Slashdot Mirror


Google to Track TV Viewers More Closely

GalacticNoob writes "According to this post, Google is about to launch a TV advertising program that will let advertisers target audiences based on demographics including their household income. A satellite TV company called Echostar is working with credit-reporting company Equifax to cross-reference shows watched with income and buying habits (based on using Equifax's data)."

123 comments

  1. Sign me up for the baller commercials by deft · · Score: 5, Funny

    "Why yes Tina, that was a commercial for Ferrari, followed by a Tiffanys spot. What was that.., oh, your panties just semeed to have fallen to your shoes."

    --

    There's nothing Intelligent about Intelligent Design.
    1. Re:Sign me up for the baller commercials by McGiraf · · Score: 1

      LOL^99999 I hope you get moded funny through the roof. Right on!

  2. Absolutely absurd by Ron_Fitzgerald · · Score: 1, Insightful

    A satellite TV company called Echostar is working with credit-reporting company Equifax to cross-reference shows watched with income and buying habits (based on using Equifax's data)

    --
    ~ Ron Fitzgerald
    1. Re:Absolutely absurd by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I don't see why people view these things so harshly.

      Think about it, now it means ads will actually hit their target audience

      Would you rather see ads about things you have no care for, nor afford?

      I, for one, welcome our Big Brother overlords.

    2. Re:Absolutely absurd by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would rather see ads about things I don't care for, nor afford. Because then they aren't brainwashing me into getting things I may not need or want that I can afford and the commercials will make me care for.

    3. Re:Absolutely absurd by cayenne8 · · Score: 5, Insightful
      "I don't see why people view these things so harshly. Think about it, now it means ads will actually hit their target audience Would you rather see ads about things you have no care for, nor afford?"

      Well, for one thing...what the hell is a credit reporting service doing SELLING my fucking info??

      I mean....I really don't like the idea that the big three track that stuff, but, I can reluctantly live with it as a means to give a reasonable (usually) score of a credit risk when you need a loan, etc.

      However, I think this information should be restricted to only that use, and it should be treated as pretty much privacy act level information, and nothing of it should ever be given out without the expressed consent of the individual in question.

      I'm not one to usually ask for new restrictive laws, but, in this case, I wish we could mandate that a person's information is THEIRS....and cannot be bought, sold, traded or used in a fashion such as this. I mean, c'mon, why not just also combine it with info that the IRS and SS has on us too in the US? Aside from the difference in it being a commercial vs governmental affair...the privacy intrusion is analogous.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    4. Re:Absolutely absurd by ScrewMaster · · Score: 3, Funny

      Would you rather see ads about things you have no care for, nor afford?

      Yes. They're very easy to ignore that way.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    5. Re:Absolutely absurd by Artifakt · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Ads which are right for someone economically may not be right for them in other ways. Take a couple who can easily afford to have several children and drive a big SUV - but imagine they are supporters of sustainable energy, zero population growth, and so on. They've already committed to having only one child, they want a fuel efficient vehicle, preferably a hybrid or better. They are not in the market for most of the things which are going to be targeted at them based solely on income.
          How can the ads be targeted at them too? There are several (mostly bad) possibilities. The advertisers could write them off, as not a market. Right now, advertisers ignore whole age groups in just this way. Nobody is going to pitch Axe style body sprays at men old enough to think of Old Spice or Right Guard when they buy a deodorant. When they don't target ANY of the ads at you, they don't target ANY of the programs at you either. Trying to hit a few big groups with descressionary spending power is why shows such as Survivor spawn dozens of variants, or TV goes through phases where its all Hospital shows or Forensic shows.
            Or they could get more data. If they only knew how that couple I made up had voted as well, maybe they could get a handle on what they want to buy. Even better, if they know how committed the couple was to their ideals, how much they were willing to spend supporting a candidate or cause, just think how useful that would be in determining how much they would spend on the right product. And, they are already getting one type of data most people think is private, why not go after voting or medical information too?

      --
      Who is John Cabal?
    6. Re:Absolutely absurd by theaveng · · Score: 1

      I always prefer the "more power to the people" solution. Mandate that all boxes/televisions have an On/off switch. "On" allows Echostar, Dish, whoever to see what shows you watch and adjust the advertising accordingly. "Off" sends absolutely no information back to the companies. Let each person decided for him/herself how much they want to share.

      In the 1980s, a popular TV program like The Cosby Show might have captured half the viewers in the entire United States; today's most popular shows, like American Idol, are lucky to capture a fourth of the whole audience.

      Completely off. Even the Superbowl, the most-watched american program, only gets about 40% of the audience.

      Popular shows like Cosby and Star Trek TNG were watched by about 15% of the 1980s U.S., and American Idol attracts about 9% of 2000-era U.S.

      --
      FOX NEWS.com should be BANNED from television and internet. Have the Congress take it over and give us Truespeak.
    7. Re:Absolutely absurd by ChromaticDragon · · Score: 2, Interesting

      As far as I can tell, the Dish receivers DO come with such a mechanism.

      It would seem all one would have to do in order to "switch off" as you suggest in order to ensure that no information goes back to Dish...

      is unplug the RJ-11 cable from the receiver so it cannot "phone home".

      The receivers work just fine without the so called "required" phone connection. Dish even has ways for you to purchase movies without the phone connection.

    8. Re:Absolutely absurd by thebjorn · · Score: 1

      "I don't see why people view these things so harshly.

      Think about it, now it means ads will actually hit their target audience

      Would you rather see ads about things you have no care for, nor afford?"

      Well, for one thing...what the hell is a credit reporting service doing SELLING my fucking info??

