# Gannett Hopping Mad Over 'Hopper' -- Longterm agreement reached!



## Nick (Apr 23, 2002)

*Gannett to stop broadcasting on Dish if ad-skipping feature not removed*

*"Gannett's demands translate into 
more than a 300 percent increase..."*



> Oct 4 (Reuters) - Dish Network Corp said the broadcasting arm of newspaper publisher Gannett Co Inc has threatened to withdraw broadcasting on the satellite TV provider if it does not block the commercial-skipping feature on its digital video recorders or agree to pay massive penalties.
> 
> If Gannett Broadcasting lets the current broadcasting contract expire without renewal, Dish customers in 19 cities including Atlanta, Washington, D.C., Denver, Minneapolis, Cleveland, Phoenix and Sacramento would lose various ABC, CBS and NBC-affiliated stations, Dish said in a statement.
> 
> ...


More *here*.


----------



## retiredTech (Oct 27, 2003)

here is the link from Dish to find out more 
and to send your comments to Dish and/or Gannett

http://www.dishvaluepledge.com/


----------



## FarmerBob (Nov 28, 2002)

Same in Denver. But I think it's strange that they want a 300% increase. It seems they all want a 300% increase. Is that Charlie's go to number?

If they lose it in Denver they will lose a lot of subs. Including me (18 years). First AMC and now this. How many Dragons does he have to slay? Already made arrangements in case.


----------



## Marcus S (Apr 23, 2002)

There is a dispute over two NBC denver stations 9 & 20 as well. Personally and I mean personally I am tired of my bill going up each year to the extent that I may just start hopping back and forth between Dish & DirecTV every two years. What I get is a brand new installation with the latest equipment and at least a 1 year discount under a two year contract.

I support Dish playing hard ball with Gannet, AMC networks and others that may come up in the future provided it keeps my bill lower than DirecTV or cable. The content providers have needed a big wake up call for over a decade and maybe lossing 20 million customers in their revenue stream may provide that. This is not going to be the same goal for everyone, some people are willing to pay whatever the cost will be.

I read over and over again that neither cable or satellite are growing at rates they did 10 years ago. Many wonder if the subscriber rates will actually start falling. Keep in mind that many of the younger folk buying their first home are choosing streaming sources over satellite or cable and pay as you go may be the only audience left for content providers if they don't change their position. I think a perfect example of this is the music industry. When was the last time anyone bought a CD? Now days people buy the specific songs they want.

http://www.9news.com/life/programming/dish.aspx


----------



## Hoosier205 (Sep 3, 2007)

I just don't understand the strategy behind openly inviting/encouraging lawsuits and strained business relationships with things like the Hopper.


----------



## tcatdbs (Jul 10, 2008)

Me either... we just keep getting fatter because we don't have to get off the couch to change the channel... now our thumbs are getting fatter because we don't have to hit the forward button 5 times every 15 minutes. Yeah it's a nice "free" feature for us couch potatoes, but if it causes a 1 cent increase in cost, I'd rather not have it. I'd rather see better guide interface (like delete 10 PTAT shows at once; and more folder options).



Hoosier205 said:


> I just don't understand the strategy behind openly inviting/encouraging lawsuits and strained business relationships with things like the Hopper.


----------



## Nick (Apr 23, 2002)

Dish subs in Atlanta, Washington, D.C., Denver, Minneapolis, Cleveland, Phoenix and Sacramento would lose access to Gannett stations in their market.

Other cities that could be affected by a blockage are St. Louis, Little Rock, Tampa, Jacksonville, Macon, Bangor and Portland, Me, Grand Rapids, Buffalo, Greensboro, NC, Columbia, SC, and Knoxville,TN.

That's a ton of viewers, read 'ad revenues' for Gannett to forfeit and, potentially, a lot of programming content, read 'subscribers' for Dish to lose.


----------



## Marcus S (Apr 23, 2002)

While I think there are two issues in play over the dispute, cost to carry and commercial skipping, then why not offer the commercial skipping service as a fee option for those that want to pay it. Free Pandora includes commercials, $36 a year gives you commercial free music. I personally wouln't pay for add skipping if its going to raise my bill.

Happy late anniversary to us Nick! We joined in the same yy/mm/dd. Still miss dbsforums, started there before talk was born.


----------



## keifer27 (May 25, 2010)

Completely ridiculous to me. If I lose my channels, I will be switching.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

Customers want to skip commercials, channels don't want you to... customers don't want to lose their channels.

Dish can't win for losing.

If Dish takes away trick play commercial skipping features, customers will complain too... I guarantee that.


----------



## SayWhat? (Jun 7, 2009)

Always support the carrier over the content providers. Always.


----------



## Hoosier205 (Sep 3, 2007)

"Stewart Vernon" said:


> Customers want to skip commercials, channels don't want you to... customers don't want to lose their channels.
> 
> Dish can't win for losing.
> 
> If Dish takes away trick play commercial skipping features, customers will complain too... I guarantee that.


It just doesn't seem very well thought out. Thumbing their nose at content partners and looking for disputes.


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

But it also doesn't make much sense to me the other way either. The customers that are likely to have a DVR (let alone a Hopper), are more likely to not watch commercials anyway, except maybe sports. How many people actually watch a recording and watch commercials? Other than stopping for an interesting looking commercial, watching it then continuing to fast forward, I don't really see it.

Seems like a wash in ad viewing either way.


----------



## Hoosier205 (Sep 3, 2007)

"SayWhat?" said:


> Always support the carrier over the content providers. Always.


...except those times when you shouldn't. That content isn't owned by the service provider. It's a retransmission agreement, not a license to edit out a valuable source of revenue. They've already taken a hit from the usage of DVR's. Automatically skipping commercials just makes matters worse.


----------



## SayWhat? (Jun 7, 2009)

Hoosier205 said:


> I just don't understand the strategy behind openly inviting/encouraging lawsuits and strained business relationships with things like the Hopper.


I see it as thinking of their customers first.


----------



## Hoosier205 (Sep 3, 2007)

"SayWhat?" said:


> I see it as thinking of their customers first.


By inviting potential lawsuits and negatively impact business relationships with content providers?


----------



## SayWhat? (Jun 7, 2009)

If you think about it, Gannett et al, should be offering to REDUCE rates in exchange for disabling Hopper, not blackmailing and extorting higher rates among threats.

This is 2012. People don't like being forced to watch commercials. They're appreciative of tools to help make them go away.


----------



## SayWhat? (Jun 7, 2009)

Hoosier205 said:


> By inviting potential lawsuits and negatively impact business relationships with content providers?


Embraces Dish's efforts. Direct your ire at the content providers who are making the threats and enriching the lawyers.

In fact, what Dish should do is offer the technology free to Direct and the cable companies, so they can all work together to stick their thumbs in the eyes of the content providers.


----------



## Hoosier205 (Sep 3, 2007)

"SayWhat?" said:


> In fact, what Dish should do is offer the technology free to Direct and the cable companies, so they can all work together to stick their thumbs in the eyes of the content providers.


That's called collusion and it's illegal.


----------



## Hoosier205 (Sep 3, 2007)

"SayWhat?" said:


> If you think about it, Gannett et al, should be offering to REDUCE rates in exchange for disabling Hopper, not blackmailing and extorting higher rates among threats.
> 
> This is 2012. People don't like being forced to watch commercials. They're appreciative of tools to help make them go away.


...so your solution is for content providers to accept less in retrans fees AND voluntarily give up ad revenue? That doesn't make any sense. What you are proposing would have a direct impact on the quality of their product.


----------



## celticpride (Sep 6, 2006)

this isnt fair to the other dish customers that dont have the HOPPER!:nono:


----------



## SayWhat? (Jun 7, 2009)

Hoosier205, which are you ... a content provider or a paid lobbyist for one?


Commercials BAD
Skipping commercials GOOD!!

Content Providers BAD
Dish GOOD!!


----------



## Hoosier205 (Sep 3, 2007)

"SayWhat?" said:


> Hoosier205, which are you ... a content provider or a paid lobbyist for one?
> 
> Commercials BAD
> Skipping commercials GOOD!!
> ...


I understand that there is a cause and effect. What you see as a positive impact on Dish customers also has the potential for a negative impact for viewers on the back end.


----------



## Carl Spock (Sep 3, 2004)

Say What?, I spent tens of thousands of dollars over the years on local commercials for my stereo store. Why should I do that if companies make it easier and easier to skip them?

Commercials are effective advertising for local retailers and restaurants. They are a profit center for local television stations and cable service providers. When they are PSAs, and many TV stations donate time to local non-profits to help their causes, they are even good for the community. The Red Cross needs to get out the word that there will be a blood drive and they will be at these churches and schools on the following days.

The commercial skip feature of the Hopper can have effects down to the neighborhood bar which wants to let people know it has a 2 for 1 Happy Hour every weeknight.

As a guy who has created a lot of TV commercials, I am definitely pro-commercial.


----------



## MikeW (May 16, 2002)

I agree with Hoosier. It doesn't make much sense to push the envelope to this level. Without Hopper, there are DVR customers who may get lazy when skipping commercials. I know that I sometimes forget, or I'll see something interesting and watch. With the Hopper, there is 0 chance an ad is going to be watched.


----------



## Hoosier205 (Sep 3, 2007)

So the content providers that produce/broadcast the programming you pay your service provider to retransmit are bad, while the service provider is good. Hmm...ok.


----------



## Hoosier205 (Sep 3, 2007)

"MikeW" said:


> I agree with Hoosier. It doesn't make much sense to push the envelope to this level. Without Hopper, there are DVR customers who may get lazy when skipping commercials. I know that I sometimes forget, or I'll see something interesting and watch. With the Hopper, there is 0 chance an ad is going to be watched.


Yep. It makes an already volatile relationship between service and content providers that much worse. As if there weren't enough acrimony.


----------



## kevinturcotte (Dec 19, 2006)

Hoosier205 said:


> ...so your solution is for content providers to accept less in retrans fees AND voluntarily give up ad revenue? That doesn't make any sense. What you are proposing would have a direct impact on the quality of their product.


How could their product POSSIBLY get any worse? :lol:


----------



## Hoosier205 (Sep 3, 2007)

"kevinturcotte" said:


> How could their product POSSIBLY get any worse? :lol:


Name your favorite channel. Now take away a portion of their ad revenue and/or a portion of their retrans fees. Now imagine if other service providers do the same. That favorite channel of yours quickly becomes a shadow of its former self,


----------



## kevinturcotte (Dec 19, 2006)

Hoosier205 said:


> Name your favorite channel. Now take away a portion of their ad revenue and/or a portion of their retrans fees. Now imagine if other service providers do the same. That favorite channel of yours quickly becomes a shadow of its former self,


I think they've already hit THAT point lol


----------



## Inkosaurus (Jul 29, 2011)

With all of the fees that these local affiliates get slammed with every year you would expect them to look for ANY excuse to try and get a rate hike.

Fact of the matter is ad-hop is optional, ad hop is off by default and you even have to go a few menus deep to turn it on.

Yeah this does effect the local mom and pop shops but gannet isnt looking to defend them, there just looking to get more cash at the end of the day.


----------



## SayWhat? (Jun 7, 2009)

Content providers have been pushing the envelope for years. More commercials, less program time, more intrusive commercials in the programming and overlaid on the programming, all while the Execs take home bigger and bigger paychecks. 

It's time for the carriers and viewers to start pushing back.

