  GlennAllenSunny with highs in the 80s
join:2002-11-17
Richmond, VA | Interesting... these TV execs seem to think that people are actually watching commercials even when they're not skipping them. Or that watching them leads to actual revenue [for someone]. Fascinating. | |
|
 |  BF69Premium
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN | Re: Interesting... said by GlennAllen:these TV execs seem to think that people are actually watching commercials even when they're not skipping them. Or that watching them leads to actual revenue [for someone]. Fascinating.
Well if people aren't watching commercials then advertisers will ask for lower rates or stop advertising all together and then the networks won't have the money to put on new shows. Or they'll have even more commercials or they'll put on ads while the show is going on. Then you can't skip them. Or networks will ask for higher transmit fees from cable and satellite and those companies will pass those increase rates on to YOU. So don't complain when you're paying $300 a month for TV.
People that think they should get 100% free TV with no advertising live in fantasyland. | |
|
| | GlennAllenSunny with highs in the 80s
join:2002-11-17
Richmond, VA | Re: Interesting... No, those who think any significant number of "viewers" are actually watching commercials are the ones in "fantasyland". (I could care less if all TV programming disappeared tomorrow.) | |
|
| | | | said by BF69:Well if people aren't watching commercials then advertisers will ask for lower rates or stop advertising all together and then the networks won't have the money to put on new shows. Nice try, but it doesn't work that way. Advertisers do not pay for recorded ads. The reason is they have no idea how often an ad is watched on recorded media and they pay by impression - the number of viewers that watch an ad. | |
|
| | | BF69Premium
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN | Re: Interesting... said by travelguy:said by BF69:Well if people aren't watching commercials then advertisers will ask for lower rates or stop advertising all together and then the networks won't have the money to put on new shows. Nice try, but it doesn't work that way. Advertisers do not pay for recorded ads. The reason is they have no idea how often an ad is watched on recorded media and they pay by impression - the number of viewers that watch an ad. Sorry but ad rates for TV are based on audience. If advertisers know that the audience is skipping the commercials that's proof FEWER eyeballs are potentially watching the ads. If FEWER people are watching they can demand lower rates.
Put it this way if YOU were trying to advertise on TV would you pay $1 mil if you KNEW that 95% of the people were skipping the commercials? Of course not. Why do you assume that advertisers are so stupid that they would? | |
|
| | | | | | Re: Interesting... said by BF69:Sorry but ad rates for TV are based on audience. If advertisers know that the audience is skipping the commercials that's proof FEWER eyeballs are potentially watching the ads. If FEWER people are watching they can demand lower rates. That's true as a generality, but not how the industry works. TV ad prices are based on Live CPM - cost per thousand viewers at the time the ad is aired. Some rating agencies generate ratings for Live +1, Live +2, Live +3, etc., reflecting the viewings by day after the initial airing, but that isn't what the price is based on. | |
|
| | |  elwoodbluesElwood BluesPremium
join:2006-08-30
HarperLand
 ·Cybersurf Intern..
| said by travelguy:said by BF69:Well if people aren't watching commercials then advertisers will ask for lower rates or stop advertising all together and then the networks won't have the money to put on new shows. Nice try, but it doesn't work that way. Advertisers do not pay for recorded ads. The reason is they have no idea how often an ad is watched on recorded media and they pay by impression - the number of viewers that watch an ad. They don't pay that way either.
When you sell an ad, you promise the advertiser that so many eyeballs are going to watch the show that the advertising is on. Using BBM or another rating agency, those overnight numbers come out.
If the numbers are higher, the advertiser gets a bonus, if they are lower, then the network has to "make good" and provide free advertising to make up the difference.
There are new ways to monitor viewers instead of "log books" and/or STB's. Many broadcasters sending out an inaudible audio signal that is picked up by a device that the "watcher" is carrying. So if they watch the TV show live, on the DVR, or (god forbid) download it, that audio signal is there and is picked up for ratings purposes.
