# Dish DVR Adds Ad-Zapper



## moyekj (Jan 24, 2006)

Interesting development from Dish for automatic ad-skipping:
http://www.lightreading.com/document.asp?doc_id=220810&f_src=lrdailynewsletter


----------



## WhiskeyTango (Sep 20, 2006)

> most recorded primetime HD programs shown on ABC, CBS, FOX and NBC when viewed the day after airing


Why so many restrictions?


----------



## moyekj (Jan 24, 2006)

WhiskeyTango said:


> Why so many restrictions?


 So they don't get sued out of existence as happened to ReplayTV?
Next day availability only would be fine with me as I rarely watch shows the same day they are recorded anyway.


----------



## Joe3 (Dec 12, 2006)

WhiskeyTango said:


> Why so many restrictions?


Think legal bribes, lobbying and lawyers from Cable and Broadcasters.

Now, think of Michael's kiss to Faredo.


----------



## innocentfreak (Aug 25, 2001)

I think it is also limited to locals because it uses that prime time anytime feature.


----------



## lessd (Jan 23, 2005)

And they charge a lot for the privilege, $99 up front and an extra monthly charge over a normal DVR. (A normal DVR has no up front cost). Personally i would not pay that much as I like the exercise for my finger skipping the comerciales.


----------



## Adam1115 (Dec 15, 2003)

lessd said:


> And they charge a lot for the privilege, $99 up front and an extra monthly charge over a normal DVR. (A normal DVR has no up front cost). Personally i would not pay that much as I like the exercise for my finger skipping the comerciales.




The hopper is free for new customers.


----------



## steve614 (May 1, 2006)

moyekj said:


> So they don't get sued out of existence as happened to ReplayTV?
> Next day availability only would be fine with me as I rarely watch shows the same day they are recorded anyway.


This feature makes sense to me. If the next day viewing isn't counted in the ratings (are DVRs even counted?), then one shouldn't have to be subjected to commercials that are out of date. Commercials were meant to be seen the day they air. The next day, they have "expired".

I would be all for TiVo creating an automatic commercial skip feature and would be fine with the next day limitation. However, I don't think it will ever happen because they wouldn't want to upset (possible future) advertisers. Plus I don't think CableLabs would like it either.

According to TiVoMargret,



TiVoMargret said:


> Just for you, tivocommunity.com!
> ---------------------------------------------
> Our engineers REALLY appreciate the passion you have for TiVo. Some of them closely monitor the activity on this board...


Maybe we can persuade the engineers to make a secret backdoor code to automatically skip commercials (one can hope).


----------



## Johncv (Jun 11, 2002)

Seem to me that if I were ABC, CBS, NBC and FOX I would cut the feed to Dish until Dish drop this, but I dont run a TV network.  

@ Steve614, what were you quoteing from TiVoMargret?.


----------



## unitron (Apr 28, 2006)

How do satellite companies actually provide "locals" anyway?

VHF/UHF antenna on the same mast as the dish?

Network feeds over the satellite that aren't really the local affiliates, but just the network stuff which is sent to them?

Uplinks of feeds from the locals, with the local news and weather and commercials and everything, sent back down from the satellite?


----------



## Adam1115 (Dec 15, 2003)

Johncv said:


> Seem to me that if I were ABC, CBS, NBC and FOX I would cut the feed to Dish until Dish drop this, but I don't run a TV network.
> 
> @ Steve614, what were you quoteing from TiVoMargret?.


Why? They most likely are on board with the plan.

They already broadcast most of their shows commercial free via on-demand and Hulu. They also are available on Amazon.

For all we know, Dish might even be paying for the feature.



unitron said:


> How do satellite companies actually provide "locals" anyway?
> 
> VHF/UHF antenna on the same mast as the dish?
> 
> ...


You're confusing 'locals' with over the air. All of the companies provide local channels, and yes they really are the local affiliates.


----------



## steve614 (May 1, 2006)

Johncv said:


> @ Steve614, what were you quoteing from TiVoMargret?.


It was an excerpt from TiVoMargret's OP here:

http://www.tivocommunity.com/tivo-vb/showthread.php?p=9087245#post9087245


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

steve614 said:


> This feature makes sense to me. If the next day viewing isn't counted in the ratings (are DVRs even counted?), then one shouldn't have to be subjected to commercials that are out of date.


