DVRs altering HD viewing and programming... - Page 3 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #61 of 73 Old 06-22-2012, 01:50 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
Charles R's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Indianapolis
Posts: 9,916
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 174
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sammy2 View Post

I'm not sure where you got those prices (amazon streaming?)
Why is streaming over the internet the only solution? It comes to me on the same Cable as TV does? I can VOD over that same cable.
What I'm saying is that if I paid per series it would be less than I'm paying now... even $10/mo per series is the same as there's only about six shows I watch regularly anyhow. Most of the showswe watch are premium networks that don't have commercials. We don't have premium channels so we wait a few months and watch them on BRD via Netflix.

 

Yes, those are the prices if you only want to pay for them... nothing else. The prices would (I'm guessing) only go higher via cable/satellite. Remove the other deliver method's advertising, carry fees, etc and the price skyrockets. We have been discussing mainstream and unfortunately your usage doesn't fit and as such I wouldn't expect a plan to recover lost revenues to evolve around your wishes. Again, this is about the big picture...

Charles R is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #62 of 73 Old 06-22-2012, 01:54 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
NetworkTV's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: CT
Posts: 15,543
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 131 Post(s)
Liked: 411
...and that's the crux of it.

Right now, streaming prices are the result of money being made on the linear TV broadcast. If that goes away, the viewers aren't all simply going to shift to streaming. Many of them simply go away in pursuit of something else.

Streaming on its own with out being propped up by TV broadcasts becomes very expensive for the viewer.
NetworkTV is offline  
post #63 of 73 Old 06-22-2012, 02:12 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Sammy2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Right next to Wineville, CA
Posts: 9,755
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 75 Post(s)
Liked: 181
Maybe if the networks would stop producing junk their veiwership would go up. With more viewership they can charge more money per unit put have less advertisement inserted in the program. If people are fast forwarding through the commecials then another model needs to be created for revenue. Frankly at this point I can't think of a show on broadcast TV that I couldn't live without. As a matter of fact, since House got canceled there isn't a show on broadcast TV that I watch.

The DVR is here to stay unless TW has it's way. The content producers need to make money by producing content people want. People want Game of Thrones so they pay for HBO to get it. The content providers can and will charge more for content delivery to make up ad revenue losses.

Of course then there's the live sports started a ½ hour late with a DVR discussion. But those guys are all over paid anyhow because we get overcharged for beer to pay them through the beer adds we watch. Beer is just one product of many that we get raped on to pay excessive salaries to these guys.

Sammy2 is offline  
post #64 of 73 Old 06-22-2012, 02:58 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Aleron Ives's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 2,612
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 163 Post(s)
Liked: 293
Quote:
Originally Posted by Network TV 
You must be young.

Either that or you're forgetting that records started out as singles. It wasn't until technology allowed for longer albums that the music industry shifted in that direction. From that point, album art and liner notes became essential, making records collectable.

Now, the shift is going back to singles - only this time there isn't the expence of stamping the music out on physical media. Most listeners no longer care about album art, so that's yet another expense that is going away.

We're essentialy going back to the dime store brown wrapper 45, minus the physical record.

Since our discussion has been comparing hard vs soft copies of digital music, I didn't think it was necessary to consider the CD (or vinyl) single, since it was just another part of the physical-distribution music ecosystem. The lower price and easier acquisition of single downloads are making them a disruptive force, whereas physical singles were already integrated into the old model and complementary to it, rather than undermining its success.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sammy2 
The software proposed by the TW patent looks for and deletes I-Frames and IDR-Frames. It is my understanding that a DVR and Microsoft Media Center used with CableCARD tuners looks for these when FF and RW is engaged. Without them, they get lost.

This wouldn't make much sense, as deleting keyframes would making viewing the commercials just as impossible as skipping them, thus defeating the purpose of the feature. It would break the recording entirely and render it unwatchable.
Aleron Ives is offline  
post #65 of 73 Old 06-22-2012, 03:17 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Sammy2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Right next to Wineville, CA
Posts: 9,755
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 75 Post(s)
Liked: 181
Okay I said it wrong. The software doesn't delete them, it looks for them. Maybe I wasn't wrong?
Quote:
By utilizing, for example, digital embedded cue-tones for advertisement insertion, a device in the network … could use these points (i.e., the cue-tones) to selectively remove I-Frames/IDR-Frames to prevent trick modes during ads (or other portions) but not from the program being watched. Thus, consumers can be substantially prevented from skipping, fast forwarding and rewinding through video that the provider would like the consumer to view, such as advertisements, specific carriage agreement requirements, etc.," Time Warner Cable wrote in the patent.

Sammy2 is offline  
post #66 of 73 Old 06-22-2012, 04:18 PM
AVS Special Member
 
mr. wally's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: land of the pumas
Posts: 3,807
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Liked: 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by Charles R View Post

Comparing HBO (serving a niche market) to a major network isn't logical. They offer different content and serve different markets.Yes, most networks do collect advertising revenues... which are disappearing. Perhaps right along with the content (before long). 

because it has superior content i am willing to pay for it. if the networks will need revenue, they are going to start to air programming with better content. except for sports there is very little
quality programming on the networks. i will not pay for reality shows but i will for game of thrones.

neflixis our nemesis
mr. wally is offline  
post #67 of 73 Old 06-22-2012, 05:43 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
Charles R's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Indianapolis
Posts: 9,916
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 174
Quote:
Originally Posted by mr. wally View Post

if the networks will need revenue, they are going to start to air programming with better content. except for sports there is very little quality programming on the networks. i will not pay for reality shows but i will for game of thrones.