--
No, I didn't. Honest... I ran out of gas. I... I had a flat tire. I didn't have enough money for cab fare. My tux didn't come back from the cleaners. An old friend came in from out of town. Someone stole my car. There was an earthquake....... | |
|
| |  KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK | Are you advocating the position that people on their own time watching shows they recorded should be forced to watch something they have no interest in?
Not having to watch commercials is a major reason to record and watch later.
That, and you watch an hour long show in 40 minutes....
--
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini
| |
|
| | | BF69Premium
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN | Re: Interesting... said by KrK:Are you advocating the position that people on their own time watching shows they recorded should be forced to watch something they have no interest in?
Not having to watch commercials is a major reason to record and watch later.
That, and you watch an hour long show in 40 minutes....
Since when do you have a "right" to TV in the first place? I guess I should have to pay for a meal at a restuarant because I don't want to. how dare that ask for money. | |
|
| | | | KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK | Re: Interesting... said by BF69:Since when do you have a "right" to TV in the first place? I guess I should have to pay for a meal at a restuarant because I don't want to. how dare that ask for money.
Ah, trying to change the topic. I accept your surrender then.
--
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini
| |
|
| |  firephotoFacts hurtPremium
join:2003-03-18
Brewster, WA | Very few households are NOT paying for television these days and the providers pass on some of that money to the content creators which is above and beyond advertising money. So NBC and the like get more viewers and direct payment for those more viewers where if the viewer is over-the-air they only get advertising revenue from that individual.
In the UK...
»en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Television···_Kingdom
quote:
In the United Kingdom and the Crown Dependencies, any household watching or recording live broadcast television transmissions (terrestrial, satellite, cable, or internet) is required to purchase an annual television licence. As of 2010, this costs £145.50 for colour and £49.00 for black and white.[1] Income from the licence is primarily used to fund the television, radio and online services of the BBC. Total levies from the licence fee were £3.662 billion in 2010–11[2] of which £579.4 million or 15.8% was provided by the Government through concessions for those over the age of 75.
So UK people get many bbc channels, no commercials, no commercial bias, not much political bias, all for £145.50 or so a year.
--
Say no to JAMS! | |
|
| | |  japPremium
join:2003-08-10
038xx | Re: Interesting... said by firephoto:So UK people get many bbc channels, no commercials, no commercial bias, not much political bias, all for £145.50 or so a year. And the iPlayer 2-week on-demand streaming of everything. The BBC content quality has slowly declined while US has risen but still the UK (there's great productions that aren't BBC) has best overall content in the world. In any language. Though Germany's supposed to be very good too, just not as much selection.
The license fee is a deal for most but not at all if you watch very little TV - like say Top Gear only and occasional news. | |
|
| | | | | | Re: Interesting... said by jap:The BBC content quality has slowly declined while US has risen .........
WTF??!???!?
Now that's funny, dude. | |
|
| | | | | japPremium
join:2003-08-10
038xx | Re: Interesting... said by MaynardKrebs:said by jap:The BBC content quality has slowly declined while US has risen ......... WTF??!???!? Now that's funny, dude. Yeah, I get ya on the waves of crap but no way we could have produced The Wire or Rubicon previous to the mid 1990s. I think the studios recognize there's a market for more challenging content and they've stepped up. I'm old enough to remember when All In The Family was the brainy stuff.
News, using the term very loosely, has gone completely to shit. Our coverage was once something to be proud of now it's a damaging laughing stock. | |
|
| | | | firephotoFacts hurtPremium
join:2003-03-18
Brewster, WA | said by jap:The license fee is a deal for most but not at all if you watch very little TV - like say Top Gear only and occasional news.
The UK gov't or BBC could probably bring in a fair amount of revenue if they offered worldwide licences for access to content online. I know some of their content makes it to BBC America channel but a good amount is only available to a lot of people via file sharing.
