# Fox is attacking the Hopper, Sling Adapter and Dish Anywhere now



## dennispap (Feb 1, 2007)

http://www.multichannel.com/marketing/fox-takes-new-tack-hopper-legal-battle/141846. Fox Takes New Tack in Hopper Legal Battle


----------



## SayWhat? (Jun 7, 2009)

Searching helps prevent duplication:

http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?p=3184907#post3184907


----------



## hilmar2k (Mar 18, 2007)

> Fox also says another recent addition, Hopper Transfers, makes its case for infringement. At the same time, Dish announced the streaming service, it unveiled Hopper Transfers, which allows subs to view recorded broadcasts on iPads for "on the go' viewing.


Isn't that the same as NOMAD for DIRECTV? Did DIRECTV get permission to do this while Dish did not?


----------



## hilmar2k (Mar 18, 2007)

SayWhat? said:


> Searching helps prevent duplication:
> 
> http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?p=3184907#post3184907


This is a new issue. The other thread is about Dish's win in the last court case.


----------



## EdBott (Nov 14, 2012)

hilmar2k;3185018 said:


> Isn't that the same as NOMAD for DIRECTV? Did DIRECTV get permission to do this while Dish did not?


I was wondering the same thing myself.


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

Yep, Nomad is essentially doing the same thing.

Fox is just slapping as much cr*p on the wall as they can to see what will stick. Frankly I don't think the suit will do much more than enrich a bunch of lawyers on both sides of the table.


----------



## scooper (Apr 22, 2002)

From the multichannel article - 
"Among the harms Fox cites are 1) increased piracy risk to its programming; 2) devaluing that programming in negotiations over digital download deals with Amazon or itunes; 3) unfairly competing with Fox's own proprietary Internet distribution of web sites and mobile apps; 4) and that Internet viewing will siphon off viewers from traditional channels measured by Nielsen's C3 metrics, on which advertisers rely to set rates."

#4 - Fox (and the other networks) should be pursuing this with Nielson.

#3 - they can solve that one themselves by offering the online versions as t the same time they are broadcasting it

#2 - so what ?

#1 - Consider it fortunate that some people even consider your programming worth "pirating".....


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

Since moving the shows with Sling to an iPad or whatever way the Nomad does it is nothing more or less than what any dvr does and has been doing for year, this is just crap for fodder building.

Making my 'dvr' (ie; iPad) portable doesn't change anything.


----------



## hilmar2k (Mar 18, 2007)

lparsons21 said:


> Making my 'dvr' (ie; iPad) portable doesn't change anything.


You mean besides making it portable?


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

Yeah, besides making it portable. That is not a significant change to how a DVR works and unless all DVRs become illegal, you won't see that part of Fox's crap throwing accomplish much.

I'm very firmly convinced that only the lawyers will 'win' in this case.


----------



## hilmar2k (Mar 18, 2007)

lparsons21 said:


> Yeah, besides making it portable. That is not a significant change to how a DVR works and unless all DVRs become illegal, you won't see that part of Fox's crap throwing accomplish much.
> 
> I'm very firmly convinced that only the lawyers will 'win' in this case.


I'm not taking any sides here (I don't even have Dish), but to me, making a DVR portable IS a significant change.


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

Then the Nomad is also an issue as is any other tech that takes video portable.


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

I wouldn't overemphasize the attack on the Sling element. Having a Hopper with Sling built in just gave Fox another shot at the same issue discussed in the DISH Cheers Ruling on AutoHop, PrimeTime Anytime thread. Fox wants to get rid of the auto ad skipping. The built-in Sling complicates the issue for Dish because it extends the auto ad skipping.

There is a chance that Charlie moved too fast in adding the Sling as it raises new issues, even contractual ones - many Fox programs are available with a few ads to Dish customers from the Fox web site through an iPad or other tablet or computer or smart phone because of a "special" agreement. The real issue is auto ad skipping.

EDIT: It took me time to find this thread Fox Full Episodes Delay for DirecTV but not DISH? that relates to the contractual issue Dish may run into.


----------



## acostapimps (Nov 6, 2011)

lparsons21 said:


> Then the Nomad is also an issue as is any other tech that takes video portable.


I think Directv is smart in this one because they don't advertise it much like it don't exist unlike the genie or hopper/sling with ipad transfer.


----------



## some guy (Oct 27, 2012)

acostapimps;3185283 said:


> I think Directv is smart in this one because they don't advertise it much like it don't exist unlike the genie or hopper/sling with ipad transfer.


Which may also be why they can transfer content with DRM and not delete it from the receiver. Maybe HBO and max haven't noticed that or it isn't worth going after since tithe nomad has such a small user base.


----------



## Klatu (Jun 22, 2011)

I love Fox network, but I have been using a remote forever to cut the sound down and up and down and up since before there were remotes (off the chair on the chair off the chair) for 55 years because of COMMERCIALS. 

They are wrong in trying to stop us from not listening to crap we don't want to listen to; I love some commercials...."There's only six ahead of us Jimmy!"....Broom factory witch......"Just a man and his apps"..and many more.

If the networks want us to NOT cut out their clients crappy commercials, maybe they should instruct their carriers...the television stations..to control the VOLUME between the shows and the commercials. You know, the same people who say they NEVER EVER raise the volume on the COMMERCIALS.

We wouldn't need the Hopper or skip ahead if the sound wasn't so D... LOUD.

Fox, and the rest of you networks, stop this stupidity and fix your problem, don't screw with our ability to NOT LISTEN TO IT because of an innovative company trying to help us and make a profit doing it. It's called American Ingenuity.

Go Get'm Charlie.


----------



## KyL416 (Nov 11, 2005)

Klatu said:


> If the networks want us to NOT cut out their clients crappy commercials, maybe they should instruct their carriers...the television stations..to control the VOLUME between the shows and the commercials. You know, the same people who say they NEVER EVER raise the volume on the COMMERCIALS..


FYI, since December there's been a law in place that requires the volume to be consistent. If you are still seeing that commercials are louder than the program you can complain here:
http://www.fcc.gov/guides/program-background-noise-and-loud-commercials


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

*DISH Hopper Jumps into the Daytona 500, Appears on FOX Despite Network Censorship of the Brand*

* DISH appears on FOX through a virtually ad-free No. 95 car piloted by Scott Speed
* Satellite TV provider demonstrates its passion for speed as FOX attempts to slow down consumers' viewing experiences

ENGLEWOOD, Colo.--(BUSINESS WIRE)-- DISH is hopping into Sunday's Daytona 500 race through its sponsorship of the Leavine Family Racing's No. 95 DISH Ford Fusion to be piloted by up-and-coming driver Scott Speed. Other than the Hopper logo, the car will be virtually ad-free, meaning consumers will see the DISH brand on FOX in spite of the network's ongoing refusal to air ads for DISH's consumer-friendly Hopper™ Whole-Home HD DVR.

