Broadcast Industry Wades In On Dish Network's Hopper

gollum123 writes "As with past technological threats, network executives are closing ranks against a Dish Network device that undermines the broadcast business model. The disruptive technology at hand is an ad-eraser, embedded in new digital video recorders sold by Charles W. Ergen's Dish Network, one of the nation's top distributors of TV programming. Turn it on, and all the ads recorded on most prime-time network shows are automatically skipped, no channel-flipping or fast-forwarding necessary. Some reviewers have already called the feature, called the Auto Hop, a dream come true for consumers. But for broadcasters and advertisers, it is an attack on an entrenched television business model, and it must be strangled, lest it spread elsewhere."

Comments

Don't do that.

[busyqth]

If you skip ads, you stand with the child pornographers.

Re:Don't do that.

[Anonymous Coward]

and you also support feeding baby seals to terrorists

Re:Don't do that.

[Penguinisto]

Dish has already had the ability to skip forward in 30-second intervals on their DVR anyway... the only diff is that now you can completely avoid catching a glimpse of an advert. It's part of why I rarely bother with live TV anymore (outside of the local news stations, anyway) - I'll just DVR what I want in advance, and watch that.

As for the channel owners? Screw 'em. I'm sorry, but I already pay for the service, and paid a bit extra for the channels. Why the hell should I be forced to become a source of further income to them?

Re:Don't do that.

[PopeRatzo]

As for the channel owners? Screw 'em. I'm sorry, but I already pay for the service, and paid a bit extra for the channels. Why the hell should I be forced to become a source of further income to them?

Because they are the job creators and unless you submit to their advertising you are siding with the islamomarxists who are trying to force you to have health insurance.

Plus, they're only forcing you to look at their advertisements for your own good, because those very advertisements are the last line of defense against the evil informed consumer.

Re:Don't do that.

[Anonymous Coward]

As long as you don't mind the cost increase due to the lack of ad revenue, that's all good. I'd pay Hulu if they'd sell me the ad free version, even more than what they are charging. But I won't pay for it with ads, they just literally won't offer me the service I'd pay for.

Re:Don't do that.

[Technician]

And Netflix. Sorry, sources of ad free program are already out there. This was why I bailed on cable TV years ago. They charge me, and then still cram it full of ads. Internet sites full of time wasting ads simply get bypassed for sites with content. Pay TV has been on a decline ever since.

GM tried to follow the eyeballs from TV to online social media. If the ads don't block content, they are ignored. If the ads do block content, the pages are mostly ignored. Take a clue from Yahoo and Google. The viewers leave, followed by the advertisers. Want to kill your site, load it with ads. This is why I expect Facebook to follow Yahoo, Geocities, Myspace, etc, unless they highly restrict advertising damage to the site.

The biggest mistake is to try to increase revenue by selling more ads at the expence of the users. Lose the users, you lost.

Re:Don't do that.

[Anonymous Coward]

Comcast had that 30-second skip feature. Then they changed it to five minutes and made it unusable for skipping commercials (great for the softcore on the premium channels though).

Re:Don't do that.

[Fluffeh]

Seals are around 25% fat. A mere 28 grams (that's like a SPOON of it) contains 11% of your recommended daily fat intake.. Feeding them to terrorists might not be such a bad idea. Feed em seal for a month, terrorist dies of a coronary.

Re:Don't do that.

[randy of the redwood]

http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/How_to_use_a_Motorola_DVR/Programming_the_Remote#Add_30-Second_Skip

It's still there. They just don't enable it by default. (Your remote may vary)

Re:Don't do that.

[Anonymous Coward]

Those who cheat the public out of public domain media are also thieves.

Re:Don't do that.

[Stewie241]

Or perhaps they have judged that people wouldn't pay what it would cost without the ads.

Re:Don't do that.

[Phoobarnvaz]

A lot of us must be even worse than the suppliers. We edit out their inane messages without ever seeing them after recording whatever program I want with the TV tuner card.

Re:Don't do that.

[englishknnigits]

Except it is excess carbs instead of fat that actually causes CHD, we should send them wonder bread and corn flakes! http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/06/090625133215.htm

Re:Don't do that.

[bryan1945]

If you stand with the pirates you are a Pastafarian. All hail his Noodley Appendage.

Re:Don't do that.

[PopeRatzo]

Or perhaps they have judged that people wouldn't pay what it would cost without the ads.

How would they have "judged" that without offering an ad-free service to see how well it's accepted?

Or perhaps they just don't give a shit what people want, because their customers are the ad advertisers, not the viewers. The people that watch Hulu are the consumables, not the consumers. Welcome to the "free market" - where you just don't get a choice. Funny how that works.

Re:Don't do that.

[Anonymous Coward]

Totally agree... I pay for a DVR, specifically to avoid the bloody adverts.

Re:Don't do that.

[kelemvor4]

Or perhaps they have judged that people wouldn't pay what it would cost without the ads.

How would they have "judged" that without offering an ad-free service to see how well it's accepted?

Or perhaps they just don't give a shit what people want, because their customers are the ad advertisers, not the viewers. The people that watch Hulu are the consumables, not the consumers. Welcome to the "free market" - where you just don't get a choice. Funny how that works.

If they need to charge a large sum, say $1000/month to make an equivalent amount of money then it's a pretty safe bet it won't be accepted. It should be pretty simple for any business to compare what they make in ad revenue, then estimate if they think they can sell it at a reasonable price or not. Of course once they get past that hurdle, a smaller company like Hulu has to worry about networks not allowing hulu to continue broadcasting if hulu is cutting out ads. DISH probably doesn't have to worry quite so much since the networks stand to loose a lot if they cut dish out of the pie, but smaller companies would be screwed in a hurry.

Re:Don't do that.

[mtm_king]

Those who cheat the public out of public domain media are also thieves.

When I get mod points I will come back and mod your comment Insightful.

Re:Don't do that.

[Torg]

From one of many Hulu's own case studies, 13 million views, 106K total votes
http://www.hulu.com/advertising/case-studies/oscars

So if you go strictly by the view rate, 13 million. That extra cost for a $1,000,000 advertisement would be a whole 7 cents. Since most adds are well under $1M it would be even less.

Re:Don't do that.

[Genda]

The point is that everyone, everywhere, will take every opportunity to squeeze a buck out of every orifice they can legally get a finger in. This is why, you go to a movie for which you paid $15 dollars to see, and they subject you to 20 minutes of commercials. That is why people are driving around with advertisements on their cars. That is why if they ever figure out how to project images on the inside of contact lenses you best be prepared to be seeing commercials on them for at least an hour a day. The corporate machine is hawking its proverbial ass off and it has you square in its sights. How dare you deny them the opportunity to scream at you every waking moment of your life.

Re:Don't do that.

[PopeRatzo]

If they need to charge a large sum, say $1000/month to make an equivalent amount of money then it's a pretty safe bet it won't be accepted.

You have to be kidding. Do you really think that the ads that the average Hulu viewer watches in a month is worth $1000 in profits to their advertisers?

Judging from online advertising rates, Hulu could charge maybe $5/mo and make the same money they're making from the advertisers. But the point is, Hulu doesn't want people as their customers, because then they have to offer a quality product. By having advertisers as their customers, all they have to do is get enough people to watch, but then those viewers end up hating Hulu. It's the upside-down way that the corporate world operates. If you look at many of the biggest corporations in the world, their "customers" are not really their customers. That creates a disconnect. They don't WANT anything like a "free market" because then consumers would have a choice. They don't want you to have a choice.

Re:Don't do that.

[Anonymous Coward]

And of course from related articles on the same site.

The latest common wisdom on carbohydrates claims that eating so-called “bad” carbohydrates will make you fat, but University of Virginia professor Glenn Gaesser says, “that’s just nonsense.”

Gaesser, author of “It’s the Calories, Not the Carbs” and other books, found that diets high in carbohydrates are almost universally associated with slimmer bodies.

Re:Don't do that.

[Anonymous Coward]

Better tell the cable&satellite companies they're thieves then. They not only edit out the network's ads, but put their own ads in their place.
Besides, you can't steal an imaginary story. Truth is, literate people can see most new "content" for the worthless rehash of old story plots and tropes for what they are. Which usually ranges from tribute to parody or plagiarism to fan-fiction.

Re:Don't do that.

[aaarrrgggh]

More likely, they determined that the peoplemthatnare willing to pay are the ones the advertisers actually want. The masses just make the rates look better.

Wrong solution in my book though.

Re:Don't do that.

[SuperCharlie]

I agree whole heartedly and raise you this.. it is not only the hocking of goods, it is a psychological assault. Minds are bent towards the materialism of the day and in subliminal ways towards sociological norms they wish to impart on the masses through peer pressure and sheer repetition.

I find it no coincidence that every mainstream sheeple has gps in their pocket and are almost all connected to communication behemoths in some govt pocket. Can You Hear Me Now?

Re:Don't do that.

[isorox]

The corporate machine is hawking its proverbial ass off and it has you square in its sights. How dare you deny them the opportunity to scream at you every waking moment of your life.

Leela: Didn't you have ads in the 21st century?"
Fry: Well sure, but not in our dreams. Only on TV and radio, and in magazines, and movies, and at ball games... and on buses and milk cartons and t-shirts, and bananas and written on the sky. But not in dreams, no siree.

Re:Don't do that.

[fnj]

The fat, carbohydrate, and cholesterol theories of atherosclerosis are all BULLSHIT. Atherosclerosis is caused by chronic INFLAMMATION of the arteries.

Re:Don't do that.

[Anonymous Coward]

No, but you do kill the broadcast networks.

But that probably is DIsh's goal.

Cable/Satellite companies tend to either pay for the really popular networks (like Disney), or have the networks pay them (can't remember which are good examples). Local broadcast networks, however, are mandated to be no charge. An, if I remember correctly, the dish/cable telcos get slots for commercials to generate their own revenue with non-broadcast networks. This means that Dish has an incentive to actively harm the broadcast networks, because they aren't getting money from them - they probably aren't significantly increasing subscriber streams, since the subscribers can use antenna, and they aren't paying like other channels that only minimally increase subscriber numbers.

Re:Don't do that.

