# DISH Disappointed with CBS' Interference with CNET's "Best of CES" Awards



## tsmacro (Apr 28, 2005)

LAS VEGAS--(BUSINESS WIRE)-- DISH's Hopper™ with Sling® Whole-Home HD DVR was disqualified from CNET's "Best of CES" awards program at the last minute today because CNET's parent, CBS Corp., is in litigation with DISH regarding Hopper's consumer-friendly Prime Time Any Time and the AutoHop™ commercial-skipping features.

After CNET posted a review entitled "Dish Hopper with Sling: HD DVR almost has it all," Hopper with Sling was named a finalist by CNET for its Best of CES awards. Winners were named today at the Consumer Electronics Show.

The following statement can be attributed to DISH CEO and President Joe Clayton:

"We are saddened that CNET's staff is being denied its editorial independence because of CBS' heavy-handed tactics. This action has nothing to do with the merits of our new product. Hopper with Sling is all about consumer choice and control over the TV experience. That CBS, which owns CNET.com, would censor that message is insulting to consumers.

"DISH is not afraid to stand up for consumer rights and we think that Hopper with Sling will do well, despite the network's questionable actions.

"We have had a long, productive relationship with CNET's editorial staff and we look forward to continuing that relationship. We welcome their unbiased evaluation and commentary of our products and services."

The new Hopper with Sling, unveiled at 2013 CES, delivers several capabilities that improve the DISH experience at home and on the go by allowing customers to watch live and recorded television anywhere on Internet-connected tablets, smartphones and PCs at no additional charge using the Hopper's new built-in Sling capabilities as well as move recorded television to an iPad for viewing without an Internet connection.

Links:

CNET review - "Dish Hopper with Sling: HD DVR almost has it all": http://reviews.cnet.com/digital-vid...h-hopper-with-sling/4505-6474_7-35566943.html 
CNET Tweet - DISH Hopper with Sling Nominated for "Best of CES" award:

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/289090800011313152DISHNews tweet announcing CES nomination (with photo):

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/289115675958579200CNET CES Award Finalists list including a disclaimer at the bottom of the page regarding the removal of DISH Hopper with Sling: http://ces.cnet.com/2731-34437_1-2034-2.html 
Images attached:

CNET Review - "Dish Hopper with Sling: HD DVR almost has it all" 
CNET Tweet - DISH Hopper with Sling Nominated for "Best of CES" award 
CNET List of Finalist - DISH Hopper with Sling (Included) 
CNET List of Finalist - DISH Hopper with Sling (Removed) 
About DISH

DISH Network Corporation (NASDAQ: DISH), through its subsidiary DISH Network L.L.C., provides approximately 14.042 million satellite TV customers, as of Sept. 30, 2012, 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 with more than 200 national HD channels, 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.

Source: DISH Network Corporation


----------



## Hoosier205 (Sep 3, 2007)

Good for CBS


----------



## MikeW (May 16, 2002)

It would seem that there certainly is a conflict of interest here. I can see CBS' point. Too bad for Dish, but I doubt there is enough prestige with this award to deem it an issue getting worked up about.

Who won the award three years ago?


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

Poor showing by CBS if you ask me. CNET should be an independently run entity IF it is to have any credibility. This action by owner CBS calls the credibility of CNET into play.

How can you trust any review by CNET if you know CBS is looking over their shoulder? You now have to ask, if the winner had some positive ties to CBS... the whole thing becomes a muddled mess.

Dish is taking the high road by praising CNET and their past relationship with CNET.

You can see the writing on the wall here... CBS didn't want to see a scenario where the new Dish Hopper w/ Sling wins a "best in show" award while CBS is part of a lawsuit trying to make them stop having some of the features that would make it a "best in show" product.


----------



## djlong (Jul 8, 2002)

Good for CBS?

If CBS told 60 minutes to kill a story because it reflected poorly on an advertiser, would you still say "Good for CBS"?


----------



## boba (May 23, 2003)

What goes around comes around Charley never learned how to wash the other hand.


----------



## Hoosier205 (Sep 3, 2007)

"djlong" said:


> Good for CBS?
> 
> If CBS told 60 minutes to kill a story because it reflected poorly on an advertiser, would you still say "Good for CBS"?


Good for anyone who holds Charlie accountable for his poor choices.


----------



## SayWhat? (Jun 7, 2009)

Stewart Vernon said:


> Poor showing by CBS if you ask me. CNET should be an independently run entity IF it is to have any credibility. This action by owner CBS calls the credibility of CNET into play.


Much like Disney's questionable credibility when extorting carriers regarding separation of ESPN.


----------



## tampa8 (Mar 30, 2002)

Hoosier205 said:


> Good for anyone who holds Charlie accountable for his poor choices.