      What's even worse is that they're using Equifax, which used to have unbelievably bad data-quality (at least when I worked at Fair Isaac(FI) -- and I can't imagine that they've changed). One of the surest ways to have your FICO score go wonky is to get garbage data from the agencies. Conceptually, the data about you is sent to FI, who in turn computes you FICO score and transmits it back. FI isn't allowed to merge/scrub/verify data from different sources, so it's pretty easy for inaccuracies to sneak in unnoticed (they're obviously allowed to scrub/skip-trace against NCOA etc.).

      Additionally, the data was never intended for non-credit related decision making, so it seems likely that you'd end up with "lots-of-pretty-numbers" without any analytical value.

  3. Dish by Nethead · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Echostar is Dish Network.

    --
    -- I have a private email server in my basement.
    1. Re:Dish by plover · · Score: 1

      DISH Network was a spinoff from EchoStar Communications Corporation. There is still an independent entity called EchoStar Corporation. Read the first line.

      --
      John
    2. Re:Dish by Nethead · · Score: 4, Informative

      Dish Network is the consumer branding. All the Dish techs up here have echostar.com email addresses. I don't need to read the wiki, I've worked for both Disk and DirecTV.

      --
      -- I have a private email server in my basement.
    3. Re:Dish by pete-classic · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Who you worked for doesn't bear on the facts. About a year ago Echostar broke up into Dish Network, which owns all of the service, advertising, and programming contracts and Echostar Technologies, which controls the satellites, manufactures the set tops, and controls the underlying technology.

      I believe employees of both companies continue to use @echostar.com address.

      We don't need you to accept this in order for it to be true.

      -Peter

    4. Re:Dish by LostCluster · · Score: 4, Informative

      Dish Network and EchoStar Corp. may be two legal entities, but they're one system. EchoStar builds the settop boxes, DVRs, and satellites. Dish Network rents the rights to use those satellites, puts programming on them, then sells EchoStar's hardware to consumers.

      Nobody else but Dish uses EchoStar's products, and Dish uses only EchoStar products. They may have divorced but they're still close friends.

      EchoStar was rumored to be deveoloping a non-Dish broadcast DVR product, but their recent losses in court to TiVo over patent violations threaten that product.

    5. Re:Dish by SirSmiley · · Score: 1

      Bell ExpressVU (now called BellTV) uses echostar products rebranded with a bell logo.....in fact if you check your LNB on a bell install it says echostar....the receivers and dishes are identical to their american counterparts

    6. Re:Dish by Nethead · · Score: 1

      just lawyers and marketing. Same shit different screen printing.

      --
      -- I have a private email server in my basement.
    7. Re:Dish by Nethead · · Score: 1

      I'm sorry. I'm a bit old school. If you use a domain for your business, then you are working for that company. Or the company that you worked for bought that (domain) company. In any real-world meaning, their is no Dish Network without Echostar. This is not even close to the break-up between DirecTV and Hughes where DTV isn't even selling Hughes sat internet (they are selling and installing BlueWave.)

      -Joe
      SBCA# 78097

      --
      -- I have a private email server in my basement.
    8. Re:Dish by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ehmm... We use EchoStar products.... we've been doing it for a long long time actually.....

      It might be true that Dish only uses EchoStar.... but it is not true that nobody else but Dish uses EchoStar.... we do....

      EchoStar provides an interesting range of satellite services (not only television), and some of those services outside the USA.... so they provide a good alternative for certain clients (like we).

      Dish is just another company from the same people that utilizes some of their infrastructure while keeping the companies separate, so that echostar can keep providing services to their other profitable markets.

      Not quite like DirecTV, for which their Galaxy satellites are very much locked down for anything other than their television system.

    9. Re:Dish by pete-classic · · Score: 1

      I'm sure the SEC and IRS will find your theory fascinating.

      You may have just revolutionized business practices in America.

      -Peter

    10. Re:Dish by BrowserCapsGuy · · Score: 1

      If you use a domain for your business, then you are working for that company.

      If I use an aol.com e-mail address for my business does that mean I work for AOL?

      --
      Alright! I know I'm in there! If I don't come out, I'll have to come in after me!
  4. Do no evil? by Dachannien · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Targeted advertising based on our credit history and income?

    I'm pretty sure this counts as "evil".

    1. Re:Do no evil? by owlnation · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Targeted advertising based on our credit history and income? I'm pretty sure this counts as "evil".

      Considering that Equifax is no stranger to being fined for breaking the law, I'd say it actually counts as "Evil" with a capital "E".

      Google needs competition. Their honeymoon period is over.

    2. Re:Do no evil? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ditto big brother evil

    3. Re:Do no evil? by D-Cypell · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Yes, but TFA states this will happen indirectly. They are not talking about looking up your credit history and deciding which ads to push to you, but rather one partnership is going to use the credit history to decide which shows people in different income brackets tend to watch, and it is this information is going to be used by google to decide upon which adverts go with which shows.

      I am 100% certain that this 'income bracket to likely TV shows' correlation has been going on for years.

      So, factor the rubbish out of the story, and basically they are saying, google has invented a new technology that makes it easier for lower turn over business to access TV advertising and they are going to use all existing available data to target this advertising in a way that makes it a relevant ad to the viewer, thus increasing advertising investment efficiency for the advertiser. In other words, exactly what they do on the web.

      Google's justification for this will be exactly the same as their justification for their censored search results in China. The 'evil' will happen with or without them, but they believe that everyone is better off by having the service they provide. As somebody who accepts advertising as a necessary, an acceptable 'evil' to gain the benefit of media that is free at the point of delivery *and* somebody who uses google adsense I agree with them. Google has succeeded in making advertising less of a nuisance and I am happy for that.

      Basically, the worst you can say about this is that google are complicit in the 'evils' of somebody else. That alone might be enough for some to condemn them, I mention it purely in the interests of clarity.