[Anonymous Coward]

If you have a Motorola DVR for Comcast, you can reprogram the remote to skip in 30-second hops, too. A poor man's hopper. but still very effective.

Re:Don't do that.

[AmiMoJo]

I wonder if anyone has studied the negative affects of advertising on potential customers? Oral B ads made me discount them completely when choosing an electric toothbrush. I definitely won't be using MoneySupermarket thanks to their campaigns. Citron's "shakin' that ass" advert put me right off the design of the car, which now only reminds me of a fat person's arse.

It seems like the "arms race" going on in advertising, particularly TV advertising, is having the opposite effect to the one intended.

Re:Don't do that.

[Anonymous Coward]

I wonder if anyone on this site has an actual job that generates any kind of revenue? Without advertizing, how would this be done? When you commies get your way and outlaw capitalism there will still be ads, you know that right? Except they will be for all the same company, the government that makes everything. Really, the people on this site are really childish.

Re:Don't do that.

[oh_my_080980980]

Advertising is why you don't have to pay for over the air content. So chances are the real cost is alot lower than what we are paying.

Re:Don't do that.

[Anonymous Coward]

Since the ads already paid for it, any further income is just icing on the cake. You don't get to charge what it cost you every time you run it, it doesn't work like that.

Re:Don't do that.

[Taibhsear]

Babies shouldn't be SEALs. They should wait until they are adults before training to go after terrorists.

Re:Don't do that.

[tlhIngan]

How would they have "judged" that without offering an ad-free service to see how well it's accepted?

They do provide ad-free TV though. One, you can buy them through DVD or Blu-Ray box sets. Two, you can often buy same through Amazon or Apple.

That's the price they're offering ad-free TV for - $2-3 per episode. I think Steve Jobs wanted to make it 99 cents/episode, but the networks balked. $5 if you want it in HD.

Re:Don't do that.

[BronsCon]

How did small local shops survive before radio, TV, and print? Word of mouth? Making a quality product that people talked about? Treating people with some respect and decency so they will want to come back?

Let me tell you, there are a large number of people who *DO NOT* buy shit they see heavily advertized; the majority of people I associate with are like this. If you take half a second to think about it, it makes sense. If your product was so awesome that I just have to have it, wouldn't people be talking about it? Wouldn't I hear it from them? Would you be spending millions of dollars, that would otherwise be profit for you, to shove your product in my face if it was that good?

In order: YES, YES, NO.

It's also worth noting that it is kind of childish to completely ignore a product simply because it is being advertized. Once in a great while, a really good product comes along that is simply made by a company with a huge ego and advertizing budget. One example of this is the Gillette Fusion Proglide Styler, which I bought a couple months ago (and I'm still on the first blade, though it's finally getting dull) when I needed a quick shave and had forgotten to pack my trimmer/shaver, because it was the cheapest product on the shelf that did both trimming and shaving. Let me say I've never been a fan of the 5 blade razors, too much drag, but the vibration (stronger than other vibrating razors) makes it glide smoothly. The trimmer doesn't seem to bind up on my thick whiskers like my $70 trimmer, either. Not a bad product for $20 and I've made sure to let people know that (for some reason, shaving has come up in conversation a lot lately, so it's been relevant).

The point I'm trying to make here is that it was not advertizing that sold the product; in my case, it was price point for a product that was going to be throw-away but has, instead, replaced two much more expensive items. For three of my friends who went out and got one after hearing about it from me, it was not the advertizing, but word of mouth, which led them to purchase. Advertizing is useful, in moderation, to inform people of new products. Beyond that, it's wasteful, counterproductive, and annoying

If you need to advertize a product beyond its initial launch, you have a failed product; please stop trying to shove it down my throat.

Re:Don't do that.

[Anonymous Coward]

Its important to acknowledge, ALL cable and satelite services were launched on the promise of ad-free entertainment. We ALL already pay a surcharge which was supposed to pay for not seeing ads. They later decided they lied and then started double dipping. To this day, all pricing is based on this double dipping.

If there is any way to not see the commercials we all pay not to see, then I'm all for it. They can go fuck themselves because they've already been paid for their advertising. Its just in this case, we pre-paid not to see it.

Re:Don't do that.

[scot4875]

I wonder if this AC has a job that generates any kind of value to society? I'm guessing "no."

--Jeremy

Re:Don't do that.

[englishknnigits]

and most carb rich, high glycemic index foods cause systemic inflammation. Particular ones involving grains, legumes, and dairy. Just go to nutritiondata.com and look at the inflammation factors. There are also links between chronic, elevated insulin levels (which high glycemic index foods cause) and systemic inflammation. http://www.usc.edu/hsc/info/pr/hmm/06fall/insulin.html

Re:Don't do that.

[nurb432]

It was sarcasm, and i guess no one remembers that idiot Ted Turner calling people who tape and fast forward thru commercials thieves.

Re:Don't do that.

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey Penguinisto! As someone who has been trained on the features of Auto Hop, I regretfully have to inform you that you can only use it for shows recorded by the PrimteTime Anytime feature, which is the major four networks. The 30-second skip still works for everything else. My wife and I find it useful though because we can just press one button at the beginning of the show, and do other things since we don’t have to pick up the remote every ten minutes. My wife likes the uninterrupted ironing she does in front of the TV, and I like to make breakfast and eat in the morning when I’m getting ready to head in to work at Dish. I hope you find it useful in many ways too.

Re:Don't do that.

[mattack2]

and, of course on Tivos..

select play select 3 0 select
turns the -> button into a 30 second skip button.
(It still does 'skip to tickmark' while in ff/rewind modes on a recording.) The Premieres have it automatically be a 30 second 'scan' (quick FF), but the same code above toggles the good ol' 30 second skip.

Then maybe they shouldn't charge CATV/Sat

[htnmmo]

Local broadcasts are free. Well sort of. You can still get over the air local channels most places but maybe 80-90%+ of people receive their local channels through cable tv, satellite, fios, whatever.

These companies can't just tap into the local airwaves and rebroadcast these channels. They have to pay for it and ever year or so there's a major issue with the contract of some channel holding out for more money.

The traditional broadcasting model is dead. The new one is get paid by advertisers, get paid again by distributors.

Though I can imagine dish caving just like tivo did.

Re:Then maybe they shouldn't charge CATV/Sat

[Penguinisto]

I don't mind supporting the local channels at all, in spite of living in a rural area well over 50 miles away from all the local stores they advertise for. It's the only time I really don't even mind the adverts. Everything else gets DVR'd and skipped.

OTOH, I only watch the local newscasts, and maybe live local events if/when they're broadcast.

Re:Then maybe they shouldn't charge CATV/Sat

[rudy_wayne]

Local broadcasts are free. Well sort of. You can still get over the air local channels most places but maybe 80-90%+ of people receive their local channels through cable tv, satellite, fios, whatever.

These companies can't just tap into the local airwaves and rebroadcast these channels. They have to pay for it and ever year or so there's a major issue with the contract of some channel holding out for more money.

Which just illustrates the extreme level of greed in the TV industry. The old days of free TV supported entirely by commercials is gone. All of the cable and satellite companies must pay many millions of dollars a year to every network if they want to carry their programming. Add it all up and it easily runs into many billions of dollars. The fact is, you could completely eliminate commercials from TV and the networks would still make an enormous amount of money from broadcast fees, syndication, dvd sales, etc.

Of course, in Hollywood, no amount of money is ever enough.

Re:Then maybe they shouldn't charge CATV/Sat

[Anonymous Coward]

The networks would.

Your local television channel?

That's another story. What are they going to do?

Re:Then maybe they shouldn't charge CATV/Sat

[i.r.id10t]

Yup. I already pay $$ to descramble the signals... why should I "pay" more by giving them ad views?

Re:Then maybe they shouldn't charge CATV/Sat

[DedTV]

In the old days, you paid for a magazine subscription for a magazine full of ads and 30lbs of "Subscribe now!" cards. People always think their pennies are magical and that the $100 or so they pay the cable company should be more than enough for every network to afford multi-million dollar sports licenses and TV Shows all by itself.

People complain that TV Networks are greedy but they have to deal with greedy actors, greedy directors, greedy producers, greedy lawyers, and all other sorts of greedy people to make shows for greedy viewers who think making good TV is cheap and easy.

People skip ads, they just do more of those product placement things where characters in a show suddenly spend 5 minutes describing in detail the features of the navigation system of the car they're driving to a crime scene while their passenger enjoys a tasty Subway sandwich before cranking up the latest Justin Beiber CD and extolling how much they "love this song" while you get a pop up ad in a corner for Joe Bob's Heating & Air $39.95 summer tune up special.

Shades of Adnix and Preachnix

[Anonymous Coward]

Welcome to the future.

Years before, he had invented a module that, when a television commercial appeared, automatically muted the sound. It wasn't at first a context recognition device. Instead, it simply monitored the amplitude of the carrier wave. TV advertisers had taken to running their ads louder and with less audio clutter than the programs that were their nominal vehicles. News of Hadden's module spread by word of mouth. People reported a sense of relief, the lifting of a great burden, even a feeling of joy at being freed from the advertising barrage for the six to eight hours out of every day that the average American spent in front of the television set. Before there could be any coordinated response from the television advertising industry, Adnix had become wildly popular. It forced advertisers and networks into new choices of carrier wave strategy, each of which Hadden countered with a new invention. Sometimes he invented circuits to defeat strategies that the agencies and the networks had not yet hit upon. He would say that he was saving them the trouble of making inventions, at great cost to their shareholders, which were at any rate doomed to failure. As his sales volume increased, he kept cutting prices. It was a kind of electronic warfare. And he was winning.

... He suspected that the takeover was only a pretext, that his real offense had been to attack advertising and video evangelism. Adnix and Preachnix were the essence of capitalist entrepreneurship, he argued repeatedly. The point of capitalism was supposed to be providing people with alternatives.

"Well, the absence of advertising is an alternative, I told them. There are huge advertising budgets only when there's no difference between the products. If the products really were different, people would buy the one that's better. Advertising teaches people not to trust their judgment. Advertising teaches people to be stupid. A strong country needs smart people. So Adnix is patriotic. The manufacturers can use some of their advertising budgets to improve their products. The consumer will benefit. Magazines and newspapers and direct mail business will boom, and that'll ease the pain in the ad agencies. I don't see what the problem is."