--
Say no to JAMS! | |
|
| | | | | japPremium
join:2003-08-10
038xx | Re: Interesting... said by firephoto:The UK gov't or BBC could probably bring in a fair amount of revenue if they offered worldwide licences for access to content online. I know some of their content makes it to BBC America channel but a good amount is only available to a lot of people via file sharing. Excellent point on the intl webstream though I suspect there are territorial agreements between countries that would need to be overcome. Probably different terms in each country with every show needing to be price negotiated. Might be why we haven't seen it.
A co-worker claims BBC America sux in content selection and is re-edited & dumbed down for the US audience. And, yeah, it's very poorly distributed. Mostly satellite last I knew. | |
|
| | | | | They also pay a TV licenses in the UK. | |
|
| | | | I pay for TV so why should I have to watch advertisements as well? I can get the main networks free over the air, then I understand there are commercials no doubt because then it's technically free. If something is free, advertise away, if I have to pay a monthly fee then it seems like double-dipping.
Should be as simple as, well, HBO/Cinemax/etc. They are premiums and you pay a premium, but no real commercials other than "intermission" between shows/movies.
Should be quite simple. The cable network seeks out buyers (Comcast, CenturyLink, Time Warner, Charter, DISH, DirecTV, etc), they negotiate a rate. The buyers pay the networks to provide their channel to the customer. The customer pays the buyer (provider). It's already done this way, but the advertisements are just space-fillers and corporate greed. Can't remember the last time I watched a commercial, oh that's right, the Super Bowl, because they're actually funny! It is rare for a commercial to entice me to buy something. If they don't adjust their business models, then poof, someone else will step in and do better (they already are).
They just need to do a la carte and end the misery. | |
|
| | | | | Re: Interesting... that is NOT the way it works and never has been. | |
|
| | | | said by BF69:People that think they should get 100% free TV with no advertising live in fantasyland.
If you have advertising the content should be free, no advertising and you should pay. | |
|
| | | BF69Premium
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN | Re: Interesting... said by NeoandGeo:said by BF69:People that think they should get 100% free TV with no advertising live in fantasyland.
If you have advertising the content should be free, no advertising and you should pay. And network programming IS free. All you need is an antenna. If one is stupid enough to pay cable or satellite get something they can get for free that's on them. Also there is Hulu which is free. | |
|
| | | | | | Re: Interesting... I'm just saying how it should be. Don't get worked up. | |
|
me1212
join:2008-11-20
Pleasant Hill, MO | If it costs the same per month as the normal DVR. I'll be getting at least one. Heck maybe even if its $5 more. | |
|
| | Will be stopped in its path. Content owners will be firing up the legal team today and law suits will be issued this week over this. Modifying the content will end them a nice smack on the wrists and some money coming out. | |
|
| scooper
join:2000-07-11
Youngsville, NC
kudos:2 Reviews:
 ·Time Warner Cable
·Embarq Now Centu..
| Re: Will be stopped said by 25139889:in its path. Content owners will be firing up the legal team today and law suits will be issued this week over this. Modifying the content will end them a nice smack on the wrists and some money coming out.
Nice try - but it doesn't work that way. It KEEPS the skipped ads, and you have to MANUALLY tell it to "AutoHop". Charlie Ergen doesn't do things like this without having a firm leg to stand on. BTW - this ONLY works on the Big4 (or so) HD channels all on the same transponder.
The bigger concern is the local channels demanding that skips being taken away on all DVRs as a part of the retrans agreements. | |
|
| | | | Re: Will be stopped May have to turn it on but still. It will not go very far. It still skips and the TV provider controls and enables it on their end. Enough for Hollywood to go after them or rates will more than double come contract time. And ReplayTV didn't make it and this won't either.
Plus Tivo could consider this TimeShifting and toss Dish into court over it. | |
|
| | Have fun spending $300 a month on cable, dumbasses. Those ads, which were previously foisted upon everyone too technically incompetent to avoid them, were funding the majority of your television programming.