Less advertising money doesn't have to hit the quality of programming if the Execs weren't so greedy.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

The Hopper is just an easy target ... and DISH has already modified the product to appease broadcasters. If broadcasters had their way viewers would be able to skip any portion of television EXCEPT the commercials.

I'm sure that if the Hopper didn't skip commercials Gannett would just find another gripe to complain about. It is just low hanging fruit. Somehow these station groups and channel groups find something to dispute ... even in cases when the carrier isn't DISH.


----------



## Nick (Apr 23, 2002)

Inkosaurus said:


> With all of the fees that these local affiliates get slammed with every year you would expect them to look for ANY excuse to try and get a rate hike...


What fees?


----------



## tcatdbs (Jul 10, 2008)

I just turned Prime Time and auto-hop on last week. Personally, I think the auto-hop feature does more to get ads to me than w/o auto hop. With auto hop you seem to get 2 or 3 seconds of the ad (which seems to be programmed to get the main gist of the product across). When I skip manually I ignore everything and skip much faster thru the ads. I think more about the product with that 2-3 second shot. If I thought the commercial was interesting enough, I'd go back and watch it w/o autohop (haven't done that yet). Dish could collect more from the advertisers to put their 3 second spot into auto-hop.... subliminal advertising...

It's a choice... we need more of that! If providers/advertisers don't give customers what they want, more will be losing customers to streaming content.


----------



## Hoosier205 (Sep 3, 2007)

"James Long" said:


> DISH has already modified the product to appease broadcasters.


According to who? Dish?


----------



## Inkosaurus (Jul 29, 2011)

Nick said:


> What fees?


The affiliates have to pay fees to ABC, Fox, CBS ect just to transmit that to us, there usually pretty outrageous too.

The reasons these disputes always happen is because they have to pay an ass load to stay on the air and expect to make the majority of that through companies like Dish and DTV on top of the money they get from ads.


----------



## SayWhat? (Jun 7, 2009)

James Long said:


> It is just low hanging fruit.


Yeah, you gotta be careful when they start grabbin' fer yer grapes!



Hoosier205 said:


> According to who?


Hoyle?

I seem to recall that the way Hopper works was altered a few weeks back.


----------



## Hoosier205 (Sep 3, 2007)

"SayWhat?" said:


> I seem to recall that the way Hopper works was altered a few weeks back.


Right...they gave the illusion of passing responsibility on to their customers in an attempt to avoid a lawsuit. Rather than auto hop being on by default, customers have to select it. Dish hopes that is enough to appease the content providers they are treating with so little respect. Perhaps they should have considered the negative impact of
their actions first.


----------



## Marcus S (Apr 23, 2002)

Channel 9 Denver just carried a segment on their 10/5 4p news at 4:30. Dish spokesman claims Gannet wants Dish to disable auto hopper in their Hopper DVR's, Gannet claims there is no such wording in the currently proposed contract. Sounds like a presidential debate. I would guess this translates into Gannet has no wording in their contract regarding auto hopper skip, but there are potentially two different contract prices Dish can choose from?


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

I'm as pro-commercial television as anyone. Read my posts in other threads... Commercial TV is supported by (wait for it...) commercials!

And we pay less to have those channels than we would IF they had commercials.

So... on one level I do think it odd for Dish to be fighting this fight with AutoHOP... Even odder still when you consider Dish sells and inserts commercials itself, so AutoHOP is at odds with some of Dish's own revenue streams!

And lastly... AutoHop, for all its touted to be "customers should be able to watch TV as they like" feature... how come Dish only enabled it for OTA LiLs and not for other Dish/SAT provided commercial channels?

Dish seems to be singularly focusing the AutoHOP on OTA channels... and not commercial channels in general.

ALL that said... OTA stations aren't doing themselves any favors... Companies that own multiple channels negotiating all-or-nothing carriage for ALL their channels in varying markets instead of negotiating carriage for each channel in each market... so IF Dish doesn't want to pay in Idaho, New York doesn't get their channels either...

Also... hiding behind the AutoHOP is evil response and simultaneously asking for 300% increases (as rumored here) make no sense to me....

A lot of people have been cord-cutting... and those people get OTA for free... so if some of these affiliates don't wise up, they will effectively make it unattractive for Dish to carry them... and they'll lose the revenue stream that they do have.

I still think Dish needs to re-think their AutoHOP strategy too. Originally they advertised it as you had to wait 24 hours to view without commercials... but from reports here that quickly shrank to 1am for a lot of people and in some cases people are apparently able to AutoHOP commercials on an 8pm show while the 10pm shows are still recording.


----------



## FarmerBob (Nov 28, 2002)

And this interesting tidbit from an NBC "related" entity:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/49304831/


----------



## Hoosier205 (Sep 3, 2007)

All around it sounds like something an inexperienced and naive greenhorn or intern would green light while the executives weren't looking. Then the adults have to come in and clean up the mess after the fact.

Considering all the good products and services (despite the many Dish flaws ) they have deployed over the years, it just seems odd that they would set themselves up for such an obvious and destructive confrontation.


----------



## Carl Spock (Sep 3, 2004)

FarmerBob said:


> And this interesting tidbit from an NBC "related" entity:
> 
> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/49304831/


This is purely a reposting of a Dish press release, incluing a Dish Network puff bio at the the end and hyperlinks to their website.

Who knew NBC was anti-commercial and so in the tank for Dish Network?


----------



## Marcus S (Apr 23, 2002)

Since Dish is due to release the OTA dongle for the Hopper in the possibly near future, will you still be able to auto hop with OTA channels? Humm...


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Stewart Vernon said:


> Even odder still when you consider Dish sells and inserts commercials itself, so AutoHOP is at odds with some of Dish's own revenue streams!


DISH cannot insert ads on local broadcast channels (other than the old fashioned way: buy advertising on those stations).

BTW: In previous carriage battles it has been revealed that part of those carriage contracts was an advertising buy. DISH agreeing to buy advertising on the local station they wanted to carry. So perhaps they are skipping their own ads, in a limited way.



> And lastly... AutoHop, for all its touted to be "customers should be able to watch TV as they like" feature... how come Dish only enabled it for OTA LiLs and not for other Dish/SAT provided commercial channels?


Perhaps some day they will. The OTA channels are the most viewed so it makes sense to start there.



> Also... hiding behind the AutoHOP is evil response and simultaneously asking for 300% increases (as rumored here) make no sense to me....


Part of the problem is with the low cost of previous contracts. If the last contract was signed more than a couple of years ago the payment to the station is more likely to be minimal. Years ago stations were not out to make a lot of money off of retransmission. Now they are more likely to seek that revenue stream.

5c per customer jumping to 20c is 300%. 10c to 40c is 300%. 25c to $1 is 300%.


----------



## FarmerBob (Nov 28, 2002)

Carl Spock said:


> This is purely a reposting of a Dish press release, incluing a Dish Network puff bio at the the end and hyperlinks to their website.
> 
> Who knew NBC was anti-commercial and so in the tank for Dish Network?


That's why I said "interesting".


----------



## Nick (Apr 23, 2002)

FarmerBob said:


> And this interesting tidbit from an NBC "related" entity:
> 
> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/49304831/


That's not a juicy "tidbit", it's called a "press release". In this instance, a DISH press release.


----------



## nmetro (Jul 11, 2006)

DISH Headquarters is about 5 miles from the two Denver stations (KUSA and KTVD). The crawls are running on the two stations. This could actually become something nasty fro DISH because of them being Denver based and the local media may not be too kind to them.

Of course, at one time NBC had NFL football, and if the Broncos were knocked off DISH, this town would be having an uprising. 

As for Gannet wanting a 300% increase; it has been said before television stations should be paying to be on a system, not the other way around. Considering they get revenue from ads, this is just corporate greed.


----------



## domingos35 (Jan 12, 2006)

Hoosier205 said:


> According to who? Dish?


man u really are a dish hater


----------



## domingos35 (Jan 12, 2006)

Hoosier205 said:


> All around it sounds like something an inexperienced and naive greenhorn or intern would green light while the executives weren't looking. Then the adults have to come in and clean up the mess after the fact.
> 
> Considering all the good products and services (despite the many Dish flaws ) they have deployed over the years, it just seems odd that they would set themselves up for such an obvious and destructive confrontation.


if directv had this feature in their DVR's i bet u would say it was the best invention since sliced bread


----------



## Hoosier205 (Sep 3, 2007)

"domingos35" said:


> if directv had this feature in their DVR's i bet u would say it was the best invention since sliced bread


No, because "features" like this have the potential to make the entire industry more difficult in regards to negotiations.


----------



## SayWhat? (Jun 7, 2009)

domingos35 said:


> man u really are a dish hater


yo



domingos35 said:


> if directv had this feature in their DVR's i bet u would say it was the best invention since sliced bread


yo

There you go. You keep losing those from your posts.


----------



## Nick (Apr 23, 2002)

SayWhat? said:


> yo
> 
> yo
> 
> There you go. You keep losing those from your posts.


ur


----------



## longrider (Apr 21, 2007)

I am not a Dish customer but after hearing about this on the local news I hopped (excuse the pun) over here to see the discussion. Does Gannett really think anyone with a DVR does not skip commercials?? I even record the late news so I can start about 10 minutes in and skip the commercials. If DirecTV ever offered something equivalent to AutoHop I would use it but it would not decrease my commercial viewing.

Back in VCR days I had one that would automatically FF thru commercials and no one had an issue with that...


----------



## maartena (Nov 1, 2010)

"keifer27" said:


> Completely ridiculous to me. If I lose my channels, I will be switching.


Well... This is not your average dispute... Obviously Dish is not going to change their Hopper technology, so it will be on Garnett and wether they will follow through with their threats.

Dish isn't going to exclude channels from ad skipping otherwise all channels will be demanding that.

You may have no other choice but to switch.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

Stewart Vernon said:


> Customers want to skip commercials, channels don't want you to... customers don't want to lose their channels.
> 
> Dish can't win for losing.
> 
> If Dish takes away trick play commercial skipping features, customers will complain too... I guarantee that.


Auto hop is not the same as any other trickplay. I know many think it is, but its just not. That's the problem here.



SayWhat? said:


> Always support the carrier over the content providers. Always.


I usually agree with you, except for this one time, in regards to auto hop. They need to stop it now before others think they can put this out and cause all our rates to sky rocket even more. Soon, everything will be priced like HBO if everyone has an auto hop type feature.



James Long said:


> The Hopper is just an easy target ... and DISH has already modified the product to appease broadcasters. If broadcasters had their way viewers would be able to skip any portion of television EXCEPT the commercials.
> 
> I'm sure that if the Hopper didn't skip commercials Gannett would just find another gripe to complain about. It is just low hanging fruit. Somehow these station groups and channel groups find something to dispute ... even in cases when the carrier isn't DISH.


I haven't really kept up lately, how did they change auto hop? Unless you have to hit the button at the beginning of each commercial, its not going to be close enough to making broadcasters happy.



maartena said:


> Well... This is not your average dispute... Obviously Dish is not going to change their Hopper technology, so it will be on Garnett and wether they will follow through with their threats.
> 
> Dish isn't going to exclude channels from ad skipping otherwise all channels will be demanding that.
> 
> You may have no other choice but to switch.


I think this is just the first shot across the bow. Over the next year, I suspect a lot of broadcasters as their contracts expire are going to do the same thing, and if so, dish may have to relent. Wait till the O&O negotiations come up. That could be the death keel of auto hop.


