend PERIOD. As a matter of fact, most large companies despite the fact that they dump millions and millions into trying to convince you otherwise, dont give a flying fsck about you or anyone.
Just another reason to dump that attbi broadband internet.
So, he doesn't like them. He thinks they are for copyright violation. He thinks cable companies should sue the PVR manufacturers. So, why does he own one and why is he pissed that his wife can't operate it.
Hey Gary, can she set the clock on your old VCR?
Of course she can't. She's paid by the hour, and it isn't in her job description.
Ed Wedig
Graphic design services
docbrown.net
Comment removed based on user account deletion
..then antenna and C-band satellite are your friends. Free television programming.. Imagine that! -- not having to pay for TV that was already paid for by advertisements! And if you want specialty channels, you can pay about $0.25-0.50/ea. per month and pick and choose the handful that you'd actually watch. Not that there's anything that great anyways.. and all the popular shows are on the free networks anyways.
It's absolutely amazing that so many people have suckered into paying exorbitant prices for cable and directTV.
Folks, go stick a Yagi up on your roof and stop paying these profiteering hollywood assholes who take away our rights at every opportunity.
"My basic thesis is that PVRs + Satellite will eat cable's lunch"
Wow. Wouldn't be the first time a superior product or service came along and wiped an inferior competitor out. Maybe the cable companies should stop being so concerned with taking legal recourse and start focusing on developing a better service!
I may not agree with their perception of PVRs and I may not even cooperate with them, but I do recognize that they have the right to take the offensive against things of this nature and that your argument is false.
not the lowest now ;)
There's at least one guy in 3xx I remember seeing somewhat regularly.
The guy's not joking - unless there's some UK-centric thing that I just don't get.
See subject. :)
Lauder obviously has a vested interest in pushing video on demand. He claims it costs less, and he's right! The actual cost per seat is lower. Unfortunately, the cable company will charge you a fucking mint for that service, for the forseeable future. Also, once something is broadcast to us once, we have the right to tape it and store it on whatever medium we like, and VOD just adds another step there - recording to PC or PVR and making a DivX, VCD or SVCD (or DVD, these days, I guess) out of it. Plus, the recording phase has to be done in realtime; any interruptions and you lose part of the stream.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
How about we get rid of ads and just let me buy the programs I want? Oh yeah -- the television economy would bottom out if people actually paid for the programming they wanted to watch, 'cause there isn't very much of it. $0.01 per commercial skipped? Bullshit. How about I just pay $1 for each program I want to watch, without any commercials in it.
If Lauder is at all sincere in suggesting that advertisers provide actual worthwhile information (which is, ultimately, the only way to save the advertiser sponsorship model), then he wouldn't even bring up the silly notion of extracting payment for not watching the ads.
The proposed charge does not seem very reasonable to me, either practically (a half-dozen ads per break, four times an hour, for four hours a day comes to $28.80/month -- a fairly hefty addition to the typical cable bill) or philosophically (if a given advertisment is so ineffective that people choose to bypass it, then the loss should be borne by the people who created and presented it).
/. If the government wants us to respect the law, it should set a better example.
I suggested that consumers pay 1 cent per commercial skipped (which is about the same as what advertisers pay). That would be equivalent to $10/thousand commercials skipped. I think that's reasonable.
So they want me to pay $50+ a month for service that blows, and then they want me to pay them for the ability to not be annoyed by those damn commercials? That's like spammers saying that we should pay them $0.01 for every message that they could have sent us and don't. That's completely screwed up.
I payed for the service and the ability to recieve these signals. I'm going to do whatever the hell I want to with them once I get them, including skipping commercials. And if they don't like it, then I'll just go out and buy a dish and send them their box back after I let my wonderful electromagnet have some fun with the circutry.
I'm sorry, I just don't see how skipping a commercial with a PVR is any different than muting the TV and grabbing a soda from the other room.
I don't own a PVR. Some of the features (such as live-pause) make it really attractive, but I've put it off for various reasons.
One of which is that I own a VCR. I rarely watch commercials - instead I record the shows I want to see and then (often immediately after the show is finished taping) rewind and watch it commercial-free. Even in the case when I'm watching live TV, I don't watch commercials - I do what every other red-blooded male in the world does and reach for the remote.
It's not theft anymore than tossing bulk mail straight into the recycling bin is. They're sending me something that I don't want and didn't ask to receive.
I don't know in America, but here in Brazil the biggest cable companies, or better, the virtual nationwide monopoly cable company (NET Serviços, owned by Rupert-Murdoch-meets-Citizen-Kane-meets-Big-Broth
And after all they don't know why people are in droves for DSL. Cluelessness for cluelessness, cable companies beat telcos hands down.
Cesar Cardoso can be found at cesar at zyakannazio dot eti dot br (or at least I believe so)
My basic thesis is that PVRs + Satellite will eat cable's lunch
Which is a good thing. Cable sucks.
It is the case that I suggested that if a Supreme Court case was brought on the legality of each feature of PVRs were brought, some would lose.
But even if you win, I still would not buy your lousy cable service, at any price. If it was offered to me for free, I would refuse to allow the cable to enter my premises. In fact, I already have free basic cable from my homeowner's association. I cut the cable short and shoved the remainder into the wall and installed a cover plate. Then I painted over it. Good riddance.
I also suggested an alternative business model to make everybody happy to avoid the all-or-nothing result that has been occurring in the RIAA vs. Napster wars.
I suggested that consumers pay 1 cent per commercial skipped (which is about the same as what advertisers pay).
I think that business model sucks green canal water. Why would I ever agree to something like that? What's in it for me that I don't already have in spades with the current service I get from DirecTV w/ TiVo? Abso-fraggin-lutely NOTHING. So take a walk, loser.
That would be equivalent to $10/thousand commercials skipped. I think that's reasonable.
I think you're a greedy pig, and your wife is not only too stupid to operate a PVR, she's a crack hoe - ask Taco, he's done her in return for a rock. So go fuck yourself and the lame-ass business plan you rode in on.
I also predicted that this dynamic combined with competition between satellite and cable would ultimately make both services free.
Cable is not free at any price. Forget it. I don't want free satellite. I want a quality picture and no bullshit. DirecTV delivers that, so I'll stick with them. I also get my broadband from them, so eat it! Bwahahaha!
Edith Keeler Must Die
I have seen the ad you are talking about. That alone makes me want to get a dish, since I don't want to be associated with people like that simply because I happen to use cable.
If the cable companies can provide all the features that a PVR offers from the headend as Mr. Lauder says, I say bring it on!! We'll see if AT&T can offer the service for $10 a month. If they can, I'll buy it. If not, I say shut up and deal.
After paying $40+ a month for TV, I think I should be able to do pretty much whatever I want with the video after it reaches my home as long as I'm not profiting from it.
I am sort of shocked that the cable companies feel this way. Personally, I never had cable until I got a Tivo. I grew up without a TV, and even though I would sometimes want to watch ST:TNG or something on SciFi, I just never developed the ability of being in front of the TV at a certain time. I just rented DVDs.
As soon as Tivo came out, I got one and subscribed to cable that that I could get all the channels. Now I watch more TV than ever before (about 6 hours / week). With Tivo + basic cable, my TV bill comes to about $40, which seems like a pretty good deal.
Much is made of the ability to skip commercials. Personally I think the Tivo strikes a good balance here. You can't skip them outright, but you can view the video stream at three levels of fast forward. Only the first two are useful for bypassing commercials. At this speed, you can still see what the commercial is, so I get the "exposure". If I am interested in the product advertised, I will often stop and watch the commercial. Personally I really like the "pay for skipping commercials" feature - it gives the user choice, and is fair.
The cable industry should embrace PVRs instead of vilifying them. The killer application for the cable companies would be to provide Tivo Napster themselves, instead of worrying about users doing it. They just need to record about a week's worth of content on their severs. Then they could use the existing VOD technology for delivery. Often I will talk to someone at work who will tell me about a great program from the night before. Unfortunately, this is too late. I would happily pay the cable company some small fee to have that thing appear on my Tivo. Rates could be something like $0.25/hour for a channel I subscribe to, and $1.50/hour for premium channels.
If you love your PVR, the cable industry is not your friend.
If you have cable, the cable industry is not your friend. Duh.
If you're an amature radio operator (ham), you may have additional ability to pre-empt such regulations, BTW, since they recognize how important ham radio operators have been in providing emergency communications.
Head-end based PVR/VOD will work if *everything* is reliably available, and by reliably, I mean past the introduction period when they're accepting losses to suck people in. I don't ever see that being cost effective, but you never know...
I'd be more than happy to pay 1 penny for skipped ads...if they never appeared in the first place so I got to watch the show uninterrupted. Except I can see it now: this popular show would have had 1000 ads but this other show would only have had 100. Still, if the price wasn't prohibitive, I'd pay to subscribe to say Farscape.