You make 0 sense, honestly 0. This is a black eye to Cnet, and perhaps a big one. There will now be questions by other sites as to why CNET reviewed a product as it did. Is it because CBS would not let them review the better product? Did CBS tell CNET a particular product's maker is friendly to CBS? This actually has less to do with Dish or Charlie, but instead the credibility of a review site.


----------



## Hoosier205 (Sep 3, 2007)

"tampa8" said:


> You make 0 sense, honestly 0. This is a black eye to Cnet, and perhaps a big one. There will now be questions by other sites as to why CNET reviewed a product as it did. Is it because CBS would not let them review the better product? Did CBS tell CNET a particular product's maker is friendly to CBS? This actually has less to do with Dish or Charlie, but instead the credibility of a review site.


Based on what exactly? A press release from Dish Network? That's it? A black eye...right...


----------



## SayWhat? (Jun 7, 2009)

tampa8 said:


> This is a black eye to Cnet, and perhaps a big one. There will now be questions by other sites as to why CNET reviewed a product as it did.


Could almost be a fatal blow.


----------



## Sanderson K. (Jan 4, 2013)

Hoosier205 said:


> Good for CBS


Good for CBS...bad for anyone who enjoys unbiased (unbiased as possible anyway) reporting.

I'm no fan of Charlie or Dish (even side with the networks on the auto hop fiasco), but this is bad form. CNETs credibility just went to the dogs.


----------



## Hoosier205 (Sep 3, 2007)

"Sanderson K." said:


> Good for CBS...bad for anyone who enjoys unbiased (unbiased as possible anyway) reporting.
> 
> I'm no fan of Charlie or Dish, but this is bad form.


They said they won't be reviewing any products made my companies they are in litigation with. Sounds like a good idea.


----------



## Sanderson K. (Jan 4, 2013)

Hoosier205 said:


> They said they won't be reviewing any products made my companies they are in litigation with. Sounds like a good idea.


Perhaps they shouldn't be reviewing any products at all now, they can no longer be trusted.


----------



## Hoosier205 (Sep 3, 2007)

"Sanderson K." said:


> Perhaps they shouldn't be reviewing any products at all now, they can no longer be trusted.


Haha. Now that is funny.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

tampa8 said:


> You make 0 sense, honestly 0. This is a black eye to Cnet, and perhaps a big one. There will now be questions by other sites as to why CNET reviewed a product as it did. Is it because CBS would not let them review the better product? Did CBS tell CNET a particular product's maker is friendly to CBS? This actually has less to do with Dish or Charlie, but instead the credibility of a review site.


Exactly!

Dish doesn't need a "best in show" award to sell their new Hopper w/ Sling... In fact, this is free publicity to them!

But CNET gets a huge black eye... and any product that gets a bad review has an open door to ask "did CBS influence this"... and any product not reviewed at all can ask "did CBS say no"... and every consumer who looks to CNET for an unbiased review of a product should now question every review as perhaps having a string attached that they played nice behind the scenes in order to get CBS' thumbs up!

A pebble in the pond to Dish... but a change in the course of the river to CNET.

Heck... Dish might even be able to use this in the lawsuit against CBS as evidence that CBS is exercising unfair control and pressure against improving technology by wielding the power to try and make a product go away by waving their hand at a trade show.


----------



## SayWhat? (Jun 7, 2009)

Imagine if Underwriter's Laboratories was owned by General Electric and allowed GE to have influence on test results.

.


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

"Disappointed" is the right word. It is disappointing. It's not tragic or horrifying. Nor all that important. Unless you're one of the CNET staffers involved in the review who was told to "rig the vote"....


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Credit should be given to cNet for mentioning the conflict. The Hopper with Sling could have simply quietly disappeared from their pages. I imaging it would be embarrassing for CBS to laud praise on a product that they were trying to remove from the market ... "it is the best product ever - and that's why it must die!" :lol:

It does add an asterisk to anyone who won in the category. "Best of CES*" (except DISH products).


----------



## SayWhat? (Jun 7, 2009)

This is also why I don't like cross media ownership or influence.

A broadcast company should not be in print media.


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

technically speaking ... the new Hopper2 is not that new word in the technology ... just simple aggregation of old embedded Sling idea [bad functioning 922] and existing Hopper ... I don't see anything what would trumpet the fanfares


----------



## rovenorth (Jan 9, 2013)

"CNETs credibility just went to the dogs."

My dogs resent this. Don't worry, though, their attentions spans are sufficiently short that they'll be on to the next thing any nanosecond now. Yup, there they go!

On Dish versus CBS/CNN ...

Especially in this day and age with so many folks really and truly hurting, I'm not too interested in the whining of zillionaires :nono2:


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

SayWhat? said:


> Imagine if Underwriter's Laboratories was owned by General Electric and allowed GE to have influence on test results.