If this catches on and the stupid demographic which pays for your programming gets to skip ads as well, expect several negative things:
1) You thought occasional ad snipes up on screen were bad? Have fun with 30 second commercials literally taking over half the screen during your programming every couple of minutes as networks have to adopt a more aggressive way to avoid this.
2) All the free broadcast networks will no longer be distributed for free over the air.
3) Cable transmission fees are going to quadruple.
Right now the networks are able to exploit stupid companies who think advertising actually works and stupid people who don't have media center PC setups which can automatically strip ads.
This is just like how all your websites are paid for by people who don't know how to use AdBlock. Imagine if every browser had AdBlock integrated by default. Make ad blocking too easy for the technically incompetent, no matter what the medium, and it will hurt ALL OF US. The web would turn into a nightmare of paid subscriptions to every website. | |
|
|  jmn1207Premium
join:2000-07-19
Ashburn, VA
kudos:1 | Re: Have fun spending $300 a month on cable, dumbasses. It's not like we are tied to our recliners. If someone can't provide a way to fund an entertaining television program without bombarding the viewers with annoying advertisements, people will change the channel or do something else. | |
|
| | | | Re: Have fun spending $300 a month on cable, dumbasses. They can find a way to fund an entertaining television program without ads. It's called HBO, and it costs $20 a month.
Have fun paying $30 a month for Comcast/Universal's bundle of channels, another $30 a month for Disney's, $30 more for News Corporation, $30 for Viacom, and on and on...
You want another current example of how much your programming will cost when you have to pay for it in full because ads don't subsidize it? Look no further than the iTunes store, where every new episode of a TV show costs $3 and a whole season will run you over $60. But hey, at least it doesn't have commercials, right? | |
|
| | | jmn1207Premium
join:2000-07-19
Ashburn, VA
kudos:1 | Re: Have fun spending $300 a month on cable, dumbasses. I don't have to pay for it if I don't believe it is worth it, just like I don't have to sit through advertising if I choose no to do so. | |
|
| | | | | | Re: Have fun spending $300 a month on cable, dumbasses. But the content owners will force you to. They will stop Dish in their tracks and issue lawsuit against them. I wouldn't be surprised if one isn't issued by the end of the week or even on Monday. hollywood will NOT allow this to happen. And if they do- id hate to be any company's customer where they're about ready to talk content rates because they will be going up. | |
|
| | | | |
See 6 replies to this post |
| | BF69Premium
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN | said by jmn1207:It's not like we are tied to our recliners. If someone can't provide a way to fund an entertaining television program without bombarding the viewers with annoying advertisements, people will change the channel or do something else.
Ok Einstein how can they fund these shows without advertisements then? | |
|
| | | jmn1207Premium
join:2000-07-19
Ashburn, VA
kudos:1 | Re: Have fun spending $300 a month on cable, dumbasses. That's for them to figure out. I watch entire seasons on Netflix without commercial interruptions. Netflix is even creating their own series all from affordable subscriptions. I've found that my favorite shows over the last few years are on the premium pay channels.
Commercials are ok if they aren't overused and distracting as hell. If this works for everyone, then I will find something else to do. Right now my choices are premium channels, subscription video services, and a DVR that allows me to skip commercials. If these options go away or become too costly for me, I'm not going to be forced to watch advertisements or forfeit half my salary just for a smidgen of entertainment. I won't do it.
I stopped going out to movies because of the increased prices and 20 minutes of commercials they show before the feature begins. | |
|
 IowaCowboyWant to go back to IowaPremium
join:2010-10-16
Springfield, MA
·Comcast
 ·Verizon Broadban..
| Our cable bills are high enough Our cable bills are high enough that they should not need advertising to sustain their product. I think that TV advertising should go the way of the pay phone.
Some of the NBC networks (particularly the Weather Channel) are known for some of the most annoying adds. Remember the "Head-On Apply directly to the forehead" commercials a few years ago that made you want to throw your TV set off of the second story balcony.