I don't have a citation at the moment, but nowadays I believe they count viewing up to a week later.. Maybe that is a "separate" ratings (there definitely are e.g. overnight ratings and weekly ratings, that can and do differ).


----------



## Worf (Sep 15, 2000)

Well, another reason for the restrictions could be quite simple - it isn't automated! Someone at Dish is probably cuing up and marking commercials and sending the data to the box (hence the extra fees). It would take around a day for a few people to do this for the prime-time shows on all the networks.

if it was automated, there's a good chance the networks would simply find ways to trick it so it would ad-skip through important parts, not ad skip the ads, etc., enough to make it a useless feature.

And networks only because they are "must carry" stations and don't get paid for it. The other cable channels, Dish pays for the privilege of offering them, and if this was happening, those channels will probably up the rate Dish has to pay out. But since Dish is obligated to carry the networks (in exchange, the networks are paid nothing for carriage), they're free to do whatever they want.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

steve614 said:


> This feature makes sense to me. If the next day viewing isn't counted in the ratings (are DVRs even counted?), then one shouldn't have to be subjected to commercials that are out of date. Commercials were meant to be seen the day they air. The next day, they have "expired".
> 
> ............


Next day viewing is counted in the ratings. They count all the way out to a week later for DVR viewing. They have Live+same day, Live+1 day out to Live+7 day viewing that is counted in the final ratings. Although it takes a few weeks until the final ratings with DVR usage gets released.


----------



## pdhenry (Feb 28, 2005)

unitron said:


> How do satellite companies actually provide "locals" anyway?
> 
> VHF/UHF antenna on the same mast as the dish?
> 
> ...


Local programming is uplinked to satellite (not necessarily the same satellite as the "cable" channels). In a few markets the "local" programming received via satellite may be LA or NYC network affiliate programming. If you take a satellite receiver programmed for one location to a new location you'll receive the locals for the original location.


----------



## andyw715 (Jul 31, 2007)

unitron said:


> How do satellite companies actually provide "locals" anyway?
> 
> VHF/UHF antenna on the same mast as the dish?
> 
> ...


Im pretty sure they can adjust the power and geographical attributes of a particular beam from the satellite, spot beam.


----------



## unitron (Apr 28, 2006)

pdhenry said:


> Local programming is uplinked to satellite (not necessarily the same satellite as the "cable" channels). In a few markets the "local" programming received via satellite may be LA or NYC network affiliate programming. If you take a satellite receiver programmed for one location to a new location you'll receive the locals for the original location.


So in other words it comes in to the satellite dish on your house from the same tranmitting satellite(s) as the "satellite" channels?


----------



## unitron (Apr 28, 2006)

Adam1115 said:


> ...
> You're confusing 'locals' with over the air. All of the companies provide local channels, and yes they really are the local affiliates.


No, if they aren't available over the air in my area, then they aren't "local".

That doesn't mean I have to get them over the air. In our case we get them via analog cable (at least for now, all though I'm sure TWC is working on how to break as much of my receiving equipment as possible to try to force us to rent something from them).


----------



## Adam1115 (Dec 15, 2003)

unitron said:


> No, if they aren't available over the air in my area, then they aren't "local".


Define the delivery of the exact same channel that is delivered OTA however you want I guess, but don't confuse everyone else.

They are locals. And like Andyw715 said, they are delivered via a spot beam only beamed to your local area, so no it's not the same signal as the rest of your channels. But who cares.


----------



## unitron (Apr 28, 2006)

Adam1115 said:


> Define the delivery of the exact same channel that is delivered OTA however you want I guess, but don't confuse everyone else.
> 
> They are locals. And like Andyw715 said, they are delivered via a spot beam only beamed to your local area, so no it's not the same signal as the rest of your channels. But who cares.


What would be an example of a local channel that wasn't available locally over the air?


----------



## davezatz (Apr 18, 2002)

Adam1115 said:


> They already broadcast most of their shows commercial free via on-demand and Hulu. They also are available on Amazon.


On-demand is paid for and licensed, plus providers are looking into monetizing these with additional advertising. Hulu is also paid for and not ad-free. Amazon and Netflix are ad-free, but paid for.