----------



## Marcus S (Apr 23, 2002)

After 16 years on (dbsforums, dbstalk combined) I have read allot of passion posts for leaving E or D over content contract disputes and some do for several years. Then I see members quietly re-join the E or D discussions as though nothing happened. Switching locks you into a 2 year commitment and during that time no guarantee the other providers contracts want come up during your now locked in contract period. Other channels disappear and your bonus comes in your 13th bill.

You either switch because you are out of contract and the other provider offers free installation, new equipment, 2 year contract, with a better price "or" just for spite - because? Let's get real, just 4 mo's ago this scenario played out on DirecTV or did we all forget so soon. Web wails as DirecTV channels go dark. at&t U-Verse also went through contract disputes June 2012 and channels where cut off without warning.

Let's also not forget what happened on these forums when DirectTV "proposed" a 10% package hike last year. Will my cost for DIRECTV service go up in 2012? "I am going to leave DirecTV, they have been raising my rates $5 a year for 3 years". Where are these people during content provider contract disputes, oh... here we are "I am leaving Dish if they turn off Gannet."


----------



## Davenlr (Sep 16, 2006)

inkahauts said:


> They need to stop it now before others think they can put this out and cause all our rates to sky rocket even more.


Let them raise rates, and remove all commercials. Id pay $10/mo for each group of commercial free channels I like.


----------



## satcrazy (Mar 16, 2011)

SayWhat? said:


> If you think about it, Gannett et al, should be offering to REDUCE rates in exchange for disabling Hopper, not blackmailing and extorting higher rates among threats.
> 
> This is 2012. People don't like being forced to watch commercials. They're appreciative of tools to help make them go away.


This isn't such a bad idea.

But since the hopper is new[er] tech, I doubt Dish wants to go backwards. Not having a hopper myself, [ and really, no desire to record locals that I barely watch anyway,] I imagine the skip feature is the high point on this receiver.

It's Dish's baby, and whether you agree or disagree with the purpose, as far as I can tell, it's not illegal.

What I do agree with is the point of not having a across the board increase in pricing due to a particular receiver. If you want the "hoppa", fine, but you'll have to absorb the cost that goes with it, however this plays out.

Don't you think the other providers are watching this closely? This auto skip tech isn't rocket science. They probably have their prototype sitting on the workbench while they wait to see what happens.......

As an added note, I had to put up an antenna when I had DTV, as they didn't carry my locals, and it's still connected...


----------



## sregener (Apr 17, 2012)

Hoosier205 said:


> That's called collusion and it's illegal.


It is not illegal to open source your invention and to remove all patent applications for it. There is no law that requires Dish to keep the technology that enables Hopper private.


----------



## Hoosier205 (Sep 3, 2007)

"sregener" said:


> It is not illegal to open source your invention and to remove all patent applications for it. There is no law that requires Dish to keep the technology that enables Hopper private.


That's not the collusion part. This is...



> so they can all work together to stick their thumbs in the eyes of the content providers.


----------



## Inkosaurus (Jul 29, 2011)

Hoosier205 said:


> That's not the collusion part. This is...


I think ultimately this is what he was implying though (about letting the tech be open source.)


----------



## SayWhat? (Jun 7, 2009)

Hoosier205 said:


> That's not the collusion part. This is...


Only if they plan it ahead, or if Dish were to put such a condition on the release.

If Dish were to release or sell the technology without conditions and the others decided to use it by their own choice, there would be no problem.


----------



## Hoosier205 (Sep 3, 2007)

"SayWhat?" said:


> Only if they plan it ahead, or if Dish were to put such a condition on the release.
> 
> If Dish were to release or sell the technology without conditions and the others decided to use it by their own choice, there would be no problem.


Which isn't what you suggested. You suggested they work together to squeeze content providers.


----------



## scooper (Apr 22, 2002)

Hoosier205 said:


> Which isn't what you suggested. You suggested they work together to squeeze content providers.


What's wrong with all the cable / satellite companies / consumers getting together to squeeze that ? I don't see anything wrong with it. After all - they have their broadcaster associations, where their probably discussing this .


----------



## SayWhat? (Jun 7, 2009)

scooper said:


> What's wrong with all the cable / satellite companies / consumers getting together to squeeze that ? I don't see anything wrong with it. After all - they have their broadcaster associations, where *their* probably discussing this .


they're :sure:

But yeah, if NAB isn't collusion, I don't know what is.

If several networks getting together to file suit isn't collusion, I don't know what is.

Maybe a little collusion is needed to bring costs down and smack the network suits back into line.


----------



## Hoosier205 (Sep 3, 2007)

Sounds more like, once again, Dish will be the one smacked back into line. Talk about an ethically bankrupt group of executives. They learned that from Charlie.


----------



## dakeeney (Aug 30, 2004)

Hoosier205 said:


> I just don't understand the strategy behind openly inviting/encouraging lawsuits and strained business relationships with things like the Hopper.


As long as commercial skipping is activated by consumers on ANY DVR there is probably nothing networks can do. THIS ALREADY HAS BEEN UPHELD IN COURT AS LEGAL. If networks refuse carriage because of commercial skipping then either there will be huge lawsuits against all networks that engage in dropping carriage or ALL DVR'S IN THE COUNTRY WILL HAVE DISCONTINUE commercial skipping or it goes back to court.


----------



## darinpaul1 (Jul 13, 2005)

So this boils down to content providers are losing revenue because I have the ability to skip commercials. Well lets take it one step farther then because we need to be fair to em".
Contracts better be negotiated with the TV manufacturers because they gave me a the ability to change channels during the commercials to a channel that is not airing commercials at that time. Also the toilet manufacturers because I should not have the ability to go to the bathroom during these commercials as that might cause them bankruptcy. (or perhaps force them to put TV's on the toilet so I won't miss any of the ads) I also think my local station should charge the other network when I do switch to them during commercials because apparently I have caused them great financial hardship. And to anyone who owns a remote that makes it to easy to change that channel we should charge $5 or $10 a month because it does make it to easy to change the channel DURING COMMERCIALS. Talk about a can of worms. I find it funny that a company(that I don't subscribe to) or watch their particular stations feels its ok to disrupt my viewing habits and cause me to pay more. If they need more ad revenue maybe they should search for a way of creating more revenue. Put a can of Coke on the anchor desk during the news. It's not that hard.


----------



## darinpaul1 (Jul 13, 2005)

Wait another great idea. how about you make the one hour program 1 hour and scroll ads on the bottom. Of course they will have to come up with the technology to make sure my eyes look at the ad so if not they can send me a bill. I'm sure you won't have any issue making the service providers pay for the technology, after all it's only fair.


----------



## darinpaul1 (Jul 13, 2005)

And damnit I want my galsses that can air their shows no matter what I'm doing. If I miss another ad I may just have to send them a check because of the guilt I'm feeling. Now I'm a Directv customer currently watching Comcast ( between houses) but feel Sorry for Charlie. Who do I send the check too?


----------



## darinpaul1 (Jul 13, 2005)

Most companies who begin losing revenue seek new and creative streams of new revenue! I think they should hire supermodels to do the news in swimsuits and change them out frequently so I don't get bored. Also I would recommend only one commercial between stories as I might get bored and change the channel (or just take away the ability to change the channel). If all ads were Superbowl ads I wouldn't change the channel or fast forward through them. Of course I did go to the bathroom (I was drinking beer) but if the content providers would just listen to me and add TV's to toilets there wouldn't be an issue. Of course I did DVR the Superbowl commercials and watched some more than once. Maybe I should send a bill to them for watching more than I was supposed too. SUPPOSE THEY'LL PAY IT!


----------



## chris83 (Aug 16, 2006)

I can watch my watch and record KARE-11 (Gannett in the Twin Cities) via OTA, so it doesn't affect me much, other than not having guide info and having to do so manually.

I understand the point of contention, but regardless of whether the Hopper feature can "eliminate" commercials with the push of *ONE* button or *MY* DVR requires me to push the "Skip Ahead" button 2-3 times, I'm still not viewing them.

If there are people out there who record programs and actually *DO* still watch the commercials, they *CAN* do that with the Hopper; they just would not enable the "AutoHop" feature, correct?


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

SayWhat? said:


> If Dish were to release or sell the technology without conditions and the others decided to use it by their own choice, there would be no problem.


Right.

But I doubt the technology is that special that others couldn't create their own. That they choose to not do so is a good thing.


----------



## Satelliteracer (Dec 6, 2006)

domingos35 said:


> if directv had this feature in their DVR's i bet u would say it was the best invention since sliced bread


D* has had this ability for a number of years but elected not to put it out there for any number of reasons, including those that are surfacing now.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/ericsav...-no-raging-demand-for-ad-skipping-technology/


----------



## dakeeney (Aug 30, 2004)

Stewart Vernon said:


> Customers want to skip commercials, channels don't want you to... customers don't want to lose their channels.
> 
> Dish can't win for losing.
> 
> If Dish takes away trick play commercial skipping features, customers will complain too... I guarantee that.


All this skipping commercials bs has been upheld in court as legal as long as the as long as the public does the skip and not the company like Dish or Dtv.
You can enable the commercial skip or not. Dish does not force you to do it so the networks will be held liable if they stop carriage because of that feature. I don't see where networks have leg to stand on unless it goes back to court.


----------



## Diana C (Mar 30, 2007)

dakeeney said:


> All this skipping commercials bs has been upheld in court as legal as long as the as long as the public does the skip and not the company like Dish or Dtv.
> You can enable the commercial skip or not. Dish does not force you to do it so the networks will be held liable if they stop carriage because of that feature. I don't see where networks have leg to stand on unless it goes back to court.


What is legal or not has nothing to do with this. This is a contract negotiation. Gannet is not saying the Dish is breaking the law, they are simply saying "disable autohop or else pay us 3 times as much to compensate for lost ad impressions." At the moment, Dish has declined that "offer."

This is a very complex issue. Local stations are low profit operations, certainly those outside major metro areas. The operational costs are rising steadily - FCC license fees, regulatory reporting costs, network affiliation fees, electricity, equipment costs, salaries and more just keep going up. Meanwhile, ad revenues are shrinking, driven by many favors - competition from Internet streaming and cable channels being a major component. But do you think advertisers are stupid? They have been pushing back on ad rates for years, citing the rise of DVRs as justification for discounting a portion of the viewership a station gets. Having a system that auto-skips ads is just adding insult to injury.

Nobody is good or evil in this dispute...all parties are businesses, trying to do whatever they can to provide value to their respective stockholders. "The public interest" is a lovely concept, but it really doesn't enter into this equation - no matter who we're referring to.


----------



## scooper (Apr 22, 2002)

dakeeney said:


> All this skipping commercials bs has been upheld in court as legal as long as the as long as the public does the skip and not the company like Dish or Dtv.
> You can enable the commercial skip or not. Dish does not force you to do it so the networks will be held liable if they stop carriage because of that feature. I don't see where networks have leg to stand on unless it goes back to court.


I don't see where the networks have a leg to stand on - period. The Sony Betamax decision, the FACT that the whole program (including commercials) is stored on the DVR - this can be easily demonstrated in court, and there's not a jury in the USA that would side with the Networks as to whether it is legal or not.

If the networks want to take their ball and go home - that's their decision.


----------



## coldsteel (Mar 29, 2007)

inkahauts said:


> I haven't really kept up lately, how did they change auto hop? Unless you have to hit the button at the beginning of each commercial, its not going to be close enough to making broadcasters happy.


when it started, it was active by default. After complaints/whining, DISH changed the default to 'off' and forced the consumer to enable it.