No, cable companies don't hate PVRs. To my knowledge every major MSO (Multiple System Operator) is in some stage of developing a PVR service. Why haven't they launched such a service yet?
1. Lack of consumer demand. In the US, more people still use out-houses than PVRs. That's not to say it's not a cool technology -- 'cause it is -- but it's not yet mainstream. Won't be for a while. Note that TiVo and SONICblue aren't yet raking in the dough.
2. High cost. While Series 1 TiVos can be purchased for $150, most decent PVRs are still ~$300, with a ~$10/month subscription fee. Sure, you can build your own PC-based PVR and get TitanTV.com for free, but this solution doesn't appeal to the majority of consumers.
3. Unattractive business model. Consumers are conditioned to lease their digital set-top box (STB) from their cable company, which means the MSO must purchase the STB from the manufacturer and keep the capital cost of equipment on its books. Most MSOs are limiting captial expenditures as they move toward free cash flow, so new services that require heavy capital spending are scrutinized. Especially new services with limited (albeit growing) appeal (see #1 above).
Product development is simple:
1. What do customers want?
2. How much will they pay?
3. Can we make money charging that?
For a more detailed look at Product Development 101, see this post.
Changing gears for a moment, let's talk about rising cable rates. <soapbox> Why do MSOs raise their rates? Mostly because of increased programming costs. You see, MSOs have to pay the content providers for some of the most popular channels. It's been published (so I'm not giving away any secrets here) that ESPN raises the price it charges MSOs by ~20% per year, and won't let MSOs move the channel(s) onto a premium tier. Gotta stay in basic, as that's accessible to all viewers.
Ah, so we blame ESPN! Not so fast. *Their* costs are rising, too. The money to pay for Alex Rodriguez's $252 million contract isn't coming from ticket and beer sales. It's TV money. The Yankees can afford the highest payroll in baseball in part because of their TV contract. Follow the money: players' salaries skyrocket, which dramatically increase broadcast rights fees, so video networks (such as ESPN) charge more for their content, and cable companies are forced to increase their rates. Salaries, broadcast rights, and carriage fees increase much more than the typical 5% cable rate boost. </soapbox>
Thanks for reading. Bring on the flames!
-Ray
"I suggested that consumers pay 1 cent per commercial skipped (which is about the same as what advertisers pay). That would be equivalent to $10/thousand commercials skipped. I think that's reasonable. I also suggested that targeted advertising could be a win-win for all involved by delivering ads in areas that are of greater interest to the viewer so that there would be less incentive to skip and fewer ads would have to be delivered due to the higher prices paid for the targeted group. I also predicted that this dynamic combined with competition between satellite and cable would ultimately make both services free."
This is brilliant. Not only can the companies pay the cable companies to air commercials, they get even more money when people skip them. So If you want want me to air a commercial, pay me, if you want to skip a commercial, pay me. Where do the companies get their refund? What about pay-per watched commercial advertising, such as google's adwords select?
"I suggested that consumers pay 1 cent per commercial skipped (which is about the same as what advertisers pay). That would be equivalent to $10/thousand commercials skipped. I think that's reasonable."
I would suggest you bend over and take it up the ass with your 1 cent per commercial skipped. I think that's reasonable.
My sig is taking a break.
Why should I pay a tax to skip ads? This guy is nuts. What's more scary, he's successful. People like him are what's wrong with this country. Who's to say when to pay? Would every household be taxed based on a percentage because how can they truly know? Advertising is a risk. You risk that the commercial is going to be viable. You risk that those who like the commercial are even going to buy the product. Most importantly, you risk that it will even be seen. Are you going to tax me for getting up and taking a crap during the commercial? Will you take into consideration the average time it takes for the average person to crap and tax him/her by the number of commercials they would miss? Again, this guy is nuts. I lament that he shares breathing space with my people. >
In summary, this is nothing like, say, a manufacturer of horse whips asking for government protection from the advent of cars; cars made horses irrelevant while the cable companies and the production industry is still very essential.
Please explain to me what is "essential" about cable television. Lots of people in America live without cable television, and if millions of people decided to cancel their cable service en masse, it would be news, but it wouldn't be cause for the government to step in and pass a law requiring citizens to pay for cable.
People could live without cable if they wanted. Some would switch to satellite. Some would subscribe to Netflix or just rent from the local video store. Others would find a local sports bar to watch the games they wanted to see. Some would read more books or listen to more music or use their computers instead. Cable television is essential to people employed by cable companies and some networks, but we could live without it, so I would say Heinlein's argument stands.
Now, broadband, on the other hand... =^)
Visit me on the web at Permanent4.com.
This is just another of the continuing business model problems in the commercial world today. If your business model relies on forcing consumers to do something they don't want to do and aren't compelled to do, you're going to have problems. You may succeed in ramming it down their throats (credit card arbitration agreements, for example), but to be blunt, persuading your customers that you're a collection of greedy, controlling asses is not a good business plan in the long term. It leaves a big opening for someone to come along, fill the need, NOT be a greedy, controlling ass, and eat your lunch.
Now if you're being honest and you genuinely believe you offer a superior service, fine. Speeches about it are not necessary. Let the best product win in the marketplace.
This might be a troll post but it's how I feel y'all. If you're still paying a cable or satellite bill, then you're a sucker. If you're posting here complaining about how cable companies are "taking your rights away" or whatever, then it goes double for you. Stop sucking the big media tit! Give up arguing with them - they majority shareholders in the govt now - and walk away. My cable bill is quite low - $0, none of my "rights are being infringed", my mind isn't cluttered w/ advertising jingles or insecurity because I don't own an SUV, and trust me there is no shortage of better things thaning fork over your precious time and money to these greedy bastards. You have the right and the ability (I hope) to turn off the TV, cancel your subscription, and do something else.
watch commercials during shows I've recorded for my own user?!?!?!
Yeah, right. That's the day I rip out my cable and record off the ol' rabbit ears...
No wonder the Cable Guy wants PVR functionality to be at the head end; so they can monitor usage...
Just Say No.
I live in apartment off campus and if I want broaband and cable I have to go through Comcast. I hate them there customer service reps are rude. They are terriably expenisve and their broaband service is nice but it is nothing special. I also think that customers don't want that stupid digital cable box they make you have. I liked it much better when you just had a line flowing into your house and what you did with it after that was you business.
Don't these people realize that if I don't have my pvr i _CANT_ watch the tv shows that are on while I'm at work. If i can't watch the shows, then i _CANT_ see the commericals !!!
Waitress: Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
Wife: I don't want ANY spam!
Wife: Could you do the egg bacon spam and sausage without the spam then?
Waitress: Shut up! (Vikings stop) Bloody Vikings! You can't have egg bacon spam and sausage without the spam.
I don't wan't ANY ads! I didn't sign any contract obligating me to watch ads. I don't care if they're targeted, this doesn't make me more likely to want to watch them.
An advertiser pays on the basis of the statistical number of eyeballs likely to view a given commercial, thus, Super Bowl commercials are insanely expensive, late night TV spots are much cheaper. However, if any given consumer, or even a small minority of consumers (which is the current base of PVR users) skips the commercials, the statistics are not affected, due to the large sample size. How is this use of PVR's so much worse than what the average consumer does, i.e., hit the channel up/down button as soon as an ad comes on during your program? This behavior is much more likely to reduce the number of individuals seeing a given ad.
In any event, it boils down to Heinlein's idea of not going to the courts to defend an outdated business model. Why should the cable company, who is admittedly scared of the satellite/PVR model, get to dictate who may and and may not time shift, record on whatever device they choose, and skip commercials, any more than the satellite company may dictate the same thing. The advertisers pay on a statistical, not individual basis. If those statistics change, due to technology, then the pricing models should follow it in a supply & demand economy.
I think most people are going to have a hard time swallowing the fact that they somehow are "stealing content" if they don't watch or pay for commecials. I pay almost $50 a month for basic cable and HBO and my basic cable package really isn't very good. Someone mentioned that advertising helps subsidize the cost of newpapers but unlike TV, I don't HAVE to look at the ads in a newspaper to get to the next page. I can see where this may be an issue is large cities or areas where you can pick up several channels via antenna, but if you are going to start telling me that I'M "stealing content", you'd better give me a darn good explanation of what my $50 is paying for.
So its all about the comercials?
How about strip all comercials from the channels. Sounds great so far, but here's the catch. When you hit pause on the PVR, that is the invite for the cable company to run comercials.
As a consumer, what do you care if there is a comercial running on the tv, while you are out of the room. With this system, comercials will still play while we are out of the room, the only difference being that we now get to decide when we go out of the room.
The cable companies can now get away with showing comercials when premium channels are paused...