----------



## Adam1115 (Dec 15, 2003)

davezatz said:


> On-demand is paid for and licensed, plus providers are looking into monetizing these with additional advertising. Hulu is also paid for and not ad-free. Amazon and Netflix are ad-free, but paid for.


How do you know Dish isn't paying to offer this?


----------



## davezatz (Apr 18, 2002)

Adam1115 said:


> How do you know Dish isn't paying to offer this?


I don't recall offering an opinion in either direction above. Having said that, I strongly suspect they're not paying. Not yet, anyway. DISH generally shoots first, asks questions later. And frequently litigates. However, given the fine print they seem to be acknowledging some programming will be excluded -- suggesting they're open to negotiation and/or will not index certain content based on certain factors. I have a recording of CEO Clayton's intro of the service, but haven't listened to it in its entirety - but I assume he doesn't mention partnerships or industry support as we would have read about them.


----------



## ncted (May 13, 2007)

andyw715 said:


> Im pretty sure they can adjust the power and geographical attributes of a particular beam from the satellite, spot beam.


Yes, aside from NYC, LA, and maybe Chicago, all locals are on spot beam on Dish. This actually results in some of the carriage disputes Dish has with local stations as the spot beam footprint can me much smaller than the traditional OTA range of the station. The local stations do not like losing those potential eyes.

-Ted


----------



## Adam1115 (Dec 15, 2003)

davezatz said:


> I don't recall offering an opinion in either direction above. Having said that, I strongly suspect they're not paying. Not yet, anyway. DISH generally shoots first, asks questions later. And frequently litigates. However, given the fine print they seem to be acknowledging some programming will be excluded -- suggesting they're open to negotiation and/or will not index certain content based on certain factors. I have a recording of CEO Clayton's intro of the service, but haven't listened to it in its entirety - but I assume he doesn't mention partnerships or industry support as we would have read about them.


I think it's highly unlikely that dish did this without some sort of negotiation with the networks or without the contractual language in their carriage contract. And if the networks are on board, they must feel they are being adequately compensated for the service, as with on-demand and Hulu.


----------



## davezatz (Apr 18, 2002)

Adam1115 said:


> I think it's highly unlikely that dish did this without some sort of negotiation with the networks or without the contractual language in their carriage contract.


I imagine you will be proven wrong and I will be proven right. The question is, will the networks do anything about it?

NBC is already making noise:

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/201745178791391232


----------



## Johncv (Jun 11, 2002)

davezatz said:


> I imagine you will be proven wrong and I will be proven right. The question is, will the networks do anything about it?
> 
> NBC is already making noise:
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/201745178791391232


Bet a wooden nickel that before the end of the week Dish will kill the Ad-Zapper.


----------



## davezatz (Apr 18, 2002)

More noise from NBC:

http://www.deadline.com/2012/05/nbc...rks-dvr-ad-blaster-an-insult-to-tv-ecosystem/


----------



## Adam1115 (Dec 15, 2003)

Well I'll admit I was wrong..! They have some pretty big balls implementing this without getting them on board!


----------



## aadam101 (Jul 15, 2002)

davezatz said:


> More noise from NBC:
> 
> http://www.deadline.com/2012/05/nbc...rks-dvr-ad-blaster-an-insult-to-tv-ecosystem/


The networks are going to need to adapt. They are right that ratings should be counted year round and not just during sweeps. It's insane to only count a few weeks of the year. Technology allows us to measure practically every second of TV viewing. There is no good reason not to.

The networks have been much too slow to adapt and now technology is finding ways of giving people what they want.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

Worf said:


> ...
> 
> And networks only because they are "must carry" stations and don't get paid for it. The other cable channels, Dish pays for the privilege of offering them, and if this was happening, those channels will probably up the rate Dish has to pay out. But since Dish is obligated to carry the networks (in exchange, the networks are paid nothing for carriage), they're free to do whatever they want.


MANY "local" stations are paid for the priviledge of Dish/Directv/Cable/etc carrying them.

A station can demand to be "must carry" - if it's a dink it certainly will demand that.