I see what you did there...

I don't think there is a problem per se with CBS owning CNET... the problem is when CBS steps in and tells CNET to be objective with someone that CBS has a problem with.

IF CNET operates on its own, and no one can prove any lack of objectivity... then I don't think it would be an issue.

But now that the worm-can has been forced open? CBS has essentially invited people to take a look at all things CNET does and question whether or not CBS has done this before or will do this again.

That is going to be a tough thing for CNET to recover independent objective credibility going forward.


----------



## DodgerKing (Apr 28, 2008)

I am going to repeat the same thing I posted on other sites about this topic.

Although Charlie is involved in way too many lawsuits and many of them are his fault, regardless of which side one is to take in the CBS and Dish suit, this is just a stupid move by CBS. In the long run this will just make Dish look like the good guys.

If the reward is deserved, then the award should be given. A suit should have no bearing on whether or not a product is good enough to win the award. It should be based solely on the parameters set for that award.


----------



## speedy4022 (Jan 26, 2004)

I usually don't get involved in these threads but i will this once. I have one question what does dish networks owner get out of constantly biting the hand that feeds him without the networks he has no content to sell?


----------



## tampa8 (Mar 30, 2002)

Hoosier205 said:


> Based on what exactly? A press release from Dish Network? That's it? A black eye...right...


You really don't see the ramifications of this? If it was just CBS itself involved in this decision, it would be more understandable, as long as they disclosed their decision. But to force politics on what _was_ an independent testing site that happens to be owned by them, that does what _we thought_ was independent testing is not understandable.
Here is a very small sampling of what others - no not just me, not just Dish is saying. You can try to make this somehow the fault of Dish, but those that have an idea of what this means know differently.

http://www.buzzfeed.com/jwherrman/every-tech-journalists-worst-nightmare
("This confirms that fear, at least for CNET's reporters - that there is a profound difference in product journalism and actual journalism, to the point that the former might not even be in the same genus as the latter. Good service writing, unglamorous as it may be, demands integrity too. Your authority as someone telling people what to buy is determined first and foremost by your motivations.

CNET has a roster of stellar writers and reporters who do great journalism every single day, and this isn't their fault. But it gives critics of the tech media a leg to stand on, and will be felt deeply - in the gut - across the tech media. ")

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/tech...-cnet-ethically-questionnable-spot-ces/60866/

https://plus.google.com/114753028665775786510/posts/AnPtDvmHwec


----------



## tampa8 (Mar 30, 2002)

Stewart Vernon said:


> I see what you did there...
> 
> I don't think there is a problem per se with CBS owning CNET... the problem is when CBS steps in and tells CNET to be objective with someone that CBS has a problem with.
> 
> ...


Nailed it.


----------



## Art7220 (Feb 4, 2004)

This happened before. CBS wouldn't let a 60 Minutes report on the tobacco industry air. Even came out in a movie. Granted, the CNET affair won't be as big an issue.


----------



## SayWhat? (Jun 7, 2009)

Not the same thing. Editorial control over their own broadcast programming is one thing. Strong-arming a subsidiary with a reputation for impartial reviews and testing is something else.


----------



## acostapimps (Nov 6, 2011)

I'm a Directv subscriber but damn that is so wrong in so many ways, it's technology that matters not some type of dispute with a network


----------



## AntAltMike (Nov 21, 2004)

I remember back in the C-band days, when trade magazines used to give annual "Best ____" awards for hardware items, and the winner of every award was whichever company bought the most advertising in that jounal.


----------



## Reaper (Jul 31, 2008)

speedy4022 said:


> ...what does dish networks owner get out of constantly biting the hand that feeds him without the networks he has no content to sell?


According to Forbes, Charlie is worth $9 Billion, and is the 38th richest person in the US. He sounds like a real dick to work for, or with for that matter, but it's hard to argue with success.

Source: http://www.forbes.com/profile/charles-ergen/


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

I don't get with the H2 "invention" praise ...


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

speedy4022 said:


> ... without the networks he has no content to sell?


There are still plenty of networks to sell ... even many of the ones who "hate Charlie" end up making a deal. 14 million subscribing customers are hard to turn away when you want to make a profit. (Not that some providers have not made that choice.)

Somehow despite the gloom and doom predictions of some people (not you but others) DISH manages to thrive ... make a little money and keep moving forward.


