AVS Forum banner
Status
Not open for further replies.
1 - 20 of 27 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,830 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Here's a peak of what we're up against:

http://onmedia.chaffee.com/article.c...75573670292615


Here's a sample:

Quote:
"Ultimately, the issue might be taking the digital television standards, as they have been set by the FCC, and have them evolve to include provisions for content playback for any device (cable set-top boxes, television sets or PVRs) that have that functionality," Mr. Wolzien said.


Regulation most likely would come in the form of client and server-based software technology already available for streaming, downloads and displaying video files from the Web,

not unlike what is used for ESPN Motion, Mr. Wolzien said.


Less likely, and less effective, would be any attempt to ban the recording of television signals by digital recording devices, while allowing the recording of separate, controllable, digital video files that television stations could transmit along with their video, he said.


In any case, waiting on PVR regulation would not be prudent, given how quickly consumers took to downloading recorded music free off of the Internet. The practice that is so out of control and unregulated has siphoned tens of billions of dollars out of music company pockets.


"That's what makes cable's wholesale embrace of PVR technology look a little like an industry chewing on its own legs," Mr. Wolzien said.


"The irony here is that the cable industry has made the programmers its first enemy these days, blaming

them for higher cable rates charged consumers," he said.


"Yet cable and satellite providers are introducing PVR technology that can have no other impact than to drive up program costs even more," he said. "Through their rapid distribution of uncontrolled PVRs, cable and satellite companies have stumbled into a serious problem while looking for short-term gains to drive investor interest.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,103 Posts
He speaks much truth

Only thing is my philosophy is reverse.


I don't care if cable bills go up if it means no commercials


I'd rather pay 30 cents to watch a 20 min show then pay 15 cents to watch a 20 min show embedded with 10 min of commercials.


If someone watches an average of 3 hours of TV each day for 30 days thats 90 hours a month, which about 30 hours is commercials. if basic cable is $40 a month ya might as well skip watching 30 hours of commcials, work an extra 6 hours a month and pay $70 for cable instead of 40. Or even better yet: work the same amount of hours each month and buy one less stupid thing each month: such as something you might see in a commercial. If you find this an invalid arguement because you never buy anything from commercials, that should tell you something too: commercials thrive by making the poor and less educated even poorer. The less skilled/smart/educated someone is the less money they tend to make and the more likely they are to buy something in a TV advertisement. Also, the less money one makes the more TV they are likely to watch. This explains all the lawyer worker compensation commercials, the $200 a bottle weightloss pills, and the Coke commercials.


The poorer uneducated people are essentially getting scammed right in front of us and noone cares. Channeling poor uneducated people to certain product choices via commercials could actually be a solution, but not if the commercials contain a bunch of crap that make them poorer. I'm sure there are more stimulating arguements that could be made, but they simply distract from the focus of my bland and paramount (at least I think s) argument.


Too bad technology's effectiveness has made fewer jobs needed so many people can't work if they wanted to. Not unless they think of a way to florish by making less profit then a person who commutes 40 min each way to take calls from people ordering diet pills. Do we really need the blue collar workers and the unemployed buying crap in commercials to subsidize the viewing habits of people smart enough not to buy things in commercials but too cheap to pay a little extra not to see them? There should be policies that protect the poor from these commercials.


Worrying about the billions of revenue dollars comming in each year from TV advertising is really just worrying about the 100s of billions of hours that could be added back to peoples lives.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
101 Posts
I'd have to disagree with you, Ice....


I think cable is too expensive already, and the prices only go up.


There used to be something for television that didn't have commercials....it was called "cable". When we first got cable when I was just a lad, the ONLY stations that had commercials were the big network ones (WGN, TBS, etc)....since then, prices have gone up, and every station has commercials (some don't even do what they were created for, aka MTV that doesn't play Music Videos)..


Anyhow, whether I skip a commercial with a technological device (aka Replay with CA, or 30-second skip), or because of a biological need (bathroom, out of beer, etc), the end result is the same.....I DONT WATCH THE COMMERCIAL....


On the other hand, IF the commercial catches my interest, I watch it. I just saw a commercial last night (I think it was for Quizno's) that had me rolling on the floor....if the advertisers want people to watch commercials, they need to be interesting. Ads that show "5 o'clock news top story: so and so is selling their cars at below factory invoice!" are instantly ignored, even if I stay in front of the tube....


But don't hike my rates just because your business model is flawed, or you feel you need a 7th jacuuzi, or because I have to go to the can and choose commercial breaks as the time to go.