----------



## coldsteel (Mar 29, 2007)

Hoosier205 said:


> Sounds more like, once again, Dish will be the one smacked back into line. Talk about an ethically bankrupt group of executives. They learned that from Charlie.


Wow. Just... wow. Really? Hoosier, you REALLY need to take a step back and re-evaluate yourself. I understand you're a D* fanboy, but this is a bit extreme.


----------



## Hoosier205 (Sep 3, 2007)

"coldsteel" said:


> Wow. Just... wow. Really? Hoosier, you REALLY need to take a step back and re-evaluate yourself. I understand you're a D* fanboy, but this is a bit extreme.


Really? TiVo, Voom, AutoHop, etc. The list is a mile long.

That's all I will say on the topic. I normally see nothing but humor in all of the squabbles Dish/Charlie create, except the ones that could impact the entire industry.


----------



## bills976 (Jun 30, 2002)

This is all on the networks for failing to adapt to new technology. When the music industry failed to adapt, we saw the rise of Napster, bittorrent, and other technology that circumvented their entrenched, lucrative business model. The RIAA tried to fight against this in court, and was somewhat successful, but in the end you now see songs up for sale at $.99/pop. That's the price that people are willing to pay for that content.

I don't see anything different here. A new technology comes out, in this case, it's auto-skipping commercials. Instead of looking at alternative revenue models (product placement, micro-payments that would allow auto-hopping for a particular show, etc), the networks instead balk, increase rates, and file lawsuits preventing the use of new technology. This just serves to anger the end consumer who then looks at alternative forms of entertainment - $1 Redbox rentals, sharing a subscription over Slingbox, free OTA broadcasts, illegal streaming of content, etc.

If I were one of the major providers (Dish, DirecTV, Time Warner, etc) I would be very, very careful not to tip over the apple cart. On the one hand, your paying customers are getting fed up with increased rates that you have no choice but to pass on as a result of draconian content agreements with providers. On the other, your shareholders are balking at slow growing revenue, which is due in large part to perpetually increasing rates. On yet another, the networks are demanding more and more money in exchange for less original content, more restrictions on that content, and a larger say in the way that you package your product to your customers. It is not a good time to be in Charlie's shoes.


----------



## satcrazy (Mar 16, 2011)

Satelliteracer said:


> D* has had this ability for a number of years but elected not to put it out there for any number of reasons, including those that are surfacing now.
> 
> http://www.forbes.com/sites/ericsav...-no-raging-demand-for-ad-skipping-technology/


hmmmmm
never saw this article before, but it sort of validates what I said.

Let Dish test the waters.

I don't believe for a moment that DTV customers wouldn't like to have this option. "Raging demand" or not.

Which makes me wonder, how many hoppa people out there?

Also, what ever happened to the TV [ don't remember the brand] that lowered volume during commercials? That went away quietly [ probably had the same hassle from broacasters]

I understand the need to make money to stay in business, but strongarm tactics are like the block bully, either cross the street, or go in swinging.

Sorry, I don't know anyone who wants to sit through commercials because they enjoy it. With all the work-arounds to avoid commercials, one would think the networks would develop a better plan for revenue or [my big gripe here] commercials that are appealing. Of course after running that hundreds of times no one pays attention to that either.

This isn't the 60's where the family gathers around the tv and will watch Anything on it just because that's all there is.

The game has changed, period.


----------



## Paul Secic (Dec 16, 2003)

nmetro said:


> DISH Headquarters is about 5 miles from the two Denver stations (KUSA and KTVD). The crawls are running on the two stations. This could actually become something nasty fro DISH because of them being Denver based and the local media may not be too kind to them.
> 
> Of course, at one time NBC had NFL football, and if the Broncos were knocked off DISH, this town would be having an uprising.
> 
> As for Gannet wanting a 300% increase; it has been said before television stations should be paying to be on a system, not the other way around. Considering they get revenue from ads, this is just corporate greed.


The stations should pay cable, Dish, DirecTV. The system is backwards.


----------



## kenglish (Oct 2, 2004)

The problem is that DISH is actively assisting the viewers with skipping the commercials, by timing the shows and sending data to the Hopper, so it knows when to skip the ads.
If DISH quit that part, the "DVR-Like" arguments would be OK....but, you'd just have a DVR, and you'd have to manually skip everything.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

kenglish said:


> If DISH quit that part, the "DVR-Like" arguments would be OK....but, you'd just have a DVR, and you'd have to manually skip everything.


A few years ago (ok, decades) the broadcasters were all annoyed about the possibility of recording their programs. They lost that battle.

Recently it seems that they have been winning ... with restrictions built in to DVRs that make it harder to share recordings at full quality being common. At least in DVRs designed for cable and satellite vendors who are under a great deal of pressure not to tick off broadcasters.

I would hate to see DISH pressured to remove innovation from their receivers.


----------



## Henry (Nov 15, 2007)

I am one of those that do not have a Hopper. On the other hand, I have 2 DVRs, each with a Skip button. In a way, I use my DVRs to skip commercials just like the Hopper does - albeit, a little more labor-intensively.

Now, my problem is that I simply don't care for commercials unless they are funny or interesting. But seeing the same funny or interesting commercial over and over again really gives me a headache. So I skip &#8230; by any means possible and live with the imbedded/placement stuff. Give me a skip button, and I'll use it time and again. 

If broadcasters would implement some sort or standards or a restraint on repeats, then maybe I'd be more willing to watch them. It seems to me that this is a two-way street that only seems to operate as a one-way. 

Years ago, I owned a VCR (RCA, I think) that would record something for you and afterwards would rewind itself and detect the commercials. It was a bit funny because you could hear the thing going crazy Play, FF, Stop, Rewind, Play, FF&#8230; over and over. _(Not the sort of thing you'd want in the bedroom.)_ But when you played your program back later, all of the commercials would automatically skip (FF) in their entirety - not even 1-3 seconds of them. And yet, nobody complained about that back then.

As I see it, I'm already paying premiums to HBO, Starz/Encore, Showtime/TMC/FLIX, Epix and Cinemax for the privilege of watching commercial-free programming. I expect that the rising boom in transmission rates will serve as a boon in increased original programming for these premium channels. 

For the moment though, it looks like curtains for _DWTS_ and _Wipeout_ in Denver, unless Dish caves and then passes the cost on to us subs. Lucky for them, the Hopper thing isn't a showstopper, so I expect they'll keep it at our expense. 

So it looks like I'll be losing 2 channels in the Denver area. I guess I'll just have to tighten the old belt and make do with the remaining 300-or so channels Dish is providing me.

Kinda makes you miss the old days, huh? :sure:


----------



## satcrazy (Mar 16, 2011)

I know this is not for everyone, but there was a time you could have locals for 5$.

I got the same credit from dtv when they didn't offer locals in my area.

Given the choice, I'd rather have the 5$ credit and dish could drop my locals.

I could then apply that 5$ to their BB package. I save a little, dish makes a little. win win


----------



## dakeeney (Aug 30, 2004)

James Long said:


> A few years ago (ok, decades) the broadcasters were all annoyed about the possibility of recording their programs. They lost that battle.
> 
> Recently it seems that they have been winning ... with restrictions built in to DVRs that make it harder to share recordings at full quality being common. At least in DVRs designed for cable and satellite vendors who are under a great deal of pressure not to tick off broadcasters.
> 
> I would hate to see DISH pressured to remove innovation from their receivers.


Gannett is using the Hopper commercial skip as an excuse to charge more. I can live without the auto hop feature, but we the public ,have the choice of using the feature or not. Dish is not forcing the viewers to use it. It's our choice! The courts have already sided with the public on this issue. If the networks use this as blackmail then take them to court and see who wins...again and who is sued. It won't be Dish that loses.


----------



## scooper (Apr 22, 2002)

kenglish said:


> The problem is that DISH is actively assisting the viewers with skipping the commercials, by timing the shows and sending data to the Hopper, so it knows when to skip the ads.
> If DISH quit that part, the "DVR-Like" arguments would be OK....but, you'd just have a DVR, and you'd have to manually skip everything.


They don't have to do that timing at all - I'd bet they're using the same control signals embeded in the broadcast you use. The only "timing" being done is when will the auto-hop be available to the viewer. (maybe some timing on each end of each break right before / after the program).


----------



## rtd2 (Oct 2, 2006)

Hoosier205 said:


> So the content providers that produce/broadcast the programming you pay your service provider to retransmit are bad, while the service provider is good. Hmm...ok.


Yep you just about nailed my feelings on the situation ...what's strange is the big 4 networks have collectively opposed the hopper and have sued. I don't know what the status of the lawsuit(s) is but from what I've read most legal minds feel its gonna be in dish's favor ...I guess the big4 next move Is what we are seeing with gannett ..Backdoor disputes over hopper...funny thing is dispatch group just renewed their contract few days ago with dish after a 30 day + spat ....hope the big 4 plan to supplement these local owners especially the small ones cause it's obvious local owners have. Become attached to the big $$$$$ dish and directv retransmission contracts bring them...all this for local channels free via antenna ...


----------



## fudpucker (Jul 23, 2007)

The Hopper does seem to cross a line, albeit a fuzzy one. There are times we record shows and then just let the commercials run (perhaps because we're reading or doing something other than just single tasking watching TV.)

My fear is that the result of commercials becoming easier and easier to skip is that we're going to start getting annoying banners and overlays with commercials on top of the actual shows. I remember the first time I saw the CBS eye and the NBC symbol overlayed on a show, and it irritated the crap out of me. Now, every show seems to have the bottom 3rd of the screen covered up, during the actual show, with faces smiling and saying "Watch New Girl at 8:00!" and other ads for TV shows. It's not a big step to having those same annoying overlays purchased by companies and have commercials overlain on our shows. I'd much rather have the Hopper's auto-commercial mode turned off than it come to that.

And make no mistake: companies WILL make sure you see the commercials, and if overlaying them on the actual show is the only way to do it, they will do it.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

fudpucker said:


> And make no mistake: companies WILL make sure you see the commercials, and if overlaying them on the actual show is the only way to do it, they will do it.


That is why it is called "commercial television". Broadcast channels want you to see the commercials.

As for the other content ... watch it get blocked out by banners when a pre-school wants to announce a closing or there is usual weather threatening. Watch as the weather guy or gal interrupts the other content to tell you about this devistating pre-school closing or usual weather. And watch as many stations (not all) return to full screen no interruptions when it is time for commercials. It is "commercial television" ... everything else is just filler.


----------



## sregener (Apr 17, 2012)

"James Long" said:


> It is "commercial television" ... everything else is just filler.


In a very real sense, we the viewers are the product that is being sold. The programming is the bait to attract our eyes, so it isn't exactly filler.

I've probably watched less than 1000 commercials since 1998, when I got my first DVR. I've watched a lot more than 1000 hours of television in that time. The skipping commercial horse is well clear of the barn by now.


----------



## satcrazy (Mar 16, 2011)

fudpucker said:


> The Hopper does seem to cross a line, albeit a fuzzy one. There are times we record shows and then just let the commercials run (perhaps because we're reading or doing something other than just single tasking watching TV.)
> 
> My fear is that the result of commercials becoming easier and easier to skip is that we're going to start getting annoying banners and overlays with commercials on top of the actual shows. I remember the first time I saw the CBS eye and the NBC symbol overlayed on a show, and it irritated the crap out of me. Now, every show seems to have the bottom 3rd of the screen covered up, during the actual show, with faces smiling and saying "Watch New Girl at 8:00!" and other ads for TV shows. It's not a big step to having those same annoying overlays purchased by companies and have commercials overlain on our shows. I'd much rather have the Hopper's auto-commercial mode turned off than it come to that.
> 
> And make no mistake: companies WILL make sure you see the commercials, and if overlaying them on the actual show is the only way to do it, they will do it.