----------



## SayWhat? (Jun 7, 2009)

> Just one day after CNet named the Dish "Hopper," a new TV recording system that's drawing rave reviews in the tech press, to an awards shortlist, the site's parent company stepped in and nixed the accolade. Because of a legal battle between CBS and Dish over the Hopper's ad-skipping technology, CBS laid down a ban: CNet won't be allowed to even review Dish products, much less give them awards.


http://money.cnn.com/2013/01/11/technology/dish-cnet-cbs/



> As more and more media companies are snapped up by larger corporations - Disney buying ABC or AOL buying Engadget, for example - there is a concern that the legal or financial interests of those parent companies might cloud the news coverage of the outlets they own. While CNET insisted that its news coverage will remain unbiased, the blackout on reviews is troubling to many, as they are largely reviewed by most tech sites as part of the objective, reporting process. Surely, this is not the last lawsuit in which CBS or other media-owning companies will become involved, so where does it stop?


http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2414184,00.asp



> CNET, one of the more widely read tech-review sites, just got kneecapped by its corporate parent, CBS (CBS).





> Earlier this month, this magazine called Dish "the meanest company in America." That may still be true, but in this case, the company's meanness is in service of consumers. As FDR is alleged to have said about Nicaraguan dictator Anastasio Somoza Garcia, "He's a son of a *****, but he's our son of a *****."
> 
> Oh, and with its heavy-handed squashing of further CNET coverage, CBS appears to be gunning for the No. 2 spot on that list.


http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-01-11/cbs-puts-cnet-on-mute-over-dish-dvr-lawsuit


----------



## tampa8 (Mar 30, 2002)

Greg Sandoval reviewer at Cnet has resigned because their trust now has been comprimised. (Too hard to link from my cell phone sorry) As some immediately recognized this is a pretty big story and honestly CNET may have problems going forward.


----------



## SayWhat? (Jun 7, 2009)

One of many articles appearing:



> The discord between CBS and its tech site CNET is getting loud enough to carry beyond the realm of the super-nerds at the Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas. Outrage first bubbled up last week when CBS wouldn't allow the DISH Network's Hopper with Sling DVR to compete for CNET's top award at the trade show because CBS and DISH are currently in court over the technology, which allows viewers to skip over the commercials the network needs to make money. Now the other shoe is dropping - it turns out the Hopper had already been voted the best product before CBS intervened - and one CNET writer has already quit because of the shadiness.
> 
> "Sad to report that I've resigned from CNET. I no longer have confidence that CBS is committed to editorial independence," tweeted digital media reporter Greg Sandoval today. "CNET wasn't honest about what occurred regarding Dish is unacceptable to me." He added, "We are supposed to be truth tellers. I believe CNET's leaders are also honest but used poor judgement."


http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2013/01/cnet-writer-quits-over-cbs-meddling.html

Article goes on to say (as do others) that the Hopper would have won the award.


----------



## SayWhat? (Jun 7, 2009)

> But the problems may go deeper than that. The Verge has now learned that the facts of the case are somewhat different than the story CNET and CBS had previously shared with the public. According to sources familiar with the matter, the Hopper was not simply an entrant in the Best of CES awards for the site: it was actually chosen as the winner of the "Best of Show" award (as voted by CNET's editorial staff).
> 
> Apparently, executives at CBS learned that the Hopper would win "Best of Show" prior to the announcement. Before the winner was unveiled, CBS Interactive News senior-vice president and General Manager Mark Larkin informed CNET's staff that the Hopper could not take the top award. The Hopper would have to be removed from consideration, and the editorial team had to re-vote and pick a new winner from the remaining choices. Sources say that Larkin was distraught while delivering the news - at one point in tears - as he told the team that he had fought CBS executives who had made the decision.
> 
> Apparently the move to strike the Hopper from the awards was passed down directly to Larkin from the office of CBS CEO, Leslie Moonves. Moonves has been one of the most outspoken opponents of the Hopper, telling investors at one point, "Hopper cannot exist... if Hopper exists, we will not be in business with (Dish)."


http://www.theverge.com/2013/1/14/3...-cnet-editors-to-recast-vote-after-hopper-win


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

As the onion gets peeled... I think some of us nailed it from the beginning... CBS thought it would be bad for their lawsuit if the Hopper won a best-in-show... and so they killed it.

Ironically, though... Hopper winning best in show as a CNET award from a CBS-owned company actually would have been a PLUS for the CBS lawsuit as they could say that they are not oppressive and anti-progress, just that they want to protect their business. The neutrality would have gained them favor in court.

Now, however, the smackdown at CNET will no doubt be used by Dish in court against CBS to show "look what CBS will do if you don't stop them, they will force out anything they don't like with unfair business practices" and so forth.

This will be bad for CBS going forward in that suit... it will be far worse for CNET credibility, though.

I think employees of CNET, however, will have a chance to go elsewhere and flee the sinking ship IF they choose to do so, because they can be respected for not knowing what to do in the moment but coming forward to say how they were not in favor of what CBS forced them to do.