Sorry for the rant, folks, but paying more for something for no good reason irks the heck out of me....like the Canadian CD tax..(because, obviously, if you buy recordable CDs, you MUST be a pirate!)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,463 Posts
Big leap to say the poor and dumb by things off of commercials and educated people never do. Also not true. Basic market research prior to putting a commercial on tells us that.


We still need to keep in mind that our cable bill goes to pay for the ability to receive signals from a company, not to produce the shows that appear. Obvious exceptions are premium content channels with little or no commercials and even they have added commercials to cover their original content. Otherwise a very small percentage of the cable bill has anything to do with covering broadcast/content expenses at the station level.


I'm in the category of people known as "le cheapskates." We use the antenna on the roof and pull down local channels only. I love the "free ride." But the truth is, when it comes to content, we all get the same free ride (we pay for it through commercials, not the cable bill). And I don't want that ride to end.


I think if TV wants to continue to get its revenue throught ads and not charging (and I believe both the companies that advertise and the stations that sell the space desire this) they need to rethink how they advertise and give us the desire to watch it (as has been discussed in other threads).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
744 Posts
What ever happened to "fair-use"?


Before I got a PVR, I did not watch commercials (incessant clicking, making popcorn, answering nature's call, etc.) The PVR just lets me not watch commercials in a more convenient way.


As much as I love technology, I can't help but think at times that this whole push toward digital broadcasting is not a disguised effort to exert more control over content and to encroach on a person's fair-use of his/her own equipment (consider digital water-marks, encoded copy-protection, and the like).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,463 Posts
Quote:
Originally posted by Phule
I think cable is too expensive already, and the prices only go up.


But don't hike my rates just because your business model is flawed, or you feel you need a 7th jacuuzi, or because I have to go to the can and choose commercial breaks as the time to go.


Sorry for the rant, folks, but paying more for something for no good reason irks the heck out of me....
There've been a lot of complaints regarding cable out here since rates have gone up again and some people have lost some services.

I think there are two great actions in response:

1. Cancel cable. If you need the channels go dish. But for 1 month try it with just an antenna/booster on the roof (mine is in the attic and gets a great signal) if you are close enough to get local broadcast at acceptable quality.


2. Get involved with your local government. CableTV is a monopoly and as such is regulated (many sign contracts with the community). I know when AT&T was out here they never lived up to their end of the bargain as far as upgrading the system and no one ever held them accountable.


In Geneva, IL the town gave up and became its own cable TV service. I have several friends who live their and they love their service and the price.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
85 Posts
Actually what the cable companies should do is pay customers for watching commercials and have them rate them( even a simple thumbs up or thumbs down or a 5 star rating). If they rate say 30 commercials a month they get $3.95 off their cable bill with a scale that increases to say $9.95 for 180 commercial ratings a month. People could then program their DVRs to jump to the commercials with the rating they wish to view....


-PVR viewers get to watch commercials dubbed "cool"

-cable companies are getting actually viewers of commercials

-companies are getting feedback if people like their advertising and could even start target advertising

-the consumer gets a kickback for sharing their opinion


kinda a win-win situation...and could be easily done using exisiting systems, with software upgrades and backend database.


Just a thought...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
454 Posts
Quote:
Actually what the cable companies should do is pay customers for watching commercials and have them rate them( even a simple thumbs up or thumbs down or a 5 star rating). If they rate say 30 commercials a month they get $3.95 off their cable bill with a scale that increases to say $9.95 for 180 commercial ratings a month.
About 10 minutes after this is introduced, someone will hook a PC to an IR emitter and send 'thumbs down, pay me' every 30 seconds 24/7.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
412 Posts
It amazes me how many consumers feel that it is OK to be treated poorly. The only reason that cable/sat companies would PAY to broadcast channels is because someone didn't do their job right. Any channel that runs commercials needs viewers to make a profit. In the old days, they would spend a considerable amount of money on a broadcast tower, and broadcast rights. Expecting them to pay for outsourcing that part of their company is not unreasonable. Honestly, what TV station wouldn't pay if DTV threatened to pull them from the line up?


Yes the push for digital IS so that they can criminalize the VCR and any similar product. If the word digital can be applied to a subject, consumers loose all rights. First they will record-restrict the digital signal on premium channels. Then on all channels. Once a large portion of the population accepts this as 'right', they will move to "patch the analog hole", thereby making all VCRs illegal. They are already starting to lobby for laws to criminalize VCRs.