The point is that Comcast sells advertising locally in each of its markets. It makes billions in advertising. In agrement to carry all of the channels they broadcast they get a certain amount of spots to broadcast whatever they want on every channel. If they start providing PVRs they are in effect cannibalizing their own profit revenue stream. Their scared silly!
"I suggested that consumers pay 1 cent per commercial skipped (which is about the same as what advertisers pay)."
Why should I, the consumer, have to pay for not watching some commerical??? If I'm required to pay for not watching commericals during my faviorate TV show I'll just stop watching all together. Prices for cable service are expensive enough already, but I can't believe someone would suggest that customers pay for skipping commericals. They should be paying us to watch them, espically those f**king commericals before movies at the theatres.
i have had a PVR for the last 15 years, it can be programmed to record all the shows i watch, i can skip commercials if i want, and i can even trade shows that other friends have recorded, yet there doesn't seem to be much controversy over it...at least at this time...it goes by another 3 letter acronym, i think you have heard of it, it is called the VCR.
If you watch Nick or TNN or Discovery or one of many other cahnnels that embed advertising directly into the programming, then you know just what I am referring to here.
Nick even embeds ads for other programs directly into the content; Rugrats, for example, will have an ad for another show SUPERIMPOSED over the cartoon!
TNN leaves a banner at the bottom of the screen for advertisements.
Discovery uses "pop ups" at the bottom of the screen for programming.
The "commercial" that we all know and love, will soon be quite dead.
Wow what a great idea. Think of how many other things we can extend that to: - $20 a year if you don't buy a Mercedes. - $0.02 per bag of potato chips not purchased. - $0.10 per McDonald's Happy Meal not purchased. - $50 to Bill Gates if you refuse to buy the next version of Windows - $5 for each time you refuse to vote Republican What I want to know is how much will it cost to wait for the commercial to get up from my chair and go take a dump?
pay a penny if i skip an ad? do i have to pay a penny if i close my eyes? walk out of the room? change channels?
abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz
If they could ever pull their heads out of their butts and use PVRs to their advantage and offer a VOD PVR service rather than a standard cable package. I can't say I prefer cable over dish or vice versa, but if they (or dish people) would do something where you tell them what you want and then my PVR records it, then they have a product that I'd be salivating over. I'd call either one TV bloatware. If I get the handful of shows I care about, I have to get the other programming gold like the home shopping channels, former superstations, and the underwater basket weaving world finals on ESPN 53. I have simple tastes and I wouldn't mind having a simple product that gives me the few I want and the option of picking a few others to give test drives. Make it a good price and my money will talk. I'll even take a pick your own package setup where I just take the few channels that my shows air on. That would be even more simple.
Heroscape, it's like legos combined with anachronistic wargames.
We are out here.
obTopic: I have been looking to purchase a PVR for some time. While I am not a big fan of the monthly fee (to be paid on top of a cable or satellite bill), it does not seem too bad of a deal.
The big problem I have, though, is that I do not watch enough telelvision to really make it worth it. If I were to lose my [provided free] cable now I do not think I would miss it that much. I have a huge collection of movies that I am constantly adding to. I would rather take the money for a PVR and simply use that to buy/rent/see more movies.
So I suppose the tech guy in me likes the idea of a PVR, but the budget-minded side of me wonders why...
- (c) 2018 Hank Zimmerman
Sarcasm on. Moderate accordingly.
Gary Lauder writes: PVR functionality should be provisioned from the headend for the following reasons (which ultimately will benefit consumers):
* Disk noise wakes my wife
That is your wife's problem, not the industry's. I've been in the same room as a Tivo, and never noticed any significant noise. If I were to say that cable TV prices keep me awake, is that grounds to have my bill reduced?
* Replay box hot enough to fry an egg -- Is that a feature?
I've never seen a Replay box... but I have seen a little thing called a TV. It gets pretty warm too!
* Disk size limitations mean obsolescence, esp. with HDTV
HDTV is making existing VCRs and TVs obsolete. Should we get rid of the whole "TV" concept?
My basic thesis is that PVRs + Satellite will eat cable's lunch, and since it's unambiguous that cable needs to get the copyright clearances to offer programming from the head-end, they should start now.
Translation: I'm a venture capitalist who didn't get into the PVR business when I could. Since PVRs are better than cable, let's ban them so I can make money! [All IMHO, of course.]
I suggested that consumers pay 1 cent per commercial skipped (which is about the same as what advertisers pay). That would be equivalent to $10/thousand commercials skipped.
That's a reasonable solution -- assuming that the TV, cable or satellite feeds, and other equipment are free. If I'm paying for cable, I should be able to handle the incoming data in any way I see fit, as long as I stay within Fair Use of copyright.
Sarcasm off.
I suggested that consumers pay 1 cent per commercial skipped (which is about the same as what advertisers pay). That would be equivalent to $10/thousand commercials skipped. I think that's reasonable.
Huh ? But I don't watch commercials in general. I stand up go to the toilet/kitchen, Clean the dishes/whatever.. I HATE commercials. and I most often change channels.
Pay me 10cents for each commercial I watch and we might have something to talk about ..
echo '[q]sa[ln0=aln80~Psnlbx]16isb572CCB9AE9DB03273snlbxq' |dc
Unfortunately, there's no way to determine whether you're going to get a TCD1 model or a TCD2 model (with USB2.0 instead of 1.1). The only guaranteed way to get a TCD2 model right now appears to be buying an 80-hour unit. There don't appear to be any 60-hour TCD2 units.
fencepost
just a little off
What is with this term PVR?
It stands for "Personal Video Recorder" right?
How is a VCR, a "Video Cassette Recorder" any less personal?
I like the term "DVR", "Digital Video Recorder" because thats what it is. It's a video recorder that records in digital. A VCR doesn't do that.
OK, so I don't have a PVR. I have a VCR. It uses tape. I often fast-forward through commercials. Since I'm cruising along at, say, twice the speed, do I pay only half a cent per commercial skipped?
Gary Lauder's arguments are remarkably full of false assumptions.
... that PVRs + Satellite will eat cable's lunch" should be an argument for cable to add PVRs. At least, that's the obvious conclusion that I see.
Many of his points are a comparison of VOD vs. PVR. The main problem here is that these are two different things. A PVR will let you control everything you watch, while I'm sure VOD will only be used for movies and events. Arguing that you should do one instead of the other is silly, since the consumer would do best to have both.
Lauder comments on PVR noise. My friend recently got a new Dish 508 PVR. When he turned it on, I heard absolutely nothing. Zero. The hard drive was running, and it was dead silent. Credit new hard drive technology.
The 508 also has a fan, but I never heard it running (after it was on for a good while). Just because one box (the Replay he mentions) isn't well-designed for heat output, doesn't mean they all are like that. Again, this is an issue fixed by technology.
Lauder also says "Disk size limitations mean obsolescence, esp. with HDTV". Is there ANY device that's going to handle the transition to HDTV gracefully? The size issue is not really an issue if the disk is "big enough" to begin with. I think that at 40-80GB, we're at "big enough" for most people. In any case, the obsolescence argument applies to VOD servers just as well.
Lauder's only arguments that have any bite are:
- Moving parts break more often
- Box complexity means more crashes & customer support costs
The crashing issue is more a reflection on poor software engineering (and probably that due to poor scheduling) than anything else, however. PVR software could be made bulletproof, in time.
Customer support is always going to be an issue wherever you add new features. So this argument will apply to ANY new features added, not just PVR.
Lauder's "basic thesis
His comment that "if a Supreme Court case was brought on the legality of each feature of PVRs were brought, some would lose" is just a swipe. There's very little that a PVR does that a VCR doesn't let you do already. The only difference is the spontaneity and the time you have to wait before you can watch. The only questionable features are those added by the newest Replay box (trading programs over the net), which are not core PVR features. If lobbyists make politicians make VCRs illegal, then perhaps there may be a case.
Lauder's final comment regarded commercials. It should be pointed out that even with a PVR, you cannot skip commercials while watching live TV. Doing so requires planning head to watch delayed TV. If you're going to sit down and flip channels, you're still limited to watching live TV.
Lauder thinks consumers should pay for commercials skipped. If that makes sense, then what about paying consumers for commercials watched repeatedly? That makes sense too, right?
So he thinks a cent a commercial is a good deal? I'm not so sure - a quick back of the envelope calculation will show why:
;)
An hour long show has around 15 minutes of commercials. At an average of 30 seconds, they are showing about 30 per hour. Watch an hour of tv a day, and you are 'seeing' 30x30=900 ads per month.
Now I would be happy to pay $10/month to watch 2 movies and 3 shows a week (in fact I do, with ads), but imagine having a wife and 3 kids (aged 15, 11 and 7) - the TV might be on 10 or more hours a day. Such a family has to cough up $100/month. And that 15-year-old will know how to remove the ads, believe me. So will the 7-year-old.