Also the quality of TV programming has declined. The Weather Channel used to be 24 hours of non stop weather information, now they play the same rerun of "Ice Pilots" for the 22nd time this month. I have even stated that in the Nielsen ratings that the Weather Channel should be split into two feeds, one for 24 hr weather information and another for the garbage they play like episodes of "When Weather Changed History" that were filmed back in 2005.
The only good stuff on is the music channels and the local evening news. Some of my favorites are VH1 Classic, CMT Pure, a couple of the Music Choice Channels (particularly Pop Hits, 90's, and 80's along with True Country), and the 22 News (WWLP) at noon/5/5:30/6PM. I also watch Fox News from time to time. | |
|
|
See 7 replies to this post |
|
 cdruGo ColtsPremium,MVM
join:2003-05-14
Fort Wayne, IN
kudos:7 | Who is "our"? quote:
This is an insult to our joint investment in programming, and I’m against it.
I wanted to know who the our in "our joint investment in programming" referred to. He's referring to "NBC’s upfront presentation to advertisers...station representatives, studio executives, producers, actors, reporters and NBC staff members, among others.
No where in there do I see Dish, or customers. They aren't involved with your investment between NBC or advertisers. With respect to this conversation, both Dish and the customers are the consumers of the product. They don't give a crap if the content producers are insulted. They are the ones that know best what they want...because they are the ones that want it.
The broadcast industry has cared less generating the same crap for years, insulting the public. Now they get their panties all up in a bunch when it happens to them. Time to grab some popcorn and enjoy the show. | |
|
| | cry me a river Oh cry me a river network execs. I've been skipping commercials since I first got a DVR back in 2005/2006.
Push 30sec skip 5 or 6 times and you should be good.
So what this is automatic but
1) user has to enable it
2) it doesn't work until after 1 AM the next day. | |
|
|
See 6 replies to this post |
|
moes
join:2009-11-15
Indianapolis, IN | replaytv They cried when replaytv has such a feature and replay got sued and had to take the feature out, Now it's a tech evolution. sorry dish, it's been done before and worked well, but your kind helped kill it years ago. | |
|
| KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK | Re: replaytv Dish had nothing to do with Hollywood's assault on ReplayTV.
Then, as now, they called skipping commercials as "Theft of programming".
--
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini
| |
|
| | | | Re: replaytv He didn't say Dish had anything to do with ReplayTV. He meant that ReplayTV did it before and was stopped the same as Dish will. | |
|
| | | KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK | Re: replaytv He said "your kind helped kill it years ago."
I disagree, I used ReplayTV with Dish receivers and it worked very well. | |
|
| | | | moes
join:2009-11-15
Indianapolis, IN | Re: replaytv I was meaning the industry at a whole had a panic attack when replay was doing it, it's the whole industry that got the feature removed. | |
|
Reviews:
·Time Warner Cable
 ·Verizon FiOS
 ·voip.ms
| what should make you cry, sports. Well,
I looked @ CBS 10-k from last year. Over 60% of their revenue was from advertising ($9b), but then you start to think that just on the NFL alone we are talking over $3b just for the big three (not including ESPN, et al) per year--that is some big money. Add in all the other sports and you are talking about them eating up 30-40% at least of just the license cost, not including the production costs-- so say 45-50%.
So think just NFL ONLY ON THE BIG 3 - There are 115m households in the USA - JUST THAT ONE NFL CONTRACT IS WORTH $26/yr FOR EVERY HOUSEHOLD.
The bottom line is--I love sports and all--but if you peeled out sports you could eliminate 50% of the cost right there without a problem.
By forcing bundling (and not competing on merit), the major sports networks are bending over the networks and causing meteoric rise is licensing costs. If they unbundled cable, half of the networks would die within a year (which is probably a good thing). I heard just ESPN on cable alone is $5-$6...
So sports and bundling is your cause for $150 cable bills, sorry.