OR

It can ask for compensation at the risk of cable/sat telling them to go pound sand. Usually the large giant markets (NY, LA, Etc) demand money. Also stations that are owned and operated by mega companies that also control "important" cable channels bundle themseleves and demand more. So for example all disney owned stations try to link themselves to ESPN as a bundle. Dont pay the 7 bucks a sub for ESPN then you dont get ABC (and the rest of the bundle).

I wouldn't know for sure but i'd say its likely that a majority of the population is served by one or more channels that demand compensation.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

pdhenry said:


> Local programming is uplinked to satellite (not necessarily the same satellite as the "cable" channels). In a few markets the "local" programming received via satellite may be LA or NYC network affiliate programming. If you take a satellite receiver programmed for one location to a new location you'll receive the locals for the original location.


It's been years (since S3 came out) but last I knew LA and NYC are only allowed if you live in a location that doesn't have local station of a particular network. So you aren't actually in a market. If it were a market you would need to get that markets channels. So only a certain pockets of like montana or other "middle of nowhere" places and the like can get NY or LA.

Many years ago before satellite had the ability to carry all the different markets channels they were allowed to sell everyone NY and LA. Back then the sat companies broadcast each channel across the entire US. Now a days they have spot beams (like a flashlight from space) that aims at a specific area and only sends certain channels to that area. This allows them to reuse their limited spectrum over and over again so that rather then sending hundreds of local channels all over the US (which they dont have enough spectrum to do)- they only send the 8 from NY and LA everywhere and then the other hundreds they limit to just to a local area reusing frequencies over and over.

You have to tell the satellite company your zipcode and then they authorize your box for the specific channels you should get in that zipcode. If you move and you are not under the specific spot beam that has those channels anymore then you wont get anything- unless you call them up and tell them you have a new address. For example I live in the last zipcode for the NY area- one zipcode south you get Philly. If I moved to a mile or two down the road to the next zipcode south unless i told them i moved i wouldnt continue to get NY locals (and the NY RSN)



unitron said:


> No, if they aren't available over the air in my area, then they aren't "local".
> 
> That doesn't mean I have to get them over the air. In our case we get them via analog cable (at least for now, all though I'm sure TWC is working on how to break as much of my receiving equipment as possible to try to force us to rent something from them).


Directv (and I assume dish) has either an antenna in your area someplace to pickup the channels - or more likely (at least for larger stations) in this day and age they get a wired (fiber?) feed from the station just like your local cable provider does. They aggregate a bunch of locals and send them up to the satellites together (I seem to recall via a local satellite uplink but actually maybe they internet them to one of their main uplinks now?)



Adam1115 said:


> Well I'll admit I was wrong..! They have some pretty big balls implementing this without getting them on board!


Hmmmm- shocking from the company that was aware of tivo's patents yet used infringing code anyway for years, even after being found guilty to the point of the judge debating charging them with contempt of court. Shocking too from a company that has repeatedly been admonished and/or censured in court.

it's Ergen's M.O. It seems to have made him a very rich man, so maybe he's not so dumb after all...


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

aadam101 said:


> .... They are right that ratings should be counted year round and not just during sweeps. It's insane to only count a few weeks of the year. Technology allows us to measure practically every second of TV viewing. There is no good reason not to.....


bet tivo would agree with that.


----------



## Johncv (Jun 11, 2002)

davezatz said:


> More noise from NBC:
> 
> http://www.deadline.com/2012/05/nbc...rks-dvr-ad-blaster-an-insult-to-tv-ecosystem/


This is from Fierce Cable with noise from Fox as well:

http://www.fiercecable.com/story/nbc-fox-execs-rip-dishs-auto-hop-commercial-skipper/2012-05-14?utm_medium=nl&utm_source=internal

From what I read it only applies to the four networks, it record all the prime time shows for that night. Then some how strip out the commercials and then make the all the shows available the for viewing WITHOUT the commercials the next day. I am going assume it only keep them for one day and replace them the next night prime time shows. The lawyers are going have fun with this 

How is Dish doing this? Recording all the shows and then paying people to remove the commercials?


----------



## Johncv (Jun 11, 2002)

aadam101 said:


> The networks are going to need to adapt. They are right that ratings should be counted year round and not just during sweeps. It's insane to only count a few weeks of the year. Technology allows us to measure practically every second of TV viewing. There is no good reason not to.
> 
> The networks have been much too slow to adapt and now technology is finding ways of giving people what they want.