But there is an alternative; perhaps Gary Lauder has already figured it out. I can see his point of the cable company being the one to invest in the infrastructure; I have no problems with that. But if the functionality is there for cable to provide the functionality of a PVR, then it is also there to provide the commercials the viewers want to see!
First of all his payment scheme needs a limit. Perhaps different plans, but lets say that you pay $10/month you get the aforementioned hour a day ad-free. Allow the viewer(s) to specify if they prefer frequent short breaks (American-style, I believe), or a few long breaks (in Holland there is often a 6 minute break from 7-13 minutes in the show!!). Have the commercials be lower volume (perhaps 80% instead of 150% as at present - I reach for the mute button to save my ears). And most importantly - let the user 'kill' any ad.
I'd prefer for the killing to be permanent for that particular ad - I'm either not interested or disgusted sufficiently that I will not want to by that product (more info in next para - do not read if squeamish), and also they can obviously profile to show worthwhile ads.
In Holland the situation used to be (long ago) that there were commercials before and after shows, but not during (also, you paid a license fee, although less than for the BBC - they do this via tax now tho). Now though, they are long (15-18 mins per hour) and LOUD. But their content is by far the most obnoxious thing. (You have been warned, leave if squeamish). My gf (American) and I (British) do not want to see: kids pissing in the supermarket [by a rival store which has toilets]; some woman checking her crack in a mirror to see if her sanitary napkins are working; a toddler with what looks like shit all over its face [presumably some kind of tasty chocolote - fortunatly I switch off so quickly I don't even know what brand to avoid]; nor are we interested in breast-feeding.
Finally, once the commercials are on demand, that means that instead of ads having to be targeted to an audience of millions, it can be local. For example, I want to hear if there is a new local computer store, or even what offers are on at one of the three local supermarkets. Anyway, ramble off
You must have just started paying attention...
go outside and enjoy the nice, warm sunshine?
Only the folks who use Carrot Top for collect calls are too stupid to PAY FOR THEIR OWN FUCKING PHONE CALL (you hear me out there? you carrot top enjoying morons! ...not you AC).
Yeah, I'm not a big fan of the pillar of rock commercials either. They're usually for trucks and jeeps...
I like the new Z commercials. Usually some good trance-like music spliced over the top of a slideshow of black and white stills of the car doing various things...like sitting there...looking way cool...
> My position that I expressed in my speech and
> that was inaccurately portrayed: PVR functionality
> should be provisioned from the headend for the
> following reasons (which ultimately will benefit
> consumers):
Yeah, ok... and when you're not in the major metropolitan area that has actual competition (more than one cable company in a market - aka Boston areas) like, oh, say Maine or West Nowheresville, KS or Hotashell, NV you have to wait for the cable company to get around to supplying you with this ability. Just like cable modems, people won't wait.
Sure, if you want to provision VOD or PVR from the headend, get off your lazy-cable-monopoly-butt and DO IT! PROVE US WRONG! Make it work and prove us nay-sayers wrong. Don't just say 'this is bad - you should do it our way instead' - then not have your way available outside a lab or a tiny test market area.
Face it cable companies, you're behind the times on this one and you've lost the edge you could have had.
Wow,, that's a rant, but what do you expect from someone who owns a domain like Adelphia Sucks.com
-- There is no sig line, only Zuul.
Shouldn't it be the advertisers that are complaining? When they start complaining, then the networks that get money from the advertisers may want to do something, but the cable companies? They are getting paid by the consumer one way or the other! They have no reason what-so-ever to care.
"We shall party like the Greeks of old! You know the ones I mean." - HedonismBot
And I agree. From the majority of comments in this forum one would have to assume we believe that the $40 - $100/mo we pay our cable companies (in my case including fast, efficient broadband access) is enough to pay for all the content we view -- advertisers be damned. Not so. The comment referenced above is the first really intelligent thing I've heard out of the cable industry (or someone close to it) since this whole debate started. The cable industry depends on ads; because of this, it's understandable that they freak out when users begin using technologies that obviate ads.
So what's the answer here? Wean the cable giants from their dependance on advertising revenue. 1 cent per ad skipped is completely reasonable. Figure four ads per commercial break, five breaks per hour, twenty ads per hour long show. Would you pay twenty cents to see Jennifer Garner's uninterrupted well-dressed self in Alias for an hour? I sure as hell would. :)__
We can rant and rave all we want but this guy is offering solutions. Do him the favor of listening to him and writing to the cable companies to voice your support for common-sense middle-ground approaches.
-j
Then stop buying new music, and you can stop worrying about RIAA machinations.
Then kill the computer in your life, and you can stop worrying about DMCA machinations.
Then you will have to figure out what to do with your life, since there'd be nothing on /. anymore.
Slashdot: Failed Car Analogies. Amateur Lawyering. Anecdote Battles.
What other industries would it be that have to produce better content to ensure they get customers' money? The Music industry? Software? (MS)
If your theory is different from practice, then your theory is wrong.
TimerWarnerAustin cable here in Austin TX is selling PVRs for a very small fee to go with their digital cable.
<grub> Reading
No one wins? That's hillarious! Cyberspace is strewn with the dead bodies of RIAA advocates as a prelude to the total (an I'll use a euphemism here) restructuring of the music business. They (the government) would pretty much have to shut down the internet to prevent filesharing and that ain't gonna happen. The economy works this way: you get the consumer hooked on a technology and then you make money from this addiction. Unfortunately, by trying to hoard their precious copyrights, the entertainment industry left the door open for Napster, Kazaa, Morpheus, etc... RIAA = Rest In Absolute Antiquity
That would mean that I could pay about 20 cents to watch a 30 min show and see it in 20 min. I would save my sanity from the really stupid ads and save time. That is worth 20 cents.
The only problem, is that pay per view costs much more than 20 cents and I am already paying a monthly fee for box. Can I just cut some useless channels instead?
>I suggested that consumers pay 1 cent per commercial skipped (which is about the same as what advertisers pay). That would be equivalent to $10/thousand commercials skipped. I think that's reasonable.
As if you need any more fucking money.
I posted that comment before the /. editors made the Gary Lauder update so my apologies to him and his wife.
suggested that consumers pay 1 cent per commercial skipped (which is about the same as what advertisers pay). That would be equivalent to $10/thousand commercials skipped
Ummm, how about we're already paying for our cable service (or often, lack thereof). This is one of the reasons I haven't subscribed to cable in the last few years. Ads are increasing, and yet so are my prices... and they keep cutting the good sci-fi shows (although from what I hear of farscape, I would have been into that and it's making a comeback).
This type of mentality is the same as those who call you "thief" for blocking popups, except much worse because we're already paying for the cable subscription.
Okay, I don't read the paper everyday either. Should I pay a cent for every newspaper ad I didn't see???? Why not make everyone pay a penny for every billboard in the nation they DON'T happen to drive by? Puh-LEEZE!!!! Crock!!!
/joeyo
2^5
Don't they realize that the TIVO is not a Peer to Peer unit like the Replay TV? I own a first gen TIVO, so unless they changed the TIVO2 units to allow you to share with other TIVO2 users, why would they care, since its close for most users, unless they decode the video files?
I know with ReplayTV people can "share" their files and this is where they get into a huff over, but shesh, the Tivo can't share without major mods, right?
Relive the BBS Past - One Byte at a Time! www.ssabbs.com
I am currently trialing Time Warner's VOD service out here in Cincinnati (they've had it for a year now but I didn't jump until it a free trial was available). Although I like the time-shifting features the latency is absolutely awful. Pressing pause/play/ff/rew takes whole seconds to be processed and the set of shows available is not exactly complete (about 20% of the premium channel offerings). Add to that the fact that the stupid thing is entirely unavailable frequently and you can color me unimpressed.
Basically, the cable companies are going to have to give the service away for free before I give it serious thought when PVRs fit my preferences more anyway.
Holy shit. Considering that all of these boxes will eventually "converge" to be one machine, what happens when some asshole makes a virus that makes it look like you're skipping tons of commercials?
Then what, you get a bill for 50000 dollars at the end of the month and have to pay up. This is not likely.
What is more likely is a company that makes commercials and then plants a virus on the computer that sends back "They skipped my commercial" messages to the central server and then makes a huge number of people pay a little tiny bit each month to this company.
Or what about a company that makes a fake commercial for a shitty product that nobody wants and then rakes in the money when people skip past their shitty commercial.
Or what about a company that just shows a blank screen for 30 seconds and then rakes in the money when people skip past it out of boredom?
I realize that the advertising rates will be eating into their profits. but if we get into a world where the cost per view to an advertiser is ever below the cost to a consumer to skip that commercial, expect bullshit, shenanigans and buffoonery to prevail.
Hell, I should patent this business method of making shitty or nonexistent commercials then making my money by getting those retarded ass 1 cent skip fees dorks like the guy here want people to pay for skipping commercials.