- Carl Sagan, Contact, 1985.

Wish you could have been here to see it, Dr. Sagan.

Re:Shades of Adnix and Preachnix

[htnmmo]

Ironically doing a Google search for "Adnix and Preachnix" and clicking on the first page gets you a page full of ads, a popup and a warning message when you try and browse away. :)

Re:Shades of Adnix and Preachnix

[AmiMoJo]

What we need is an internet connected box with HDMI. When the ads come on it gets a signal over the network that switches on the HTMI and shows something like a news website or RSS feed, and then off again when the ads finish. Most TVs can auto switch to HDMI when a signal is found. A relatively small number of trusted users could run the whole thing by hitting a button on their remote when the ads come on, with a number of "votes" required to confirm it isn't just an accidental press or a troll.

A Raspberry Pi should do the job. Kickstarter perhaps?

Re:Shades of Adnix and Preachnix

[Maximum Prophet]

This was tried back in the day, by an guy in LA (I think). He paid people to watch specific channels at specific times, and press a button during the commercials. Then, he sold a device and service to people that would pause their VCRs during the commercials.

Dude committed "Suicide" before his service could take off. Take your own lesson from this.

Re:Shades of Adnix and Preachnix

[Duggeek]

Indeed. Shades of many predicted futures are unfolding before us. What's important is the future that we strive towards.

Television Advertising is an aging enterprise; we can see the wrinkles, hear the joints make disappointed sounds and smell the death in the air. Advertising Production continues to be vibrant and fresh at the forefront, but also dated and tiresome at the rear. Advertising commerce and leadership is even more atrocious; gaudy incentive-based models and over-wrought statistics models that snuff any possible gains from consumer feedback by dissecting them until the results are almost completely irrelevant. It's a most appalling beast.

In the U.K. and around Europe, the model is to provide a block of advertisements at the start of a time-slot, then play the show in its entirety. This is better in two ways; the story is told uninterrupted, and one avoids the gross repetition of ads that bombard us about the most trivial of purchasing opportunities. (see above about the "least of competitive differences" for some good examples) Speaking of repetition, it seems that nowadays it's not uncommon to see the same ad twice in a row. Are they also trying to drive us insane with dejá vu?

So, maybe our new DVR culture could take a page from that get-it-over-with-firstly model. Dish® has taken the extreme stance of, "our technology, our customers, our rules" and they're welcome to pursue that suicidal path. (Talk about biting the hand that feeds you!) Here however, is a possible compromise; use this revolutionary technology to re-structure advertising. (vs. eliminating it)

Here's how that would look: Say you've just recorded the latest Big Bang Theory and are about to watch from disk. The prompt on the screen says, "Would you like to group all ads before watching the show? This will eliminate ads during the program." The magic lies in the grouping; heuristics have determined which ads are duplicate, which are longest and which are shortest, which are local and which are national-feed, etc. It then proceeds to present the ads in rapid-fire fashion (to which we are accustomed) in a specific sorting order, such as national-then-local, or longest-to-shortest, or some other scheme. (configurable, perhaps?) Add to that, when the ads are complete, the DVR announces the beginning of the program with a signature tone and a short pause, which may be skipped if you're sitting right there.

In this way, the DVR finally stops resembling its linear-tape predecessors and truly emerges as an indispensable tool of the Digital Age... and without burning the ecosystem that spawned it. If left unchecked, techniques such as DVR Proofing vis-a-vis storyline-integration advertising, (where you have to watch the ad because it is actually part of the story/episode) contextual advertising and addressable advertising become not only necessary evils, but the norm.

Dr. Sagan was most insightful about one thing above all; the most advertising money is thrown at the least of competitive differences. (e.g., light beer, chewing gum, fast food, automobile dealerships, etc)

The American viewing audience is no longer taken-in by commercials. There's nothing "magic" about TV any more. We know that advertising is meant to deceive, persuade and ultimately to control our consumer buying potential. This is being taught in early education under Social Sciences; ergo, the adults today knew better long before they had a consumer vote. We're not the brightest bulb, but neither are we that easy to fool.

I don't think anyone really views commercials as any form of inspiration or as fostering loyalty to a particular brand... it's all just another form of entertainment.

Let's look at it this way; advertising as entertainment. It's fairly natural, and supported by psychology

This the same DISH that drops channels all the tim

[Joe_Dragon]

This the same DISH that drops channels all the time will they end dropping one of the big 4? over this?

keeping up with the netflix generation

[kesuki]

ads who needs ads. netflix, hulu plus, amazon prime -- all ad free and on ps3 or pc/mac. the later two support linux though netflix is silverlight based, and claims not to work on linux.

Re:keeping up with the netflix generation

[Anonymous Coward]

Hulu is not ad free. Hulu is "here are a some short ads" with the promise of basically being television in the future.

Re:keeping up with the netflix generation

[kesuki]

apparently you don't get the 'upgrade to hulu plus and the ads go away' ad had i meant hulu basic i would have said just hulu or hulu basic not hulu plus.

Either pay or ads

[benb]

I'm from Europe, but aren't you paying for receiving Dish?

From my standpoint: Either pay or ads, but never both.

The pay-TV in Europe is ad-free (well, at least during the show), pay-TV companies are treating their customers like dirt. Free-TV is rich, has many consumers, but is continuously degrading in quality (both the kind of content, and amount of ads) since 15 years.

Re:Either pay or ads

[Penguinisto]

Depends on the channel. Some are overflowing with adverts, while others are ad-free.

And some channels are nothing but continuous advertisement, 24/7/365.

Welcome to variety. :)

Re:Either pay or ads

[Solandri]

From my standpoint: Either pay or ads, but never both.

Well that was originally the idea. When cable TV first rolled out in the U.S., the non-local channels it carried didn't have commercials. But them some marketing exec noticed that nobody had promised customers that there would be no ads. So they started double-dipping by adding ads.

Re:Either pay or ads

[Anonymous Coward]

Must be nice. Here you can have free TV with ads, pay TV with ads, or "premium" TV (HBO, Showtime, etc.) with no ads (but you have to have pay TV with ads to get the pay TV with no ads).

Or you can just buy the stuff outright after they are released on DVD, iTunes, etc.

Re:Either pay or ads

[PopeRatzo]

I'm from Europe, but aren't you paying for receiving Dish?

From my standpoint: Either pay or ads, but never both.

Your unwillingness to "pay both" is exactly why the Eurozone is collapsing into a tyranny of universal health care and subsidized education.

Here in America, we realize that we're supposed to pay everyone except the government, who we hate as God intended.

Re:Either pay or ads

[KingSkippus]

I'm from Europe...

I'm from America, where big corporations aren't just free, but actually expected to the point of being obligated to rake in obscene profits. There's no such thing as consumer rights here, it's all about the bottom line. They make you pay to get television, then they make advertisers pay to present it to you. Don't forget having companies pay to place their products subtly (or not-so-subtly, many times) in the shows themselves. Then you have to pay yet again if you ever want to watch it on another device or in another format, and there's a pretty durn good chance that they've sold yet more advertising, such as on Hulu, or in the form of non-skippable ads on DVDs, etc.

America used to be the land of the free. Now it's the land of the rape-everyone-for-as-much-money-as-you-can.

Re:Either pay or ads

[Nethemas the Great]

Which I thought was a fine an excellent idea since my $100/month cable bill should be going to something worthwhile. I mean come on, people pay good money to be advertised to in magazines. Why shouldn't they enjoy that privilege with TV?

Re:Either pay or ads

[amiga3D]

Or you can just download it off of a torrent or usenet without any of that crap. That would be wrong though, you're supposed to bend over and grab your ankles for the media companies.

Re:Either pay or ads

[Anonymous Coward]

The flaw in this analysis is the assumption that advertising creates excess revenue not necessary to run the business. Without more, this question cannot be accurately assessed. But, given the huge revenue stream created by advertising, it is likely that without it the associated businesses would fail unless they found another revenue stream - e.g. charging more directly to consumers for the base service.

So the question is not simply "pay or ads" it is "how much do the businesses need and where will that money come from?"

I cannot say what real effect this technology will have, but I prefer obscure technologies that require some configuration and are not perfect such that they fulfill my purpose (skipping ads) while failing to catch on with most people. That way my television is cheap AND ad-free and those unable or unwilling to adopt ad-skipping suffer the consequences.

Re:Either pay or ads

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm from Europe, but aren't you paying for receiving Dish?

From my standpoint: Either pay or ads, but never both.

The pay-TV in Europe is ad-free (well, at least during the show), pay-TV companies are treating their customers like dirt. Free-TV is rich, has many consumers, but is continuously degrading in quality (both the kind of content, and amount of ads) since 15 years.

Sky is a pay-tv yet has ads.
Free to air channels (public channels) in general shouldn't have ads because your taxes pay for them yet they do.
The only channel I know of that doesn't have ads is Arte (a franco-german cultural free to air channel).

Re:Either pay or ads

[grumling]

Not true. While you are right that HBO didn't carry advertising, most out of market stations were just passed through, with ads. Then WTBS went up on the satellite and started charing their advertisers national rates. When Turner started up his other networks he kept the advertising/subscription model. Soon the other superstations (WGN, etc) started charging national rates too. By the time the channel explosion happened in the 1980s everyone expected to run ads.

Re:Either pay or ads

[foniksonik]

And yet America's financial meltdown was resolved pretty quickly (not fixed but not getting worse) whereas Europe is going down and there's no resolution in sight because there is this same entitlement mentality.

Re:Either pay or ads

[KingSkippus]

God forbid there be a happy medium.

Re:Either pay or ads

[artor3]

Europe is struggling because of their austerity policies. Every country to institute them is worse off than it was before. It has nothing to do with an entitlement mentality. It's all down to the absurdity of fighting high unemployment and low consumer confidence by firing people and taking away safety nets.

The time for spending cuts is when things are good. Unfortunately it is exactly those times that the political will to cut is lowest.