By adapt you mean that the networks should all become premium channels where everyone pay $10.00 a month to view?


----------



## DancnDude (Feb 7, 2001)

I'm surprised they're not going the other route and trying to insert NEW commercials into the old commercial slots, then making the advertisers or networks pay them for the ability to serve up new commercials appropriate to the day the viewer is watching. 

Last week's Mother's Day promotion then gets replaced with this week's Memorial Day one.


----------



## Adam1115 (Dec 15, 2003)

DancnDude said:


> I'm surprised they're not going the other route and trying to insert NEW commercials into the old commercial slots, then making the advertisers or networks pay them for the ability to serve up new commercials appropriate to the day the viewer is watching.
> 
> Last week's Mother's Day promotion then gets replaced with this week's Memorial Day one.


Directv does it!

They insert local commercials in slots designated for that purpose just like cable does, only directv does it at the dvr.


----------



## Beryl (Feb 22, 2009)

Sounds good. As a Coloradoan, I always keep my eye on Dish as an alternative to Xfinity.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

aadam101 said:


> The networks are going to need to adapt. They are right that ratings should be counted year round and not just during sweeps. It's insane to only count a few weeks of the year. Technology allows us to measure practically every second of TV viewing. There is no good reason not to.
> 
> The networks have been much too slow to adapt and now technology is finding ways of giving people what they want.


They do count the ratings all year round. Although during sweeps there is a much larger sampling of people used. And the future ad rates are based on those ratings during sweeps.


----------



## Krandor (Jun 10, 2004)

aadam101 said:


> The networks are going to need to adapt. They are right that ratings should be counted year round and not just during sweeps. It's insane to only count a few weeks of the year. Technology allows us to measure practically every second of TV viewing. There is no good reason not to.
> 
> The networks have been much too slow to adapt and now technology is finding ways of giving people what they want.


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

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


----------



## unitron (Apr 28, 2006)

Krandor said:


> The network "adapting" will likely mean then adapting in ways we as consumers don't like. More bottom third ads during programs (I really dislike those), more product placements, higher carriage fees to cable providers resulting in higher monthly fees for us....
> 
> The networks have to make money and their main options are either fees to cable providers/consumers or ads. We as consumers don't like either option but one of them has to be there.


Generally it seems it's not one of them being there, it's all of them.

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

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

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


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

Krandor said:


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


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



Krandor said:


> The networks have to make money


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



Krandor said:


> We as consumers don't like either option but one of them has to be there.


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


----------



## aadam101 (Jul 15, 2002)

Johncv said:


> By adapt you mean that the networks should all become premium channels where everyone pay $10.00 a month to view?


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

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


----------



## pdhenry (Feb 28, 2005)

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


----------



## Krandor (Jun 10, 2004)

aadam101 said:


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


Unfortunately their main answer is SOPA and things like that. 

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

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

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


----------



## dtle (Dec 12, 2001)

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

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


----------



## Adam1115 (Dec 15, 2003)

dtle said:


> It's funny how the networks are all up in arms about this, even though it's not any different than Fast Forwarding through the DVRed shows.
> 
> I think it's telling that they are still clinging on to a number of people are still too lazy or busy to FF (like my roommate, who "watch" DVR shows while working on her laptop).


HUGE difference. I stop and rewind commercials that are of interest to me all the time when I ff through commercials.


----------



## Krandor (Jun 10, 2004)

dtle said:


> It's funny how the networks are all up in arms about this, even though it's not any different than Fast Forwarding through the DVRed shows.
> 
> I think it's telling that they are still clinging on to a number of people are still too lazy or busy to FF (like my roommate, who "watch" DVR shows while working on her laptop).


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


----------



## allan (Oct 14, 2002)

Krandor said:


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


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


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

unitron said:


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


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


----------



## unitron (Apr 28, 2006)

mattack said:


> Reading the wikipedia page about this, the station has to ask to be carried under this clause, it's not automatic.


Back in the '80s when the NAB first got it enacted there was a reason they called it "Must Carry".

There may have been some changes since.

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

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


----------



## lew (Mar 12, 2002)

Adam1115 said:


> Directv does it!
> 
> They insert local commercials in slots designated for that purpose just like cable does, only directv does it at the dvr.