Best. Comment. Ever. Enjoy!
You have it half right: They have the right (free speech) to make their commercial as uninteresting as they want, but you also have the right to not watch the commercial.
Who did what now?
In my experience, Comcast (north jersey) VOD is severely lacking. I tried VOD when it arrived in my area and it did not work well at all. Both times I tried watching a movie and the thing kept losing signal. A blank screen comes up and say "please standby". This happened about every 5 minutes. After about 20 minutes a new message "please try again later" and the movie stops. "No biggie" i thought as i restart the movie, "I'll just FF through the bit I already saw" Unfortunately the FF functions more like that of a VCR than a DVD, you must hold the button and scan through it, no chapter stops! It took me 3 hours to watch a 1.25 hour movie (Jurassic Park). Of course they bitched about crediting my $5 for this.
Beauty is truly in the eye of the tiger
Fat Reducing Set Top Box.
Just like a normal Set Top Box except it's on slant so the fat you use to fry your egg runs off.
throw away your computers, and that would make the other 75% irrelevant!
You know, it's probably not the smartest thing to brag about that. It would not be hard to get your address and shut off your cable. ( if I worked for the cable company )
Let me just apologize for my language now, I'm sorry.
FUCK THAT! If i wanted to watch a goddamned commercial I'd wouldn't be skipping them. I pay my cable company $60 for cable service a month. I don't want to spend one god damned more cent for anything. Fuck your commercials, I'm just intersted in the shows that I'm paying for.
I get really angered when I read fat greedy fucktard businessmen telling me what to do with my god damned eyes.
00101010
www.bmwfilms.com, of course. My favorites are Guy Ritchie's and Ang Lee's under the "Season 1" link. Good times.
for a POS car! IF these asshats even gave a crap about the consumer, they wouldn't be bitching about how we hate the ads they try and ram down our throat.
I refuse to pay for cable. I don't steal it, I just don't watch TV anymore. I am a consumer, and I have chosen to abandon this medium until they get a f*cking clue and stop with all the boilerplate ads and lousy programming.
Since basically all VOD is is a bunch of fiberchannel storage arrays containing mpeg-encoded movies, the FF complaint is just a limitation of the system. It's not a DVD; there are no built-in chapters. Still, you should have been able to FF at 16x or something close, like a DVD. I could imagine maybe in a freak of statistics 20 people on the same network as you deciding to try watching Jurassic Park at the same time, and the server just not keeping up.
It's up to the cable companies to insure their infrastructure can handle peak loads. Unfortunately they've been slow to invest in VOD hardware, because it's expensive and not many people know about VOD yet. The problem is they're ruining he experience for the early-adopters they're trying to hook.
If you think VOD would be worth your $$ if done properly, let Comcast know, and maybe they'll improve their service.
Karma: Bored. (Thinking about resurrecting the "Anyone else is an imposter" joke.)
The one thing that has prevented me from buying a Tivo so far has been the fact that while I have Direct TV I get my local stations from a local cable company since I do not live in a large enough market to warrant Direct TV to provide the local channels.
AFAIK, this would allow me to either program my local channels or my Direct TV channels but not both.
Has anyone figured out a solution to this problem. The only thing I can think of is ditching the Direct TV and going all cable. I hate to do that though because I actually like my Direct TV (except when it's very cloudy or stormy)
-UU
I apologize to Gary's wife! She knows how to use their ReplayTV box. At Broadband Plus, Gary played a voicemail from his wife asking how to reboot the ReplayTV after it froze up.
To clarify, Gary is a big fan of PVRs but thinks they should be in the cable-head not in the consumer's house. However, he also thinks we should pay for skipping commercials. That's like buying a copy of Time magazine and having to pay extra for not reading the ads.
In general, Gary is a bright guy and a hilarious presenter. He raised some good points about PVRs quality and ease of use.
In response to other comments, some people have pointed out that AT&T and other cable companies offer PVRs. The cable companies are responding to market pressure from DirecTV and Dish to offer PVR functionality integrated in to the Set Top Box. The cable companies would have preferred that PVR functionality only existing in the network/cable head-end rather than in the consumer's house. Again, this is for two reasons.
1. PVRs allow satellite TV companies to offer additional services like VOD. Cable companies hate satellite companies. Satellite companies can not offer network/head-end based PVR functionally. Therefore, the cable companies hate set-top box PVRs.
2. PVRs may eventually cut in to ad revenue and VOD revenue.
The cable companies are also annoyed that they have to pay a license fee to the content owners to offer network PVR functionality in the cable head-end when the satellite companies don't have to pay a license fee to content owners to put PVR functionality in the set top box.
This debate will mostly like end up in court and we have to make sure that the consumer wins. What does it mean for the consumer to win? The consumer must be able to continue to use their PVR for legitimate time-shifting purposes.
Let your cable companies know that you like your PVR and you want to keep using it. This must not be another Napster-like case where the industry sues the consumer electronics company for providing a product the customer wants.
In their battle against satellite companies, cable companies may end up hurting their customers. We can't let this happen.
As it turns out, while timesharing always seems cheaper from the economic analysis, people tend to pick the PC anyway, under their control.
However, in this case, having the disk at the home makes sense. See my latest essay on this, or what I call Poor Man's Video on Demand
Has it been over a year since you last donated to the Electronic Frontier Foundation
Hogan's Heroes was not about a nazi concentration camp. It was about a German POW camp.
A NCC is meant to round up, degrade and exterminate undesirables and probably could not be made into a funny show.
A GPOWC obstensibly would want the prisoners to survive so they could be traded back for German POWs and/or to assure relatively humane treatment for German POWs. The civilized behavior expected made it easier to make into a funny situation comedy.
kind of a quibble but not everybody has actually seen HH and might get the wrong idea if that sloppy analogy is allowed to stand.
...It's not a DVD... That's just it. It's not a DVD, but costs as much as one, except you get only 24 hrs to watch the thing. For myself, the trip to Hollywood Video is worth it, same price, better quality, more features and 5 nights to watch the thing. Oh and most importantly the DVD usually works without interuption.
Personally, I have had nothing but horrible reception on analog and digital (including frequent drops in the cable modem) since I moved to this place, so I suspect my particular problem to be a line issue. However, I have complained to Comcast MANY times about this and they have sent techs out to investigate each time. Every time they do the same thing: change ground block, new connectors. I'm done letting Comcast know what is worth my money. The bastards refused to give me a service credit for a downed line which left me without service for 2 weeks. They will hopefully get the hint when I switch to Dish. I just need to sneak onto he roof when the landlord isn't around.
Beauty is truly in the eye of the tiger
(Hey, please don't mod me down -- I can't filter through all 400+ posts to see if this is redundent. Sorry in advance)
So my question is simple. How much would the cable companies need to charge to go completly commercialless, still make a reasonable profit and pay the carrying fees to TV networks? How much is one person willing to pay a month?
Okay, it's a stupid question. I already pay $55 a month -- which is $20 more than I ever wanted to. But I live half way between 4 cities and am not close enough to any of them to get good reception. Plus I need my geek TV shows. :-)
You are now reading my sig. Do you enjoy it?
"He also openly called on the cable companies and Hollywood to sue the PVR companies for copyright infringement."
What grounds does he want to sue them?
The Supreme Court has already ruled that "time-shifting" in VCR is legal in Sony Corp. v. Universal Studios. The Court said that to challenge the non-commerical use of the copyrighted work required proof that the particular use was harmful or would adversely affect the potential market for the copyrighted work. I don't see PVR being more harmful than a VCR with a fast-forward button.
Disclamer: I have no idea if this is done on purpose, and it is probably not.
One way that cable companies could sabotage PVRs is by having less reliable set top boxes. The cable box that is hooked up to my TIVO does not always change the channel when you try to change the channel. Maybe 15-20% of the time, it simply fails and stays on the same channel it was already on.
Now for the normal user, they may not care because they can just punch the number in again, but when it does not work for TIVO, TIVO does not realize that and does not tape the correct show. The end result is that if I am not paying attention, or not around, then there is a decent chance that TIVO will miss the show I wanted it to record. I have not called the cable company, because I imagine that if I said that occasionaly, I have to punch in the channel twice, they would tell me to just deal with it.
I know that the problem lies with the cable box and not TIVO, because I have had the same experience when changing the channel by hand with the cable remote.
As I said earlier, I doubt that the cable companies do this specifically to thwart PVRs, but I believe they would be willing to do it if they thought of it. (hopefully no cable company C*Os are reading this).
Computers don't make mistakes. What they do, they do on purpose.
... Time Warner loves them. They're selling like the proverbial hotcake here. Comcast's probably just mad cause they missed the boat.
They told it like it was some great new consumer news.
Then they let slip that this is because of the 1996 Telecommunications reform act.
D'oh!