"The world of technology moves fast, but FOX keeps trying to wave a yellow flag and put consumers under caution, attempting to slow their access to the best in TV entertainment," said DISH President and CEO Joe Clayton. "The Hopper is in the pole position as the fastest in the consumer technology race. We are giving consumers what they want, when they want and where they want it. FOX is trying to hold up traffic. You can't stop the future."

As the Hopper, which was named a "Best of Show" among more than 20,000 products featured at the 2013 International CES, prepares to take to the speedway, FOX has made yet another attempt to slow down consumers' viewing experiences and ability to watch content in a manner that meets their preferences.

Late Thursday night, FOX Broadcasting's lawyers launched another attempt to block DISH from offering certain consumer-friendly features on the Hopper Whole-Home HD DVR, after months of unsuccessful attempts to thwart Hopper's AutoHop and PrimeTime Anytime features.

"Everybody skips commercials, and if FOX, CBS, ABC and NBC think that's illegal, well I guess that makes us a nation of outlaws," continued Clayton. "We might as well make the No. 95 car the DISH fans' getaway car in what is sure to be an exciting race on Sunday!"

Fox also wants to prevent viewers from accessing the recorded television shows they have already paid for while on the road. For race fans, the Hopper is great for catching recorded race highlights and other coverage at the hotel after the race.

DISH is proud to sponsor up-and-coming driver Scott Speed at the Daytona 500. Speed is no stranger to racing and his diverse career in driving includes qualifying for the Formula One team in 2006. Speed became the first American to race in Formula One since Michael Andretti in 1993. His recent success in qualifying for the Daytona 500 makes him a great contender for Sunday.

"I'm a big DISH fan and am excited to return to Daytona International Speedway Sunday with the Hopper riding shotgun," said Scott Speed. "Hopper is great for people like me -- we can record more programming and take our favorite shows with us."

To track Speed and the Hopper as they race around the track, follow @DISH and @scottspeed and search the hashtag #adfreetv, or visit http://www.facebook.com/ScottSpeed and http://www.facebook.com/DISH.

Source: DISH Press Release


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

I have said this before... I find this to be the height of hypocrisy by Dish...

Mad at FOX because FOX says "no commercial skip"... but also mad at FOX for not accepting Dish Hopper commercials.

Think about that... Dish wants Hopper ads to air on Dish, presumably because they want others to see those commercials and come to Dish... but once with Dish they don't want you to see other commercials.

Sorry, but this doesn't work for me.

I like skipping commercials, and I would probably use the auto-feature if I had it... but I get why the networks don't want it AND obviously Dish does too, hence why they are calling out FOX for not airing Dish commercials.


----------



## strikes2k (Dec 10, 2008)

Stewart Vernon said:


> I have said this before... I find this to be the height of hypocrisy by Dish...
> 
> Mad at FOX because FOX says "no commercial skip"... but also mad at FOX for not accepting Dish Hopper commercials.
> 
> ...


Come on. If DISH didn't want you to watch commercials they'd simply make autohop mandatory. They give you the CHOICE. That's a huge difference.


----------



## hilmar2k (Mar 18, 2007)

strikes2k;3185829 said:


> Come on. If DISH didn't want you to watch commercials they'd simply make autohop mandatory. They give you the CHOICE. That's a huge difference.


Right, because so many people choose to watch commercials when given the choice.


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

The default is to not autohop, you must enable it each and every time you watch a show that has that available. And that is what makes it no different than allowing for the skipping of ads that all DVRs will do.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

FOX is following the lead of CBS ... if you can't stop the technology in court, try to hide it from the world. I wonder if there are other products FOX has decided couldn't be advertised on their network?


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

All I'm saying is it makes no sense with their prime argument of why consumers want AutoHop.

Dish and Charlie have said that viewers don't want to watch commercials, so he is giving them that option.

So... why is Dish spending money on commercials to advertise their products? IF Dish doesn't think viewers want to watch commercials, it doesn't make sense to spend money on advertising... and it makes even less sense to be mad at FOX for not airing your Hopper commercial when you're trying to help your viewers skip ALL commercials on FOX stations.

Like I said... either argument is fine by themselves... but Dish is trying to be simultaneously on both sides of the same issue.


----------



## Jim5506 (Jun 7, 2004)

Stewart, your argument makes no sense.

The Hopper commercials are for people who do not have the Hopper, not for those who are already using it.

The Hopper commercials advertize another viewing option to the public, one that allows them to skip commercials only on a replay the next day, and only on OTA network stations.

Would it be hypocritical of a TV channel to advertize on radio.

There's no hypocracy here, just enterprise.

What the networks need top do here is get together with Neilson and get DVR'd programming replays somehow added to their demographic, so they can not only claim the initial watchers but also theose who watch their programming multiple times with their DVR's.

NAB, move into the 20th Century.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

It seems pretty simple ... DISH doesn't want people to watch OTHER COMPANY's commercials. Or at least they support their customer's desire to not watch commercials once they have subscribed to DISH.

It is not complicated. It is not hypocritical. DISH is in the position to offer a service people want ... so they are doing it. If they were refusing to offer the Hopper service out of fear that people would skip DISH ads that would be bad.


----------



## GrumpyBear (Feb 1, 2006)

I guess the next thing Fox will want is for the FFWD button on all DVR's deactivated. Seriously, who here, doesn't just hit the skip forward button now, when they sit down to watch a recorded show? All Dish has done, is save me from having to push the FFWD button, several times to skip commercials.


----------



## strikes2k (Dec 10, 2008)

hilmar2k said:


> Right, because so many people choose to watch commercials when given the choice.


Wat? :lol:


----------



## strikes2k (Dec 10, 2008)

James Long said:


> It seems pretty simple ... *DISH doesn't want people to watch OTHER COMPANY's commercials.* Or at least they support their customer's desire to not watch commercials once they have subscribed to DISH.
> 
> It is not complicated. It is not hypocritical. DISH is in the position to offer a service people want ... so they are doing it. If they were refusing to offer the Hopper service out of fear that people would skip DISH ads that would be bad.


Please, can you and Stewart quit saying this. DISH doesn't care if you watch commercials. Why would they? They just realize that most people don't want to watch them and have found a way to automate that. It's a competitive advantage if their counterparts in providing television service don't offer that option so they promote it. But to say that they don't want us watching commercials is completely wrong.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

strikes2k said:


> DISH doesn't care if you watch commercials. Why would they?


They don't want people seeing commercials for Genie on DirecTV (or any other competitive service). The Hopper is a vast conspiracy to improve retention. Once customers get the Hopper from DISH they are prevented from seeing commercials from other providers. It is all a part of the vast conspiracy to ...

Oh no ... I said too much. I hear helicopters. I think they're black (although at 1:37am color is hard to see). Tell my wife I love her! 

PS: I'm sorry for not including a smilie in my previous post.  Please pay more attention to the line after the one you bolded ... "Or at least they support their customer's desire to not watch commercials once they have subscribed to DISH." (emphasis added)


----------



## joshjr (Aug 2, 2008)

Did anyone else notice that when they announced the DISH driver they did not say he was drivng te DISH car? They said the family's name instead. The other guy in the same row with him had his car sponser announced. That is pretty low FOX!