Oh and BTW CBS will stream their shows in Canada, UK, LATAM, etc on Netflix but not the US because guess what they own most of the stations in the big DMA's, and they have this nasty old broadcast habit of syndication that streaming will eventually kill.
I'm guessing that probably-- (by looking at statements-- indirectly sports accounts for 50% of my cable bill, and everyone else. Not to mention that your shaving lotion costs $.30c more to advertise it.
Bottom line, sports in America is an expensive addiction that won't go away. Nobody talks about this, and they just replace good shows with that reality scripted drivel with its rock bottom production costs. | |
|
| | The Skipping Ads Feature In out household we don't watch the "major networks." The 30 second advance and 15 second rewind buttons on my DVR do the trick for any channels we do record that impose commercials on us.
It would be great if this commercial delete worked on ALL channels. | |
|
axus
join:2001-06-18
Washington, DC | Some people like commercials! Any way to turn that feature off? Is it on by default?
I wonder if this is a kind of copyright violation. "Time-shifting" doesn't edit the content, but this does. A good counter-argument is that changing channels is not a copyright violation. Makes me think of that ridiculous lawsuit against the DVD-player that could censor objectionable scenes.
Anyways, it's a great feature for consumers, similar to AdBlock on a web browser. However, I will be sad if my nice over-the-air broadcasts are changed because of other people's DVR features. | |
|
| KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK | Re: Some people like commercials! It doesn't edit the content.
It records the whole show, including commercials. You can turn the feature off and on at will, thereby watching the full recording if you wish. No editing or modification of the content is performed.
--
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini
| |
|
| | | I might pay for baseball and football ONLY. Any money that would go for the other stuff like movies, sitcoms, etc. would go to PBS OTA. | |
|
KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK | Who owns ReplayTV's old patent? ... that could be used to shut this down via a BS patent lawsuit. | |
|
| | | Re: Who owns ReplayTV's old patent? probably Hollywood- LoL. | |
|
| | | That would be Dish's biggest competitor, DirecTV. | |
|
| | | | Re: Who owns ReplayTV's old patent? a great way to knock Dish out of the field. Someone will end up having Dish in court- DirecTV, Tivo- time shifting, or Hollywood for this. Between those they should have good odds of shutting this down. | |
|
| | | | | Re: Who owns ReplayTV's old patent? said by 25139889:a great way to knock Dish out of the field. Someone will end up having Dish in court- DirecTV, Tivo- time shifting, or Hollywood for this. Between those they should have good odds of shutting this down. Why exactly are you so excited to see this shut down? | |
|
b10010011Whats a Posting tag?
join:2004-09-07
Bellingham, WA Reviews:
·Comcast Formerl..
| Get ready for more "embedded ads" and product placements. I used to watch Royal Pains and Cover Affairs until a couple episodes were nothing but 47 minute long iPad and Skype ads thinly disguised as a program with a Toyota self parking car ad thrown in.
Now I don't watch either show.
That worked out great for USA Network, didn't it?   | |
|
| | No ADs Very happy to have three of these babies. GOODBYE ADS!!!
WHOOOOO HOOOOOOOO!!! | |
|
| | Live TV? Whats that? I just torrent all my shows... No advertisment and don't need to rent a PVR  | |
|
| | Adding it Up Charlie Ergen doesn't do anything without thinking through his end-game. He knew before Hopper was announced that it would get this reaction from programmers and even other operators. He knows full well if Hopper were to launch broadly across more than just a handful of networks he'll get crushed in either a legal or signal-pulling dog fight. A fight he'd lose. It would take only one or two broadcasters or cable net groups (Disney/ESPN, Viacom, Time Warner/Turner, NBC Universal, etc.) pulling signals to kill him with churn.