(I guess the technology finally caught up to where the compnaies felt it was actually feasable / profitable to actually comply with the law. That's life in these modern times. I hate you all.)
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
He says whatever he thinks the audience wants to hear...
There are two big reasons I see why cable (and other) video providers hate PVRs:
1) Gives users the option to skip advertisments
2) Provides no continuing revenue for cable companies.
These guys are all looking for ways to line their pockets as deeply as possible, and I don't blame them.
But this is the same fight that was had when VCRs were introduced. The difference is that the methods to copy and share VHS tapes was not nearly as powerful & simple as the internet is today. However, most PVRs do not natively offer the ability to extract files / recorded shows... so in a way, they are more secure then VHS was...
What is he REALLY saying?
First off - a PVR is more complicated than Video on Demand. It requires an initial investment from the consumer, extra components to wear out, it does (believe it or not) make noise, etc.
These are valid items.
Furthermore, I believe that he is correct, offering VOD with a 1 cent cost to fast forward through commericals would be bought by consumers.
However, what he is proposing is a Mainframe approach to Television (please excuse the metaphors). Consumers get dumb terms to request what data they want and pay to receive that data.
PVR are much more akin to PC's. They can request data from the mainframe or they can process it on their own.
And believe it or not - mainframes are more cost efficent than PC's.
But the catch is that people STILL want PC's. They want the control. It doesn't matter if Mainframes can do it better or not. Or cheaper or not. They want that control and ARE WILLING TO PAY FOR IT.
Companies that do NOT listen to consumers are SOON OUT OF BUSINESS.
Conclusion: Don't buy cable stock.
I long for the day that this happens. Cable companies can suck it -- they lie, overcharge for service, send out incompetent "installers" who invariably screw things up, put unjustified maximum download caps on their cable modems (which share bandwidth with neighbors), and engage in disinformation and scare tactics against the only competition (satellites) they've had ever.
Comcast pays people just to give them addresses and/or phone numbers of people they see using satellite dishes. Comcast pays them *more* if they actually get a "conversion." I'm disappointed nobody "turned me in" ... I'd have loved to get into another argument with AT&T about why their digital cable offering sucks (not all channels are digital, must pay multiple fees for multiple receivers, etc.; meanwhile my DirecTiVo can snarf programming off two satellite channels simultaneously and I don't pay an extra fee for the second "tuner").
AT&T (and I imagine all of them now, as Cox Communications even blasts satellite on their "on-hold" musak) badmouths satellite at every opportunity. For a few months before we figured out how to get around not having a south-facing balcony, we were stuck with AT&T Digital Cable. *Every* commercial break (this was before we were blessed with our lovely TiVo :) they had a commercial spewing FUD about satellite versus cable. It was very Microsoftian.
These cable companies are old, outdated, and hopefully won't be around much longer.
I wouldn't *mind* paying a bit more for television programming if it didn't suck like it does now. But if these people actually succeed in turning television entirely into a pay-per-view, no time-shifting, no recording and playing back programs without buying it again type of medium, my television will only be used for video games. We don't watch much these days anyway; it's either movies or games or TiVo'd stuff, and there's plenty of other things to do if we decide to just "switch off."
I don't care if your purpose is to shove your ads into my brain. I won't have it, and if you manage to kill my ability to stop advertisements from bombarding me, I'll simply switch it off, and stop watching entirely. And I'll continue to adamantly oppose advertising in all its forms.
Read my stuff.
I remember this same 'hurting companies' issue when VCRs came out, same with cassette tapes, CD Burners, MP3s, DVD Burners, and now to a lesser extent PVR's.
It all comes down to: "There is a potiential to lose money here, lets stop it."
oh, and if you're stupid enough to fry an egg on your PVR, you shouldn't be making ANY kind of claims about it.
Find Escorts, Strippers, Massage Parlours, Swingers
If it suddenly required multiple attempts to change the channel, TiVo could just send out a software update so the PVR selects channel n three times in a row when it's about to record a program on channel n, to make absolutely sure that the cable box is showing the proper channel.
For reasons unknown to me, my TiVo (Series 1) currently seems to input the channel both before it starts recording and again after the recording stops.
~Philly
I don't know about the rest of you, but I watch TV sometimes FOR the commercials. Honestly, how many of you geeks out there watch the Superbowl and actually give a fsck about the outcome of the game? I don't. I watch it for the COMMERCIALS. Those few minutes are the very best 30/60-second spots on the airwaves.
People watch commercials. Wether or not they CAN skip over them, we watch them. Hell, sometimes I forget I'm watching a pre-recorded show on my TiVo and don't skip. Can I charge them for that time I wasted watching their commercials TWICE during the same show?
The CEO's need to STOP trying to figure out how they can squeeze every last fucking penny out of the consumer.
GIR: I'm going to sing the Doom song now. Doom doom doom doom doom doom de-doom doom doom doom doom doom doom...
Gary Lauder suggests to pay $0.01 per commercial skipped. Ok, how is that determined? And for that matter, how is it any different than say changing the channel to some other channel for 2-5 minutes while the commercials play out (like you can do today with simple broadcast TV)? You're still skipping the commercials, so I guess changing the channel is eventually going to either be taxed our outlawed? :-\
- Hsoi
people are using the term "cable company" in a very ambiguous way. Comcast, TimeWarner and the like are "MSO"s, the companies that provide the pipes and stuff which are very different than cable networks, who sell the commercials and program the schedules and beg the MSOs for carriage and ask them to put them on their analog tier instead of digital tier etc. Discussions on this site have been referring to both types of cable companies interchangably and they are quite seperate. And while Its the networks that really rely on ad revenue, yet its an MSO [Comcast] hats speaking out against PVRs. hmm I worked for a cable network, and I know for a fact that everyone was a big fan of Tivos around the office. I once went and fixed the CEO's Tivo at her house and she loved it. Im sure the bigwigs were wary of em in some degree when they were pondering what the future may hold, but since so few people have them so far, I dont think they really thought about em from a business standpoint as strategy yet. Carriage by MSOs was a MUCH MUCH bigger concern. And Ive had a DirectTivo for 2 years, and Its never crashed on me. and nor do i notice its sound or heat. And no way Im paying per commercial I skip. sheesh.
Good point. I wish TIVO did have that functionality already built in.
As for it changing the channel on stopping recording, I've noticed that also. I believe it is because the recording is going to a new stream, (from a saved recording, to the live buffer).
I think in their code it automatically changes the channel whenver a new stream starts. In many cases it is probably unecessary, but it does not really hurt anything, and is one less special case they have to deal with.
Computers don't make mistakes. What they do, they do on purpose.
WTF is a PVR anyway?? l33t bastids.
The cable companies value revenue more than bandwidth. I don't think they will ever complain that there are too many people willing to pay $3 to watch Lilo and Stitch all at the same time. The alternative is that the money goes to TiVo or DirectTV or for DVD rental or purchase, or one guy records it on his PVR and shares it with 2,000 of his closest friends over a P2P network. A Video-On-Demand service is the best way to get that money to the cable companies instead.
Don't moderate flamebait as Troll. Know the difference or you will be Meta-moderated.
Instead of making me skip commercials at all, how about letting me pay $10 a month to never see another damn commercial again?
Yeah, how about it... uninterrupted programming, no more Snuggle bear, and never EVER having to fast forward past smug news anchors saying things like, "The world may be coming to an end. We'll tell you for sure at 11."
So where was it again that my monthly cable bill goes?
Bring it to the Supreme Court so we can get on with the civil disobedience part.
And I challenge you to find a way to charge me $0.01 per commercial skipped that won't piss every current VCR and computer owner off in the whole continent.
The strongest attack came from Gary Lauder, a venture capitalist who has funded many cable related companies.
So I guess it's safe to say that "PVRs are highly-Lauded"?
Dear World,
Although the convenience of no tape time-shifting is VERY appealing, I don't own a TIVO or REPLAYTV box presently, because of two primary reasons. The initial and monthly costs are really not worth it to me presently. The second reason is that it can not on its own record channels that have to be decoded(Premium Channels and Digital Cable). Translation...My cable box would have to be tuned to the decoded channel which would keep me from watching something else. Now, my VCR can't do this either.
Even though one of my three VCRs auto-skips commercials recorded on it, I could probably care less about this feature. I have been fast-forwarding through commercials for years just like most everyone else and don't mind doing this going forward.
So, from a financial standpoint, what's the difference between me doing this manually and a revamped VCR(D/PVR)doing it semi-automatically? Nothing. The commercials are still not being watched and the formulas used to calculate ad pricing most certainly takes this in to account. So, where's the loss of money going to be?
What I want is no tape time-shifting. I want to be able to watch any program broadcasted on the channels I subscribe to when it fits into my schedule. Of course, this would occur after the original broadcast. For the cable/satelite company to do this, the service would be TV-On-Demand. I would be content with being able to record them just as I do now. I don't care if the recordings are stored locally in my cable box or remotely.