----------



## fudpucker (Jul 23, 2007)

Let's say the head of CBS says "OK, we don't want Dish carrying any CBS programming if the keep this device on the market" - can they do that? Or is it up to the local network carriers alone?


----------



## scooper (Apr 22, 2002)

Well - that question has a couple of answers - 

#1 - For local stations that CBS is the owner / operator - they certainly can do that if they want - the other networks can do the same thing IF THEY want.

#2 - For AFFILIATES of CBS network (and other affiliates) - CBS can't directly direct that. However - CBS could apply pressure to them to make it difficult for the affiliates to continue to be carried by Dish or to keep their CBS affiliation.

It comes down to dollar$ and cent$ - Until the networks say their programming can't be carried by Dish - you'll know that they're just blowing smoke - i.e. it's worth more money to them to keep that programming in front of our eyes.


----------



## sat01 (Dec 16, 2012)

sorry if this was posted already. 
but apparently several CNET employees quit b/c of this

http://news.yahoo.com/trust-cnet-again-scandal-shady-213434265.html

edit. yes, i see someone did mention it already


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

fudpucker said:


> Let's say the head of CBS says "OK, we don't want Dish carrying any CBS programming if the keep this device on the market" - can they do that? Or is it up to the local network carriers alone?


That is essentially what CBS seems to be threatening via lawsuit... that IF they can't win the suit to get Dish to drop the features... then in the next contract they will try to negotiate it out.

As Scooper said... CBS-owned affiliates could easily be dropped if CBS wishes to not negotiate. non-CBS-owned LiLs would be harder for CBS to control, though they could pressure them to play hardball with Dish.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Don't forget that CBS is Viacom ... The last national renewal for Viacom channels on DISH (2010) did not go well. I do not know which year their last "multi-year agreement" runs through, but CBS/Viacom tied their owned & operated broadcast channels with their satellite channels. If they decide to withhold programming it will be more than just a few major market's locals.

Also don't forget that Viacom went dark on DirecTV (2012) ... so they are willing to leave a provider while negotiating a deal. But they will eventually come around.

Hopefully the issue will make its way through the courts before the next renewal talks commence. I would hate to see CBS/Viacom try to avenge a loss in court by pulling the channels ... but killing the Hopper is a non-starter.


----------



## kenglish (Oct 2, 2004)

Had CBS said, "We won't award the "new and innovative, *Share your DISH programming with a Neighbor* box, until it's lawsuits from DISH Network and DirecTV are resolved, Charlie would have applauded their actions.

If it's a great invention, it can get an award next year, after the lawsuits are settled.


----------



## JosephF (Apr 23, 2002)

The biggest joke to me is that this product was even up for best of show. 

I mean come on, the Hopper has been out for awhile now (and it is debatable if it is even the best Whole Home DVR) and Sling has been around for years. You're telling me that a merging of these two products is the best new product out there!

Give me a break :nono2:


----------



## SayWhat? (Jun 7, 2009)

I don't really see the logic in a provider voluntarily depriving themselves of millions of viewers because a few might use a new device to skip some commercials during some programs.


----------



## Curtis0620 (Apr 22, 2002)

SayWhat? said:


> I don't really see the logic in a provider voluntarily depriving themselves of millions of viewers because a few might use a new device to skip some commercials during some programs.


Advertisers pay for those viewers to see their ads. Prime Time is the big time for advertisers. So they will reduce their ad fees and to make up for it, the networks will charge DISH higher re-trans fees.

All for just a FEW Commercials skipped.

Seems worth it to me.


----------



## BrianB (Jul 13, 2003)

JosephF said:


> The biggest joke to me is that this product was even up for best of show.
> 
> I mean come on, the Hopper has been out for awhile now (and it is debatable if it is even the best Whole Home DVR) and Sling has been around for years. You're telling me that a merging of these two products is the best new product out there!
> 
> Give me a break :nono2:


CNET specifically called out the functionality of being able to transfer shows to a tablet for offline and away from home viewing.

Sorry if I missed it, but didn't see this link posted yet from the editor in chief: http://news.cnet.com/8301-30677_3-57563877-244/the-2013-best-of-ces-awards-cnets-story/


----------



## tsmacro (Apr 28, 2005)

This really seems to have worked out pretty badly for CBS, the person that made this decision should be fired. I mean if the Hopper with Sling had won that award, outside of a small group of techie types, very few people would've ever even known it had won in the first place and it would've been quickly forgotten. Now this has become a big brouhaha and CBS has managed by this action to not only heap all sorts of negative publicity on themselves but also gave more publicity to Dish and their Hopper than would've ever occurred otherwise. :nono2:


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

I'm completely disagree with that panel who did pick the model, the CES demo item.