Well, if it comes to that, they better figure in the amount of viewership they will lose.
That would be one aggravation I could easily walk away from.

Who needs tv that bad?

There are channels that seem to limit their commercials. It's pretty easy to just migrate in that direction and leave the crap behind.


----------



## jdskycaster (Sep 1, 2008)

Keep hearing the 300% increase demanded of Dish. Is this just a flat out lie posted on Kare 11 (Gannett MPLS/St. Paul) stations website?

_Q: I have heard DISH say that KARE11 is demanding a big fee increase, which would lead to higher satellite bills. Is that true?

A: No. KARE11 has successfully negotiated agreements with all the other providers in our area based on the same basic terms that are being offered to DISH. Those other providers were willing to reach a deal. So far, DISH is not. In any case, we do not believe customers should be dragged into the middle of business disputes. We know that what matters to you is getting what you pay for and not losing programs you love. That is why we are focused on reaching a fair, market-based deal as quickly as possible. _

If they are asking for 300% and post this crafty but innocent sounding reply to the public then they are slime. They do not have to place the consumer in the middle of this and could keep the feed available to their "valued" viewers while negotiations take place. Can someone again tell me why we have to pay for channels that should be free anyway?

Glad I still have Windows Media Center running on my home server and will just record the local NBC programming on it. Oh, and my installation of WMC has fully automated commercial skipping (had it years before the Hopper came into my home) so removing ads while watching is even more seamless than autohop and there is also zero waiting time.

I will never go through the hassle of switching over this or any channel dispute unless it all gets to the point where I just cut the cord completely.

JD


----------



## Jim5506 (Jun 7, 2004)

Something has been lost in all this angst... You can't use the auto hop feature until the next day!!

We are not talking about recording a program and jumping in 20 minutes into the program and just watching the programming while the receiver automatically skips all the commercials (which is what I do with my 722K).

If you turn on PTAT, it records Monday's prime time programming, but you cannot use the features until after 1 am the next morning, I personally prefer to just watch them a little later and skip the commercials with the skip FWD button.

I sort of have my own PTAT setup with two HD TiVos, each recording a different OTA channel and I come in and watch what I want, skipping ALL of the blessed commercials. Just because my TiVos do not do the deed for me does not change the outcome.

As someone earlier suggested, stations and networks need to adapt to the current and future technology, because this type of event is going to be more frequent and widely used, no matter what the outcome with Dish and Gannett, they are using their finger to plug a whole in the dike while the entire dike is starting to crumble.

Litigation and threats will not stop progress, I see Dish spreading this technology to most or all of the channels it carries, having multiple tuners that record entire categories of channels for us to watch later, bringing satellite VOD much closer to what cable has to offer, whether the commercial skip is in there is irrelevant, the real breaktrough here is the method of recording and playing back the stream.

With the current Hopper, there is potential right now to record 12 simultaneous data streams, but I do not think 4 channels per tuner is the limit there either, with some channel rearranging (putting similar channels from the same package on the same TP you can see where a 5TB drive could record 100 channels coming from the satellite for 24 hours, limit that to 8 hours/day and you already have 100 channels for 3 days, cut that to 50 channels and you could record 8 hours/day for 6 days, assunimg 2GB/hr, which is probably 2X high for MPEG4 recordings.

Anyway enough rambling - this multi channel recording technology is super exciting, and the autohop is not really that important in the overall scheme of things.

Personally I think Dish did it just to get the attention of the stations/networks and say if you keep gouging me for revenue, I'll make your revenue source irrelevant.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Jim5506 said:


> Something has been lost in all this angst... You can't use the auto hop feature until the next day!!


Actually ... you can use it same day. I have watched 8pm-9pm programming around 10pm and have been offered the AutoHop option. It is not something that is useful during recording, such as you describe on your 722K, but it is no longer "next day". (Unless my receiver is broken and somehow figuring out breaks before the rest of the country. )


----------



## runner861 (Mar 20, 2010)

Sort of on topic, sort of an aside--Why doesn't the hopper have an ota module? Then even if a station pulls its signal over a desire to have the autohop feature disabled, ota viewers could continue to autohop. Or is there some reason that autohop won't work on ota?


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

runner861 said:


> Sort of on topic, sort of an aside--Why doesn't the hopper have an ota module? Then even if a station pulls its signal over a desire to have the autohop feature disabled, ota viewers could continue to autohop. Or is there some reason that autohop won't work on ota?


It will have the OTA module "soon". Currently AutoHop only works on the four PTAT network channels during prime time. I suppose as long as DISH has the information they could extend it to OTA received channels, PTAT content recorded manually or even non Hopper receivers.

DISH generally doesn't support channels not carried on their system ... if the Gannett stations go down EPG will not be available for the OTA reception. With the receiver "not knowing" what program was on at that time it would not match the AutoHop information.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

"dakeeney" said:


> As long as commercial skipping is activated by consumers on ANY DVR there is probably nothing networks can do. THIS ALREADY HAS BEEN UPHELD IN COURT AS LEGAL. If networks refuse carriage because of commercial skipping then either there will be huge lawsuits against all networks that engage in dropping carriage or ALL DVR'S IN THE COUNTRY WILL HAVE DISCONTINUE commercial skipping or it goes back to court.


I'd love to see the ruling that what dish is doing is legal, because the only other DVR I know of that ever did what dish is doing is replaytv, and they never had a verdict in that case, replay gave in and disable it because they knew they wouldn't win in the end no matter what the ruling would have been.

Auto hop is in no way shape or form the same thing as having trickplay on a DVR.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

"scooper" said:


> I don't see where the networks have a leg to stand on - period. The Sony Betamax decision, the FACT that the whole program (including commercials) is stored on the DVR - this can be easily demonstrated in court, and there's not a jury in the USA that would side with the Networks as to whether it is legal or not.
> 
> If the networks want to take their ball and go home - that's their decision.


Aside from the fact that I disagree with you (dish is the one choosing what to skip with your consent, not you choosing what to skip, which are very different things, and its questionable at best if it matters if dish is doing it in the home or at their headquarters, they are still the ones doing it with their equipment) no matter how you look at it, if oj can get away with murder, and you can sue mcdonalds for millions over spilt coffee and win, you can't really expect to know for sure what any jury would ever decide these days.


----------



## Inkosaurus (Jul 29, 2011)

> and you can sue mcdonalds for millions over spilt coffee and win


This has got to be DBStalks favorite example lol.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

jdskycaster said:


> Keep hearing the 300% increase demanded of Dish. Is this just a flat out lie posted on Kare 11 (Gannett MPLS/St. Paul) stations website?
> 
> _Q: I have heard DISH say that KARE11 is demanding a big fee increase, which would lead to higher satellite bills. Is that true?
> 
> ...


To be fair... they didn't answer the question. They dodged it by saying they have agreements with other providers. Those other providers could be ones with an older contract not yet up for renewal OR contracts where the other provider agreed to those "big increases" that they wanted.

They only way they could truthfully answer without dodging would be to state what Dish pays now vs what they are wanting Dish to agree to pay for the future.

Since they won't tell you that... I would believe they know somewhere in the back of their mind that they are asking more than customers would feel is justified. Otherwise a lot of the debate would dissolve if they just spoke factually about how much they are asking.

Nobody ever does that, though.


----------



## SayWhat? (Jun 7, 2009)

jdskycaster said:


> Keep hearing the 300% increase demanded of Dish. Is this just a flat out lie posted on Kare 11 (Gannett MPLS/St. Paul) stations website?
> 
> _Q: I have heard DISH say that KARE11 is demanding a big fee increase, which would lead to higher satellite bills. Is that true?
> 
> ...


As noted earlier ....


James Long said:


> 5c per customer jumping to 20c is 300%. 10c to 40c is 300%. 25c to $1 is 300%.


So the public statement you quoted is nothing more than doubletalk and corporate propaganda-speak.

We, the consumers will never know the dollar amounts involved, so we kind of have to pick and choose which source we choose to believe.


----------



## dakeeney (Aug 30, 2004)

coldsteel said:


> when it started, it was active by default. After complaints/whining, DISH changed the default to 'off' and forced the consumer to enable it.



BINGO!!! There's the magic statement that a lawyer would love to use against the networks.


----------



## MysteryMan (May 17, 2010)

dakeeney said:


> BINGO!!! There's the magic statement that a lawyer would love to use against the networks.


Still doesn't guarantee a judge woul rule in favor of DISH. No such thing as a slam dunk in our judicial system.


----------



## Bobham (Jan 26, 2008)

I will support dish in any dispute with the content providers. Go Charlie!


----------



## coldsteel (Mar 29, 2007)

MysteryMan said:


> Still doesn't guarantee a judge woul rule in favor of DISH. No such thing as a slam dunk in our judicial system.


Truest. Statement. EVER.


----------



## Henry (Nov 15, 2007)

I live in the Denver market and haven't lost my Gannett channels yet. Has anyone?

NEVER MIND ... The deadline is at midnight.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

"dakeeney" said:


> BINGO!!! There's the magic statement that a lawyer would love to use against the networks.


That's more like saying Vcrs are legal because you have to take them out of standby. It doesn't change how the device functions.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

"Henry" said:


> I live in the Denver market and haven't lost my Gannett channels yet. Has anyone?
> 
> NEVER MIND ... The deadline is at midnight.


I really hope you guys don't lose your channels.


----------



## satcrazy (Mar 16, 2011)

inkahauts said:
 

> Aside from the fact that I disagree with you (dish is the one choosing what to skip with your consent, not you choosing what to skip, which are very different things, and its questionable at best if it matters if dish is doing it in the home or at their headquarters, they are still the ones doing it with their equipment) no matter how you look at it,
> 
> 
> > if oj can get away with murder,
> ...


Yeah, but he got nailed for Sat piracy.

Never underestimate the power of the providers


----------



## fudpucker (Jul 23, 2007)

Stepping back, I do wonder what happens when the people who pay channels/networks to air their commercials realize that very few people actually watch the commercials. I don't think we're there today (using posters on this board as a measure of the general public, and probably even the general public who subscribe to Dish, is likely faulty; people who read and post here are people who are much more into the details, technology, etc. than the average person who has no idea what the heck DBStalk is.) 

But if the technology continues and becomes more widespread, the value of commercials will become less and less, which means companies will pay channels less and less money to carry those commercials. Which means the primary source of income for many networks/channels will have to shift away from commercials. 

I'm not sure that is a long term good thing for us as viewers.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

"fudpucker" said:


> Stepping back, I do wonder what happens when the people who pay channels/networks to air their commercials realize that very few people actually watch the commercials. I don't think we're there today (using posters on this board as a measure of the general public, and probably even the general public who subscribe to Dish, is likely faulty; people who read and post here are people who are much more into the details, technology, etc. than the average person who has no idea what the heck DBStalk is.)
> 
> But if the technology continues and becomes more widespread, the value of commercials will become less and less, which means companies will pay channels less and less money to carry those commercials. Which means the primary source of income for many networks/channels will have to shift away from commercials.
> 
> I'm not sure that is a long term good thing for us as viewers.


Have you seen an episode of bones ?(among others) lately? If so, that's part of what will happen.