Movies-On-Demand is not this. Time Warner now has this cabability for some premium channels. I can watch HBO on demand for $6.95/month above the normal premium channel fee. Remember I want this for every channel. So, Premium-Channel-On-Demand is not quite it either.
Besides, for a cable/satelite company to offer what I want via a remote-served, on-demand method would have to store every program on every channel regardless of whether or not anyone ever actually watches it. Is it really practical to invest in so much storage(ex. 2hr at 5.7GB(DVD) x 12 x 300 channels x 7 days = 143,640GB.
Just add the DVR-functionality to today's digital cable boxes, charge me a monthly fee like Tivo or ReplayTV does, and be done with it. Time Warner Cable has been testing this in several markets, and I have been told by their customer service rep that it will be in my market soon. I have also read that Charter is rolling it out as well.
So, how does Cable hate PVRs exactly? They hate that Tivo and ReplayTV are getting the money for the service.
Later,
-Slashdot Junky
.
.
.
.
Landfill Mining Co.
Managing the (Un)natural Resources of Tomorrow
Oh yeah, DVR-equipped cable boxes would only go out to those paying for the service.
.
Landfill Mining Co.
Managing the (Un)natural Resources of Tomorrow
I hate to be treated like just another sales op. I'm human, not a sale, nor a target, nor willing to have loud mouthed a** holes push junk on me.
Great example: Today Blue Cross/Blue Shield sent an ad for their product to my mother-in-law. She's been dead almost 10 years.
Not only do "targeted" adverts turn me off, they are factually incorrect much of the time.
Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.
What a superb idea. I would subscribe to this in an instant. I'd be delighted to pay 30c - 50c/day to the TV companies to show me uninterrupted programming.
Yes, we don't want the poor advertisers to lose money. Hey tell you what, I sat through 18 minutes, thats right, EIGHTEEEN minutes worth of commercials the other night before I got to watch the movie I PAID for at the cinema. Hows about you stop bombardingme with Silicon Spears and her pepsi commercials and I will CONSIDER paying your stupid ass fee.
So if I get up and go to the bathroom during commercial break how is this ANY different than skipping commercials?
Anyone care to take bets on wether or not they would charge you for skipping the same commercial more than once (say on subsequent viewings)?
Or how is this any different from using a VCR to record a show and fast-forward through the commercials?
Once again it all boils back down to corporations wanting to govern what YOU do, what you watch, what you can do with it, how you can keep it. Once you let them slip their greasy little paws in the door they will gain more and more control. I am really getting so sick and damned tired of the way things are going. Between TIA, and the shitty government trying to screw us, and corporations trying like hell to screw us any way they can, slowly ebbing away at our privacy, freedom and rights....I love this country, the REAL country, what it stands for, and the ideals it USED to hold so dear. Now it's just becoming a bigger and bigger conglomeration of greedy bastards who could give a damn less about anyone but them and their accountant. Unfortunately it is going to take some form of hostile action to stop companies, and larger, our government from proceeding down this path. It keeps bubbling up, but as yet the majority of americans seem content to be hearded like so much cattle right to the slaughterhouse.
I guess it was nice while it lasted.
"The saddest words of mice and men, are not those which were, but should have been."
I would definitely pay one cent to skip a commercial. That would be awesome functionality.. 90% of commercials don't apply to me (tampons, home appliances, new cars, the list goes on). The other 10% very rarely show me things I haven't seen a million times before.
For one dollar, I could probably skip an entire month's worth of commercials. Where do I sign?
"I'll say it again for the logic-impaired." -- Larry Wall.
because now in America, TV watches YOU. Who else can see a future where Everyone owns a TV that watches back...?
It is only a matter of time until AOL/TW sues itself.
Ok, sum it up like this:
VOD - Video on Demand. This is where PVR is eventually headed. I've got broadband and digital cable through my Cable company and I almost got phone service as well. Imagine having a PVR that was a member of the cable companies network. You could download movies and other services like the original VOD ideas a few years ago and archive it on your PVR for leasurely viewing. Then archive it futher to a DVD-R or DVD-RW ala the new Panasonic PVR like time shifter. Now one up this a few notches. Give the DVD to your friends or better yet file transfer it over the Internet. This scares the hell out of the video/TV industry and rightly so. This means a large change for them just like the music industry!
I own a TiVO and it's the greatest single gadget I have ever owned! A few months after the my roomate moved out he bought a TiVO because he used mine all the time. People love it once they've tried it there is no going back.
VCR's changed the world, sure a lot of people copied a lot of movies but distribution was limited. Same would hold true for PVR to DVD-R, it's not practical to distribute mass quantities. But add a broadband network into the mix and it quickly gets out of hand. Millions of copies!
The entertainment industries have no choice but adapt or die off! They are choosing to fight because they are in denial of what is coming.
Pay per view if priced right may just work. But it most likely would not be an answer. What if you want to watch the news, etc? I think TiVO's got the right idea. Track what people watch and sell it to advertisers. Target people properly and I am not talking about Amazon! or 'My TiVO thinks I am gay'!
Right now TiVO downloads things like Movie Previews, Advertisements, etc. I watch some of these items that interest me. It is not required, it is delivered and you are notified it's there but it in no way annoys you like waiting for a stupid commercial. (I don't hate all commercials just the ones that don't apply to me personally).
How about delivering these standalone ads to the people who really want them? SPAM gets a return hit of less than 1/10th of 1% and I am sure that Junk mailers that get tossed have similar lousy response. What if it could be raised to 2% or let's get crazy, 10%! Then that would be a great return on investment!
The problem with the so called smart delivery systems is that it doesn't have enough information. People hate the privacy issues as well. So here's what you do. You setup the users profile on the TiVO. The user can customize the profile so it has the proper information. The profile is read by TiVO's network and an annonymous database entry is created. Ads are sent to the TiVO that might appeal to the owner of the profile. The ads do not interfere with your viewing pleasure but some form of indicator is present to let them know it's there, perhaps on the program Guide. You select and view the ads you like and vote thumbs up or down.
Tivo is selling not only annonyous viewing logs of what shows people are watching but also sending you ads and information like those cool BMW mini-movies.
This is the future of television. Why should I watch hours of mindless junk about floor cleaner, personal hygine, etc. When all I care about are tools and tech toys! Kinda like why I read slashdot in the first place. It's focused viewing, I don't have to hunt around for.
The marketing drones and big money big broadcast big dorks need to take their collective thumbs out of their ass and start thinking about how to apply this technology and not strangle it to death in the process. If they force them underground it will signal their eventual demise.
Judging from a Napster user who now has gone almost completely Indie. I refuse to buy popular music any more. I've discovered true talent and artistry. I won't be fooled when TV is transformed as well.
So what he had a couple of PVRs that had annoying features such as running hot or being loud. That does not mean they all are or have to be that way. That does not mean the concept of a PVR is bad. It's a bit like saying personal computers are bad because Dell sold you one lemon. I have two ReplayTVs. They both run cool and quite. I have one in my bedroom. I'm a light sleeper and it does not bother me at all. I have a Tivo that is very loud though but that did not keep me from buying the ReplayTVs. I've had 3 digital cable boxes. They all run hot, much hotter than any of my PVRs. Does that mean digital calble is a bad service? In fact two of my digital cable boxes had to be replaced due to heat realated problems. These are the same boxes that will be used to deliver the services he describes. I guess because the hardware that's in my living room now has problems the services he wants to sell are no good. Come on the heat and noise issues are irrelevant. The PVRs compete with a potential source of revenue for the cable companies. The heat and noise issues have no relavance to who is controlling the time shifting.
What the heck is a VPR
In Soviet Russia, the TVs watch you!
Not only does a cable exec read slashdot.. he also posts a response to the editors when he is flamed? Is slashdot really appealing to cable execs or is he simply keeping tabs on the enemy? I wonder what his user name is?
My UID is prime and so is this number: 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0.
Gimme a break already. This is too funny. Cable companies are busy trying to scare the PVR companies because they're afraid people will record and (with Replay) share TV shows? But here's the best thing of all - they've expressed interest in having PVR technology embedded inside cable boxes and so one of the top suppliers of cable boxes has now designed a line of such devices. So if TiVo behaves, then they get more business from Motorola. But if they misbehave, then the cable ops dump Motorola and find someone else to play their stooge. Once PVR technology is standard in set top cable/satellite boxes, this thread will be moot particularly when the video signal will be encrypted all the way up to the tube/plasma/LCD.
Time Warner of Syracuse (and a few other cities I imagine) offer the following DVR. This DVR costs $6.95 per month for the box (same as a digital cable box-- which this replaces) and another $9.99 for the service. Compare that to the monthly cost of TiVo, and you can see why this makes alot of sense. The DVR:
Automatically record your favorite shows
Pause live TV and do your own instant replays
Watch one show while recording another
Record two shows at the same time
No expensive equipment to buy
Parental controls
Includes Picture in Picture screen so you can view two shows at the same time, swapping between the main screen and the smaller one.