Re:Either pay or ads

[Darinbob]

Almost all pay channels have ads in the US. Even premium stuff like HBO has ads for their own shows, but at least it's between shows usually. But for every other non-premium channel there are ads interspersed in the show (except PBS but then they've got periodic pledge breaks). Even during the actual show the majority of channels still put their big ugly log on the bottom of the screen or have some obvious blurb for upcoming shows.

For $50-70 a month you'd think they could get rid of advertisements. I wonder where the money actually goes? I suspect it's not going to the same entity that the ad revenue goes to. Basic cable is not a place to make a lot of money.

Re:Either pay or ads

[diamondmagic]

There's nothing wrong with profits, it means you're producing things of value effectively. The alternative is losses which means you're just wasting resources, and that's bad.

When profits do become bad is when you're using lawsuits to protect yourself against honest competition. Which is practically the whole entertainment distribution industry, software patents, and other legal monopolies.

Re:Either pay or ads

[slashrio]

Europe is struggling because of their austerity policies.

Totally wrong.

Europe is struggling (and failing) because of the puppets in the EC not accepting the fact that it already hàs failed, and because they refuse to let get broke who deserves to get broke (banks who issued loans that they knew could never be repaid).

And the biggest contribution to the failure of Europe *and* the US is that the governments are so stupid to borrow money from the banks, instead of printing it themselves.

Re:Either pay or ads

[jedidiah]

> Europe is struggling because of their austerity policies.

It's like Republicans managed to take over Europe or something.

The conventional wisdom is to spend your way out of a recession and clean up the mess later rather than trying to pay your way out of debt with money you don't really have.

Re:Either pay or ads

[giorgist]

The most bizarre thing that comes from America is clothing, and especially T-Shirts where the logo is oversize to the point that it dominates the whole item. It looks to me like those guys that walk around with billboards on their front and back ... why ?

Re:Either pay or ads

[Gordonjcp]

Exactly. Here in the UK, the BBC channels are ad-free, iPlayer is ad-free and the rest of the FTA channels have about half as many adverts as the US. Sky TV is pretty ad-heavy, but then it's the same group of companies as Fox.

Don't want to pay *at all*? Don't get a TV licence (which is a bit selfish, since that pays for the ad-free BBC radio and TV, and is about £12 per month), and don't watch off-air TV or "live" iPlayer.

Of course bittorrent is *always* ad-free...

Re:Either pay or ads

[Plunky]

Humans are social creatures, they usually feel more comfortable when not diverging from the social group. This has been demonstrated many times with psychological experiments where people will act against all common sense when others are setting an example to follow (see: Stanley Milgrams New Hampshire experiment, for an extreme example). Those people who wear branding and/or follow fashions slavishly are just belonging because it makes them comfortable to blend in with what everybody else is doing.

And that is why mass market advertising works too.. they show you pictures of other people doing what they want you to do, and large segments of the population follow suit.. Its not [any longer] about telling you truthfully what the benefits of this product vs that product are so that you can make a reasoned decision about which to use, it is solely about getting the images into your brain so that you prefer to use that product because you have seen other people using it.

Re:Either pay or ads

[Electricity Likes Me]

Also Goldman-Sachs happily helped Greece cook the books to get into the EU.

Re:Either pay or ads

[Tom]

Sorry, buddy, but you missed the train there.

We've had universal health care... I don't know. At least all my life and most if not all of the lives of my parent generation. Other countries have had it even longer. No collapse anywhere in sight. Heck, many of the social security systems in Europe survived two world wars.

The reason why some of them are collapsing now has a very different cause: The insurance industry has realized that if those social security systems weren't public, but, say, insurances, they would make billions of profits. I'm not exaggerating. The pension system alone is so massive, every insurance manager would get an instant orgasm just thinking about getting a few percentages of it.

So they did what big business does these days: Bribe the government to ruin the systems that stood for a hundred years through wars, economic collapse, everything. They couldn't take it away, because that would've lost them, well, pretty much all voters. But they've run it into the ground intentionally, blaming demographic changes and what else. None of which is true, every few years another economist publishes a paper showing that with but minor changes the public system could be adapted quite easily.

The result is that a) most of us have to take out insurance in addition to the mandatory public pension system and b) we now have something that used to be quite rare in Europe: Old people who are poor despite having worked all their lives.

As for the education - let's just say that aside from the world-famous elite universities, the american school system is the laughing stock of all the first world. One look at it and we are quite certain that we want to stick with ours, despite all its shortcomings.

Re:Either pay or ads

[Anonymous Coward]

Europe is many things. (Something to remember whenever the word is used).

In Denmark most people get to pay for tv with ads. Yeah, we can get extra ad-free channels, then we're talking about a bill of 50$/mo on top of the 50 we pay for a full regular package. (The govt will take $30/mo for you just having a tv, goes to paying for the national broadcaster which, incidentally, is ad free but don't show too much hi-quality content since they blew their money on a concert hall).

Re:Either pay or ads

[PopeRatzo]

We've had universal health care... I don't know. At least all my life and most if not all of the lives of my parent generation. Other countries have had it even longer. No collapse anywhere in sight. Heck, many of the social security systems in Europe survived two world wars.

Of course, I agree. I was being sarcastic and not very well.

I would be very happy if the US learned lessons from Europe. The American health care system and the cost of higher education here (compared to what you actually get for your money) is absolutely embarrassing to a lot of Americans. If you break a leg playing ball, you're looking at approximately the price of a new car to get a cast put on. And as a retired 25-year academic, I am not afraid to say that universities are hurting more students than they're helping, thanks to the high prices they charge, for no good reason.

I'm sorry that I gave the impression I was criticizing Europe. Hell, I own a house there and plan to retire there once my daughter is out of grad school.

Re:Either pay or ads

[coinreturn]

Whoosh!

Re:Either pay or ads

[volpe]

I was being sarcastic and not very well.

No, it was done quite well, and not lost on me or most of the other readers, I imagine. But then, I've been reading your posts long enough to recognize and appreciate your brand of humor.

Re:Either pay or ads

[Anonymous Coward]

I remember even in the early 90's many cable station still didn't have ads. The only ad free network I can think of now is the Disney channel.

Re:Either pay or ads

[Anonymous Coward]

And exactly how else do you get people to give you their money when your debt has reached unsustainable levels? Austerity was a compromise to get other countries to sink vast amounts of money into places like Greece. The government bonds market isn't going to be interested in taking on any more of that debt, because it is likely never to be repaid.

So without Austerity noone takes the risk of investing in these governments and without additional debt coming in the country defaults. It can keep paying out only by printing money or downsizing to spend only what it takes in. For a country using the Euro I'm not sure printing money is even an option.

You may disagree with the need to cut, but the money doesn't come from nowhere. And when it does come from nowhere it will eventually lead to inflation. If the rest of the system were healthy _maybe_ you could fight high unemployment by flooding the system with money. The rest of the system is far from healthy. In this case the best you can hope for is freeing your people to take care of themselves to the greatest degree you are able. In that way you might generate new industry which will lift your country out of poverty. Either way we're all in for a bumpy ride with no guarantees in sight.

Re:Either pay or ads

[MyNameIsEarl]

The Disney Channel is one long continuous ad for Disney.

Re:Either pay or ads

[mcgrew]

No, he's correct. Back in 1980 when I first got cable ($10 per month including HBO), none of the cable channels had commercials. Now? They run ads at the bottom of the screen while you're actually watching the show (History is really bad about that).

Re:Either pay or ads

[benb]

The conventional wisdom is to spend your way out of a recession and clean up the mess later rather than trying to pay your way out of debt with money you don't really have.

That worked really well. Until 2000. And again, until 2009. And it will work really well again, until year (2017?)

Re:Either pay or ads

[evilviper]

"T-Shirts where the logo is oversize to the point that it dominates the whole item."

Hell, that's the big selling point. How else could you get people to pay $15 for a T-Shirt? Mine are ad-free and cost $2/each.

Re:Either pay or ads

[crdotson]

You're right, it couldn't possibly have anything to do with demographics.

Re:Either pay or ads

[Tom]

Not as much as people make it. Demographics has become the scapegoat, just like any economic crisis is always the scapegoat for cuts into the social systems.

There are ways to adapt the pension system to the demographics. But they aren't being explored, because the people in power don't have an interest in saving the pension system.

cynic

[spazdor]

But for broadcasters and advertisers, it is an attack on an entrenched television business model, and it must be strangled, lest it spread elsewhere.

Or, lest it make digital TV and PVRs finally offer a user experience that approaches being competitive with, say, BitTorrent.
It's funny that their business model depends upon making their customer happy - but not too happy.

Re:cynic

[EvilSS]

They are trying to make their customers happy. Problem is their customers are the advertisers. You are not the customer: you are the product they sell to the advertisers. The shows? Those are just the bait.

Re:cynic

[spazdor]

And they even get the "product" to pay them for the privilege of being sold.

Pretty sweet deal.

Re:cynic

[bryan1945]

I wonder if someone can pin down at what point, say within 1 year, that the products and customers switched sides?

Inside View

[Brad1138]

I was at last weeks Dish retailer conference when this was announced. Dish is well aware of the controversy they are creating. Every one with a DVR already skips over commercials, this is just making it easier. The Commercials are not removed, someone at Dish actually has to go in and manually ad triggers at the start and stop of every commercial in every show. That takes a bit of time which is part of the reason you can't auto skip (auto hop) commercials until the next day.

It will be interesting to see what happens next, but as was stated previously, I think the current advertising structure is dying.

Re:Inside View

[Anonymous Coward]

And good riddance. I don't mind being advertised to; I'm a supporter of capitalism and I'm a consumer of many different things.

But unless Coke is doing something new and exciting, I don't need to be reminded that they're still here.
Bud Light is sold in every establishment that I've ever been in that has the license to put a beer in my hand.
I know Mc D's is still around, there's more of them around here than there are Starbucks.

I don't watch that much TV anymore, but it feels like most commercials aren't actually advertising to me. They're waaaay too loud, too frequent, and it feels like each show has slots for 20 commercials but only 7 sponsors.

Re:Inside View

[RedHat Rocky]

Manually tagging of ads is actually required due to the advertisers acting strongly to break DVR use in the first place.

Such as:

* Shows start and stop at times other than the top of the hour, in terms of several minutes.