----------



## satcrazy (Mar 16, 2011)

fudpucker said:


> Stepping back, I do wonder what happens when the people who pay channels/networks to air their commercials realize that very few people actually watch the commercials. I don't think we're there today (using posters on this board as a measure of the general public, and probably even the general public who subscribe to Dish, is likely faulty; people who read and post here are people who are much more into the details, technology, etc. than the average person who has no idea what the heck DBStalk is.)
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## fudpucker (Jul 23, 2007)

inkahauts said:


> Have you seen an episode of bones ?(among others) lately? If so, that's part of what will happen.


Are you talking about where they get in a car and blatantly talk about its features? To the point they even do it in a self-aware, winking manner? Yeah, my wife and I laugh about that.

But I doubt Ford would consider that a complete replacement for a high end Ford ad on a top 10 major network show. The last data I saw showed that, in spite of DVRs, the majority of people still watch TV live and watch the commercials.

To take it to the extreme, if we reach a point at which the vast majority of viewers don't watch commercials, we are going to see some changes that I don't think will be favorable to us, the viewers. Things like forcing providers such as cable and sat providers to pay more since they won't be getting revenue from companies who paid big bucks for commercial time, and commercials that run under the show as it plays the way they clutter up the screen today with commercials for their own shows.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

"fudpucker" said:


> .....
> 
> But I doubt Ford would consider that a complete replacement for a high end Ford ad on a top 10 major network show. The last data I saw showed that, in spite of DVRs, the majority of people still watch TV live and watch the commercials.
> ........


And people wonder why creating a one time setting to skip all commercials would make a difference, vs having to do it manually every time....


----------



## fudpucker (Jul 23, 2007)

inkahauts said:


> And people wonder why creating a one time setting to skip all commercials would make a difference, vs having to do it manually every time....


I have met a lot of people who aren't very tech savvy who have Dish or DirectTV with DVRs, who figure out how to set them to record their favorite shows but then watch the shows the same way they would live, i.e. they don't watch with the remote in hand skipping commercials, they just turn the show on and watch it. Commercials and all.

I suspect there are more people like that out there than regular readers of a forum like this would guess.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

inkahauts said:


> And people wonder why creating a one time setting to skip all commercials would make a difference, vs having to do it manually every time....


Do you WANT to skip commercials manually every time? If so, the default option on AutoHop is "no thanks" ... you can get back to wearing out the remote control skip buttons.

The core purpose of the VCR was to allow people to view what they wanted as many times as they wanted when they wanted and not view what they wanted to skip. Technology has improved over the years with the DVR moving to digital storage and "watch while record" capability ... along with more accurate skipping of blocks of time. AutoHop and similar technologies are just the next step in that evolution.

In general, I'd say that people do not want to watch commercials. There are good commercials that people tolerate but it is not very often that I hear someone say "I'm going to go watch TV ... I hope I see a terrific new ad". I only hear that at one time of the year ... the "big game" where many viewers are watching for the commercials more than the football.

For decades people have wanted control over their TVs. Starting with "I can buy programs on tape" and quickly moving to "I can record programs on tape" (with the related lawsuits from what we would now call content providers) until where we are today. Not seeing commercials is something people want ... something people have invested money in achieving (including buying DVDs or non-DISH equipment that also skips commercials). And if DISH customers don't want their commercials skipped, they can always choose "no thanks".


----------



## SayWhat? (Jun 7, 2009)

fudpucker said:


> i.e. they don't watch with the remote in hand skipping commercials, they just turn the show on and watch it. Commercials and all.
> 
> I suspect there are more people like that out there than regular readers of a forum like this would guess.


Maybe, but those would be the same people who use commercials as breaks to go to the bathroom, get a snack or whatever else. It still doesn't mean they actually watch commercials.

The only way I can think of to prove how many people really watch them would be to get some data from marketers of those 'but wait, there's more! Call now to double the offer!' type product commercials and find out how many people call during or immediately after those ads air.


----------



## fudpucker (Jul 23, 2007)

Well, the big companies certainly have their marketing data. And when you look at what an ad cost, a 30 second ad on American Idol costs about $500,000 in 2011. Add up how many ads there are in a one hour American Idol show, and that's a ton of money Fox gets from companies who think there is a huge return on their ad. American Idol is on the high end, but even The Simpsons charges a quarter of a million dollars for every 30 second ad.

So these companies certainly have some kind of data that tells them spending millions and millions on 30 second ads results in a lot of sales/revenue of some kind. And certainly the network's model depends upon having those many, many million in ad revenue coming in every night. Which is why I say, as soon as the companies decide ads aren't being watched, they will stop paying television networks all that cash, and they will then have to find other sources of that income. Almost certainly that will involve viewers picking up the costs.


----------



## tommiet (Dec 29, 2005)

Stewart Vernon said:


> Customers want to skip commercials, channels don't want you to... customers don't want to lose their channels.
> 
> Dish can't win for losing.
> 
> If Dish takes away trick play commercial skipping features, customers will complain too... I guarantee that.


 Can't win for nothing!!!!!


----------



## LazhilUT (Mar 24, 2012)

Stupid Dish Network...
AMC is gone and is never coming back...
Disney Channels in HD will never, ever be on their lineup...
Now I'm losing NBC here in Atlanta...now that I finally got hooked on an NBC show...Go On...

And as someone pointed out...funny how Dish ALWAYS says the brodcasters are asking for 300% increases...that's their go to number...


----------



## packethauler (Aug 19, 2008)

I'll survive if KARE disappears from my channel list tonight. All the shows I care about are available on Hulu the next day. I can stream those through my Hopper with the PlayOn software.

Gannett is being completely unreasonable, and I hope Dish stands up to these clowns. It's OTA for crying out loud!


----------



## normang (Nov 14, 2002)

Most if not all shows will wind up on iTunes, Hulu, networks websites (with embedded ads probably) if you wait long enough they'll stream on Netflix or,come out on disc, without ads. 

It's getting to the point where networks are biting the hands that feed them, it's getting too expensive to continue to watch shows, cable's been too expensive for a long time, and even satellite companies are getting up there to the point where I may have to consider down grading and look for the shows I'll miss online. 

And IMHO it's networks and studios are the primary cause. Skipping commercials has been done for years, for Gannett to get in a huff over auto-skip now is dis-ingenuous. The method whether its in software or me pressing a button on a remote is irrelevant. I still don't watch their commercials.


----------



## Michael P (Oct 27, 2004)

It's 12:09 AM and WKYC is still on Dish here in Cleveland. The station just aired a warning message that we "may lose" ch 3 on Dish at Midnight 10/7.


----------



## chouseman (Feb 9, 2010)

WUSA 9 in D.C. aired a warning during 60 minutes that programming might go off at midnight, but they are still on at 12:20 a.m...

So who blinked?


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

Wait till midnight pacific.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

inkahauts said:


> Wait till midnight pacific.


Or Mountain ... Cheyenne time (unless they are waiting for Gannett affiliates on the west coast).

The WSJ says they were talking Sunday:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390443768804578038742408997314.html

Dish and Gannett were negotiating Sunday in hopes of reaching a deal that would avert a blackout of Gannett's TV stations on Dish's satellite service, a spokesman for Dish said.

An agreement allowing Dish to carry Gannett's 22 TV stations on its satellite-TV service was due to expire at midnight on Sunday. If the two companies don't agree on financial terms for a renewal of the deal, Dish customers in 19 cities-including Atlanta, Washington, D.C., Denver and Phoenix-faced losing access to certain ABC, CBS and NBC-affiliated stations.

A blackout of Gannett TV stations would hit Dish customers in 19 cities.

"We remain committed to getting a deal done," a spokesman for Gannett said Sunday.​
Station list (via Google):
http://www.stationindex.com/tv/by-owner/Gannett


----------



## FarmerBob (Nov 28, 2002)

Midnight Mountain Time - Gannett Denver Channels Gone.

The ironic thing is that Gannett is not talking. I've notice in most all their conversations of this, nothing has really been said other than DISH won't concede. Oh and nothing as I would expect on the main DISH site.


----------



## am7crew (Jun 6, 2009)

2:00am they went dark here in Atlanta, it is now 2:49am and they are back on.


----------



## coolman302003 (Jun 2, 2008)

Statement regarding Gannett-Dish negotiations


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

"MCLEAN, Va., Oct. 8, 2012 /PRNewswire/ -- At this time, Gannett and Dish are continuing to negotiate. In order to provide additional time to reach a deal, both sides have agreed to extend the deadline by several hours."

Wow ... normally it is days. Seems odd to issue a press release for hours.


----------



## sacflies (Apr 10, 2012)

Marcus S said:


> There is a dispute over two NBC denver stations 9 & 20 as well. Personally and I mean personally I am tired of my bill going up each year to the extent that I may just start hopping back and forth between Dish & DirecTV every two years. What I get is a brand new installation with the latest equipment and at least a 1 year discount under a two year contract.
> 
> I support Dish playing hard ball with Gannet, AMC networks and others that may come up in the future provided it keeps my bill lower than DirecTV or cable. The content providers have needed a big wake up call for over a decade and maybe lossing 20 million customers in their revenue stream may provide that. This is not going to be the same goal for everyone, some people are willing to pay whatever the cost will be.
> 
> ...


Hey, I still buy CD's. I don't like paying for 10% of the music.


----------



## FarmerBob (Nov 28, 2002)

Just for the heck of it I thought I would check, 2 am MDT, Denver 9 & 20 are back. But they just played the "could drop at Midnight on Sunday" ad again/still.

Got all the timers that really matter moved over to OTA. There's not many though.


----------



## Cuzzz (Feb 28, 2010)

I think it's already been said, but my take is if you use your DVR a lot, you're going to skip commercials whether or not you have to hit forward a few times. Dish is just acknowledging that most people skip commercials when watching recordings, so they're just doing away with the nonsense of having to forward through them 30 secs at a time. If content providers think this new feature is causing lots of people to skip commercials who otherwise wouldn't skip commercials, they're kidding themselves big time. And if some of your favorite shows get dropped for a time ala AMC, can you say P2P torrents? Most of the popular shows are posted to sites like PB within hrs of airing. Download, connect your PC or laptop to the big flat screen via HDMI, then stream 'em to the TV in near-HD resolution. If content providers are gonna squeeze Dish to drop a not-too-consequential commercial skipping feature or demand they (we) pay more for the content, then there are workarounds if they decide to pull their content.


----------



## dakeeney (Aug 30, 2004)

Cuzzz said:


> I think it's already been said, but my take is if you use your DVR a lot, you're going to skip commercials whether or not you have to hit forward a few times. Dish is just acknowledging that most people skip commercials when watching recordings, so they're just doing away with the nonsense of having to forward through them 30 secs at a time. If content providers think this new feature is causing lots of people to skip commercials who otherwise wouldn't skip commercials, they're kidding themselves big time. And if some of your favorite shows get dropped for a time ala AMC, can you say P2P torrents? Most of the popular shows are posted to sites like PB within hrs of airing. Download, connect your PC or laptop to the big flat screen via HDMI, then stream 'em to the TV in near-HD resolution. If content providers are gonna squeeze Dish to drop a not-too-consequential commercial skipping feature or demand they (we) pay more for the content, then there are workarounds if they decide to pull their content.


I use auto-hop all the time. I can activate the feature then put my remote down and watch.


----------



## LazhilUT (Mar 24, 2012)

packethauler said:


> I'll survive if KARE disappears from my channel list tonight. All the shows I care about are available on Hulu the next day. I can stream those through my Hopper with the PlayOn software.
> 
> Gannett is being completely unreasonable, and I hope Dish stands up to these clowns. It's OTA for crying out loud!