----------



## Hoosier205 (Sep 3, 2007)

Good for FOX. Dish is attacking a significant revenue stream, so game on.


----------



## joshjr (Aug 2, 2008)

Hoosier205 said:


> Good for FOX. Dish is attacking a significant revenue stream, so game on.


Im not even a DISH customer and I think its pretty childish. You dont announce every other sponser except for the one you dont like Its a NASCAR race not a FOX race.


----------



## Hoosier205 (Sep 3, 2007)

joshjr;3186143 said:


> Im not even a DISH customer and I think its pretty childish. You dont announce every other sponser except for the one you dont like Its a NASCAR race not a FOX race.


It's not nearly that simple. We are talking about two companies that are not even in direct competition with one another. Were talking about one company which is going out of their way to interfere with a revenue stream of another company. Not to mention that other providers have had access to this technology and have wisely chosen not to utilize it. Imagine that! Every other provider has chosen not to screw over the content providers that they must do business with.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Other companies being to timid to use technology should not prohibit DISH from innovating. I will not be surprised that once the dust settles on the court cases and Hopper issue if the other companies come out with their own commercial skip feature ... and the die hard promoters of such other companies will be the first to laud adding the feature as being the right thing to do.


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

Hoosier205 said:


> Good for FOX. Dish is attacking a significant revenue stream, so game on.


Is it really a significant revenue stream? Yes, ads are but those with a DVR (whether it's a Hopper or not), generally don't watch commercials, except with the common exception of sports. Hopper users would be at least fast forwarding if not skipping commercials anyway.


----------



## tampa8 (Mar 30, 2002)

Hoosier205 said:


> Not to mention that other providers have had access to this technology and have wisely chosen not to utilize it. Imagine that! Every other provider has chosen not to screw over the content providers that they must do business with.


You have just described being a leader, a pioneer. The networks have been screwing Satellite service since the beginning not to mention us. Chuck is not intimidated. In your scenario, there would be no DVR's, no skipping/fast forwarding. Lets not make them mad.


----------



## tampa8 (Mar 30, 2002)

James Long said:


> Other companies being to timid to use technology should not prohibit DISH from innovating. I will not be surprised that once the dust settles on the court cases and Hopper issue if the other companies come out with their own commercial skip feature ... and the die hard promoters of such other companies will be the first to laud adding the feature as being the right thing to do.


Exactly. It's reported elsewhere (I have no way to confirm) that Direct TV has the Hopper technology ready to go. The Movie industry finally got it after fighting so hard not to allow VHS/Betamax and changed their business plan to include releases of movies in various forms. It must have added billions to the industry. I have a large assortment of movies I would never have gone to see in theaters, or maybe even buy at full price, but did buy at what I thought was a more reasonable price sometime after release. All that money would have gone somewhere else.


----------



## Hoosier205 (Sep 3, 2007)

tampa8;3186168 said:


> Exactly. It's reported elsewhere (I have no way to confirm) that Direct TV has the Hopper technology ready to go. The Movie industry finally got it after fighting so hard not to allow VHS/Betamax and changed their business plan to include releases of movies in various forms. It must have added billions to the industry. I have a large assortment of movies I would never have gone to see in theaters, or maybe even buy at full price, but did buy at what I thought was a more reasonable price sometime after release. All that money would have gone somewhere else.


DirecTV has had it for a long time and has chosen not to implement it for obvious reasons. Charlie has no concept of right and wrong...just what his massive team of lawyers can conspire to get away with on his behalf. He's ethically bankrupt. Nothing new there.


----------



## AZ. (Mar 27, 2011)

joshjr said:


> Im not even a DISH customer and I think its pretty childish. You dont announce every other sponser except for the one you dont like Its a NASCAR race not a FOX race.


Guess its just more FOX being a, fair and balancing act ?

Let the true colors shine through!!!!!


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Hoosier205 said:


> DirecTV has had it for a long time and has chosen not to implement it for obvious reasons. Charlie has no concept of right and wrong...just what his massive team of lawyers can conspire to get away with on his behalf. He's ethically bankrupt. Nothing new there.


I can run a mile in 3min 50seconds and a marathon in 2h 50min. But I choose not to. 

But let's get back to DISH vs Fox and leave the companies that choose not to compete with this feature out of this thread.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

I'm amazed that more people don't see my point. Not because it is my point  but because it sticks out like the literary and literal "sore thumb"...

If you are a Dish subscriber with a Hopper, Dish says to FOX "customers don't have to watch your commercials"... but if you are a DirecTV or cable customer, Dish says to FOX "you have to air our commercials"...

How is that not the height of hypocrisy?

Yeah, I get what they are trying to do... but they are being on both sides of the issue.

IF Dish truly believes customers don't watch commercials, then why is Dish wasting money on commercials themselves?

They must believe their money is well spent, which is only true if they believe customers were watching... which is only possible if you don't help making it easier for customers to not watch commercials.

Nobody can force me to watch commercials. I can take a bathroom or snack break. I can skip them manually after I DVR them.

AutoHop does too much for you once you say "yes"... and that makes it easier.

Many customers will be too lazy to pick up the remote and fiddle with it to skip commercials... advertisers bank on this... but AutoHop requires just the one press of a button in the beginning to activate it.

I also point out that Dish isn't doing this for all channels... they are only doing it for the "big four" OTA channels... IF Dish truly believed in the technology as they say, they would enable it for ALL commercial channels... wonder why they haven't done that?

I'm usually on Dish's side for most things... but even as a happy Dish customer, I can't really see anything good coming of this... Down the road, when Dish wins this fight... we will either:

1. Lose OTA channels.
2. More banners on the screen during programs and you can't skip those!
3. More product placement.
4. Higher price to watch those OTA channels via Dish.

One or more of those is the only way for the channels to make up that lost revenue when Dish helps you skip the ads more conveniently and the advertisers begin to pull back their money.


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

It actually is an interesting point I didn't think of. My parents have a DVR, and while my father doesn't grasp the simplest DVR concept, being able to watch something that's half over which is being recorded, my mother is pretty good with it, yet tends to forget you can fast forward through commercials. So in this case, they are losing something.

But then Fox has had some really bad ads inside shows, even worse than the Pawn Stars doing their taxes or learning Skype.


----------



## boukengreen (Sep 22, 2009)

Stewart Vernon said:


> I'm amazed that more people don't see my point. Not because it is my point  but because it sticks out like the literary and literal "sore thumb"...
> 
> If you are a Dish subscriber with a Hopper, Dish says to FOX "customers don't have to watch your commercials"... but if you are a DirecTV or cable customer, Dish says to FOX "you have to air our commercials"...
> 
> ...


+1


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Stewart Vernon said:


> IF Dish truly believes customers don't watch commercials, then why is Dish wasting money on commercials themselves?


It seems that you're overthinking this. Is this another "devils advocate" thread where you want to stir up a fight?