    4. Re:Do no evil? by neomunk · · Score: 4, Funny

      That's almost exactly what I was thinking.

      Do no evil should probably include not getting all snug with a company that designs network topologies as inverted pentagrams for the summoning bonusus, I mean, 'customer data referencing enhancements'.

      I mean, taking a look at Equifax's codebase, you'd expect to see calls to functions but CalltoCthulhu("fhtagn",DATABASEID) and PetitionMammon(CustID,MiracleType) are just plain uncalledfor.

    5. Re:Do no evil? by maxume · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Anybody who is concerned about whether Google is evil or not better not have a credit card or watch television anyway.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    6. Re:Do no evil? by sleigher · · Score: 1

      Well I will be very amused when I see what ads they come with after leaving my IRD in the 490's ALL the time.

      I know it is based off other info too..... just a joke.

      --
      All points of time and space are connected.
    7. Re:Do no evil? by Lux · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Advertizing-based company undermines user privacy to make money. Film at 11.

      Seriously... this is why I'm staying away from Chrome. If Google gets big enough in the browser to start dictating de-facto standards, my privacy will suffer.

    8. Re:Do no evil? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Damn fraudsters, Equifax as already settled with the FTC TWICE over fraud and i still managed to get frauded by them.

    9. Re:Do no evil? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Is there any data on us these days that isnt open to be sold to the highest bidder. Its like open season info sharing on people.

      "credit-reporting company Equifax to cross-reference shows watched with income and buying habits (based on using Equifax's data)."

      So since when the hell is our credit card buying habits, open info to be sold to be highest bidder?! ... what next, I buy a book on politics and then that data gets bought by the government to workout my political point of views?

      Maybe we need a wiki leaks style site to monitor and share the behaviour of company directors who see it as fair game to share our details. Play them at their own game.

    10. Re:Do no evil? by cayenne8 · · Score: 4, Informative
      "So since when the hell is our credit card buying habits, open info to be sold to be highest bidder?! ... what next, I buy a book on politics and then that data gets bought by the government to workout my political point of views?"

      Yep...it already does. Mostly by a company called Acxiom . They actually work very closely with Equifax and Transmeta...they have data on pretty much 99% of the people in the US, and are working hard to do the same around the world. Back when I worked there...a long time ago, we were working to come up with a unique identifier for every person in the US to track them for life. This helps to clean up other companies' databases, etc.

      In recent years, since the Feds are still somewhat prohibited from gathering lots of data on people, they contacted and used Acxiom to do it for them.

      They gather data from all sources...warranty cards, drivers license...USPO change of address data...etc. I'll bet no one ever would have guessed Big Brother was going to be located in Conway and Little Rock, AR, eh?

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    11. Re:Do no evil? by ScrewMaster · · Score: 2, Informative

      Do no evil should probably include not getting all snug with a company that designs network topologies as inverted pentagrams for the summoning bonusus, I mean, 'customer data referencing enhancements'.

      People are often so taken by Google-rapture that they forget Google's income stream comes from advertising, and much of what it offers is designed to increase that revenue. This sort of "evil" should be expected and was entirely predictable.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    12. Re:Do no evil? by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      So since when the hell is our credit card buying habits, open info to be sold to be highest bidder?!

      Since those leeches first began acquiring and mining such data in order to insulate other companies from the normal costs and risks of doing business: for a fee. This is unadulterated pure bullshit ... but it's very much in line with what the Big Three have been doing since their inception. Advancing technology has simply offered them more opportunities to market that which does not belong to them.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    13. Re:Do no evil? by gEvil+(beta) · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yes, but TFA states this will happen indirectly. They are not talking about looking up your credit history and deciding which ads to push to you, but rather one partnership is going to use the credit history to decide which shows people in different income brackets tend to watch, and it is this information is going to be used by google to decide upon which adverts go with which shows.

      Oh, I get it. They're synergistically leveraging their core competencies to alleviate market deficits of cross-sectionalized yield-based advertisorial programming. Why didn't someone just say so?

      --
      This guy's the limit!
    14. Re:Do no evil? by aussie_a · · Score: 1

      Why? As long as I'm warned that my data will be sold, why not have it available to the highest bidder?

    15. Re:Do no evil? by dontmakemethink · · Score: 1

      Targeted advertising based on our credit history and income? I'm pretty sure this counts as "evil".

      Firstly, finding something evil about advertising is like finding warmth on the surface of the sun. The word 'advertise' is based on the root 'adverse'. If advertising were a matter of merely directing willing consumers towards one of several viable options, it would be called 'divertising'. Literally speaking, 'advertising' is the craft of making people do the opposite of what they would otherwise do. 'Divertising' is just a fringe benefit.

      That being said, I'm actually coming around to the idea of targeting, mostly from an artistic sense. For example, instead of Pepsi doing one huge campaign with Britney Spears, they could do dozens with various personalities relevant to their respective demographics.

      Think about it, if your favorite upstart actor, musician, comic, model, whatever, would advance their career substantially from a modest-budget commercial for Pepsi, rewarded largely on the basis of how well sales improved, would you not drink Pepsi instead of Coke? That would lead to more entertaining commercials, instead of Billy Ray screaming at us to buy whatever silly household product they couldn't get onto Walmart shelves.

      If advertisers could cheaply offer relevant incentives to do a 180, they would do so rather than concoct surreptitious bullsh|t like "are you sure about your breath?" Without pertinent facts about consumer demographics, they can't provide relevant incentives. Their only recourse is to try con after con until something works. And when you buy a product or service, a large portion of the final price is the cost of advertising the product, much of which is the cost of advertising campaigns that didn't work. No advertising company would be in business if they could not recuperate the costs of failed advertising campaigns. Wouldn't you rather either buy it for less or get some kickback?