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

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

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


----------



## lessd (Jan 23, 2005)

lew said:


> Not the same. The poster you quoted was suggesting replacing a commercial with a different commercial. One reason why advertisers don't want to pay for DVR viewers is some commercials are time sensitive. An ad for a movie opening has little value a few weeks later. Same with an ad for a weekend sale.
> 
> Right now there are two different issues with DVR viewers and commercials. The number of viewers who FF and the number of commercials which have reduced value if viewed later.
> 
> People say the networks have to adapt. What if one solution is to require FF be disabled during some (or all) commercials? (Almost) all of us would have big problems with it but it makes sense from the networks viewpoint. Ads pay for the programs.


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


----------



## javabird (Oct 13, 2006)

Krandor said:


> The network "adapting" will likely mean then adapting in ways we as consumers don't like. More bottom third ads during programs (I really dislike those), more product placements, higher carriage fees to cable providers resulting in higher monthly fees for us....
> 
> The networks have to make money and their main options are either fees to cable providers/consumers or ads. We as consumers don't like either option but one of them has to be there.


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

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

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


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

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

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


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

unitron said:


> Back in the '80s when the NAB first got it enacted there was a reason they called it "Must Carry".
> 
> There may have been some changes since.
> 
> ...


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

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


----------



## DocNo (Oct 10, 2001)

aadam101 said:


> I honestly don't know what the solution is.


yes you do - you cited it:



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


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

Talk about a complete lack of vision...


----------



## warrenn (Jun 24, 2004)

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

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


----------



## davezatz (Apr 18, 2002)

Fox, NBC, and CBS have filed suit:

http://www.zatznotfunny.com/2012-05/fox-takes-issue-with-commercial-skip-sues-dish/



> We were given no choice but to file suit against one of our largest distributors, DISH Network, because of their surprising move to market a product with the clear goal of violating copyrights and destroying the fundamental underpinnings of the broadcast television ecosystem. Their wrongheaded decision requires us to take swift action in order to aggressively defend the future of free, over-the-air television.





> NBC has filed suit against this unlawful service in order to keep over-the-air broadcast television a strong competitor. Advertising generates the revenue that makes it possible for local broadcast stations and national broadcast networks to pay for the creation of the news, sports and entertainment programming that are the hallmark of American broadcasting. Dish simply does not have the authority to tamper with the ads from broadcast replays on a wholesale basis for its own economic and commercial advantage.





> This service takes existing network content and modifies it in a manner that is unauthorized and illegal. [CBS] believe this is a clear violation of copyright law and we intend to stop it.


DISH has countersued:



> DISH today filed suit against ABC, CBS, Fox and NBC in federal court for a declaratory judgment on questions that have arisen related to the pay-TV provider's May 10 introduction of a user-enabled commercial skipping technology called AutoHop. DISH's monthly subscriber fees include significant "retransmission fees" that DISH pays to the major networks. Although the broadcasters have made much of their content available for free using sites such as Hulu, they have continued to demand substantial increases in their retransmission fees. In addition to increasing media reports of planned legal action against DISH, three of the networks - CBS, Fox and NBC - have rejected ads for DISH's Hopper Whole-Home DVR, the device that features the AutoHop function.


----------



## mjh (Dec 19, 2002)

pdhenry said:


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


I went even further and cut the cord completely, putting up a OTA antenna and supplementing with netflix, redbox and pyTivo. $8/mo for netflix, and about the same (on average) for redbox.


----------



## steve614 (May 1, 2006)

So, is this an example of history repeating itself? 

I guess TiVo was smart in not making an auto commercial skip feature available.


----------



## pdhenry (Feb 28, 2005)

mjh said:


> I went even further and cut the cord completely, putting up a OTA antenna and supplementing with netflix, redbox and pyTivo. $8/mo for netflix, and about the same (on average) for redbox.


I was going to do that but Xfinity Internet with limited basic is less expensive than Xfinity Internet without cable TV.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

you have to love Ergen's stones- suing them back and trying to blame them that somehow their re-transmission fees are related. 

He's so out of hand it's funny.

Being a lawyer at Dish/Echostar has to be the closest thing to a guaranteed job for life as exists in this day and age. 