DISH believes customers (in general) do not WANT to watch commercials. Whether they watch commercials or not is immaterial. It is the customer's desire that is important. So they introduced a feature where their customers are given what they want.

How are potential customers expected to know that the feature is available? Via advertising. DISH selling a receiver that, in part, allows people to skip most commercials in primetime (not the only cool feature) is a story that needs to reach the masses. DISH advertising that feature is not a waste. They are reaching people who WANT to more easily skip commercials but do not currently have that technology.

No hypocracy ... DISH is not buying commercials they want their customers to skip. They are buying commercials to let people without the technology know that they can more easily skip that ad.

And as far as backing down and letting the networks have their way ... once DISH starts to cave in where should it stop? If the networks demand the end of auto-hop and $5 per subscriber per network station per month is that good for you? How about if the networks demand that DISH disable all commercial skipping during that network's programming? Are we at a point where DISH needs to cave to any demand of the network? I hope not. And not caving on AutoHop is a good place to start.


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

James Long said:


> And as far as backing down and letting the networks have their way ... once DISH starts to cave in where should it stop? If the networks demand the end of auto-hop and $5 per subscriber per network station per month is that good for you? How about if the networks demand that DISH disable all commercial skipping during that network's programming? Are we at a point where DISH needs to cave to any demand of the network? I hope not. And not caving on AutoHop is a good place to start.


 Yes, that clearly states the issue. It is important to note something I thought was a bit odd. Those same four stations local stations in each DMA are on 24-7 and could be recorded in 4-hour blocks with ad skipping. The fact that Dish only enabled this in the prime time block does make a "political" statement that only "coincidentally" came about just months after the networks started demanding significant payments from us, the viewers, through our signal carriers via the local channels.


----------



## EdBott (Nov 14, 2012)

Hoosier205;3186173 said:


> DirecTV has had it for a long time and has chosen not to implement it for obvious reasons. Charlie has no concept of right and wrong...just what his massive team of lawyers can conspire to get away with on his behalf. He's ethically bankrupt. Nothing new there.


No Directv is just sitting on it waiting for the outcome of the commercial skip lawsuit. If dish wins you can bet we will see them turn the feature on in a heartbeat.


----------



## Hoosier205 (Sep 3, 2007)

EdBott;3186326 said:


> No Directv is just sitting on it waiting for the outcome of the commercial skip lawsuit. If dish wins you can bet we will see them turn the feature on in a heartbeat.


They had it long before Dish did or any lawsuit over it existed. They simply understand how silly it is to purposefully screw over the very content owners that you rely on and must do business with.


----------



## Klatu (Jun 22, 2011)

KyL416 said:


> FYI, since December there's been a law in place that requires the volume to be consistent. If you are still seeing that commercials are louder than the program you can complain here:
> http://www.fcc.gov/guides/program-background-noise-and-loud-commercials


Sorry, I didn't answer sooner. Must be my wife's hearing, she still has me turn lots of commercials down because they are so loud.

There has been other "laws" on the books or on FCC orders that seem to have been around for many years.

None of it works and sending a note to somebody at the FCC seems to be a waste of time, seeing that our deficit keeps growing no matter how much I tell them to stop spending money and develop a budget.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

phrelin said:


> Yes, that clearly states the issue. It is important to note something I thought was a bit odd. Those same four stations local stations in each DMA are on 24-7 and could be recorded in 4-hour blocks with ad skipping. The fact that Dish only enabled this in the prime time block does make a "political" statement that only "coincidentally" came about just months after the networks started demanding significant payments from us, the viewers, through our signal carriers via the local channels.


It is a much easier feature to implement during prime time when the stations are airing the same programming in each time zone. With the most watched programs being in prime time on the big four networks it makes sense to start there where the feature will be the most useful.

I'd like to see PTAT expand outside of the prime time hours ... perhaps to record late night or evening news hours. Some may want to multi-record daytime programming. DISH has made steps in that direction with the more recent software releases (allowing viewing of any of the local stations using the same tuner but, as of last check, still requiring one tuner per recording outside of prime time). And Auto-Hop on non-prime time network programming would not be impossible.

DISH has made some modifications to the feature that require it to be enabled by customers, allow the customer to choose what networks and what days to capture, and affirm at the beginning of each playback that they want to skip commercials. Although those who do not want to skip commercials may be like the Capitol One baby who doesn't want 50% more cash back.

I choose not to be that baby. :lol:


----------



## donalddickerson2005 (Feb 13, 2012)

Its not just fox...
Lawsuits brought by CBS (the parent company of CNET), Fox (News Corp.), NBC (Comcast), and ABC (Disney) so far have not stopped Dish from selling the Hopper, which Dish says is in 2 million homes. The networks contend that Dish Hopper is illegal, and that Dish doesn't have the right to tamper with advertising from broadcast replays for its own economic and commercial advantage.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-1001_3-57...ytona-race-car-zips-past-tv-ad-ban-on-hopper/


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

We have a separate thread for the lawsuits by all four networks ... Fox has earned a special thread since they went the extra step and refused commercials (just like CBS got a special thread when they influenced CNet to not award the CES award to the top vote getter).

I don't believe that ABC or NBC have done anything beyond the lawsuit.


----------



## david_jr (Dec 10, 2006)

dpeters11 said:


> It actually is an interesting point I didn't think of. My parents have a DVR, and while my father doesn't grasp the simplest DVR concept, being able to watch something that's half over which is being recorded, my mother is pretty good with it, yet tends to forget you can fast forward through commercials. So in this case, they are losing something.
> 
> But then Fox has had some really bad ads inside shows, even worse than the Pawn Stars doing their taxes or learning Skype.


That's funny. It reminds me of my parents. When I'm at their house I'm constantly having to ask my father to fast forward at commercials. He keeps saying "I think it's live". This tech would be completely lost on my parents which is why they have cable instead of satellite. Cable's just easy I think. He does drool over my Hopper when he's over though, not enough to convert though.


----------



## jerry downing (Mar 7, 2004)

I thought it was funny to see Dish and the Hopper logo seen on Fox during today's race.


----------



## djlong (Jul 8, 2002)

Look at it from a different point of view.

Dish says "With the Hopper you can skip commercials".

Fox says "That'll kill us!".

Dish says, "Oh really, then why are we trying to spend money buying your commercial time? It's not as deadly as you think!"

...it's certainly true for live sports at least. ...which exactly what Dish was trying to buy into.


----------



## joshjr (Aug 2, 2008)

Stewart Vernon said:


> I'm amazed that more people don't see my point. Not because it is my point  but because it sticks out like the literary and literal "sore thumb"...
> 
> If you are a Dish subscriber with a Hopper, Dish says to FOX "customers don't have to watch your commercials"... but if you are a DirecTV or cable customer, Dish says to FOX "you have to air our commercials"...
> 
> ...


With all the DVR's in use today and OTA channels screaming they are hurting for money, dont you think they need to come up with a different source of revenue? You either change with the times or get left in the dust.