      I also think it would send a much better message to kids for role models to actually be themselves instead of whatever sells. I initially picked Britney arbitrarily, but as it turns out, there can't be a better example of who should not have gotten millions to sell Pepsi to kids. Well maybe MJ.

      Speaking of MJ, there's some new paparazzi shots out of him with kids underwear tied around his upper arm.

      He's on the patch.

      --

      War as we knew it was obsolete
      Nothing could beat complete denial
      - Emily Haines
    16. Re:Do no evil? by jhiza · · Score: 1

      we were working to come up with a unique identifier for every person in the US to track them for life.

      wouldn't that be SSN?

    17. Re:Do no evil? by cayenne8 · · Score: 1
      "wouldn't that be SSN?"

      Actually...no, SS is not good to use as a primary key identifier. There are people out there without a SSN. There are people with more than one SSN (in previous years, you could for various reasons apply for a new SSN). Also, many years back, people sold wallets with fake credit cards and SSN cards in them, just to have a filler in them for display. People actually bought those and thought that was their SSN and used them for years. And today, with many illegals in the US, some of them are using current and deceased US citizens' SSNs. There are also instances when foreign military personnel are temporarily assigned to the US military, they are sometimes given a special SSN for tracking.

      And while I know the SS dept. officially says that with the 'current' numbering system, that no repeats occur, I could swear that I understood in the past, that numbers had been recycled for some people upon death....but, I cannot find a citation for that right now. But, for these and other reasons, a SSN is not good to be used as a primary key identifier.

      While Acxiom does keep SSNs of the people as they get them...they weren't in my projects used as PK.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    18. Re:Do no evil? by xero314 · · Score: 1

      As long as I'm warned that my data will be sold, why not have it available to the highest bidder?

      I like this idea. Instead of companies stealing our information why don't we just sell it directly. I think I'm going to contact these data collection agencies and start setting up contracts with them.

    19. Re:Do no evil? by whereiswaldo · · Score: 1

      So you're saying that all companies that need to generate revenue are evil? That's pretty cynical.

    20. Re:Do no evil? by whereiswaldo · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It would be nice to have a matrix of search engines matched with the types of information they collect. That would help me make a more informed decision of what engine to use.

    21. Re:Do no evil? by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      So you're saying that all companies that need to generate revenue are evil? That's pretty cynical.

      You're generalizing my comment. I didn't call anyone or anything evil, I even put the word in quotes so you'd know I was using the term loosely. I was primarily commenting on the irrationality of people's surprise at Google's efforts here, given that they're an advertising company first, and search engine provider second. Google's out to make money selling ads, and this is just a logical extension of their existing business.

      Whether that's evil is another matter. I wasn't addressing that.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    22. Re:Do no evil? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm pretty sure it counts as "old news".

      I worked for a company that sold a solution to do this back in 1997. They bought demographic data that put each household into a number of demographic groups. So you might be known for having a pick-up truck, and great credit, whereas your neighbor might be known for driving luxury cars and having bad credit.

      Now when the commercial comes on, you get an ad for the new Ford Superduty followed by a credit card ad talking about cashback.

      Your neighbor's set silently tunes to a different channel which is airing an ad for the Lincoln Starshit, followed by a credit card ad talking about how anybody can qualify.

      Result: Less advertising is required to support the shows you like, because less of it is wasted on people who have zero interest in a particular product.

      It's creepy as heck, but it's ancient and I'm actually kind of surprised it's not more widely deployed given that it's been commercially available for better than a decade.

    23. Re:Do no evil? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      FALSE.

      They are correlating shows to demographics, not people to ads.

  5. For now... by cjfs · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Desai stresses that all this data is made anonymous, so it certainly won't be possible to target specific households with ads...

    ... yet

    1. Re:For now... by EthanV2 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      won't be possible to target specific households with ads...

      Wait, I thought that was the whole idea of this system...

  6. Scott Adams said... by GMonkeyLouie · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Humanity has precious little time left before marketers become so astute at selling directly to each and every consumer that we become powerless to resist their offerings. The only defense we will have will be to hide from all advertising, which will require curling up into a tiny little ball in a dark corner.

    1. Re:Scott Adams said... by maxume · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'm pretty sure that I'd be happy to punch anybody who smiled at me and tried to sell me a ring-tone directly in the face.

      The thing to remember about Scott Adams is that he loves to troll his own blog.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    2. Re:Scott Adams said... by robo_mojo · · Score: 1

      The only defense we will have will be to hide from all advertising,

      It is easier than it sounds.

    3. Re:Scott Adams said... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      just say no.

    4. Re:Scott Adams said... by YourExperiment · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty sure that I'd be happy to punch anybody who smiled at me and tried to sell me a ring-tone directly in the face.

      Me too; a ring-tone directly in the face would be most inconvenient.

    5. Re:Scott Adams said... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hi there!

      We see you are looking to purchase a dark corner in which you can hide from all advertisements. My company cross-references slashdot comments with the poster's income bracket. Our records indicate that you live in your parent's basement, and thus do not have any income of your own. We have looked up your parent's information in our database, and we are happy to be able to inform you that you can afford our more luxurious dark corner! We have billed it to your father's credit card, using the copy of his signature we have on file.

      Enjoy your dark corner!

  7. Impressive journalistic incompetency by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "A satellite-TV company called Echostar, ....."

    Talk about journalistic incompetency .... It is very well know that Echostar is Dish Network. Yet the incompetent author couldn't even do a simple Google to find that KNOWN fact.

    It makes the entire story questionable, when the author can't even check a simple fact.

    1. Re:Impressive journalistic incompetency by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      no kidding, that raised red flags as soon as i read it. nearly as bad as the definition of equifax.