You have to wonder if in his personal life he tells his chauffeur to aim at at pedestrians so he can sue them for denting his Bentley.


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

I can't find the article today, but one of the articles I read about this mentioned a "hardware hack" to enable autoskipping on Tivos.

Was that completely bogus? I suspect they were just misinformed and are talking about the 30 second skip, which still requires users to enter the code to enable it. (It's a scan on Premieres by default...)


----------



## steve614 (May 1, 2006)

I've never heard of "auto skipping" on Tivos. I think the "undocumented" backdoor 30 SS hack is as close as we'll get in skipping commercials efficiently. 
The end result is the user still has to take action to skip commercials and that is the crux of this issue.
Dish has made it possible to skip commercials without user intervention, and IIRC this is the reason ReplayTV got sued out of business.


----------



## cherry ghost (Sep 13, 2005)

mattack said:


> I can't find the article today, but one of the articles I read about this mentioned a "hardware hack" to enable autoskipping on Tivos.
> 
> Was that completely bogus? I suspect they were just misinformed and are talking about the 30 second skip, which still requires users to enter the code to enable it. (It's a scan on Premieres by default...)


Probably the New York Times article. He changed it after being told on Twitter it was incorrect.


----------



## Scyber (Apr 25, 2002)

steve614 said:


> I've never heard of "auto skipping" on Tivos. I think the "undocumented" backdoor 30 SS hack is as close as we'll get in skipping commercials efficiently.
> The end result is the user still has to take action to skip commercials and that is the crux of this issue.
> Dish has made it possible to skip commercials without user intervention, and IIRC this is the reason ReplayTV got sued out of business.


ReplayTV (well technically SonicBlue since they owned ReplayTV at the time) got sued due to the Automatic Commercial Advance (CA) technology AND the Internet Sharing technology. The technology ReplayTV used for skipping commercials had been in use for years in VCRs and had never been subject to a lawsuit. While its likely ReplayTV would have still been sued with just CA, I've always felt that the Internet Sharing is really what brought it to the TV Networks attention. And the combination of the 2 was seen as very dangerous. After D&M Holdings settled with the networks, CA was left in while Internet Sharing was removed. Although CA was no longer fully automatic, it required 1 button press to skip an entire commercial break.

As for the "sued out of existence", there were many factors that lead to ReplayTVs demise. While the lawsuit was a certainly a factor, I think it has always been overhyped as a reason.


----------



## WhiskeyTango (Sep 20, 2006)

I read today that at least one network, possibly with others to follow are no longer airing ads that mention the Hopper. I think Fox was the first. Les Moonves was griping about it as well.


----------



## moyekj (Jan 24, 2006)

Scyber said:


> ReplayTV (well technically SonicBlue since they owned ReplayTV at the time) got sued due to the Automatic Commercial Advance (CA) technology AND the Internet Sharing technology. The technology ReplayTV used for skipping commercials had been in use for years in VCRs and had never been subject to a lawsuit. While its likely ReplayTV would have still been sued with just CA, I've always felt that the Internet Sharing is really what brought it to the TV Networks attention. And the combination of the 2 was seen as very dangerous. After D&M Holdings settled with the networks, CA was left in while Internet Sharing was removed. Although CA was no longer fully automatic, it required 1 button press to skip an entire commercial break.
> 
> As for the "sued out of existence", there were many factors that lead to ReplayTVs demise. While the lawsuit was a certainly a factor, I think it has always been overhyped as a reason.


 I agree with all this. Early on in 2000 I chose ReplayTV over TiVo because of auto-commercial skip and I'm well aware of everything ReplayTV related and was pretty active in 3rd party development for it including replaySchedule and auto-commercial skip playback using VLC-Videolan player. I always longed for an HD version of ReplayTV but realized at some point that will never happen. There is no good way to condense down to a single phrase what happened to Sonic Blue which is why I also have adopted the "sued out of existence" mantra to summarize what happened though that certainly is nowhere near the whole story.


----------



## allan (Oct 14, 2002)

WhiskeyTango said:


> I read today that at least one network, possibly with others to follow are no longer airing ads that mention the Hopper. I think Fox was the first. Les Moonves was griping about it as well.


This morning I heard a Hopper ad on the radio. It started with "Do you hate ads? Even this one?"


----------