----------



## RasputinAXP (Jan 23, 2008)

Hoosier205 said:


> They had it long before Dish did or any lawsuit over it existed. They simply understand how silly it is to purposefully screw over the very content owners that you rely on and must do business with.


But as soon as they have it, I'm sure you'll be gushing how it's better than Dish's version.


----------



## joshjr (Aug 2, 2008)

donalddickerson2005 said:


> Its not just fox...
> Lawsuits brought by CBS (the parent company of CNET), Fox (News Corp.), NBC (Comcast), and ABC (Disney) so far have not stopped Dish from selling the Hopper, which Dish says is in 2 million homes. T*he networks contend that Dish Hopper is illegal, and that Dish doesn't have the right to tamper with advertising from broadcast replays for its own economic and commercial advantage.*
> 
> http://news.cnet.com/8301-1001_3-57...ytona-race-car-zips-past-tv-ad-ban-on-hopper/


This would make every DVR on the market illegal. We all have the ability to skip commercials on recorded content. This is really just the next evolution of a DVR. I dont see how the big 4 networks can be okay with DVR's but not with this new feature.

I guess people who use OTA and something like a TiVo are really sticking it to them then since they are not paying at all for the big 4. Time to figure out how else to get the funds needed.


----------



## patmurphey (Dec 21, 2006)

Hoosier205 said:


> They had it long before Dish did or any lawsuit over it existed. They simply understand how silly it is to purposefully screw over the very content owners that you rely on and must do business with.


Ridiculous! I skip commercials, period. Dish is makig what I already do more convenient. Customers first with Dish.


----------



## acostapimps (Nov 6, 2011)

I still can't wrap around my head what's all this disputing all about since autohop is not for LiveTV, so is no different than manual skip ahead other than enabling automatically one button press after nightly update or the next day, Maybe its the PTAT locals which the network is a part of for AH, So I'm not sure what would be the argument besides ad revenue loss, because if that's the case then DVR's would be illegal.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

joshjr said:


> With all the DVR's in use today and OTA channels screaming they are hurting for money, dont you think they need to come up with a different source of revenue? You either change with the times or get left in the dust.


Yes... but what many fail to recognize is that WE will be that different source of revenue. If ad revenue shrinks, then the other logical way for them to get money will be to charge the viewer.

People seem to think they can get something for nothing without consequences.



joshjr said:


> This would make every DVR on the market illegal. We all have the ability to skip commercials on recorded content. This is really just the next evolution of a DVR. I dont see how the big 4 networks can be okay with DVR's but not with this new feature.
> 
> I guess people who use OTA and something like a TiVo are really sticking it to them then since they are not paying at all for the big 4. Time to figure out how else to get the funds needed.


No. There is a HUGE difference between me recording something and having to manually skip (or ignore) commercials vs Dish implementing a feature that I can enable once and have it automatically skip all the commercials.

Me doing it manually requires interaction... which means I have to be interactively watching... which means I might see parts of commercials while I skip/FFwd ahead and I might stop if something looks interesting.

But the automatic skip means one jump across 95% of the commercial break... so I see virtually nothing... and have no reason to check a commercial out... and it does it for every break.

That is why this is an issue. They can't force us to watch commercials. Even before the DVR, and before VHS/Beta... you can leave the room during a commercial... but at least the commercial still played... and even with a DVR or VHS/Beta you had to see bits and pieces as you skipped past them manually.

AutoHop results in automatic non-viewing once you turn it on... and giving viewers the ability to turn it on means more people will do it than if they had to do it manually. People are inherently lazy and might leave the remote down during a commercial break or forget to skip... but AutoHop takes that away with a big "do you want to enable" banner at the beginning and once you say yes it is Calgon go away (to paraphrase an old commercial) for commercials for that show.

I completely understand why the networks don't like this... and Dish is not only applying it just to OTA channels via satellite and not ALL commercial TV... but they are only applying it during primetime, which is probably when those networks make most of their revenue.

So... Dish isn't really about providing a feature to customers who "want to skip commercials" as much as they are about sticking it to those four channels.

It's fine... but everyone should be aware there will be backlash. When the networks lose these lawsuits (and they should lose them)... expect higher prices to come immediately on the next negotiations with each one. That is where this will head in a hurry.


----------



## david_jr (Dec 10, 2006)

But our soap will be getting cheaper since the soap companies won't be spending their money on TV ads.


----------



## joshjr (Aug 2, 2008)

Stewart Vernon said:


> Yes... but what many fail to recognize is that WE will be that different source of revenue. If ad revenue shrinks, then the other logical way for them to get money will be to charge the viewer.
> 
> People seem to think they can get something for nothing without consequences.
> 
> ...


I understand what you are saying and I also understand the point of view from the stations. I think you are missing part of the point as well. If people we not able to get OTA for free then the stations wouldn't have to charge such an increase every time as they would be getting paid by everyone viewing their channels.

Isnt radio dying out too partially because people dont like the interruptions. Its gonna happen. People find alternatives. Also the TV stations are not overly worried about commercials, when you watch something on their website you usually have to get through 1 commercial. If they were really being strapped for cash on add revenue then why do they not force online watchers to watch 4-6 commercials each break?

They can think they are going to be the only ones allowed to make advances in the game. There must be a reason they only usually have 1 commercial online for the breaks. Might it have something to do with people not wanting to watch commercials?


----------



## speedy4022 (Jan 26, 2004)

Only one thing dish needs to remember you may win now but wait until you have renew carry agreements. I see some nasty negotiations in the future with the networks.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

joshjr said:


> Also the TV stations are not overly worried about commercials, when you watch something on their website you usually have to get through 1 commercial. If they were really being strapped for cash on add revenue then why do they not force online watchers to watch 4-6 commercials each break?
> 
> They can think they are going to be the only ones allowed to make advances in the game. There must be a reason they only usually have 1 commercial online for the breaks. Might it have something to do with people not wanting to watch commercials?


Apples and oranges.

The programs are only online for viewing AFTER they have aired on commercial TV... which means after they have satisfied the requirements to the advertisers who paid for commercial time during the initial broadcast.

That is why they don't put it on the Web first... and why some episodes you have to wait a week before you can watch them online.


----------



## joshjr (Aug 2, 2008)

Stewart Vernon said:


> Apples and oranges.
> 
> The programs are only online for viewing AFTER they have aired on commercial TV... which means after they have satisfied the requirements to the advertisers who paid for commercial time during the initial broadcast.
> 
> That is why they don't put it on the Web first... and why some episodes you have to wait a week before you can watch them online.


I noticed you chose not to comment on giving their signal away free. If everyone watching their content was paying or waiting to watch it online it would help some. Fact is online offers less commercials and its after it originally aired. How is a DVR any different? Its after it aired and its up to us if we want less or no commercials?


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

joshjr said:


> I noticed you chose not to comment on giving their signal away free. If everyone watching their content was paying or waiting to watch it online it would help some. Fact is online offers less commercials and its after it originally aired. How is a DVR any different? Its after it aired and its up to us if we want less or no commercials?