    2. Re:Impressive journalistic incompetency by gd23ka · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Echostar is Dish Network but maybe the journalist didn't want people to associate the brand "Dish Network"
      with what people could potentially perceive as evil. Most are not as sophisticated as you - and I'm not being
      sarcastic towards you here -, they might just read the article, lean back and turn on their TV (powered by
      Dish of course) and never make the connection nor would it occur to them to follow up and find out about
      Echostar.

    3. Re:Impressive journalistic incompetency by socsoc · · Score: 1

      If your ideas are correct, this "journalist" is not worth their salt. Intentionally misleading readers by using Echostar rather than Dish, so that it less recognizable is not very ethical.

      /yes i know what echostar is
      //and i work at a newspaper

    4. Re:Impressive journalistic incompetency by insllvn · · Score: 2, Informative

      /yes i know what echostar is

      Do you? Wikipedia says DISH is a legally distinct entity from Echostar. The relevant bit reads "The company was formerly part of EchoStar Communications Corporation before DISH Network was separated in December 2007." A Google News search seems to support this. Even DISH Networks will tell you it is true. Plover pointed this out above, and I fact checked Wikipedia.

    5. Re:Impressive journalistic incompetency by socsoc · · Score: 1

      That's like arguing that Taco Bell isn't owned by Pepsi. You are correct in a really technical sense. Echostar still owns the sats, sling and the box development, but Dish could not exist without them.

    6. Re:Impressive journalistic incompetency by insllvn · · Score: 1

      You are correct in a really technical sense.

      Isn't that the best kind of correct?

    7. Re:Impressive journalistic incompetency by Dun+Malg · · Score: 1

      That's like arguing that Taco Bell isn't owned by Pepsi.

      Well yeah, exactly: it isn't. It's operated by Yum!(nee Tricon) since 1997. Tricon Global was a spinoff of PepsiCo, but Pepsi retains no control of it.

      You are correct in a really technical sense. Echostar still owns the sats, sling and the box development, but Dish could not exist without them.

      And McDonalds couldn't serve french fries without Golden State Foods. That doesn't make them the same company. Echostar and Dish are separate entities. The fact that they used to be one company a year ago is irrelevant.

      --
      If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
  8. if I see ONE commercial for a loan... by Tastecicles · · Score: 2, Funny

    ...or debt management, or car finance, or "cheaper insurance", I'm gonna fucking throttle someone.

    --
    Operation Guillotine is in effect.
    1. Re:if I see ONE commercial for a loan... by NotQuiteReal · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Perhaps you would prefer a direct call to your cell phone offering such items...

      Oh, I almost forgot - I think your car warranty has expired, but it is not too late to extent it! This is your 2nd notice!

      --
      This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
    2. Re:if I see ONE commercial for a loan... by Tastecicles · · Score: 2, Interesting

      luckily my cell has a hold function. Three hours of the same Queen track should put anybody off... hey, it's their bill, not mine.

      --
      Operation Guillotine is in effect.
    3. Re:if I see ONE commercial for a loan... by robo_mojo · · Score: 1

      ...or debt management, or car finance, or "cheaper insurance", I'm gonna fucking throttle someone.

      Sounds like an idea for a new game show.

    4. Re:if I see ONE commercial for a loan... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it's their bill, not mine

      Depends on your plan. A lot of us non-talkative introverts don't pay for more minutes than we need, so, yes, spam calls are a cost to us.

    5. Re:if I see ONE commercial for a loan... by Tastecicles · · Score: 1

      I'm on pay as you go. I probably spend £20 a /year/ on calling credit. If that. I'm that introverted. I don't really care if people don't want to talk to me, but if they do it'd better be of earth-shattering import. That's what the cell is for.

      --
      Operation Guillotine is in effect.
  9. oblig futurama quote by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    LEELA: Didn't you have ads in the twentieth century?
    FRY: Well, sure, but not in our dreams. Only on TV and radio... and in magazines... and movies, and at ballgames, and on buses, and milk cartons, and T-shirts, and bananas, and written in the sky. But not in dreams, no sirree.

  10. Is this even legal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As a Dish Network customer, I don't recall giving Experian nor Echostar permission to conduct tracking on my credit card purchases to establish my "buying habits". As far what tv shows I watch, there's nothing I can do about Echostar tracking that data, but cross referencing with data from a credit reporting agency? Aren't they just limited to reporting my credit rating for the establishment of new accounts, loans, etc.? I think I'm going to call Dish support and have a conversation about this. Definitely not happy about this.

    1. Re:Is this even legal? by Nethead · · Score: 4, Informative

      there's nothing I can do about Echostar tracking that data

      Yes there is. Don't plug your DVR into the phone line (or internet.) The dish is receive only. Dish and DirecTV will both say that you NEED a land line, and the installers take a hit if there is not one connected when the box is activated, but it is not needed to have the DVR work.

      I installed DirecTV for 16 months. They just want your viewing data and impulse Pay-per-view hits.

      --
      -- I have a private email server in my basement.
    2. Re:Is this even legal? by Nethead · · Score: 3, Funny

      I think I'm going to call Dish support and have a conversation about this.

      Have fun.

      --
      -- I have a private email server in my basement.
    3. Re:Is this even legal? by Lunatrik · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Or, *build your own* DVR. MythTV, SageTV - solutions for everyone, tracking free. What I'm more scared of is Equifax releasing credit information.

    4. Re:Is this even legal? by robo_mojo · · Score: 1

      As a Dish Network customer, I don't recall giving Experian nor Echostar permission to conduct tracking on my credit card purchases to establish my "buying habits".

      No, you gave them permission as a credit card customer.

    5. Re:Is this even legal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That is what Equifax does, they release your credit information for a price. That's what they've always done isn't it? That is their business.