If you don't think people will support the disabling of all broadcast video recording, just look at how many people support the sale of defective CDs (copy protected). Or for that matter, look how many people support huge cable bills AND comercials for the same channels. All the company has to do is say "That's how we make our money", and people accept that as a valid excuse. I just hope muggers don't start using that line.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
4,316 Posts
On the general commercial skipping issue: Do the companies that pay for the broadcasting of these think that people without PVRs, VCRs, etc. just sit there like statues when they are on? As was said, we move around, get food, etc.. With a VCR, you skip the commercial. with a PVR it's just easier/faster. Sounds like suits who never watch TV or never watch people watching TV! :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
826 Posts
Stop IT!

Just Everybody Stop IT!


Who in the hell pays for commercials? You and I pay for every commercial on every station on TV. Everytime we buy a Pepsi, or drive a Ford, or go to a Movie we're paying for the commercials. Whether or not we watch them.


So this whole argument is not an economic argument. That's all smoke and mirrors. Pepsico is still going to charge whatever they charge for a 2 liter bottle. Cause advertising is a cost of doing business. What these people are afraid of is that we'll stop watching what they want us to watch.


And they've already gotten past commercial advance. There irritating little annimations down in the left or right or top or bottom corners of the screen. Watching a subtitled film with Joe Millionaire riding away in a minature little carriage ala Cinderfella is near impossible.


And give up the "Stealing Free TV" argument. How can you steal something that's "free"?


It is legal to skip commercials. It is legal to make a recording of a program for your own use.


All these people are doing is positioning themselves to charge more per minute, (20% increase because 20% of the people aren't watching commercials. . .great reasoning.) Which means next year Ruffles will cost 20% more.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,731 Posts
Quote:
Originally posted by icecow


There should be policies that protect the poor from these commercials.
Absolutely Freaking Laughable!


What need is FEWER policies/laws whatever protecting people from their own stupidity & MORE laws/plicies whatever increaseing peoples personal responsibility.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,197 Posts
Don't bother dumping on your cable company... Dump on the professional sports teams and the individual athletes and the beer swilling Joe six packs who blindly watch any sporting event on TV they can for why cable costs so much.


ESPN just raised their rates 20% again this August. Of course, they blamed the expense of their NFL and MLB contracts (who, of course, blame the players).


Before that increase here were some typical per subscriber fees for your cable provider to bring you these channels:


- ESPN..........$2.00.


- Fox Sports....$1.16.


- TNT...........$0.78.


- USA...........$0.40.


- Nickelodeon...$0.34.


- MTV...........$0.23.


- Discovery.....$0.23.


- Lifetime......$0.17.



What a joke! Don't get me wrong. I love sports. I just hate fat middle-aged, middle-americans who sit around all weekend watching TV and have somehow gotten the impresssion that this makes them sports fans!! What it makes them is dull of mind and body....the opposite of what sports should do for you.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,103 Posts
Quote:
Originally posted by Slack
Absolutely Freaking Laughable!


What need is FEWER policies/laws whatever protecting people from their own stupidity & MORE laws/plicies whatever increaseing peoples personal responsibility.
I'm divided after reading your responce.


Closer to my mark is this reasoning:


Stupid people who near or are on welfare neither have the right nor should be subjected to commercials of Law Attorneys who advocate 'Accidents'.


Stupid non-criminal types shouldn't be subjected to demographic fraud such as magic pills targeting imigrant's beliefs or similar things sold to the elderly.


I'm half republican and half democrat (or something). The democratic role should be more about policy and less about spending(they are idiots). Is bush a democrat? not to clear to me if his spendings are just, but I do know he'll pay 'specialty item' prices. bla bla


The point is people have to be controled (e.g. murder). It's a matter of delicate judgement to minimize problems and maximize cival liberties.


Problems are created when shady car insurance commercials are well financed from profits created by denying/minimizing claims. Other insurance companies do not heavily adverties because they honor claims (er, a moderate number of them anyway). So 100s of millions of dumb people are only influenced by shady car insurers. When dumb people create problems for themselves they usuallycreate problems for everyone else: like people who only get covered for 'the other vehicles damage' then get slammed into by someone with bad insurance.


Commercials are a sensible thing to regulate because they reach 100 millions of people and any problems they cause collectively add up to lifetimes. Even better yet.. ditch commercials, whatever comes first.


I'm not saying if regulations come they would be good ones. There needs to be more policy to control the motives of policy makers. This would take a coup. coups happen. be part of bloodless revolutions. the world gets better one 'pod' of policy at a time. There is no 'constitutional rights'. I'm not saying the constitution should't be used to support an arguement... the objective is to wack things back into reason.