Professional installation and 24/7 service
Retail rate is $9.95 per month! Sign up today and take advantage of our special introductory rate of $6.95! Limited time offer -- so call today!
The TW DVR gives about 40 hours of record time, and most of the same functionality as TiVO, integrated right into their schedules.. it remains to be seen if the Time Warner will slap us with labels and liberally as TiVo.
Charter Communications has struck a deal with Diego/Moxi to launch the Moxi Media Center which includes a PVR that can record HDTV.
Here is the press release.
Bwhahaa ... Yea, right. Whatever. I'll be happy to stop watching TV, thanks.
Wait... I have a novel idea. How about you let us pay for the shows we want to watch instead... all without commercials. I will pay $2.50 a month to watch 4 episodes of Firefly, and another $2.50 for Enterprise. Umm... I might think about shelling out a few bones for a few Fox Sunday shows. Lets see... what else would I shell out dollars for? Umm... nothing. Yea... definitely nothing. Why? Because it sucks. Thanks, I'm not the lowest common denominator. I don't live in a trailer and I'm not missing most of my teeth. Nor am I an uneducated boob that thinks Rosanne is funny. I guess I'm not a good consumer, because I won't pay for the utter trash that the major networks put out.
Pay for skipping commercials? Heh... piss off. Offer me something worth paying for, and I will... but I sure as hell won't pay for skipping advertisments for junk I will never buy. I can count the number of things I've bought from TV ads on one hand in my ENTIRE LIFE. Maybe that's not quite accurate, maybe when I was a small child and easily influenced, I bought (or had things bought) for me from TV advertisments. But as an adult, I sure as hell haven't bought a damned thing, with the possible exception of my Braun Synchro as a direct result from a TV ad. Nice market penetration there... 1 commercial that was effective out of the countless ones I was forced to view before my UltimateTV (I know, I'm a heathen for supporting Microsoft... if someone wants to show me where to get a $50 Tivo for DTV, I'll gladly switch).
So, I'll keep skipping my commercials until I drive the poor, poor networks into bankruptcy from my irresponsible practices. Then, when they are a flaming heap of ashes, I'll eagerly await the new paradigm of TV type viewing that will allow me to pick and choose the QUALITY shows that are actually worth watching... and never again be forced to rake red-hot razor blades over my eyeballs for accidentally seeing a portion of "Grounded for Life" or "Just shoot me."
Cry me a river, network execs... then build a goddamned bridge and get over it. Welcome to the 21st century. Duh.
http://siliconvalley.internet.com/news/article.php /3531_979051
I'm in my first week of owning my PVR, and I'm NEVER going back to live TV.
Why should I pay for service when I'm there to use it maybe 25% of the day. Of that 25% I miss most of the shows I like. Getting the PVR corrects that imbalance and allows me to get more from the money I've already paid to the cable company. As far as I'm concerned that negates the whole $.01 per commercial skipped argument.
Why should I change my life around watching TV shows at a certain times when technology exists, that I don't have to do that anymore?
There's not a Napsterization of anything going on in this context. The average consumer is not going to pull video and distribute on the Internet. The ones who are, would have done it anyway, with or without PVR's.
In addition, the ReplayTV video sharing feature only allows you to send first generation videos to other RTV units. That's a far cry from Napsteriazation and well within the confines of reasonable use. In my eyes, no worse than giving a friend a mix tape.
All I'm seeing is a bunch of bitching about having to change business models, when they haven't even tried to come up with solution on their own. If they offered a superior service then people would go for it. If all I did at work was bitch about problems and not offer any solutions, I'd be fired. I would expect to be, I'm not being paid to sit around and stagnate.
Since the ReplayTV is hot enough to fry an egg with and his wife is too freaking stupid to use it anyway, the obvious solution is to use their ReplayTV as an auxilliary stovetop burner so the retarded trophy wife (Mrs. CEO) can cook Mr. CEO's eggs on it. With a hard drive upgrade, she might even be able to bake cornbread and make pancakes. All without missing a single commercial.
The real problem for the cable companies is not merely that people use PVRs to skip commercials. What is really needed is a restrictive new set of federal laws to abolish any sort of privacy so they can charge all residents of the U.S. for any commercial ever missed on any broadcast channel. People MUST pay for missing commericials. Even if they don't subscribe to cable. Hell, those subversives who don't even own a TV should be charged double. And parents who don't provide a television for their children to watch commercials with should lose custody to Child Service agencies and then be imprisoned. Or executed.
It's morally and spiritually Wrong to avoid watching commercials. It's un-American.
Did anyone else think Gary Lauder's argument was a little strange? He provides 11 reasons that VOD is better and more economical than a PVR, then concludes that "PVRs + Satellite wil eat cable's lunch"! If his 11 points are valid, then it should be cable + VOD that eats PVRs lunch. Now I don't believe that, for many reasons that have already been discussed -- but I would like to see the cable company try to deliver a service that was good enough for people to choose even in the face of some real competition. Naah, much easier and cheaper to use tactical lawsuits to deal with the competition.
- Dave
> VOD servers cost much less
:-)
Perhaps to the VOD provider, but to the end user? Everywhere I've lived there's one and only one cable provider. Monopoly prices won't be as competitive as Replay/TiVo/UltimateTV in competition.
Plus, with ReplayTV I can queue up a pile of movies from HBO, and bring it to the Tahoe cabin for the weekend.
> Disk noise wakes my wife
That's not an intractable problem. In a few years you'll just keep the main ReplayTV in the family room and stream the movie to ultra-quiet and cheaper player units in the other rooms.
> Replay box hot enough to fry an egg -- Is that a feature?
This matters absolutely zero to me, and probably to most people. I want my laptop cooler, not my ReplayTV.
> Disk size limitations mean obsolescence, esp. with HDTV
Disk size limitations? Disk sizes grow exponentially. By the time HDTV is provided to my apartment complex (it's a new and nice apartment but they don't see HDTV on the near horizon), I'm sure 1 Tb disks will be commonplace. 2 Tb maybe.
> Records multiple concurrent shows
TiVo's 2 tuners already do that. Rarely are there more than 2 good shows on. Rarely is there one good show on, which is why I need the ReplayTV to time shift.
> Moving parts break more often
This feels like scraping the bottom of the barrel. Besides, I'd be more worried about my cable company's VOD going down and them not caring. I only have the one provider, remember. What am I gonna do, antenna? Besides, I bought one of the first dozen ReplayTV units and never had a single problem.
There were a few more points. I'll leave those to someone else. I've got TV to watch.
-jh-
P.S. If I must pay 1c for each skipped commercial, do I then get 1c for each commercial I watch twice? It seems only fair, and with some of those Victoria Secret commercials...
Wait a minute, wait a minute. Did he really just say that he thinks consumers should pay for the commercials that they don't watch? What the hell? If his justification is that the cable companies are losing revenue, I think that the monthly bill is exorbitant enough for the money grubbing jerks. Pay for not watching commercials? What's next Micro$oft asking us to pay for using Linux instead of Window$ ?
Are you kidding? Dream on. The entire structure of entertainment and information is changing. It is rather amusing to watch the desperate attempts of old media to hang on.
So besides editors, who is lower than you that still posts?
4 commercial breaks per half hour show
* 6 commercials per break
= 24c
I would gladly pay twice that, 50c per show that did not contain commercials. Who will take me up on that offer?
It -should- be cheaper to provision PVR service from a cable headend, only through redundant storage and memoery caching frequently accessed stuff. But there are real challenges there too, both technical, legal, and business model
technical: (1) bandwidh to house is limited, so you can't really get dedicated streams at sattelite quility, assuming each house has N distinct feeds at their own seek location; (2) latency for interaction of VCR controls (pause, fastforward, rewind, skip) is dificult to deal with. This is easy with local PVRs.
legal: it's not the napster case, it's the "mymp3" case that kills centralized PVR use. MyMp3 -was- centralized PVR, for mp3 files. This is why they'd need changed licensing regimes for it to work. Home PVRs don't have this problem, because it is covered by fair use and formalized by the Betamax decision.
business model: nobody is really willing to pay extra for it. That's a common business problem for central PVRs and replay-tv/tivo/ultimate. Somehow, DirecTV is able to think $4.95/househole (not box!) is enough for the Tivo service in directivos. That's cheap enough, I can accept it.
In conclusion, except for the bandwidth problem, I think central PVR service -could- be cheaper than disks at home. But I don't think it works out that way in practice, because too many people are too greedy to pass the savings along.
I -really- like my direct tivo HDVR2. I want an archiving solution, though.
-dB
"It if was easy to do, we'd find someone cheaper than you to do it."