We are, customers, should vote ! 
Only AFTER first months of using in MASS, not by the "looker" at dish booth. 
We are, who are still have problems with 922 (722s), we are who cannot get properly working Sling adapter with Hopper [2000].

We, not they !


----------



## puckwithahalo (Sep 3, 2007)

P Smith;3162666 said:


> I'm completely disagree with that panel who did pick the model, the CES demo item.
> 
> We are, customers, should vote !
> Only AFTER first months of using in MASS, not by the "looker" at dish booth.
> ...


1) Pretty much everything at CES is a demo product.

2) It's a best in show award, not a consumers' choice award. How are we supposed to choose best in show for a show we didn't go to?


----------



## SayWhat? (Jun 7, 2009)

Curtis0620 said:


> Advertisers pay for those viewers to see their ads. Prime Time is the big time for advertisers. So they will reduce their ad fees and to make up for it, the networks will charge DISH higher re-trans fees.
> 
> All for just a FEW Commercials skipped.
> 
> Seems worth it to me.


My point being, if they pull all programming from Dish, they'll lose all ad revenue based on how many million potential viewers?

A much bigger loss than that of a few who might use the skip feature.


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

puckwithahalo said:


> 1) Pretty much everything at CES is a demo product.
> 
> 2) It's a best in show award, not a consumers' choice award. How are we supposed to choose best in show for a show we didn't go to?


Who the "eaters" of the awards? 
We.

We are as consumers/customers to whom the cNet and engadgets, etc will shove the half-baked devices to our throats the "award" as push to buy/subscribe !


----------



## puckwithahalo (Sep 3, 2007)

P Smith;3162719 said:


> Who the "eaters" of the awards?
> We.
> 
> We are as consumers/customers to whom the cNet and engadgets, etc will shove the half-baked devices to our throats the "award" as push to buy/subscribe !


So what you are saying is you would rather have no evaluations at all?


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

kenglish said:


> Had CBS said, "We won't award the "new and innovative, *Share your DISH programming with a Neighbor* box, until it's lawsuits from DISH Network and DirecTV are resolved, Charlie would have applauded their actions.


It is not the same thing. CBS is not a party to your theoretical service sharing lawsuit. In that example, CBS would be taking a moral stand to support someone they felt was wronged. Not a self serving decision.



> If it's a great invention, it can get an award next year, after the lawsuits are settled.


It isn't new next year ... that award will have to go to the "Hopper 3".


----------



## domingos35 (Jan 12, 2006)

In the end the Hooper was the winner and nobody can take that away.
not even directv


----------



## JosephF (Apr 23, 2002)

BrianB said:


> CNET specifically called out the functionality of being able to transfer shows to a tablet for offline and away from home viewing.
> 
> Sorry if I missed it, but didn't see this link posted yet from the editor in chief: http://news.cnet.com/8301-30677_3-57563877-244/the-2013-best-of-ces-awards-cnets-story/


I still say that if this is the best thing to come out of CES, the industry is in a majorly sad state.


----------



## celticpride (Sep 6, 2006)

DID you guys see the full page ad DISH had in sundays L.A.TIMES? Tells how dish got the award for best in show and how cbs goes to great lenghts to keep you from ad-skipping technology :hurah:


----------



## Hoosier205 (Sep 3, 2007)

celticpride;3165806 said:


> DID you guys see the full page ad DISH had in sundays L.A.TIMES? Tells how dish got the award for best in show and how cbs goes to great lenghts to keep you from ad-skipping technology :hurah:


Yep. Yet another example of Charlie poking the very industry he relies on and must negotiate with directly in the eye.


----------



## tampa8 (Mar 30, 2002)

Hoosier205 said:


> Yep. Yet another example of Charlie poking the very industry he relies on and must negotiate with directly in the eye.


And I find it refreshing. If Charlie didn't push for it, there might not be local-into-local or at the least would have taken longer, no one would carry the Superstations, and no one would advance the technology of commercial skipping or again, would have taken alot longer. Dish has done some dumb things, as most companies at times will do ("New Coke") but they also are the only ones to challenge the concept that the networks or even the FCC will determine what and how we will watch TV.


----------



## patmurphey (Dec 21, 2006)

Hoosier205 said:


> Yep. Yet another example of Charlie poking the very industry he relies on and must negotiate with directly in the eye.


NO! Serving his customers with the latest technology.


----------



## Hoosier205 (Sep 3, 2007)

tampa8;3166109 said:


> And I find it refreshing. If Charlie didn't push for it, there might not be local-into-local or at the least would have taken longer, no one would carry the Superstations, and no one would advance the technology of commercial skipping or again, would have taken alot longer. Dish has done some dumb things, as most companies at times will do ("New Coke") but they also are the only ones to challenge the concept that the networks or even the FCC will determine what and how we will watch TV.