    6. Re:Is this even legal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      On Dish, you pay $5/mo/box that isn't continuously connected to a land-line or a network jack.

  11. Good and Bad TV Advertisements by artson · · Score: 5, Interesting
    I've noticed lately that a lot more TV ads are venturing into extremely obnoxious territory. Many of the ads are so annoying that I never want to see them again, so I mute that ad as soon as I clue in that it's coming. For the most part, I'm talking about ads that scream to get your attention. I dislike people screaming at me anyway, and if they are screaming to get my attention so they can siphon money from my wallet, they get on my mute first list.

    I know I'm not alone in this - lots of people are pretty quick with the mute button and it causes me to wonder.... Suppose you are an advertiser who pays for a really endearing ad that people love to watch. Maybe something like the slightly bewildered A&W proprietor they've been airing lately. So you go to the expense of creating ads that follow a story line and that are successful, if the audience sees and hears them.

    Now imagine what happens if your ad follows one of those obnoxious ads people immediately mute. I suppose the only solution is to make sure your ad is always in the first slot - but that could get expensive.

    --
    In times of trouble, the smell of frying onions usually gives confidence and comfort.
    1. Re:Good and Bad TV Advertisements by zappepcs · · Score: 4, Funny

      I don't think this was thought through so well. Imagine if your household is made from more than one surname, meaning that credit and buying history will be different, perhaps vastly different. Woe be unto the poor sod that lives with his wife and 3 18+ daughters. The only thing he's going to see is tampax and menopause commercials and of course, every other pill advertisement with QVC and Oprah ads smashed in between them.

      God help the person whose dogs were just killed in a freak pesticide accident who now gets pet grooming/product commercials 24/7 to remind them of their now dead pets. Or maybe the guy who borrows from his 401k to pay for the burial of his wife and then starts getting ads for retirement planning.

      If Google wants to do no evil, they better work pretty fucking hard to make sure all those poorly placed ads on websites don't start showing up on television and phone messages. I'm certain that there are serial killers who had less reason to do their killing than what these people are capable of stirring in the souls of the unwashed masses.

    2. Re:Good and Bad TV Advertisements by robo_mojo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      God help the person whose dogs were just killed in a freak pesticide accident who now gets pet grooming/product commercials 24/7 to remind them of their now dead pets. Or maybe the guy who borrows from his 401k to pay for the burial of his wife and then starts getting ads for retirement planning.

      Statistical outliers are not relevant to advertisers.

      I'm certain that there are serial killers who had less reason to do their killing than what these people are capable of stirring in the souls of the unwashed masses.

      Sounds dreadful. Television is certainly not worth killing for.

    3. Re:Good and Bad TV Advertisements by robo_mojo · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      I've noticed lately that a lot more TV ads are venturing into extremely obnoxious territory. Many of the ads are so annoying that I never want to see them again, so I mute that ad as soon as I clue in that it's coming. For the most part, I'm talking about ads that scream to get your attention. I dislike people screaming at me anyway, and if they are screaming to get my attention so they can siphon money from my wallet, they get on my mute first list.

      Shit, that must be a real chore to keep up with.

    4. Re:Good and Bad TV Advertisements by AnalPerfume · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Google would then reply that the more data they harvest, the more likely this can be avoided. This then leads to complaints that privacy is over-rated when it comes to making money.

    5. Re:Good and Bad TV Advertisements by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Statistical outliers are not relevant to advertisers.

      You'd think. But outrageous stories also make for good evening TV, which advertisers do respond to.

    6. Re:Good and Bad TV Advertisements by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I hate that. I wish companies would start selling sets with a normalize volume function. It's gotten worse having to crank the volume for the show you're watching only to have to mute it whenever commercials come on 10x louder than your show.

    7. Re:Good and Bad TV Advertisements by artson · · Score: 1

      Not really, although I see your point. It's a visceral thing. Your thumb says "I will not HAVE this in my living room!" and pifft, it's gone, along with any advertisers who follow. Problem solved, no list involved. ;-)

      --
      In times of trouble, the smell of frying onions usually gives confidence and comfort.
    8. Re:Good and Bad TV Advertisements by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've noticed lately that a lot more TV ads are venturing into extremely obnoxious territory. Many of the ads are so annoying that I never want to see them again, so I mute that ad as soon as I clue in that it's coming. For the most part, I'm talking about ads that scream to get your attention.

      Thanks largely to the internet being far more interesting, I've quit TV. I still watch Stargate and re-runs of Highlander and Star Trek, but otherwise the TV is just a display device for my DVD player.

      For about four months, I was without internet. I moved to a new neighborhood and it took the local telco that long to get us wired for DSL, so I started watching TV again out of boredom.

      In those four months, I wore out 3 sets of batteries in my remote control. The volume button got the first two sets. The mute button got the 3rd. I had forgot all about the obnoxious behavior of advertisers to make their ads as loud as friggin possible, 20x as loud as the actual program. At first, I'd just lower the volume and raise it again when the show came back on. Then I finally got sick of it and just began to mute the thing for the entire commercial break.

      Now I see why people buy TiVos. If I'd had a skip button instead of just a mute button, I'd have skipped them too.

      Then one morning I awoke to the sight of the 3rd light (the one labeled "Internet") glowing on the modem that the telco had Fed Ex'd four months earlier. Seven months later and the same set of batteries in the remote is still going strong.

  12. One word response to such tactics: by bobdotorg · · Score: 1

    Tivo.

    --
    __ Someday, but not this morning, I'll finally learn to use the preview button.
    1. Re:One word response to such tactics: by LostCluster · · Score: 1

      Who has been collecting every remote keystroke (and what action that key reprents) since the beginning of the product, and will gladly sell samples of that data to advertisers and TV networks. They just launched an settop-box-to-Domino's-Pizza interface.