Can you give me more details on this software add on to your hopper?


----------



## MysteryMan (May 17, 2010)

Both parties are ignoring the biggest benefit of commercial breaks. They allow the viewer time for bathroom breaks, letting the dog out, and going to the kitchen for a snack.


----------



## martzta (Aug 29, 2002)

0825 local time and WUSA D.C. still on.


----------



## jdskycaster (Sep 1, 2008)

Setup my OTA timers this morning - for a whopping three shows.


----------



## kenglish (Oct 2, 2004)

am7crew said:


> 2:00am they went dark here in Atlanta, it is now 2:49am and they are back on.


Charlie hates it when his phone system gets overloaded. :lol:


----------



## packethauler (Aug 19, 2008)

LazhilUT said:


> Can you give me more details on this software add on to your hopper?


http://www.playon.tv/playon is the where you can download the software. Basically it just piggybacks on top of the DLNA protocol. You can access it once it's installed on your PC through the 'Local Media' option through the 'Menu' button on the Hopper.


----------



## packethauler (Aug 19, 2008)

My wife just texted me at work and stated that KARE 11 is still available and watchable at 9:00a CDT.


----------



## tunce (Jan 19, 2006)

http://www.marketwatch.com is reporting Dish and Gannett reached a deal. No details yet.


----------



## packethauler (Aug 19, 2008)

tunce said:


> http://www.marketwatch.com is reporting Dish and Gannett reached a deal. No details yet.


KARE 11's Facebook page also confirmed the deal. They aren't providing any details yet, either.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

There's a press release from Gannett on PR Newswire (refenced in the MarketWatch article). The release is rather terse and doesn't indicate whether this is a long or short term agreement.


----------



## LazhilUT (Mar 24, 2012)

@dish_answers tweeted me and said they reached a long term agreement.


----------



## FTA Michael (Jul 21, 2002)

Reuters quotes some unnamed Gannett bigwig as saying that Hopper wasn't the main sticking point. What, this wasn't a principled stand to preserve long-term profitability, and it was all about the retransmission fees? :lol:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/10/08/us-dish-gannett-idUSBRE89403I20121008

_Bonus:_ This weekend was the 20th anniversary of the law requiring cable companies to pay for retransmission consent. http://www.tvnewscheck.com/article/62671/happy-20th-birthday-to-retrans-consent


----------



## domingos35 (Jan 12, 2006)

http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2012/10/08/dish-gannett-reach-deal.aspx


----------



## Nick (Apr 23, 2002)

The essence...

_"...The companies have not disclosed the value or terms of the deal, but the Autohopper feature will remain for Dish customers."_


----------



## TBoneit (Jul 27, 2006)

inkahauts said:


> Have you seen an episode of bones ?(among others) lately? If so, that's part of what will happen.


At the present time that is just FOX grabbing everything it can, much like the fees it started charging it's affiliates for every subscriber that the affiliate gets revenue for from the cable & satellite companies.

Of the networks FOX is the worst for the way they interact with viewers.

And Yes the blatant plugs on episodes of Bones are way over the top.


----------



## RasputinAXP (Jan 23, 2008)

So where the blue blazes is Hoosier to come and tell us we're all going to burn for having Autohop?


----------



## satcrazy (Mar 16, 2011)

I guess I'm going to keep better track of my bill, and see when this deal hits home


----------



## tampa8 (Mar 30, 2002)

Hoosier205 said:


> I just don't understand the strategy behind openly inviting/encouraging lawsuits and strained business relationships with things like the Hopper.


I just don't understand the strategy behind openly inviting/encouraging lawsuits and strained business relationships with things like the DVR.

I just don't understand the strategy behind openly inviting/encouraging lawsuits and strained business relationships with things like the VHS recorder.

I just don't understand the strategy behind openly inviting/encouraging lawsuits and strained business relationships with things like Satellite TV.

I just don't understand the strategy behind openly inviting/encouraging lawsuits and strained business relationships with things like Satellite radio.

I just don't understand the strategy behind openly inviting/encouraging lawsuits and strained business relationships with things like the Slingbox.


----------



## odsingCPA (Feb 1, 2012)

All I know is my bill better not increase because of this crap. Don't have the hopper and don't want it. Let the people using autohop pay for it.


----------



## tsmacro (Apr 28, 2005)

odsingCPA said:


> All I know is my bill better not increase because of this crap. Don't have the hopper and don't want it. Let the people using autohop pay for it.


People w/ the Hopper are paying more. $4 more for DVR service plus each Joey costs them an additional $7, so most people with that set up end up paying about an extra $11/mo as compared to someone w/ the older equipment.


----------



## jdskycaster (Sep 1, 2008)

odsingCPA,
So you watch all ads then? I have autohop and do not use it for even 10% of my viewing. When I do enable it I still manually forward past the delay that is now part of every commercial break. I also forward past the end of the commercial break which is usually some kind of announcement prior to the show beginning again. So it is not fully "automatic" in my case if that is what everyone is getting all worked up over. I still use my remote when watching shows with autohop enabled.


----------



## tampa8 (Mar 30, 2002)

odsingCPA said:


> All I know is my bill better not increase because of this crap. Don't have the hopper and don't want it. Let the people using autohop pay for it.


You will undoubtedly pay more if Dish does not stand up now. As I alluded to above, the the VHS and DVR did not go away, as much as has evolved. Technology does not stop because a company wants to be greedy. Protecting your assets of course, but ask the music industry and movie industry how trying to stop technology worked out. All the copy protection etc.. was a waste of their money and time. Had they just focused on what the consumer was looking for - downloading songs without having to get the whole album from the start, they would not have wasted their resources. Seems the models that evolved are working quite nicely. And the strong resistance to having video recordings in the home, along with movies? Turned into a bonanza for the movie industry, and it evolved from Betamax/VHS to DVD, to Blue-ray and streaming. 
If the skip feature were to go away, there is no question something similar will show up somewhere else. (Direct TV it is said has a similar feature in the wings)

And for the record, this "dispute" was never ever about the _Hoppa_ it was about money, and Gannett used the skip feature as a ruse.


----------



## maartena (Nov 1, 2010)

Keeping Hopper for these channels is definitely a win for Dish.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

tsmacro said:


> People w/ the Hopper are paying more. $4 more for DVR service plus each Joey costs them an additional $7, so most people with that set up end up paying about an extra $11/mo as compared to someone w/ the older equipment.


It depends on what the customer had. On a single receiver the Joey is an additional cost they would not have ... but $7 per outlet (beyond the first) has been a part of DISH's calculations for a couple of years.

EG: Two Duo DVRS would cost $17 in equipment costs (first one free - second one $7 per output plus $3 because it is a DVR). Two hoppers and a Joey would cost $14 ($7 for each receiver beyond the first). The whole home fee needs to be added to pay for that technology ... which is similar to what DirecTV charges for whole home. PTAT and AutoHop are a bonus.



maartena said:


> Keeping Hopper for these channels is definitely a win for Dish.


It is better to lose the channel than to allow stations to opt out or charge extra to be hopable. If stations were allowed to opt out and stay on DISH most would. Making the decision a choice between accepting the technology or not having the station's programs seen at all makes the decision "no hopper or no carriage". Most stations want carriage.


----------



## fudpucker (Jul 23, 2007)

Agh, having a hard time trying to figure these costs out (in an airport, delayed flight, so pretty tired/stressed.)

So, I currently have a 722 and two 612s. If I replaced these with a Hopper and two Joeys, how much more a month would my bill be?


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

fudpucker said:


> So, I currently have a 722 and two 612s. If I replaced these with a Hopper and two Joeys, how much more a month would my bill be?


Currently: 722 free, each 612 $10 = $20
New: Hopper free, each Joey $7 = $14 + $4 whole home fee = $18
+ DVR fee and programming ...you pay $2 less

I'd recommend two hoppers and a joey instead. Same monthly cost, more tuners.


----------



## fudpucker (Jul 23, 2007)

"James Long" said:


> Currently: 722 free, each 612 $10 = $20
> New: Hopper free, each Joey $7 = $14 + $4 whole home fee = $18
> + DVR fee and programming ...you pay $2 less
> 
> I'd recommend two hoppers and a joey instead. Same monthly cost, more tuners.


Huh, would have expected it to be more, thanks.


----------



## inazsully (Oct 3, 2006)

Is there any reason to trade in my 722 with OTA hooked up and a 1.5TB EHD for the Hopper?


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

inazsully said:


> Is there any reason to trade in my 722 with OTA hooked up and a 1.5TB EHD for the Hopper?


Probably not. If you have a second HD TV location the Hopper/Joey setup works nice (single Duo DVR like the 722 to Hopper+Joey is workable). At the moment having OTA vs having PTAT/AutoHop and the third tuner is the decision point.

As setups get more complex the decision becomes more personal ... what are you doing with it.


----------



## tsmacro (Apr 28, 2005)

James Long said:


> It depends on what the customer had. On a single receiver the Joey is an additional cost they would not have ... but $7 per outlet (beyond the first) has been a part of DISH's calculations for a couple of years.


Yes my comment was based on anyone that has two or more tv's (most customers) will pay on average $11/mo more for Dish service with a Hopper system than without because the DVR cost is $4/mo more and there'll be one additional outlet fee ($7) over a typical install using previous equipment as most installs that have two or more tv's usually start with a *22 receiver which powers two tv's with one receiver. So yes obviously there are scenarios where it wouldn't be exactly $11 more for Hopper customers but that is the most common one.


----------



## yogi (Feb 8, 2006)

tampa8 said:


> You will undoubtedly pay more if Dish does not stand up now. As I alluded to above, the the VHS and DVR did not go away, as much as has evolved. Technology does not stop because a company wants to be greedy. Protecting your assets of course, but ask the music industry and movie industry how trying to stop technology worked out. All the copy protection etc.. was a waste of their money and time. Had they just focused on what the consumer was looking for - downloading songs without having to get the whole album from the start, they would not have wasted their resources. Seems the models that evolved are working quite nicely. And the strong resistance to having video recordings in the home, along with movies? Turned into a bonanza for the movie industry, and it evolved from Betamax/VHS to DVD, to Blue-ray and streaming.
> If the skip feature were to go away, there is no question something similar will show up somewhere else. (Direct TV it is said has a similar feature in the wings)
> 
> And for the record, this "dispute" was never ever about the _Hoppa_ it was about money, and Gannett used the skip feature as a ruse.


WOW, Thanks for straightening that out for me.
I thought the music companys lost money due to file sharing.
and since when was running a buisness greedy?
If go to work and ask for a raise in pay. Would that make you greedy?

And yes, the"dispute" was about the hopper. The lost revenue in commercial sales.


----------



## Omahabrownie (Jun 12, 2012)

Please show me the proof that there is lost add revenue and if there is a lose, how much of that is because the networks have said there is going to be a lose. Kind of a self serving don't you think. All companies and individuals are allowed to make money but there is a point were they are to greedy and I think that point has been reached by networks and performers both.


----------



## tampa8 (Mar 30, 2002)

yogi said:


> WOW, Thanks for straightening that out for me.
> I thought the music companys lost money due to file sharing.
> and since when was running a buisness greedy?
> If go to work and ask for a raise in pay. Would that make you greedy?
> ...