* Ads displayed DURING the show (really hate that).

* Poor communication of schedule time, especially changes.

Re:Inside View

[Anonymous Coward]

ReplayTV had automatic ad skip 15 years ago. There's nobody manually doing this.

Re:Inside View

[Anonymous Coward]

Interesting, but why not just check for blank frames as the markers? I believe this is the main algorithm (or at least one of them) that mythtv uses for auto-commercial skipping. I would think that someone doing it manually for *every* show is an insane amount of work.

Re:Inside View

[Anonymous Coward]

The commercial flagging in MythTV uses a variety of methods, including the blank-frame detection that you mentioned. It also looks for the "TV 14" (or similar) rating marker in the top left, and the station "bug" (NBC logo, etc.) in the bottom right, as well as a few more methods.

See http://www.mythtv.org/wiki/Commercial_Detection for more info.

Re:Inside View

[Brad1138]

I am not sure why, but I trust they felt this was the best way to handle it. I am sure they researched it a bit.

Alas poor broadcast television

[Zaelath]

I knew him, Horatio, a fellow of infinite jest, of most excellent fancy.

Dish alone isn't a huge problem, but between PVRs and this how do you convince advertisers (that pay for the content) to keep advertising?

I know /. tends to think of any media industry legislation as overreaching, and mostly it is, but this trend really does have the potential to kill all "free to air" television. I include ad supported cable channels in that description, since basic cable prices pay for the cable service and not the content.

Re:Alas poor broadcast television

[amiga3D]

You do know that the cable companies pay those channel owners for that content don't you? And they pay through the nose too. And that cost is passed on in the form of a cable bill. Thus the cable subscribers do pay for that content.

Re:Alas poor broadcast television

[Nethemas the Great]

Here are a couple fanciful thoughts.

Thought #1: Stop wasting waste our valuable spectrum. Instead use the already existing communication buses running to nearly every home and feed off of cable/satellite subscription fees.

Thought #2: How about going with the public supported model used in public television where they run pledge drives, feed off of endowments and enjoy tax free status because they're a non-profit. Everyone gets to keep their jobs (well except the advertisers but I'd sooner see burn in hell anyway) and consumers get higher quality television that they actually want to watch.

A secondary benefit of either of these would be that product quality and value would increase because manufacturers would be forced to reallocate part of their marketing brainwash budget into the actual product to differentiate and compete.

Does anyone remember...

[cvtan]

Remember when you were supposed to pay for your TV programming in order to avoid having ads at all? Why suffer through those annoying over-the-air commercials when you could pay for cable and ditch the ads. Now you are supposed to pay for TV AND be forced to watch ads!

They saturated us with advertising ...

[MacTO]

There seems to be this mentality that advertising is equally valuable regardless of how much is slammed in the face of consumers. Since more ads mean more money, we've ended up with a situation where consumers are saturated by advertising. Sometimes they tune out mentally, but sometimes they cut it out literally. I'm sorry TV networks, but you created the environment where this happens so it is your fault. Don't blame other people for your problems.

Re:They saturated us with advertising ...

[Dishevel]

I watch ads a lot!
On youtube. At least the good ones.
Maybe if advertisers were not so incredibly stupid with most of their ads more people would watch them.
Hell when I am boosting past ads on my DirecTV DVR I sometimes have to hit play and the back 5 seconds button a couple of time to watch an ad that looked interesting. Make the ads content.

So....

[ebunga]

Why not create a premium service sans ads that bypasses Dish Network?

Re:So....

[lightknight]

Why not get the customers to sign a disclaimer that they would never buy from those companies that advertised on those channels, and as such, the blocking or absence of those ads could not count as any great loss of monetary value?

When you purchase a set of channels, you are not entering into any contract to faithfully sit through every commercial. Some people change the channel, some people get up and wash the dishes, some people don't watch them at all. In essence, the basis for commercials is a liar's contract -> the TV networks, in this case, are selling something (your attention, time, etc.) that they do not own, nor can guarantee. The duplicity of these agreements ranks up there with that of credit default swaps.

Re:So....

[Anonymous Coward]

If they have X viewers, they might be able to figure out the number Y that actually views any given commercial in a statistical sense.

Re:So....

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean like cable television used to be ?
We've all seen how well that has turned out.

Commercial for you

[MickyTheIdiot]

Business model tired, worn out?

Unable or too lazy to come up with new ideas?

Loaded down with cash from when consumers had to take it your way or hit the highway?

If this describes you, call 1-800-BUYCONGRESS.

We'll do ALL we can to screw over you customers and keep your worn-out way of thinking in the public eye.

Cause everyone else is obviously a pirate or a terrorist!

BUY A CONGRESSMAN TODAY!

Re:Commercial for you

[El Torico]

BRIBERY! Apply directly to the legislature!
BRIBERY! Apply directly to the legislature!
BRIBERY! Apply directly to the legislature!

Hulu disappointment

[KingSkippus]

True, but I've noticed that over time, the ads have gotten longer and longer. When I started watching Hulu way back when, most ads were only 15 seconds long. Now, it's quite common to get 1:00 ad breaks, and I've had some go as long as 2:00 (and I'm not talking about the ones that sometimes pop up at the beginning of shows that let you watch the rest ad-free, these are in mid-show). Plus, they've started playing around with stuff that requires you to interact with the ad, such as the "Which ad experience would you prefer?" (I don't CARE, it's all just noise to me.) Or the "Which of these movies have you seen in the past seven days?" interstitials.

It's not surprising, since Hulu is owned by the broadcasters. Still, I was hoping that they would keep the ads short and really be revolutionary. When they were, I actually diligently tuned in to all of them because 1) I felt kind of obligated to since they were providing a valuable service, 2) they were MUCH less obtrusive, and 3) with a 15-second ad, you really don't have much time to do anything else. Now, though, I regularly walk away from the computer for a few minutes, then backtrack to where the show picks back up, kind of like how when ads come on "regular" television (which I hardly ever watch), I would get up and get a drink or go to the bathroom.

Oh well, just goes to prove yet again that there is little that is cool that Hollywood can't screw up royally.

Re:Hulu disappointment

[westyvw]

And Adskip is now available to Hulu too if you look around for it. Sure there is a subtle time shift and a bit of lag, but it works.

They put ads in, people take them back out, no matter what the delivery method is.

Re:Hulu disappointment

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't use Hulu. It's been a while since I have. There were points where I'd go there just to install Flash for something else (on a frozen partition), but I have something saved on my computer to install Flash without going to any website.

I prefer Adult Swim's way of doing commercials, with about 3 minutes of them after the show's end and one break within the half hour show. Although, with the use of a DVR, I don't see commercials all "too much". That doesn't mean I don't watch some commercials. Sometimes I may skip 30 seconds, wait a moment, and repeat.

If networks insist on 3 breaks per show (and hopefully no more), how about 15 to 25 second commercial breaks with the vast majority of commercials after the show has ended? So, no more than 75 seconds of commercials within the show itself, making skipping less needed meaning those timeslots would become valuable.

About in-show advertising. There are tasteful ways to do it. When you change the words of what the actors and actresses say within the show to advertise the product... pathetic. Assuming there isn't one already (not like I tend to watch credits usually), we need a law requiring shows to mention product placement sponsorships during the credits of the episode or movie. So, with that being said, I won't argue as to whether it's greed or not to do in-show advertising.

I question whether what Dish Network is doing is a good idea. How does it know when the commercial is set to appear? Can they sense the transition, or are they uploading data to the DVRs so it knows the timestamp? If the former, won't the broadcasters just mess with the transitions to commercials so they are much less apparent? That is, less apparent that you are transitioning to a commercial. Or worse yet, we'll see very instrusive banner ads during the show itself.

(At least Dish Network cares. Look at Comcast and how horribly annoying those banners are in the Guide itself.)

We're ignoring the obvious. A lot of people don't have DVRs. When everyone has DVRs, won't pricing go up? Not just for us, but for the cable/satellite provider who has to pay more to the broadcaster if commercials aren't seen anymore.

ReplayTV

[Intropy]

Remember the original big DVR war of ReplayTV vs. Tivo? ReplayTV had a commercial skipping feature, and fighting off the lawsuits basically dove them out of business.

Re:ReplayTV

[nwf]

Indeed, I loved my Replay TV. Not only the commercial skip, but that nothing was encrypted and you could suck shows right off the DVR onto your Mac or PC without much fuss. Heck, you could even stream TV FROM your Mac or PC to it. My brand new Verizon FiOS DVR is still years behind the Replay in terms of UI and ease of use, not to mention UI responsiveness. Sadly, I had to retire the Replay since it can't record digital TV and the interface with a cable box never seemed to work all that well for me.

Personally, I ONLY watch TV that's recorded, so making it easy to record seems like it would be in the cable company and content networks' benefit. But no, we get tons of DRM. No wonder I only watch like 3 network shows.

ReplayTV

[bryanp]

I see a replay of the lawsuit over the ReplayTV 4000 (my first DVR way back when).ready to unfold.

Adnix

[InfiniteZero]

Carl Sagan would be pround.

Re:Adnix

[SomeJoel]

Carl Sagan would be pround.

He sure woulnd.

Re:This the same DISH that drops channels all the

[Nethemas the Great]

Seems like a nice leverage. Who would miss them anyway? Adapt or die...

Re:This the same DISH that drops channels all the

[Brad1138]

This the same DISH that drops channels all the time will they end dropping one of the big 4? over this?

I have to call you on this. When Dish (or DirecTV or Comcast-it has happen to all of them) "drops a channel" it isn't because they are trying to screw the customer. It is because the channel is trying to raise what it charges Dish for rebroadcast rights. Dish is saying no, trying to keep your rates down. If it ends in a stalemate, then the channel comes down. Everyone blames Dish/DTV/comcast, They know they will loose customers over this but it is the right thing to do. This does happen to dish more then the others, because they more aggressively try to keep rates down.

As for the locals ("the big 4"), they are supposed to be free tv, but they are trying to charge like they are a cable channel. They are really the most greedy.

Dish to sell commercials!

[Anonymous Coward]

The way I see it soon Dish will be removing the networks commercials and replacing them with commercials that the advertisers paid directly to Dish to have you watch. I am sure they think why can't we get some of the commercial money too...