Commercial skipping technology is not good. If you understood the correlation between ad revenue and production costs, you would understand that as well. Interfering with a substantial revenue stream for a content owner and then having to negotiate with them for retrans? Idiotic...Charlie...same thing. There is a reason DirecTV had the technology a long time ago and chose not to use. Please, Charlie doesn't do anything for the benefit of the customers unless it happens as a byproduct of his main objective...feeding his own ego.


----------



## Hoosier205 (Sep 3, 2007)

patmurphey;3166239 said:


> NO! Serving his customers with the latest technology.


Despite the consequences to all involved, including customers. So long as Charlie can pick a fight, that's all that matters to him.


----------



## gov (Jan 11, 2013)

I might suggest a compromise, DISH disables the feature automatically on shows with 10 minutes (or less) of commercials per hour.

I, for one, can't remember 24 minutes worth of commercials per hour any how. Does the economic model of television fail with 10 minutes/hour of commercials at a prorated $$$ level versus 24 minutes/hour for the same $$$ ?



There, I just fixed the problem. Now, I'm going out and fix Social Security this afternoon . . .


:lol:


----------



## Inkosaurus (Jul 29, 2011)

Hoosier205 said:


> Commercial skipping technology is not good. If you understood the correlation between ad revenue and production costs, you would understand that as well. Interfering with a substantial revenue stream for a content owner and then having to negotiate with them for retrans? Idiotic...Charlie...same thing. There is a reason DirecTV had the technology a long time ago and chose not to use. Please, Charlie doesn't do anything for the benefit of the customers unless it happens as a byproduct of his main objective...feeding his own ego.


You know I completely forgot that your opinion is widely regarded as fact


----------



## Hoosier205 (Sep 3, 2007)

Inkosaurus;3166307 said:


> You know I completely forgot that your opinion is widely regarded as fact


Pure fact? Not always. Common sense and logic? Always. I'm always here to help people out who lack either.


----------



## fudpucker (Jul 23, 2007)

Yeah, I think that people are going to one day wish that we were back in the days when commercials were separate pieces from the actual TV shows.

Here's the simple issue: networks get their money primarily from what companies are willing to pay for commercial time. So, let's say consumers have a simple way to skip all commercials and decide to do so. One of a couple of things will happen: the networks will get their funds in some other manner, one of which is what gets charged to providers. Or they will find ways to put commercials in shows in ways we can't skip over. Product placement already occurs, but I would predict what would be more prevalent would be commercials running over the show as the show is playing. We already have the irritating ads for other TV shows running across the bottom of shows; imagine animated ads for peanut butter and pepsi and insurance running over the bottom of every show's episodes.

We won't get away from commercials, so be careful what you wish for. Eliminate what we have today, and it will be replaced with something pretty intrusive.


----------



## SayWhat? (Jun 7, 2009)

Hoosier205 said:


> Commercial skipping technology is not good.


Not to rehash previous threads, but we all know it's been around since the first VCRs and was probably a big thrust in their sales. I know it was for me -- as much or more so than delayed watching.

And I think we all know that ad-sipported broadcast TV as we know it today is going away and that the networks are fighting for survival.

Even the FCC seems to be moving away from broadcast TV, selling off the bandwidth to new technologies.


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

then I'm envision more and more people will show middle finger and switching to renting or Internet download w/out ads what are ruining pleasure of watching what you want and how you want;
after all it's my TV and it's my time !


----------



## jadebox (Dec 14, 2004)

gov said:


> I might suggest a compromise, DISH disables the feature automatically on shows with 10 minutes (or less) of commercials per hour.


From the start, I think it's been clear that Charlie sees ad-skipping as a bargaining chip. I don't think he'd be willing to disable it for certain channels, that might upset customers, but he might be willing, for example, to do something like monitor the skipping and pay the stations a bit more based on it. In exchange, of course, for them not suing him and not offering the same deal to others.

-- Roger


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

And Autohop is not a one time selection, it has to be chosen each time you watch a show. So it isn't as non-obtrusive, nor does it make one not watch ads less than they would if they just did 30 second skips.


----------



## Inkosaurus (Jul 29, 2011)

Hoosier205 said:


> Common sense and logic? Always.


Thats a stretch. Lets try completely biased and posting antagonistic replies for sake of posting said reply even at the cost of ignoring common sense and logic


----------



## Hoosier205 (Sep 3, 2007)

Inkosaurus;3166341 said:


> Thats a stretch. Lets try completely biased and posting antagonistic replies for sake of posting said reply even at the cost of ignoring common sense and logic


Refer to my previous post. Let me know if you'd like my help.