You are just plain wrong on the _hoppa_ being the issue. It's money, always is. You fell for their ruse. If it was being against the skip feature Gannett would not have settled. Do you see the networks trying to settle with Dish on that? No, because for them it is about the technology,(and as they see it loss of money - so still about money) it never was for Gannett. Gannett already has a fight for the skip feature, it's being done by the Parent networks. This was not about that. And one last thing on that, Gannett, fwiw, is saying the dispute was not about the _Hoppa_
"A person at Gannett with direct knowledge of the talks, who did not want to be identified because the discussions are not public, said that while the business implications of the Hopper were part of negotiations, the DVR was not at the center of the dispute." Another words, about money.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/sns-rt-us-dish-gannettbre89403i-20121004,0,6404076.story
What does my comments have to do with businesses making money. Take a look at my posts here and the other site (been at both sites from their very beginnings) and I do usually have the business thoughts in mind when posting. It has nothing to do with a business making money, they have to or I can't buy from them. This is about once again fighting the inevitable technology rather than analyze it and take advantage of it.

Your example exactly supports what I said, so thank-you. File Sharing. Not legal, hurting the industry. But why? Because they were trying to artificially stop legitimate technology and at the same time not give the customer what it wants. Out of the file sharing came exactly what the customer wants, downloading a song, not a whole album. What has changed? The business model. I and apparently most are willing to pay in the range of 99 cents to about $129 for a song, to have it easily downloaded to all my devices, have cloud use, etc.... It gave the customer what it wants, and for the most part ended the file sharing problem.

You really can't see the skip feature being the same thing just as the fight against VHS or DVR's functions? And the quicker settlement when Dish always lets channels walk, indicate it was about money for Gannett? The _Hoppa_ and the skip feature are still there, and what do you know, so is Gannett.


----------



## Paul Secic (Dec 16, 2003)

tsmacro said:


> People w/ the Hopper are paying more. $4 more for DVR service plus each Joey costs them an additional $7, so most people with that set up end up paying about an extra $11/mo as compared to someone w/ the older equipment.


I'll stick with my trusty 722.


----------



## Henry (Nov 15, 2007)

Omahabrownie said:


> Please show me the proof that there is lost add revenue and if there is a lose, how much of that is because the networks have said there is going to be a lose. Kind of a self serving don't you think. All companies and individuals are allowed to make money but there is a point were they are to greedy and I think that point has been reached by networks and performers both.


Welcome aboard, Omahabrownei!

All businesses take advantage of market conditions to improve their bottom line - no smoking gun there. If conditions were right, I would expect to pay more for what I'm getting at today's prices. It's just the way it is. Dish will eventually charge more to cover for the cost (and perhaps a little extra) of what they have to pay the programmers for content. 

I'm OK with that.

If I have to pay a little more for the privilege of zapping those infernal commercials, so be it. I don't own a Hopper, but I do have a couple of DVRs equipped with Skip buttons, and there is no greater pleasure than being able to *select* which commercials (if any) I care to watch. Even if there exists a tacit commercial covenant between the networks and me, I opt to selectively honor it. If they go out of business because of it (which I really doubt), there are always cable and premium channels. Besides, I don't care for the notion of paying for a service that is already making premium profits from advertisers - are you listening, Cable? 

I'm further of the thinking that in time all television will be subscription-based and that commercials will be limited to product placement or other forms of embedding. By the time the commercial channels join the game, the cost of subscription will be comparable to today's satellite service cost. The good news is that we will be rid of the commercial ad model once and for all.


----------



## tampa8 (Mar 30, 2002)

Henry said:


> I'm further of the thinking that in time all television will be subscription-based and that commercials will be limited to product placement or other forms of embedding. By the time the commercial channels join the game, the cost of subscription will be comparable to today's satellite service cost. The good news is that we will be rid of the commercial ad model once and for all.


That goes along with my post above. Not giving the customer what it wants, AND fighting technology does not work. It might be smart for the networks to move towards something like your model. Take use of the technology, give the customer what it wants, and still make the money. But your idea or another, fighting progress and change when it's what the customer wants just does not work.


----------



## Henry (Nov 15, 2007)

tampa8 said:


> That goes along with my post above. Not giving the customer what it wants, AND fighting technology does not work. It might be smart for the networks to move towards something like your model. Take use of the technology, give the customer what it wants, and still make the money. But your idea or another, fighting progress and change when it's what the customer wants just does not work.


Agree, but as you know, the commercial networks will fight tooth and nail to preserve the one and only model they have ever had. It's in their blood to defend their model and ignore the likes of HBO and Showtime.

In time I expect they'll be gagged and dragged to a newer model that will contain all of the great elements you mention. There's no way they can fight technology and/or customer damands, but they'll try. Eventually, they'll cave to the pressure only to later claim it was their idea all along.


----------



## yogi (Feb 8, 2006)

How is Gannett going to change it's business model?
It buy's national programming from NBC. Which the majority is paid by commercials.


----------



## inazsully (Oct 3, 2006)

James Long said:


> Probably not. If you have a second HD TV location the Hopper/Joey setup works nice (single Duo DVR like the 722 to Hopper+Joey is workable). At the moment having OTA vs having PTAT/AutoHop and the third tuner is the decision point.
> 
> As setups get more complex the decision becomes more personal ... what are you doing with it.


Jim, I record a lot of stuff to my 722 then transfer some of it to my EHD. Things like concerts and nature shows (Frozen Planet) and series that I want to watch later in their entirety end up on the EHD. Many nights I record three shows at the same time and sometimes would like to record four shows. The ability to record four shows at the same time would be a big deal to me.


----------



## Henry (Nov 15, 2007)

yogi said:


> How is Gannett going to change it's business model?
> It buy's national programming from NBC. Which the majority is paid by commercials.


It doesn't need to. Gannett is negotiating on behalf of the broadcaster. If the latter were to change its model, Gannett wouldn't be able to use commercial skipping as a sledge hammer in its negotiations with Dish (who, incidentally pays for the programming and then charges us accordingly ... so it seems to me that we pay as well, yet we have no voice in the negotiations).


----------



## tampa8 (Mar 30, 2002)

Henry said:


> Agree, but as you know, the commercial networks will fight tooth and nail to preserve the one and only model they have ever had. It's in their blood to defend their model and ignore the likes of HBO and Showtime.
> 
> In time I expect they'll be gagged and dragged to a newer model that will contain all of the great elements you mention. There's no way they can fight technology and/or customer damands, but they'll try. Eventually, they'll cave to the pressure only to later claim it was their idea all along.


Good points.


----------



## patmurphey (Dec 21, 2006)

tsmacro said:


> Yes my comment was based on anyone that has two or more tv's (most customers) will pay on average $11/mo more for Dish service with a Hopper system than without because the DVR cost is $4/mo more and there'll be one additional outlet fee ($7) over a typical install using previous equipment as most installs that have two or more tv's usually start with a *22 receiver which powers two tv's with one receiver. So yes obviously there are scenarios where it wouldn't be exactly $11 more for Hopper customers but that is the most common one.


Average $11 more is an overstatement *except* for one HD TV and one or more SD TVs. The Hopper/Joey is only slightly more than *22s for two *HD* TVs, less for more than 2 HD TVs, and a lot less compared to multiple tuner DVRs for more than 2 HD TVs. The only circumstance where *22s make sense is if extra TVs are SD. The Hopper/Joey is designed for, and reasonably priced for, HD households and has many more features than any previous DVR combination.


----------



## runner861 (Mar 20, 2010)

What if anything has the NAB done with regard to the hopper? We all know how the NAB has fought tooth and nail to eliminate and minimize the importation of any distant stations into another market. How is the hopper any different? If one watches TV with the ads eliminated, the local station gets nothing from that viewer. Likewise, if one watches programming on a distant station, the local station gets nothing from that viewer. If I am in Portland but am watching CBS out of LA, is that any different than watching CBS locally in Portland but cutting all the ads out?


----------



## jdskycaster (Sep 1, 2008)

^You are assuming too much. The DVR already determines if someone watches ads or not. There is not proof that autohop means fewer ads watched.


----------



## Henry (Nov 15, 2007)

runner861 said:


> What if anything has the NAB done with regard to the hopper? We all know how the NAB has fought tooth and nail to eliminate and minimize the importation of any distant stations into another market. How is the hopper any different? If one watches TV with the ads eliminated, the local station gets nothing from that viewer. Likewise, if one watches programming on a distant station, the local station gets nothing from that viewer. If I am in Portland but am watching CBS out of LA, is that any different than watching CBS locally in Portland but cutting all the ads out?


Your argument leaves out the fees we pay to our sat providers that then are paid to the station even after they have been paid by the advertisers. In addition to that, they also get ever-increasing revenues from cable subscribers. How about on-line content fees?

What rights do we get for that other than the privilege of watching commercials in exchange for programming? Why must I stay home in order to legally watch? If my watching ads on TV were that critical to a network's survival, then why haven't any of them gone bankrupt in the last 3 or 4 years that I (among millions) have been skipping ads?

The Hopper issue aside, all I read here are people defending an obsolete business model. The NAB is basically a member-driven lobby group only too happy to perpetuate this model for its members ... and at my expense. As far as I'm concerned, they are just an arm of the broadcasters whose interests have nothing to do with mine.

_[Guglielmo and Philo must be spinning in their graves.]_


----------



## runner861 (Mar 20, 2010)

jdskycaster said:


> ^You are assuming too much. The DVR already determines if someone watches ads or not. There is not proof that autohop means fewer ads watched.





Henry said:


> Your argument leaves out the fees we pay to our sat providers that then are paid to the station even after they have been paid by the advertisers. In addition to that, they also get ever-increasing revenues from cable subscribers. How about on-line content fees?
> 
> What rights do we get for that other than the privilege of watching commercials in exchange for programming? Why must I stay home in order to legally watch? If my watching ads on TV were that critical to a network's survival, then why haven't any of them gone bankrupt in the last 3 or 4 years that I (among millions) have been skipping ads?
> 
> ...


I'm not making an argument. I am asking a question. Does anybody know if the NAB has taken any action with regard to the hopper? It is a question to further the discussion.


----------



## darkpowrjd (Jul 10, 2012)

Marcus S said:


> *I support Dish playing hard ball with* Gannet, *AMC* networks and others that may come up in the future provided it keeps my bill lower than DirecTV or cable. The content providers have needed a big wake up call for over a decade and maybe lossing 20 million customers in their revenue stream may provide that. This is not going to be the same goal for everyone, some people are willing to pay whatever the cost will be.


I bolded the thing I wanted to respond to here.

This would be a good thing to support the AMC debacle if the issue was just about money. But it has been known for a while now that the issue with Dish and AMC has been more of holding a grudge and more political than financial. I wouldn't support a side that decided to be petty about things and move the channel to some ungodly channel number and choose to not advertise the move to sabotage the standing of a channel with the customers of the satellite company.

They said that no one noticed the move, thus no one gave a crap about AMC, so Dish didn't see any reason to NOT remove the channel. I'm pretty sure if Dish moved it to a number that people could easily find it while scanning the guide then told people where it was, then I'm sure people would've watched the channel. We shouldn't be approving or supporting that one.

The Gannet issue, though, was stupid to do, and I'm glad that's resolved and Dish stood firm there. But AMC is in the right with THEIR dispute because Dish needs to just let the NY issue go already!


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

darkpowrjd said:


> But AMC is in the right with THEIR dispute because Dish needs to just let the NY issue go already!


The thing with AMC was not a "NY issue" ... it was the long standing lawsuit over the Voom channels. That has now been settled, the AMC channels are back on the air and all is well between DISH and AMC.

DISH and the NY sports networks is a separate issue.


----------