In the end, I think I agree with you. The policy I had in mind would need to be implemented by an intelligent well-motived person(s) and periodically revised until it was doing a good job. But that isn't going to happen. It would be implimented by policy makers, who have skewed motives and would never go through revisions..at least good ones.


It's more likely that I could vote for someone who has the right intentions, but with a TV system like we have how could I possibly know what a candidate really believes? The only chance he has to win is saying soundbytes to get the uneducated peoples votes. My educated vote would be worthless. wait a second, I dont have an educated vote because it's pretty much impossible to find out any real details about a candidites intentions.


70 channels for 270 million people just isnt enough. Copyrights and ogilopolies suck. We could be lucky for what we have. It is almost conceivable that today there are only 70 telephone connections that could be made at the same time because of regulations based on protecting content. I can see it now, 70 phone calls going on at the same time and each call has a few million people listening in eaves dropping but cant talk. They could pay $40 a month for the privledge. The people hired to do the talking would be huge celeberties. Everyone would know them. But of course there would only be one line running into each persons house. It would be illegal to create local or neighborhood networks and noone could change the policy because any given neighborhood would have to go head to head with national broadcast telephone call industry NBTCI.


It's all f'n mad. Does it take a Davidian compound just to have a good ReplayTV network farm? I'm not even sure what that means.


cow
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,103 Posts
Quote:
Originally posted by Phule
I'd have to disagree with you, Ice....


I think cable is too expensive already, and the prices only go up.


There used to be something for television that didn't have commercials....it was called "cable". When we first got cable when I was just a lad, the ONLY stations that had commercials were the big network ones (WGN, TBS, etc)....since then.....
Well I fell in to using those figures to get a point across. I'm not a professional writer. The point wasn't that cable bills should go up to $70 from $40. The point was if you are watching commercials to save a dime an hour it always factors out to just paying up the dime.


I used those figures in a pinch cause if I said 'take out commercials and keep cable at $40' people would scream 'It will have to go up from $40 if you take out the commercials'

I'd just want to scream back.. 'keep it at $40 and let content get a shade crappier' because I'll just sort through all the content and get what I want anyway.


The price of cable is expensive because there's only one cable provider per an area...a monopoly, ifyou count dish..a duopoly, not primarily because commercials.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,103 Posts
By the way. I don't think everything I say is the god spoken truth. I look back and like alot of things i say and i look back and see some real doozies.


I do feel many many people have fairy beliefs about all of this stuff. I do believe I have a hell of a headstart over Most others figuring it all out.


so there


cow
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
187 Posts
Quote:
Originally posted by Phule
Ads that show "5 o'clock news top story: so and so is selling their cars at below factory invoice!" are instantly ignored, even if I stay in front of the tube....
That's what _you_ think. Human psychology is a dark and mysterious thing. Your will is not your own. If it didn't work, they wouldn't do it. :eek:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
826 Posts
I believe in fairies.


But then I'm not in Kansas anymore, either.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,830 Posts
Discussion Starter · #19 ·
I see the issue from another side...


Television is really the only effective way for an advertiser to reach a national mass audience. A capitalist society requires business to be done, and business requires advertising.


The truth of the matter is that TV ads in pods three times in a show will probably start to disappear in the next five years. Fully sponsored shows, and shows with lots of product placement and ads woven into the show will become the norm, and we'll be back to watching commercials again.


The only reason CA is available is because the television industry has made it possible. They have allowed advertising to become so static and predictable that an algorithm can find them and eliminate them. Broadcasters have pooh-poohed the PVR since its inception. Now that they are figuring out that their business models are going to have to change, they are trying their best to postpone the inevitable while they figure out what to do.


TV is free, but it doesn't exist in a vacuum. Without commercials, or in a state where the majority of viewers never watched the commercials, it simply wouldn't exist.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,731 Posts
Quote:
Originally posted by icecow
Stupid people who near or are on welfare neither have the right nor should be subjected to commercials of Law Attorneys who advocate 'Accidents'.


Stupid non-criminal types shouldn't be subjected to demographic fraud such as magic pills targeting imigrant's beliefs or similar things sold to the elderly.


cow
Stupid comes in a couple of flavors.


If one is stupid because one did not pay attention in class, then I say tough s4it, you reap what you sow.


If one is stupid because of one's genetics, then, for the very stupidest, laws are already in place to prevent you from entering into contracts you can't fathom etc.., etc...


I want legislation that enforces peoples responsibility for their actions, not dilutes it.


Quote:
Originally posted by icecow
In the end, I think I agree with you.
'nuff said
 
1 - 20 of 27 Posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top