Advertisements are mostly double dipping

[VinylRecords]

Most people who pay for satellite or digital cable don't realize that most of the money that you pay goes straight to the television channels and not the cable/satellite provider. When you pay your $100 cable bill, a couple of dollars goes straight to Disney/ABC/ESPN. I think just for ESPN alone some cable companies are on the hook for five dollars a month per subscriber. So you are paying to watch channels with advertisements.

On top of the money that goes directly to those channels they also bombard you with advertisements and commercial interruptions. And while for many channels advertisements allows them breaks to reorganize, which can be critical for news and sports programming, there aren't too many reasons other than simply making more money for running commercials during the middle of a sitcom or drama. I don't mind when an NFL or MLB game goes to commercials when the players are running on and off the field. But I stopped watching South Park on its premier night years ago because the commercial breaks were too frequent and killed the momentum of the show. It's one thing when the sport has stopped and then the cut to advertisements. It would be another if they cut to commercials right when a guy delivered a pitch or the ball was snapped. "Stay tuned to see if the Patriots scored after these commercials".

Unfortunately that is how most shows are. "Will this character die...? Find out after we assault your senses with a dozen commercials". Not to mention that most advertisements are BLASTED AT FULL VOLUME compared to the show that is on at the time. It ruins the flow of the show. This is why I almost only watch sports and HBO.

HBO figured out decades ago that people would be willing to pay for premium content delivered to them commercial free. With no advertisers to answer to they could put on shows like The Wire, Sopranos, Game of Thrones, Band of Brothers, and Curb Your Enthusiasm. They don't have to worry about advertisers pulling out of shows. They don't have to censor anything because of the FCC either. And they can write dramas and comedy shows that are purely art and not meant to sell products or have commercial breaks written into them. Considering the extreme popularity of Game of Thrones right now it is quite evident that people want to pay a premium for high level programming that is free of advertising and doesn't have to answer to sponsors or the FCC. Also HBO has a policy where product placement is forbidden. When you see a real life product on Sopranos or Treme or whatever it is there for realism and not as an in show paid advertisement.

Unfortunately most of these other companies haven't figured out that people will pay money to bypass advertisements. This is essentially what people do when they buy a show on DVD or Blu-Ray anyways. People will also pay extra when it improves the quality of programming. Major League Baseball's internet package that allows you to watch all out of market games online is commercial free. Lots of companies are putting their shows up on I-Tunes or the Playstation Network the day after commercial free and you pay for each episode individually.

Re:Advertisements are mostly double dipping

[grumling]

Today's television advertising consists of several "layers." Typically, the production company gets a few to cover their costs (since unless the show is produced in house, the networks won't pay for most programming, just provide a time slot... Mythbusters-level shows do get money for production, but only after they've proven themselves). The network get the bulk of ad time, since they own the pipe. Then the local cable/satellite company gets a few to help recoup the fees they have to pay the programmer. So out of that 8 minutes or so of ads in a half-hour show, the production company may see 2-3 minutes, the network gets 4-6 and the cable company gets 1-1.5 minutes. Obviously there's room for negotiation and different networks have different deals.

As for quality of programming, I think there's a lot of good stuff out there and it's not all on HBO. I'm certain a lot of it would never get made if the production company could only get financing from the network, or a rich uncle.

Re:Advertisements are mostly double dipping

[Anonymous Coward]

They don't have to censor anything because of the FCC either.

None of the cable channels have to. South Park had an episode where they said "shit" and even had a "shit" counter. Watched it on normal cable TV sometime around 2003-2004. The censoring is only to the over-the-air channels. The rest just need to bow to the whim of the advertisers and network execs.

Re:Advertisements are mostly double dipping

[bryan1945]

The NFL is getting out of control. Touchdown, commercial. Kickoff, commercial. Timeout- commercial. Built-in TV timeouts. But what has me really ticked off recently is that when they go to the post-TD commercial, sometimes they don't come back in time to see the kickoff! Even the built-in TV ad breaks can do this; how can you screw up a commercial break when you know exactly how long it is supposed to last? Then the NFL (and college football, too) complains about the length of games. Maybe if you cut out 15 minutes of commercials it wouldn't be such a problem, though CFB isn't quite as bad.
I can read a substantial portion of a book/magazine during all those commercials.

Dupe

[SeaFox]

Looks like the Slashdot editors forgot to DVR their past accepted submissions...

http://entertainment.slashdot.org/story/12/05/11/0055211/dish-network-announces-prime-time-tv-with-no-ads

Re:This the same DISH that drops channels all the

[Dishevel]

One of the Big 4?!?!?!?
Which one are they going to drop?
Discovery?!
Food Network?!
History Channel?!
or
Comedy Central?!

That will suck.

Homer Simpson knows

[bugs2squash]

that not watching the adverts is stealing Television. I didn't know he actually ran Fox though. At least the nuclear industry will be safer now.

ReplayTV already tried this.......

[JRock911]

Years ago ReplayTV tried the same thing with the same response from broadcasters. Instead of giving in, Replay took the battle to court and lost and that pretty much bankrupted the company. I dont see how Dish thinks its going to turn out any better for them.

Re:ReplayTV already tried this.......

[Anonymous Coward]

I had a ReplayTV, still the best DVR Tech I have had. Commercial Skip, slow mo, single frame advance, clean interface, downloadable content from the DVR. I miss my ReplayTV.

Re:ReplayTV already tried this.......

[Anonymous Coward]

Dish Network has a much bigger war chest, more lobbyists, and many more users/subscribers than ReplayTV. And Charlie Ergen has shown an ability to be - shall we say obstinant? - when it comes to legal battles (see TiVO v Dish).

Re:ReplayTV already tried this.......

[cdrudge]

Maybe he's thinking proactively. Ergan didn't get where he's at by being a fool. Come out with a technology that he knows that will likely bring a legal challenge. If the challenge never materializes, then run with it. If it does come, bluff you're way into the start of the battle then settle, removing it from the market in exchange for discounted subscriber rates.

Ads suck

[hawguy]

I recently got cable TV after 3 years without cable (because it came bundled for "free" with new high speed internet service).

I watched 2 TV shows, and haven't turned the cable box on since then (4 weeks ago). After the free trial of cable service, I'll be sending the cable box back.

I've gotten completely spoiled by Netflix streaming and DVD's. Ads are annoying - they are loud, inane, and cause too much interruption in what I'm trying to watch.

I have 130 channels to choose from, but got tired of wading through the junk (how many home shopping channels does one need!?) to find something worthwhile to watch. And why isn't there an easy way to say "Show me only subscribed channels" - I hate scrolling through the program guide and finding a show that I want to watch, only being told "Sorry, you're not subscribed to this channel, contact us at 1-800-pay-more to subscribe!".

Netflix has its faults (like a lackluster streaming catalog), but it's $15/month well spent.

I'm not saying the industry should stop showing ads, I'm just saying that if they want me to view their content, they need to find a better way to let me pay for it other than interrupting my shows with ads. I'm not wedded to the TV, I'm perfectly willing to move to other forms of entertainment - if there's nothing on TV to watch, the Internet gives me endless possibilities for time wasting.

Re:Ads suck

[bryan1945]

There are some good shows, but I can live without them. My weakness is sports. I could do the internet packages for them, but that adds up, to. Spot on about Netflix- my wife devours entire shows' series, and I have a good 80-some films in my queue. And we just have the $8 streaming only service.

Hey network assholes

[Anonymous Coward]

Stop insulting me with your annoying, stupid fucking ads and maybe I'll consider watching them.

You have only one choice

[Anonymous Coward]

Advertising must be destroyed. ...

Advertising, Gimli, son of Gloin, cannot be destroyed by any craft that we here possess.

Advertising was made in the fires of Mount Doom...only there can it be unmade.It must be taken deep into Mordor, and cast back into the fiery chasm from whence it came.

Queue the Blipverts

[djl4570]

I'm sure the media companies are already looking at blipverts as a work around. A few seconds of high intensity seizure inducing advertising. The great snoring masses sucking on the glass teat will not notice. A wiser method to defeat the technology is to develop programming standards that seamlessly transition the program to the commercials. No sudden changes in recording levels, no sudden changes in the video signal and little or no gap between commercials.

Re:Queue the Blipverts

[serviscope_minor]

The great snoring masses sucking on the glass teat

Wow! You're so counter culture and cool!

BTW: you look even more highbrow if you spell "cue" correctly.

Re:Queue the Blipverts

[BronsCon]

I don't think you g-g-g-get the reference. This is l-l-live and direct, N-network 23.

Dish: please follow this plan

[Dracos]

1. Continue taking steps to roll out AutoHop. Let the networks rage.
2. When the networks begin making serious litigation threats (which they will), offer them a deal: AutoHop or a la carte channels: Dish will cease to offer channel packages.
3. When the networks choose a la carte (which they will), stipulate that if a la carte is ever abolished, they consent to AutoHop.

Result: Dish customers get a better deal, and Dish gets more customers.

Re:Dish: please follow this plan

[Anonymous Coward]

What will actually happen:
Network's won't sue, since Dish can actually fight back. Dish running ads saying "NBC is suing us to force you to watch ads" isn't going to go well for NBC.
Instead, NBC/ABC/CBS/FOX will make Dish pay through the nose next time their retrans contract is negotiated.
Everyone's bill will go up, and Dish looks like the bad guy for making customers pay more for local channels.

Re:Dish: please follow this plan

[RedHat Rocky]

I'm a current Dish customer and on the fence regarding this Hopper/Autohop upgrade.

Primary issues:

Dish has said for the upgrade to Hopper, all my existing equipment (some of which is owned by ME) must be thrown off my account. I can't add a Hopper and keep some of my older 311 units to say, play some Sirius music in the basement. Strike One.

In addition, the Hopper has three tuners. However, Autohop sucks up one tuner all the time. This makes the Hopper/Joey combo less useful, given the issues I have with one DVR with two tuners serving only the main TV. Strike Two.

Time to stand up and hit Dish, you listening?