You're still missing apples and oranges.

OTA is free. You can watch it free all you want. Locals delivered by satellite or cable might not be free, and there is no guarantee that they will be. We have threads devoted to that in the past.

Meanwhile... Showing it online after the original broadcast is completely different. advertisers pay for commercials during the original OTA broadcast... not for the online delivery a week later.

You recording on your DVR is something you can watch the same way you would have live... you can watch commercials or you can make an effort to ignore them. Your choice... same as when it aired live.

AutoHop, however, takes the interactivity out of it. Press one button at the beginning and no more interacting required and it jumps past the commercials so you don't see hardly anything... unlike manual intervention where you have to fast-forward through and might see something or skip forward/skip back where you see snippets as you adjust through the break.

It really isn't rocket science.

And it doesn't even matter what any of us say... if the advertising revenue dries up, then prices will go up or programming will go away. That is the end-truth here.


----------



## koralis (Aug 10, 2005)

Klatu said:


> .
> 
> We wouldn't need the Hopper or skip ahead if the sound wasn't so D... LOUD.
> .


That's not true. The problem is that literally 1/3 of the programming time is commercials. If it was more like 1/5 then people wouldn't have been searching for a solution. Greed caused the problem... they went too far.


----------



## david_jr (Dec 10, 2006)

Stewart Vernon said:


> You're still missing apples and oranges.
> 
> OTA is free. You can watch it free all you want. Locals delivered by satellite or cable might not be free, and there is no guarantee that they will be. We have threads devoted to that in the past.
> 
> ...


You are correct it doesn't matter what we say. The question I would pose then is how much interaction is required to make jumping past commercials legal. Is the legal standard "customer interaction"? Or a certain degree of interaction?


----------



## fudpucker (Jul 23, 2007)

david_jr said:


> You are correct it doesn't matter what we say. The question I would pose then is how much interaction is required to make jumping past commercials legal. Is the legal standard "customer interaction"? Or a certain degree of interaction?


Well, that is the question in the courts, right? On the one extreme: let's assume Dish offered a feature in which they strip all of the commercials from the network shows before it is delivered to your receiver. So the only thing being delivered to your IRD was the programming, with no commercials.

I don't think many here would argue that this would be legal or that Dish had the right to do this.

So let's take the next step: what if you could push a button on your IRD and all of the shows for the evening would be delivered with no commercials. Same as above, but you had to push a button the the receiver to tell Dish you wanted the programming delivered with no commercials.

Would that be legal for Dish? Probably not.

So the next step: Dish delivers the programming to your IRD with all the commercials in them, but they provide a button that you can push to have the programs delivered from the IRD to your TV with no commercials in them.

Is that legal? Is it that much different from pushing a button and having Dish deliver the programming without the commercials in them?

I'm not making an argument one way or the other, just analyzing,


----------



## tampa8 (Mar 30, 2002)

I would be more sympathetic to the affiliates/networks if they weren't trying to have it all ways. They get the airways, no cable channels can have, in exchange for free programming. They have decided when it's over Cable/Satellite it should not be free because they should get money for that, and in fact try and hold the carriers hostage. There should be no money made on it, for the Networks or the carriers. Both benefit from it. The carriers, or at least Dish and Direct are not making any real money on them, the cost of $5 or so must just about cover the costs of providing them. But the networks want to charge YOU to watch what should be free programming. Then, they want to dictate how and when you will watch it. They fought DVR's etc.. just like what they are doing now. I see it as no more than a fair use issue. They are going to have to find a way to make it that Dish is skipping the commercials, not the user. The user has to initiate it, period. The fact that technology, just like a DVR was in it's time, gets better does not change the fact the user is making the decision.

The Networks need to adapt just like the Movie industry did, they went kicking and screaming into the new technologies but eventually figured it out.


----------



## joshjr (Aug 2, 2008)

+1


----------



## fudpucker (Jul 23, 2007)

tampa8;3187820 said:


> I would be more sympathetic to the affiliates/networks if they weren't trying to have it all ways. They get the airways, no cable channels can have, in exchange for free programming. They have decided when it's over Cable/Satellite it should not be free because they should get money for that, and in fact try and hold the carriers hostage. There should be no money made on it, for the Networks or the carriers. Both benefit from it. The carriers, or at least Dish and Direct are not making any real money on them, the cost of $5 or so must just about cover the costs of providing them. But the networks want to charge YOU to watch what should be free programming. Then, they want to dictate how and when you will watch it. They fought DVR's etc.. just like what they are doing now. I see it as no more than a fair use issue. They are going to have to find a way to make it that Dish is skipping the commercials, not the user. The user has to initiate it, period. The fact that technology, just like a DVR was in it's time, gets better does not change the fact the user is making the decision.
> 
> The Networks need to adapt just like the Movie industry did, they went kicking and screaming into the new technologies but eventually figured it out.


Do you really think the providers - Dish, DirectTV - aren't making money on the networks? You think the networks should give Dish and DirectTV the right to use their programming to make money for free?

Again, it's very simple in the long run. As soon as it is clear that people aren't watching commercials, the cost of the programming will go up to you and me, as companies are no longer wiling to pay the networks and provide the money for content. There's no such thing as "free" network TV. TV shows cost millions to produce and air and someone has to pay for it. If commercials are no longer watched, we'll be paying what we pay HBO and other premium channels for these networks.


----------



## bobukcat (Dec 20, 2005)

Stewart Vernon said:


> That is why this is an issue. They can't force us to watch commercials. Even before the DVR, and before VHS/Beta... you can leave the room during a commercial... but at least the commercial still played... and even with a DVR or VHS/Beta you had to see bits and pieces as you skipped past them manually.
> 
> I completely understand why the networks don't like this... and Dish is not only applying it just to OTA channels via satellite and not ALL commercial TV... but they are only applying it during primetime, which is probably when those networks make most of their revenue.
> 
> ...


Stewart I understand the point you are trying to make but you seem to also argue that having the commercial play, even if no one is watching it (gone to the bathroom, talking with others, or getting a snack) somehow adds value to that commercial versus it being skipped. "If a commercial airs but no one is there to hear it does it make a sound?" I'm sorry but that seems like a far reach to me, and the amount of time I pay any attention to the commercials while skipping through them (manually or with AutoHop) is only to see when what I actually want to watch is back on.

As for "sticking it to those four channels" - I believe they do Autohop the way they do is because it ties up resources / cost money to enable Autohop, program the hop times, etc. It makes sense to start with the programming that is most widely viewed and is consistent in all time zones to keep your cost / benefit higher. If the technology improves or the business model justifies expanding it I expect they will do so. I find it interesting they don't do Autohop during sports or news programs.

If technology and viewing habits dictate that the traditional advertising revenue model no longer works and we end up paying for programming in a different manner then that's evolution of the business and trying to stop progress is a fools errand. Look at it this way - perhaps the price of many goods and services would go down considerably if so much money isn't being spent on advertising budgets for those products.