 

Entertainment value to a large degree is in the eye of the beholder. I wonder when the last time HBO topped the ratings... if ever. Now don't say it's because they cost more since you just said people will pay for quality programming. Either they won't or they don't agree with your taste in quality entertainment. :)

Charles R is offline  
post #68 of 73 Old 06-22-2012, 05:51 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Sammy2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Right next to Wineville, CA
Posts: 9,755
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 75 Post(s)
Liked: 181
Never did care much for ratings.. I think they're "over-rated" I also think that they are grossly inaccurate.

Sammy2 is offline  
post #69 of 73 Old 06-22-2012, 06:14 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
Charles R's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Indianapolis
Posts: 9,916
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 174
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sammy2 View Post

Never did care much for ratings.. I think they're "over-rated" I also think that they are grossly inaccurate.

 

I think you might be in the wrong thread then... this is all about mainstream content which lives off ratings. Also, if you have more accurate numbers I'm sure they would love to see them right along with your plan to replace lost revenues. :)

Charles R is offline  
post #70 of 73 Old 06-22-2012, 10:06 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
NetworkTV's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: CT
Posts: 15,543
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 131 Post(s)
Liked: 411
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aleron Ives View Post

Since our discussion has been comparing hard vs soft copies of digital music, I didn't think it was necessary to consider the CD (or vinyl) single, since it was just another part of the physical-distribution music ecosystem. The lower price and easier acquisition of single downloads are making them a disruptive force, whereas physical singles were already integrated into the old model and complementary to it, rather than undermining its success.
You missed the point.

The industry is all jumpy over the new business model being selling songs individually. They aren't selling full albums.

I'm saying that it's nothing new. It's simply the music industry going back to their original model. The format is irrelevant.

Further, in the beginning, singles weren't integrated into the old model: they were the model. You bought songs one at a time because they weren't any full albums. It wasn't until LPs came a long that the idea of releasing a suite of songs became the norm.

The record industry experimented with single CDs in the late 80's/early 90's, but they failed because the disc was too expensive. MP3's don't have that same issue of mastering and stamping a disc along with packaging and distributing it. Therefore, the same track doesn't have to sell for $3.99 or $4.99.

What you'll see is artists recording fewer tracks and releasing them in stages to make them each more viable as individual songs. You don't have to go into the studio for weeks to record a large number of songs. You set up short sessions when you have a couple of tracks you want to record and release them more often to keep people's appetites up.

The record industry fears it because it goes gainst the last several decades of business model. However, they've survived format changes, genre changes and even survived disco - they will survive this and they'll survive where it goes from here.
NetworkTV is offline  
post #71 of 73 Old 06-22-2012, 10:20 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Jedi Master's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Macon, GA
Posts: 1,627
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 22
Quote:
Originally Posted by mr. wally View Post

i will not pay for reality shows but i will for game of thrones.

You are paying for Reality shows. Your pay TV bill that you pay supports MTV, TLC, E, and all those other crap channels that show Reality shows.

Broadcast TV - a vital national public resource
Jedi Master is offline  
post #72 of 73 Old 06-25-2012, 04:36 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
Charles R's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Indianapolis
Posts: 9,916
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 174

What the “live+7” performance does not do is make more money for the networks. The accepted system of advertising sales continues to be based on what is called a “commercial+3” rating: that is, how many viewers watched the commercials within three days of a show’s first broadcast. (Advertisers do not want to pay for viewers who skip through all the commercials.)

 

One senior NBC executive, Ted Harbert, suggested to advertisers at the NBC upfront sales presentation last month that it might be time to consider basing ad sales on seven days of viewing instead of three.

That is not likely to happen, Mr. Adgate said. “If Nielsen reported live plus 21 days, the networks would want to get paid for that,” he said. And Mr. Beckman conceded, “A lot of delayed viewing is a function of commercial avoidance.”

But Mr. Adgate suggested that another trend may hold out more hope for making a profit from delayed viewing. He noted growth in network series being watched on a video-on-demand basis: viewers ordering episodes they have missed. “In V.O.D. they can include commercials that you can’t skip through,” he said.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/25/business/media/nbcs-smash-owes-renewal-to-power-of-delayed-viewership.html?_r=1&ref=television

 

I read the above in the Hot Off The Press thread. As DVR usage increases it will be interesting to see how many days they will be able to include in the ad rate...

Charles R is offline  
post #73 of 73 Old 06-25-2012, 02:32 PM
AVS Special Member
 
mr. wally's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: land of the pumas
Posts: 3,807
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Liked: 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jedi Master View Post

You are paying for Reality shows. Your pay TV bill that you pay supports MTV, TLC, E, and all those other crap channels that show Reality shows.

correct, but that is because i have no choice. my cable channels come in packages. i can't customize my package.

maybe the long rumored apple tv will let us customize our television viewing the way they allow you to buy an entire album or just a few cuts at itunes.

neflixis our nemesis
mr. wally is offline  
Reply HDTV Programming

User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off