Re:Dish: please follow this plan

[Anonymous Coward]

Thats not completely correct. Autohop does not suck up a tuner at all times. Primetime anytime will suck up 1 tuner, during primetime hours, if you choose to let it do so. If you turn off PTAT then you have 3 tuners, usable at all times. If you turn it on, then you will lose 1 tuner during ~6/7pm-10/11pm. However if you were going to record any primetime content during that time it gets recorded anyway with the 1 tuner, so you dont have to lose another one of your tuners. So basically if you were going to record any primetime content you arent losing any tuners, and if you werent going to or dont watch big4 primetime content, then turn off PTAT and get your tuner back

Re:Dish: please follow this plan

[Anonymous Coward]

If you have a Hopper or Joey that you know you're not going to be using at the same time you'd be listening to music in the basement (bedroom seems like a good candidate), you can hook an RF modulator up to that unit and run the output to your basement TV. As long as you're not going through too many walls, the remote should have the range to control the unit from the basement.

Original promise

[Koby77]

I thought one of the original promises of cable was to deliver ad-free programming. Finally, after after all these years, someone is holding them up to that.

fox,cbs,nbc,ABC

[Joe_Dragon]

fox,cbs,nbc,ABC

Re:fox,cbs,nbc,ABC

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh.
Well then, who cares? :)

Re:fox,cbs,nbc,ABC

[SydShamino]

woosh

Re:fox,cbs,nbc,ABC

[Anonymous Coward]

woosh? What channel is that? I see it as a channel for things that go fast. It will have all the Top Gear episodes, Formula 1 races, MotoGP races, and every movie about fighter planes, motorcycles, and car racing.
I'm getting aroused just thinking about it.

Re:fox,cbs,nbc,ABC

[Earache65]

I'd pay for the Woosh channel. Unfortunately, it is probably packaged with the Real Time Gardening Channel, Out of the Closet TV, The Vegan Food Network and The New Age Shopping Channel.

I'll be the devil's advocate

[WOOFYGOOFY]

OK I am just going to play devil's advocate to keep things interesting.

Boradcasters have a business model that permits them to make stuff for you. By by passing ads, you're killing that business model. If you want to create stuff without ads, the way PBS does with their model then that's cool and a cool way to put broadcasters out of business or make them at least respond to your better model .

But that's not what this is, this is. This is more like breaking the contract broadcasters have with you to watch their stupid ads in exchange for stuff.

All i am saying is by watching TV there's an implicit - not saying legal- agreement that at least the ads will be presented on that station, whether you get up to pee or channel surf or whatever during their broadcast.

I dunno, you have a lot of leeway to skip ads as it is but enough people sit there and watch them just because they're there to keep the business model able to make stuff. If you strip out the ads, then the business model is screwed and unless another one is created, like paid product placement (they're already doing that of course) then there will be no more stuff, until someone thinks of something better.

I am making something kewl (just totally kewl!) - software - right now. I find it's easy to be revolutionary in a domain if you don't care about economics. The REALLY hard part , the part I've really struggled with is making it so everyone involved on all sides of an n-part exchange can still eat and beyond that remains motivated to continue to make great stuff. I did at least as much reading on what the idea of "value" is, what markets are and how they actually operate in various domains and even what money is than I ever thought I would because just like seeing what has to happen to get your software to work, you start naturally to think about all these things when you think about asking people for money or making it worth their while to pay and for creators to create.

So TV has a business model that it's refined over generations. If it was a matter of buggy whips, then we'd be seeing people say "I don't want' to watch TV anymore". But that's not the dynamic here. It'snot that buggy whips aren't needed, it's that the economic model that supports their production can be gotten around.

If you like what's on TV- and I do like shows like Damages and Breaking Bad and Downton Abbey and Dexter and MadMen .. it's almost like we're in a golden age of TV or something.... I like those shows and those people gotta eat. We all gotta eat. I am not so motivated to get stuff for free if the price is paying only 10 bucks a month for Netflix or not circumventing some dumb ads for the obvious reasons- I want those shows to carry on.

OTOH I buy used CDs instead of new b/c I think the list on new is crazy and the artist gets screwed in that exchange, so there you go. Just thinking aloud now but I guess everyone has some price at which it's ust oo much, then they look to acquire the thing through some other way.

I am the only person I know who pays one legal way or another for virtually everything I have that is the subject of controversy with respect to mass unauthorized downloading. I suppose I have some screenshots of pictures which may be copyrighted in theory but then no one was selling those in the first place and I can view them online at any time.

I am not saying I am better, I am literally just thinking aloud. I think people take things when they want them and feel they need them but can't afford them. There's no point in getting your panties in a bunch over that, it's human nature and not provably a bad thing since they were never going to pay anyways.

I dunno. It's what I said. Why undermine the business model of the creators when it's really no skin off your nose? It's not evena case of whether you were ever going to buy product X, it's that advertiser X believes rightly or wrongly that the ads are worth paying for and that's how stuff get made.

OK don't go all holy warrior on me, this is an attempt to just turn over these ideas with a bunch of strangers who I just know disagree with me. It's an attempt to be academic as in "collegial" and not "moot"

Re:I'll be the devil's advocate

[jedidiah]

> Boradcasters have a business model that permits them to make stuff for you.

Then don't charge Dish anything. If you really and truely "live off those commercials", then there's really no reason that any commercial cable channel can't be free to retransmit so long as you don't alter the signal.

For those commercials, my cable bill should be $20. Dish should get to retransmit channels for free and their only cost should be overhead of operating all of the sattellite infastructure.

Anything else is just double dipping by channel operators and a farce perpetrated by lawmakers.

Re:I'll be the devil's advocate

[WOOFYGOOFY]

OK so what I hear you saying is they're charging an unfair price. My attitude towards new CDs. The value isn't there for me, and you won't let me pay less legally.

I boil this down to a fairness thing. Your price is a ripoff and represents obscene profits for millionaires.

I feel that way about cable and HBO. My solution is to stay a season or two behind the shows I like to watch and wait until they come out on Netflix. It's not as much fun if other people are watching it. I don't , quite amusingly, have anyone to to talk about how exciting 24 is since it's a freaking decade old, but hey, I never watched it soc it's new to me. Obviously not many people are going to go this route for a variety of sociological reasons.. new stuff - especially music I am thinking of- is the modern campfire around which we gather and socialize and form our cliques and even identities.

OK, so, too expensive and smells like exploitation one reason.

BTW I am not an insider and I have no idea if those shows could be made just by charging advertisers money.. if that model works.

I don't have a smart phone (shocking) because It's a moral thing with me... much the same reason I don't have cable or buy Georgia Pacific lumber or Brawny paper towels. I am not giving my sworn enemy money with which he'll do even more harm to my life.

Re:I'll be the devil's advocate

[Cutting_Crew]

If i put the tv on mute, change channels, go take a dump, fix dinner, go outside, look at my computer -- all of which includes not watching commercials... am I killing the business model? See if people want to watch ads they will and if not they won't. Just because someone makes it easier to do so is not a good argument in court IMO.

Re:I'll be the devil's advocate

[WOOFYGOOFY]

But I covered the case of taking a pee during commercials. What matters for the business model is not what you could do during commercials, or what you do do during commercials, it's what advertiser's BELIEVE MOST people do during commercials.

That's am interesting construct since it permits the business model to thrive if EVERYONE leaves during commercials, as long as the advertisers still BELIEVE their commercials are effective; maybe advertisers are wrong, maybe their commercials aren't effective because many more people leave during them than the suppose. Maybe advertisers know most people leave, but stay within earshot and commercials are designed as primarily "talkies" with the graphics thrown in gratuitously (and maybe that's why THEY"RE SO LOUD).

Whatever the case, advertisers under the current system have a "show funding belief " which will, presumably evaporate when there is no doubt whatsoever that their commercials are not being aired.

How do they do this?

[jbburks]

Does anyone know how they identify the commercials? Do they have software that can identify them in the stream? Or do they pay someone to watch the shows and mark the time code to create an index to download?

Re:How do they do this?

[ProfBooty]

There are all different ways, cue tones, fades to black, commericals in mono rather than stereo, entitlement msgs. Those are just a few ways. The old replay tv's worked off of black frames for commercial skipping, which worked fine most of the time, but had issues with some scene changes.

Dish network owns most of replay's patent portfolio, but the above methods have been known for a long time.

Re:How do they do this?

[Anonymous Coward]

according to TFA, someone manually marks commercials. this is why it isnt available for 24 hrs.

i've been using comskip about 7 yrs. it is about 90% accurate in detecting commercials. 30 sec to manually validate/fix per show saves 19 min of commercials.

using xbmc with 'free cable', it is easy to stream recent network content w/o commercials. it is just the shows that each network streams online, so not all episodes get posted. these are legal streams. i missed a few shows sunday and watched them last evening this way. no recording, thanks to flash encrytion. better than hulu-added-commercials, by far.

there are other xbmc addons to access illegal downloads/strreams. i use these when an episode isnt available - usually any over 2 weeks old.

Are we doing this shit again?

[Splat]

Hey everyone, it's 2001 again. Just replace "ReplayTV" with "Dish Network"

http://blogcritics.org/culture/article/replaytv-vs-hollywood/

It also just clicked to me after reading this that maybe Google bought SageTV just to kill said feature in the PVR software. Undermines Google's money maker ...

It is not such a big deal.....

[InspectorGadget1964]

With MythTV (Or Mythbuntu if you prefer), you can do exactly the same. It detects commercials (Fom any recording, not just four broadcastrers) and skipps them when you replay. And you can get Mythbuntu for free!

Re:It is not such a big deal.....

[nwf]

Except that on my FiOS link, it can't record a single show except a few public access stations.

Re:It is not such a big deal.....

[Anonymous Coward]

You would need to dive into CableCard nonsense. See the CableCard wiki page for more info.

Wades in?

[uvajed_ekil]

I thought the phrase was "weighs in," perhaps deriving from boxing and showing that you are willing and able to partake in a fight, rather than "wades in," which I have never heard and sounds like it has something to do with water.

Irregardless, I think the title sounds funny, but this sounds like a question of supply and command. I'd wade in a little more, but I need to go de-thaw something for dinner.

Re:Wades in?

[Anonymous Coward]

I was going to comment on the "wades in" thing, too, since it's wrong, but when I saw you use 'irregardless' I had to change my comment. That's not a word, man...