  13. SQUALOR INDEX: 97 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    SNACK PREFERENCE: ALL

    You may not rebroadcast these demographics without the expressed written consent of google.

  14. Direct tv uses the internet for on demand and home by Joe+The+Dragon · · Score: 1

    Direct tv uses the internet for on demand and home network video play back on your pc's.

  15. Dish makes you pay $5 more per box that is not hoo by Joe+The+Dragon · · Score: 1

    Dish makes you pay $5 more per box that is not hooked to a phone line or the internet.

  16. Re:Dish makes you pay $5 more per box that is not by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    citation please. mine have no connectivity and i don't have a $5 fee for that.

  17. No thanks by nurb432 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Commercials is one reason i tend to avoid TV. ( that and most content is dismal ).

    None of their business who i am really.

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
  18. Google does not evil... by mario_grgic · · Score: 1

    for their definition of "evil".

    --
    As the island of our knowledge grows, so does the shore of our ignorance.
  19. Stop trying to target me! by st0rmshad0w · · Score: 4, Interesting

    You know, maybe if companies would spend less time trying to figure out how to target me with ads for stuff I find lacking and actually, oh I dunno, make products I actually want to buy, then maybe I would. And they wouldn't need to waste their ad dollars.

  20. Re:Direct tv uses the internet for on demand and h by Nethead · · Score: 2, Informative

    Only if you have the HD DVR.

    --
    -- I have a private email server in my basement.
  21. Intellectual Property Rights by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My finincial data, transactions, etc are my intellectual property.

    I demand all companies that wish to use such, obtain a valid paid up license.

    I am offering a special, where for 10.99/Mo each telemarketer or advertiser who wishes access to my IP may obtain a valid paid-up license for that month.

    It's good for one (1) single telemarketing call, or data-mining session.

  22. Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Good, I'm tired of being bombarded with Viagra commercials when I'm not even in my 25's yet....

    1. Re:Good by daninspokane · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      I hope Erectile Dysfunction doesn't kick in at 25... might as well Bobbit myself.

      --
      Slashdot is too nerdy for me.
  23. TV? Whats that? by Ender77 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    This is why I gave up TV and local radio a couple of years ago. It stopped being entertainment and just became an ad machine. Now, I just watch tv through the internet, ad free. MUHAHAHAHAHA.

    1. Re:TV? Whats that? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    2. Re:TV? Whats that? by AnalPerfume · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Ad funded TV has always been about sticking eyeballs to the screen to watch the adverts the companies pay for. The mechanism that draws (and holds) the eyeballs to the screen is the programming. When the programming is half-decent and the adverts less in-your-face it's an acceptable balance for most; when that tips the other way round it puts people off watching at all, or pushes them to use blocking technology. Most already zone out adverts, so advertisers have to use increasingly more invasive techniques to get noticed.

    3. Re:TV? Whats that? by aussie_a · · Score: 1

      You sir are a leech on society and I will certainly shun you and your kind.

    4. Re:TV? Whats that? by YttriumOxide · · Score: 1

      I, like the GP, also do not own a TV. I DO own a USB TV tuner, but I haven't connected it since I bought it (which I actually did to prove to a friend he didn't need to buy the expensive "Mac" version - the "Windows" version works fine on my Mac).

      I actually find the Onion article linked to be quite thought provoking... certainly, the fictional guy they're describing is a complete arse for always going out of his way to mention that he doesn't watch TV, but somehow I still sympathise with the guy anyway. I find it insulting when people expect me to be intimately familiar with celebrities lives (I REALLY don't give a flying fuck), and just annoying when people say things like, "yeh, this is just like that situation on xyz TV show, we should use their solution to this problem!" (ummm... I haven't seen it, please explain the solution...)

      The point at the end of the article about five entire days out of a month being wasted watching TV if you watch four hours a day is also quite relevant. There ARE much better things you could do with your time. I recently quit smoking, and any arguments for "it being okay to watch excessive amounts of TV" (note: "excessive amounts") sound very much like my own arguments about why "it was okay for me to smoke" - perhaps there is more than a dot of truth in the whole "TV is an addiction" thing. (and before anyone says that my smoking hurt others as well, whereas excessive TV only harms oneself - I have two points: 1. I never cared that my smoking could harm others; 2. A world of fat, lazy couch potatoes DOES affect me in that the world around me isn't as good as it could be)

      (I just re-read the above and I'm not making myself very clear, but nicotine withdrawals are kinda messing with me, and I think MAYBE it's clear enough... please consider all of the above in the context of the rest of it - out of context quotations are almost certain to give a different meaning than was my intention)

      --
      My book about LSD and Self-Discovery
      Also on facebook as: DroppingAcidDaleBewan
    5. Re:TV? Whats that? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why don't you people that post that link in every discussion about TV give it a rest?

  24. Re:Dish makes you pay $5 more per box that is not by Friday · · Score: 1

    I call BS! I have two receivers that have never been hooked to a phone line or the internet. The only $5 extra I pay is for having a second receiver on my account.

  25. Do no evil by Krakadoom · · Score: 4, Insightful

    So "do no evil" is pretty much over, right? Seems every new move Google makes these days is the same sort of thing we'd be criticizing other scumbag companies for.

  26. Re:Dish makes you pay $5 more per box that is not by rriven · · Score: 1

    Only dual tuner receivers like the 322,625,222,or 722, can save you money if they are plugged into a phone line. (HD VIP models can use internet).

    They give you the second tuner (TV) for free. So you can get 4 tvs for only an extra $5 a month.