He's angling for something else - a concession of some kind from programmers on some other front where he'd take this off the table in exchange. Or he's trying to bring to present some sort of stand-off he feels is inevitable later on but by his calculations is better being fought now. Maybe something about retransmission consent? Time will tell. | |
|
 cline3621Mr. Yuk is MEAN Mr. Yuk is GREENPremium
join:2006-06-14
Clarksville, TN | 'Cable Networks and Advertisements Correct me if I'm wrong, but here is my take. Cable tv channels as we know now such as HBO who was one of the first in the late 1970's, decided, if you pay us you can have our channel commercial free. Other cable channels came along over the years and pretty much followed the same commercial free standard. 2 that come to my mind are MTV and Nickelodeon. I remember seeing MTV for the first time when I was about 6 and don't recall viewing ads. Over the years these cable networks 'evolved' and figured out they could double dip by showing advertisements constantly without too much uproar. We are at the point now were some channels will take 2 and a half hours to play a 1 hour and 20 minute movie. Personally I think this is a fraud, and partially weighed on my decision to cut the cord on satellite tv about a month ago.
I've also found this long forgotten gem. I love it when Satan comes to me in my nightmares. 
»www.youtube.com/watch?v=QIgZHZpiq1U | |
|
 SnakeoilIgnore Button. The coward's feature.Premium
join:2000-08-05
Mentor, OH
kudos:1
·RoadRunner Cable
·magicjack.com
| Pirates for the win, again. The network guys need to wake up and smell the coffee. They are only helping the pirated by taking a stance like this.
Thing I'm curious about is this: How long before a show on the DVR is to old to be counted anymore?
I tend to let the shows stack up. Because the networks seem to love putting large breaks in the middle of the show's season. So when the season finales starts airing, then I start watching the shows on my DVR. I fast forward through the ads, anyhow. I understand I still have to watch a blur, but I'm not watching the commercial.
Some shows, I'll wait until they hit Netflix. No ads and get the entire season. I don't like to pirate TV shows, as I think it's a waste of my time to download something that I'll watch just once.
--
Is a person a failure for doing nothing? Or is he a failure for trying, and not succeeding at what he is attempting to do? What did you fail at today?. | |
|
BF69Premium
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN | Too many illogical thinkers out there. Just quit skipping the commercials and take a shit or fix a soda while they are on. If you nimwits keep this up then 1 hour shows will be 30 minutes. 30 minute shows will be 15. Or you'll have advertising going on the same time as the show. yeah that'll be wonderful. try skipping that. | |
|
| KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK | Re: Too many illogical thinkers out there. You are not thinking illogically.
I'm not interested in wasting extra time watching programming I don't want to watch. This is why it's recorded to watch later.
Sorry, not interested in some exec sitting there saying you "WILL" watch what we say when we say or else.
I'd be like... or else I won't watch your junk, period. Try making money off of that.
--
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini
| |
|
| mogamer
join:2011-04-20
Royal Oak, MI | said by BF69:Just quit skipping the commercials and take a shit or fix a soda while they are on. If you nimwits keep this up then 1 hour shows will be 30 minutes. 30 minute shows will be 15. Or you'll have advertising going on the same time as the show. yeah that'll be wonderful. try skipping that.
You mean they're not already? And only nimwits watch commercials on dvr'd programs. Let's face it, everyone, even out of touch entertainment excutives, know that people use their dvr to skip commercials and shorten program watching time.
I look at this as Dish's version of On Demand. Since they don't have the infrastructure to do this like the cabelcos, they're going to try this with the Hop feature. How many ads do On Demand programs have? Not much, if any. Maybe Dish can adjust the feature to work after two or three days instead of one.
I also see this as a way to keep re-trans fees from local stations lower. "OK, we'll not allow ad skipping with your channel, but the re-trans fee won't be going up." | |
|
| | Commercials PAY for shows! What the heck do you think pays for the over the air shows? COMMERCIALS! Yeah they have gotten a bit long over the years, but still! I NEVER pay for TV. I rather watch commercials than pay greedy cable companies anyway!!!! | |
|
|
|