Probably more in-show ads

[witherstaff]

I've noticed a growing number of in-show ads that really suck. Bones has had a number of 'car' ads that were blatantly bad. Fringe had the Sprint NFC pay-by-phone a few weeks ago. I can only expect this to grow more. Sure it's not a 4 minute break of random ads but it still is an ad that you simply can not fast forward through.

obligatory

[Anonymous Coward]

piratebay doesn't have ads

when the free service is vastly superior only a fool would pay for the inferior service

Proof that people want ad-free TV enough to ...

[Skapare]

... pay for it! The issue is that the TV networks are not the ones benefiting, but Dish is. I can see how they see that as theft. What the TV networks need to do is provide an alternate channel through which the SAME programming is available on the SAME night, ad-free. It will be a premium channel, obviously.

Now if only I could get paid ad-free versions of Discover Channel, Home & Garden, NetGeo, Smithsonian, etc. I couldn't give a rats arsend about ABC, CBS, Fox, or NBC. A sponsor-free pledge-break-free version of PBS would probably be worth paying premium for, too.

This tech isn't new by ANY means!

[richardtallent]

ReplayTV had a DVR many years ago with this exact feature, and they got their asses sued off by Hollywood for it (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ReplayTV). The suit was never decided. It even had a feature that did the reverse, playing *only* the commercials (aka "Superbowl Mode").

But even *that* was based on earlier technology patented back in 1993 (http://www.google.com/patents/US5333091) and used in VHS machines dating about 10 years ago, maybe longer.

As a DISH subscriber, I'm happy they are finally implementing this, but they ARE going to have a fight on their hands.

Now, if only someone can invent technology to get rid of those awful graphic overlays advertising other shows/movies. And the ridiculous "OMG IT'S TOTALLY RAINING OR SOMEONE GOT ELECTED DOGCATCHER" crawls from the local news.

Re:This tech isn't new by ANY means!

[evilviper]

" Now, if only someone can invent technology to get rid of those awful graphic overlays advertising other shows/movies."

Way ahead of you... I already took care of that... I canceled my cable TV service about 6 years ago. Problem solved.

OTA is now superior in every way. Picture quality is perfect, there are numerous sub-channels ensuring a good selection. It's all top-rate networks, with original content. If you want to simulate the cable TV experience, just set your DVR to record all the first-run shows, and replay each series in an infinite loop on it's own virtual "channel"...

With a DVR, you'll have more TV content than you know what to do with... even as you skip commercials, speeding up things by 1/3rd, you'll still never catch-up. All I really need is one PBS channel to exceed my TV quota for the week... NOVA, Frontline, Nature, American Experience, Secrets of the Dead, etc. News, a few shows, maybe some old shows from THIS or AntennaTV and you're set. If that's not enough, or you're still missing shows you really want, you can throw-in HULU for free, and get several original series from cable networks like the Daily Show, Colbert Report, Burn Notice, etc. And plenty of old stuff like Firefly, Total Recall 2070, etc.

Plus there's a few other one-off shows that are available online directly from their website only, such as Conan. And if that's not enough for you, throw in a few dollars for Netflix. After all, the highest-end Netflix subscription is probably less than you pay for cable service...

Anyhow, there's everything you need for TV without popup ads over the program. And the fact that it's saving you tons of money is just a perk.

What!?!

[Anonymous Coward]

There are supposed to be ads in TV shows?

nobody wants ads

[Tom]

This should be a reminder that the whole advertisement industry is a parasite, not the symbiot it makes itself out to be. It isn't just funny, but also revealing how the statements of spammers are so very similar to those of marketing people. Like the famous "people are very interested in our newsletter". Yeah, right.

Advertisement is crapping up our public spaces, our public airwaves, everything. Sure, it "pays" for stuff - by turning the consumer into a product to be sold. Would we want to pay for everything instead of getting it free? That's a strawman right there. Because it assumes "all else being equal", which isn't true. Without or with dramatically reduced advertisement, most products would become cheaper. The total amount of money we spend would very likely not change all that much, and since a lot of of advertisement is waste (one saying in marketing is that "we know that half our efforts are completely pointless - but we don't know which half"), it might even go down.

There are a few legitimate uses for advertisement, but they can easily be replaced by something of a more opt-in nature. For example, I skim (rather than read) a few online magazines mostly because I'm interested in new things being available within their respective topic fields. If you want to know which supermarket has special offers this weekend, we have the technology to alert you to the fact, according to your criteria, without having every supermarket within a days drive littering every reachable mailbox with their crap.

There are now a few major cities that have banned all outdoor advertisement (billboard, etc. - some even overly large shop signs) and the results are astonishing and the people actually living there are very, very happy about them. Google it up, there are images of cities like you've not seen them for decades. You know, you can see the buildings again and all.

I'm not very hopeful, but I still think the entire marketing and advertisement industry needs to be cut down to at most 10% its current size. But it won't happen on its own, because all the participants are victims of the system - you can't be the first to stop advertising, because after all, advertisement does work.

This is where we as a society need to take a stand and say "enough!" and put up some rules. You know, the same way we outlawed murder, robbery and fucking babies because we collectively think these are things we don't want to happen.

Re:This the same DISH that drops channels all the

[Anonymous Coward]

Hahahaha loose. You meant lose.

Old news

[paulschreiber]

My parents' VCR (yes, VHS!) had this in the early 1990s. I believe early ReplayTV models also had it. I don't understand why it's not standard in more devices or why it's so controversial (still).

Now if they could only get rid of in-program ads

[Anonymous Coward]

First it was the icon on the lower right of the screen telling you what channel the program is on. As if nobody could figure it out any other way. Actually there to "stamp" the video with their watermark. First this icon faded in and out as the program ran. Then it was on all the time. Then they started advertising other programs around the icon. Then they started advertising other programs with garbage anywhere on the bottom 25% of the screen. Pretty soon we won't be able to actually see the program.

Do they not realize that this crap further diminishes the value of the already marginal quality programs they are putting out? I'm starting to make a value judgement on these situations and stop watching.

It's gotten completely beyond rational. It's got to change.

Speaking of ominous... I recently purchased a Sony HX929 TV. As part of it's massive feature bloat it supposedly can adjust the picture based on my viewing position - distance, etc. Turns out it does this with a camera that watches you! Not obvious nor mentioned anywhere; only know this because a setup page for the feature shows what the camera is seeing. Lets see... a TV with a camera watching you all the time that is connected to the internet... the definition of ominous. Mine is no longer connected to the internet. I may even put tape over the camera...

Execs complaint sounds reasonable

[Anonymous Coward]

So um, I guess they are supposed to make us TV shows for free now? I mean, I'm in favor of some kind of program that lets me buy shows on an episode by episode basis without commercials (and without having a fucking cable plan) but until that exists (or is allowed to exist, hey it's their content they have the right to sell it any way they want), you can't expect them to broadcast channels to DishTV and not get eyes on their commercials.

The truth is, the model of "channels" is out of date. If you were building a entertainment broadcasting paradigm from scratch based on the technology we have today, it wouldn't be channels arranged by fucking numbers. There wouldn't be cable providers, only ISP's. However, since we still have the cable model, which is supported through ad revenue, it's totally unreasonable to let people skip the ads. They can't do this shit for free.

Re:Execs complaint sounds reasonable

[Anonymous Coward]

They can't do this shit for free.

But they could do it for a lot less than they do. Is there any particular reason that actors, directors, and producers need to make more per episode than your and my yearly salaries combined? Skipping advertisements is the viewer's way of saying, "No, they're not worth that much."

Re:Execs complaint sounds reasonable

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah there's a great reason. That's what the market will bear. If someone walked up to you and offered you millions of dollars to do a job, would you honestly turn it down and demand they only pay you tens of thousands of dollars? I sure wouldn't. I might donate a lot of the money to charity, but I sure wouldn't turn it down.

Advert Free Content.

[dgharmon]

If you watch the free content, then you are obliged to watch the adverts, that's what pays for the content.

Re:Advert Free Content.

[Anonymous Coward]

No. Watching the ads does nothing. Watching the ads and then buying their goods pays for the content. And watching the free content in no way obliges one to buy any goods.

Exactly

[DaKong]

I have been perfectly happy with Netflix alone the past three years since we cancelled DirectTV. No ads, you can watch entire seasons of shows you like without interruption, and you can pause, rewind, fast forward, and stop & resume later if you want. And I can watch episodes on my Android phone separately if my wife wants to watch something else on the TV; that also means I can watch something if I'm stuck waiting somewhere stupid like the DMV. That's so far ahead of the Cable companies that at this rate they're never going to catch up, and their end will be soon, messy, and abrupt.

Build an HTPC

[Anonymous Coward]

Build an HTPC, then get comskip or something like it. No legal action required.

Rent Seeking has something to say about that

[grahamwest]

Netflix will get creamed before too long. The networks are going to jack their fees through the roof now that they've realised how much money can be made in that market. Also, the ISPs, especially ones that do cable TV, would rather partner with the networks to offer their own streaming service and they have various ways to disfavour Netflix (charging Netflix money to not be throttled, counting Netflix but not their own service to the user's bandwidth caps).

Re:This the same DISH that drops channels all the

[Brad1138]

You are correct

It works well

[therealobsideus]

I don't know if anyone here has a Hopper (I do) and the Auto Hop feature of PrimeTime Anytime works amazingly well. I work a lot of hours at DISH, most of them at night, so I'm not able to watch most of my favorite shows for days until after they aired. By the time I watch them they aren't even in consideration for what the advertisers pay the NBC/CBS/Fox/ABC. I think it's just a great way to simplify the user experience - Auto Hop doesn't proactively "hop over" commercials on PrimeTime Anytime recordings, it prompts the viewer if you want to watch the commercials or not. It's completely user controlled. Unlike ReplayTV, the commercials are still there. And since I also like to have the commercials play at times, especially if I'm working on a coding project, Auto Hop allows me to let a show play through with the commercials and enjoy quick little breaks to watch the show (or listen to it), and then when a commercial comes on I can power out a several lines of code. I like how DISH is constantly fighting for the customer - with both pricing and technology.