    I work for a retailer for Dish and Directv (Big Dog Satellite)

    here is the cite: http://www.dishnetwork.com/phoneline/

    "The monthly programming access fee for TV2 will be waived if your receiver is hooked to a phone line or high speed internet line"

    --
    Dan
  27. Proles by supersoundguy · · Score: 1

    Yes...watch your telescreens like good citizens

    1. Re:Proles by robo_mojo · · Score: 1

      Sshhhhh, the Two Minutes Hate is on!

    2. Re:Proles by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Remember back in the late 80s, where "In Soviet Union, TV watches you" was a joke played at the expense of a totalitarian society?

      Yeah, me too.

      And because we developed a better technology infrastructure for surveillance than they did, the 2008 version of the joke is "In Soviet Union, you watch TV."

  28. Re:Dish makes you pay $5 more per box that is not by Jumperalex · · Score: 3, Informative

    Here is your citation ... me. They charged me the first month I had it in 2006, I complained, they waived it for 3 months; I even got the woman to admit that yes, I was being charged $5 for the right NOT to be tracked and as a PENALTY for not being able to spend money on PPV. At the end of 3 months I complained, they did nothing, I was lazy, and even with the $5 it was the best deal I had given that cable was not available and DirectTV cost more. Then I moved and used their dish mover deal because cable cost WAY more and I wasn't in the mood to switch to DirectTV which was no cheaper anyway (I also don't like their DVD UI). Funny thing though, the nice man on the other end of the line when I set up the install at my new place removed the $5 completely and that was that.

    So I wonder if they have stopped that fee? In the end I would never have hooked it up anyway but I also don't have a landline so it wasn't even an option ... never will either in all likelyhood.

    --
    If you can't be good, be good at it!
  29. Re:Dish makes you pay $5 more per box that is not by Jumperalex · · Score: 1

    That is so cute that they now call it a "The monthly programming access fee" ... gotta have a name for it so you can't complain about it. Back in 2006 the operator I spoke to just called it a fee for not having the phone line plugged in so that I could order PPV without having to call or use the internet.

    Calling it a "The monthly programming access fee" is especially entertaining since it isn't like it actually costs them anymore to share programming data. I strongly doubt there is a licensing fee for that second tuner to access programming info.

    Mind you I'm not calling you out or anything [I just realized it might sound like I am] ... I'm calling Dish out for what amounts to dishonesty. Call it what it is, a way to track viewing and allow for,as someone else called it, impulse PPV purchases. I have no doubt there is more PPV revenue from households with a phone line/network hooked in than those without.

    --
    If you can't be good, be good at it!
  30. They can only tell... by rossdee · · Score: 1

    what chaell your decoder is set to, not whether you are actually there watching it.
    If you are one of their customers you should make sure that when you are out, or sleeping, or trolling slasdot, it is set to some random channel to confuse them.

    1. Re:They can only tell... by babyrat · · Score: 1

      Good idea - then some random show will get advertising dollars and the shows that you actually like, won't get and advertising dollars and they'll be canceled.

      That'll teach those bastards!

  31. Good luck on this one by baomike · · Score: 1

    While Dish seems to be able to keep there programming working (programs show up on my screen ) They can't make web sites so save their souls.
    Maybe this reflects the split between Echostar and Dish. Their site has gotten better but is still a flash laced hodge podge. At least the links now lead to something and it may work.

  32. Re:Dish makes you pay $5 more per box that is not by rriven · · Score: 1

    I agree with you. I have given them $40 of ppv because my 9 month old son LOVES to play with the remote. Well after that we put a block on, but if every customer who plugs in a phone line orders one movie they didn't want to, well Dish just made a few million.

    If you go with Directv and get 4 tvs you have to pay $15 extra No matter what.

    At least Dish saves you $10 a month. Which adds up fast.

    --
    Dan
  33. Cool! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Oh, good! More info and help for the advertisers! Thanks, Google, you fucking sacks of pig shit. I hope your sex party plane crashes into a fucking mountain, you fucking, shit sucking tools, and you survive the crash, crippled and in pain for days before a fucking bear slowly eats you feet first.

  34. Is it really? I don't think so. TARGET ME! by brunes69 · · Score: 1

    Which ads would you rather constantly be pounded with on TV - new products from Apple/Google/, niche technology gadgets, action sci-fi movies, comic-cons, science kits, etc - or Mr. Clean, adult diapers, Febreeze, ED tablets, and tampons?

    TARGET AWAY GOOGLE! PLEASE TARGET ME FOR ADS!

    I don't get why so many people are against targeted advertising. By definition, they already know the info about you, or else they would not be able to do said targeting. All it means is they are actually using the info to make your user experience more enjoyable - and for them, hopefully mean you will pay more attention to the ads.

  35. Re:Dish makes you pay $5 more per box that is not by Jumperalex · · Score: 1

    And see now I "get" charging extra at 4 TV's since I would imagine the licensing agreement they have with the networks means they are charged more per TV. Of course that assumes that all 4 TV's can actually be used at once, but still there is logic to that given how content is licensed.

    --
    If you can't be good, be good at it!
  36. Most content is dismal. by professorguy · · Score: 1
    Yes, most TV content is dismal. Most content of ANY TYPE is dismal. Most magazines are dismal. Most books are dismal. Most manuals, texts, ads, software, music, etc is dismal.

    I guess you tend to avoid books as well (since most content is dismal).

    1. Re:Most content is dismal. by nurb432 · · Score: 1

      Modern books, yes i do avoid most of them for that reason.

      Havent bought a magazine since the late 80's.

      --
      ---- Booth was a patriot ----
  37. Make it stop... *sob* by cparker15 · · Score: 1

    Oh, I almost forgot - I think your car warranty has expired, but it is not too late to extent it! This is your 2nd notice!

    Were you snooping through my mailbox last week?

    --
    Have you driven a fnord... lately?

    You must wait a little bit before using this resource; please try again later.