If it were up to these same networks we wouldn't have DVRs or even VHS/Beta recording capability.


----------



## fudpucker (Jul 23, 2007)

We actually find ourselves occasionally watching a commercial that catches our eye as we FF through them, and we'll watch commercials once in a while just because we're too lazy to grab the remote and push the forward button several times. Sometimes one of us will watch commercials while the other goes to the bathroom during a commercial break.

I think the incidence of commercials being seen is some level higher than what it is with autohop where it is just push a button once and forget it the rest of the night - well, of course that statement is true. I know it would be true for people like my parents and other low tech people I know, the kind of people who scroll through the channel list one channel at a time while I pull my hair out and try to tell them they can scroll a page at a time, LOL! They typically leave the commercials on now, but might push a single button once to skip the commercials for the evening.

After all, the whole point of Auto-hop is to make it much easier to skip commercials. If it was no different than FFing, it wouldn't be much of a feature.

And, once again, we do NOT want a world in which the networks no longer get funding from those commercials.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

fudpucker said:


> I think the incidence of commercials being seen is some level higher than what it is with autohop where it is just push a button once and forget it the rest of the night - well, of course that statement is true.


It would be truer if one used a correct description of AutoHop.

AutoHop does NOT have a feature where you press a button once and forget it for the rest of the night. The viewer must select AutoHop at the beginning of each playback ... not once per night. If the playback is stopped (not paused, but exiting the playback of that recording) the AutoHop question is presented again.

Plus AutoHop is intentionally not perfect. Due to slight differences in timing between the hundreds of stations across the nation airing broadcast network programming, AutoHop plays the first few seconds of the beginning of the break and the last few seconds of the break. It is designed this way to make sure customers don't miss part of a show due to one station being slightly off from others.

This provides a perfect opportunity for broadcasters to charge more to advertisers who are first or last in a commercial block (although most of the stations in my market promote their late news or Leno/Letterman in the last slot in each commercial break).

People who get the idea that enabling AutoHop means the customer will never see a commercial again are mistaken. People who believe that it is one choice per night to skip most commercials are also mistaken. AutoHop is a good feature and it makes skipping easier but it isn't 100% effective against commercials.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

bobukcat said:


> Stewart I understand the point you are trying to make but you seem to also argue that having the commercial play, even if no one is watching it (gone to the bathroom, talking with others, or getting a snack) somehow adds value to that commercial versus it being skipped. "If a commercial airs but no one is there to hear it does it make a sound?" I'm sorry but that seems like a far reach to me, and the amount of time I pay any attention to the commercials while skipping through them (manually or with AutoHop) is only to see when what I actually want to watch is back on.


That isn't the point I have been making, though. I have said that they can't make me watch a commercial... BUT before AutoHop at least they thought I might be watching them. With AutoHop, the advertiser's natural inclination is to assume I am not watching... and thus not want to pay as much for advertising.

The point is... AutoHop makes it far more likely that a viewer will skip commercials than just having a DVR. Without AutoHop you have to pick up the remote and fiddle during each commercial break... With AutoHop, one button at the beginning of the show takes care of it for the duration of that program.

IF you are an advertiser... that changes how you look at paying for commercials.



bobukcat said:


> If technology and viewing habits dictate that the traditional advertising revenue model no longer works and we end up paying for programming in a different manner then that's evolution of the business and trying to stop progress is a fools errand.


This is true... and it is also what I have been saying. But many people seem to want to ignore reality and think there will be no evolution in the form of cost to consumers. People say "yay AutoHop" without thinking what it might do to their budget down the road. All I've been saying is "be careful what you wish for" because when Dish wins, and they should win, then don't go nuts when the prices go up for the OTA programming.



bobukcat said:


> Look at it this way - perhaps the price of many goods and services would go down considerably if so much money isn't being spent on advertising budgets for those products.


No, don't hold your breath on that one. I've been saying for years that I think a lot of advertising is wasted money. Coke and Pepsi and most beers, for example, don't need to spend what they do just to let me know their product is still on the shelves... when I see them every week at the local stores.

BUT... to some extent, we should want advertisers to think their dollars spent matter... so they keep spending and subsidizing out TV viewing.

IF they all stop advertising tomorrow, they would just pocket the profit and not drop the prices on their products. You can bank on that.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Since AutoHop does not work until the next day the networks and their advertisers should concentrate on "must see TV". Programming so good that people don't want to wait until the next day to skip commercials.

Think of a show such as The Big Bang Theory ... it airs on Thursday night and everyone who cares about that show tunes in and watches. If they go to work or talk to their friends on Friday they want to know what happened on the latest show - lest they have to say "spoiler alert" every time the topic comes up.

In order to see that program on "ad free TV" they would need to watch it after 1am ... which is entirely possible but that still gives them hours where they are out of the loop. Make the programming compelling enough that people WANT to see it same day and the advertisers have nothing to worry about from AutoHop ... they just have to worry about the people watching slightly delayed who are skipping commercials on their existing "non-controversial" DVRs. 

It does not help their court case for the major networks to recognize and acknowledge the limitations of AutoHop. But the networks could do more damage to DISH by saying "AutoHop does not perform as advertised" than reinforcing the next day add skipping feature as being "you will never see an ad".

BTW: I loved the recent "spoiler alert" episode of The Big Bang Theory.


----------



## david_jr (Dec 10, 2006)

I wonder what the stats are on those with Hoppers that actually use AutoHop. For instance, we have 2 Hoppers 3 Joeys, but we do not use PTAT or AutoHop and don't really plan to at least for now.


----------



## tsmacro (Apr 28, 2005)

DISH Applauds Decision Allowing Consumers to Continue to Enjoy Place-Shifting Technology





ENGLEWOOD, Colo.--(BUSINESS WIRE)-- The United States District Court, Central District of California, today denied a preliminary injunction motion filed by Fox Broadcasting Company seeking to block two place-shifting features found on DISH's Hopper® Whole-Home DVR platform: DISH AnywhereTM and Hopper TransfersTM.

The following statement can be attributed to DISH Executive Vice President and General Counsel, R. Stanton Dodge:

"Today's decision is the fourth in a string of victories for consumers related to our Hopper® Whole-Home DVR platform. DISH is pleased that the Court has sided again with consumer choice and control by rejecting Fox's efforts to deny our customers' access to the DISH Anywhere and Hopper Transfers features. We will continue to vigorously defend consumers' right to choice and control over their viewing experience."

DISH Anywhere, using Sling technology built into DISH's Hopper with Sling® Whole-Home DVR, provides a DISH customer, once they receive a television signal in their home, the capability to remotely view that signal from a single Internet-connected device (mobile phone, tablet or PC). Sling technology has been available since 2005 and this motion was the first of its kind in seven years.

With the Hopper Transfers feature, a DISH customer can move or duplicate certain Hopper DVR recordings made by the customer to an iPad; and unlike DISH Anywhere, no Internet connection is needed for viewing.

About DISH

DISH Network Corporation (NASDAQ: DISH), through its subsidiary DISH Network L.L.C., provides approximately 14.014 million satellite TV customers, as of June 30, 2013, with the highest quality programming and technology with the most choices at the best value, including HD Free for Life®. Subscribers enjoy the largest high definition line-up, the most international channels, and award-winning HD and DVR technology. DISH Network Corporation's subsidiary, Blockbuster L.L.C., delivers family entertainment to millions of customers around the world. DISH Network Corporation is a Fortune 200 company. Visit www.dish.com.


----------



## tsmacro (Apr 28, 2005)

It seems the courts haven't been very sympathetic to the networks complaints against the Hopper so far.


----------



## FTA Michael (Jul 21, 2002)

"A federal court Monday denied Fox Broadcasting's request to block two of the Dish Network's Hopper DVR place-shifting features - although the judge found the broadcaster could prevail at trial." That's what Todd Spangler wrote in Variety a short time ago.

In response, Dish Executive Vice President and General Counsel, R. Stanton Dodge said in a statement (a press release, actually), "Today's decision is the fourth in a string of victories for consumers related to our Hopper® Whole-Home DVR platform. DISH is pleased that the Court has sided again with consumer choice and control by rejecting Fox's efforts to deny our customers' access to the DISH Anywhere and Hopper Transfers features. We will continue to vigorously defend consumers' right to choice and control over their viewing experience." But why is DISH all caps? Does it stand for something now?

Anyway, as Spangler noted, this was the first legal attack on Sling even though Sling has been around since 2005 and has been under Dish's corporate umbrella since 2007. Losing Sling would be a real downer, so I'm happy to see that it hasn't happened yet.


----------



## FTA Michael (Jul 21, 2002)

D'oh! I should have posted my Fox-Dish news in this thread instead of starting a new one. Good thing the moderators can fix stuff like that. :righton:

http://variety.com/2013/biz/news/fox-denied-request-to-shut-down-dish-dvrs-place-shifting-features-1200662816/


----------



## tsmacro (Apr 28, 2005)

Meh, stuff happens. It was buried a ways down, thank goodness for the search feature or I would've done the same thing!


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

FTA Michael said:


> But why is DISH all caps? Does it stand for something now?


It stands for the best entertainment available for a monthly fee! 
It is a common way to state the company name ... if you type it DISH then people know you are talking about DISH Network. Not a generic dish.


----------



## foghorn2 (Jun 18, 2006)

I sometimes watch old 70's and 80's commercials on YouTube. If the commercials today were as interesting and entertaining, I wouldn't hop over them. Actually I wish there was a way to subvert the new commercials and insert the old ones. TV would be a lot more entertaining!


----------



## Curtis0620 (Apr 22, 2002)

You all do know this was only a rejection of an injunction to shut down the ad skipping feature of the Hopper. The trial is still yet to come. So DISH can ultimately lose.


----------



## jadebox (Dec 14, 2004)

fudpucker said:


> Do you really think the providers - Dish, DirectTV - aren't making money on the networks? You think the networks should give Dish and DirectTV the right to use their programming to make money for free?


TV antenna manufacturers make money because of the OTA networks. I suppose they should have to pay the network stations, also. Ignoring DVRs and the issues they add, all Dish is doing is acting as an antenna.

Dish is already paying most of the network stations for carrying their programming. So, I personally don't have a problem with Dish making it easier to skip commercials. I suspect that this whole issue will be settled in the future by Dish paying a little more to the stations to make up for the lost ad revenue. Dish might even offer a "discount" on locals to subscribers that don't enable the "auto-skip" option.

Also,Dish might be able to provide the stations with detailed stats and demographics about people who actually do see the commercials and specifics about which commercials they specifically watch or skip. That kind of information should be something the stations (and advertisiers) might value and something else Dish could offer to placate them.

-- Roger


----------



## Gloria_Chavez (Aug 11, 2008)

foghorn2 said:


> I sometimes watch old 70's and 80's commercials on YouTube. If the commercials today were as interesting and entertaining, I wouldn't hop over them. Actually I wish there was a way to subvert the new commercials and insert the old ones. TV would be a lot more entertaining!


The 70s were far more risque than today.

Can't imagine any of the networks airing this Namath/Fawcett spot for Noxema.


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

Curtis0620 said:


> You all do know this was only a rejection of an injunction to shut down the ad skipping feature of the Hopper. The trial is still yet to come. So DISH can ultimately lose.


I'm sure most are aware of that. But the fact that they can't get an injunction to stop it is an indicator that the court isn't so sure they have a case.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

lparsons21 said:


> I'm sure most are aware of that. But the fact that they can't get an injunction to stop it is an indicator that the court isn't so sure they have a case.


Injunctions are normally given if there is more harm in allowing something to continue than ending it. This is one of the cases where any harm that is done to the broadcasters by DISH can be compensated by money. If an injunction was granted and the broadcasters later lost there would be harm to DISH that may not be as easily compensated.


----------



## foghorn2 (Jun 18, 2006)

Gloria_Chavez said:


> The 70s were far more risque than today.
> 
> Can't imagine any of the networks airing this Namath/Fawcett spot for Noxema.
> 
> ...


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

I'm bringing this thread up because maybe there's someone else here who is as slow as me at reaching the "aha" moment about TV technology.

As I understand it the new SuperJoey/Hopper combination gives the owner five receivers each simultaneously capable of recording a different program. This matches the Genie as I understand it. Xfinity customers with an X1 can record up to four shows at once "while viewing a fifth program on the same DVR." I've got to believe that Xfinity's owner Comcast, which also owns NBCU, has already made sure that fifth program viewing could fairly easily become a fifth recording.

And virtually all are providing some variation of supplemental "on demand" viewing. And everybody is scrambling to get all the viewing extended to portable devices.

Does it really matter if the Hopper can record at prime time simultaneously an additional 3 channels on that one tuner and autoskip commercials on those four recordings? Haven't the networks already lost the war? People want the option to skip commercials. Even the owner of NBCU understands that.

Technology is moving way too fast for the lawsuits against AutoHop and other "innovations" to make any sense. By the time it gets to the Supreme Court, the Hopper will have been replaced with some version of goggles that display any content you want them to, anywhere, at any time, with commercial skipping. :grin:


----------



## david_jr (Dec 10, 2006)

The Wright Brothers lost a presence in the airplane industry because they stopped innovating and spent all their time defending their patents, while the rest of the airline industry exploded past them through innovation. Same thing is happening here with TV technology.


----------



## SayWhat? (Jun 7, 2009)

I'd REALLY like to see the DMCA taken apart and basically abolished from the present form. The media lawyers have been abusing it for too long. I can understand them wanting to protect their bank accounts and country club memberships by limiting piracy, but they're way off base in regards to what home users can record, how, when and what they can do with it as long as it isn't re-sold.

The NAB, MPAA and RIAA all need to be ripped apart too. Only a few companies owning nearly all of the media outlets will never be good for the consumers.


----------