----------



## Inkosaurus (Jul 29, 2011)

^Harharhar.


----------



## tsmacro (Apr 28, 2005)

fudpucker said:


> Yeah, I think that people are going to one day wish that we were back in the days when commercials were separate pieces from the actual TV shows.
> 
> Here's the simple issue: networks get their money primarily from what companies are willing to pay for commercial time. So, let's say consumers have a simple way to skip all commercials and decide to do so. One of a couple of things will happen: the networks will get their funds in some other manner, one of which is what gets charged to providers. Or they will find ways to put commercials in shows in ways we can't skip over. Product placement already occurs, but I would predict what would be more prevalent would be commercials running over the show as the show is playing. We already have the irritating ads for other TV shows running across the bottom of shows; imagine animated ads for peanut butter and pepsi and insurance running over the bottom of every show's episodes.
> 
> We won't get away from commercials, so be careful what you wish for. Eliminate what we have today, and it will be replaced with something pretty intrusive.


 I think if advertisers understood how few of the ads are actually watched by anyone they'd insist on the method you talk about above. I mean lets face it Since the beginning of TV when a commercial came on unless it was particularly entertaining it was time to get up and get snack, use the bathroom, talk to other people in the room, etc until the show came back on. Then with the invention of the remote, commercial comes on, check out what's on other channels joined the above commercial avoiding activities. Then we get the VCR and one more way to skip commercials. DVR's and autohop are just the latest version of this, nothing revolutionary there. It's to the point where the only people watching commercials are those too feeble get up and move from in front of the tv or push a remote button. Some advertisers are starting to understand this, I mean it seems there's a lot of commercials these days aimed at older people. Of course it seems that broadcast tv does its best to try to convince advertisers they provide a valuable tool for reaching customers, I mean look how they keep trying to perpetuate the myth that the 18 to 49 age group matters the most to potential advertisers. I mean come on lets get real, the younger people are exactly the age group that's least likely to see any ads due to the way they choose to watch their shows, weather it's using technology like DVR's, streaming via the internet or ordering via Netflix. In any case what CBS did here just made them look like the bad guy and gave free promotion to the Hopper so it was rather the epic fail on their part.


----------



## RasputinAXP (Jan 23, 2008)

Hoosier205 said:


> Pure fact? Not always. Common sense and logic? Always. I'm always here to help people out who lack either.


Look, I know the rules, but I have to say this:

Can you just impose a mental ban on yourself and stop posting on the Dish forums? You really can't seem to contribute in a positive way to any thread over here. It's mindblowing that you never seem to conduct yourself in a decent manner if it's got something to do with Dish.


----------



## acostapimps (Nov 6, 2011)

RasputinAXP;3166396 said:


> Look, I know the rules, but I have to say this:
> 
> Can you just impose a mental ban on yourself and stop posting on the Dish forums? You really can't seem to contribute in a positive way to any thread over here. It's mindblowing that you never seem to conduct yourself in a decent manner if it's got something to do with Dish.


Amen and I'm a directv subscriber, but I would ignore it and move on.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

_Folks... please stop attacking each other and discuss the topic. IF the personal attacks continue there will likely be some penalties and a thread-closing looming.

Thanks!_


----------



## acostapimps (Nov 6, 2011)

Dish = Good Guy( in this case). 

CBS = Bad Guy 

Cnet = Not truthful with Reviews

Simple as that Period.


----------



## fudpucker (Jul 23, 2007)

P Smith said:


> then I'm envision more and more people will show middle finger and switching to renting or Internet download w/out ads what are ruining pleasure of watching what you want and how you want;
> after all it's my TV and it's my time !


It's not like it is your "right" to have TV shows. Someone has to pay the costs of making the shows and broadcasting them. They are not free to make, and they will continue to be made only if someone can make more money than they cost to make and put on the air.

One model would be that all of the income comes from direct fees and no income from commercials. If that happens, the cost to rent the programs would go up astronomically. Same for the cost of legitimate downloads.

Another way to look at it: Right now, Ford, G.E., Target, McDonalds, etc. all pay for a lot of the costs for the programs you watch. If they don't pay, you will.


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

nope, Netflix and RedBox are my primary source of entertainment - I'm not watching ads


----------



## fudpucker (Jul 23, 2007)

P Smith said:


> nope, Netflix and RedBox are my primary source of entertainment - I'm not watching ads


I have Netflix too. But if the people who put commercials on network TV stopped doing that, our Netflix subscription would cost a LOT more. Because most of the money the networks get to pay for the shows comes from commercials. We get to enjoy low Netflix sub costs because of those commercials on the networks.

So the companies behind the commercials subsidize your Netflix subscription to some significant amount. If they decide one day that no one is watching commercials on TV and stop buying commercial time, you and I will end up paying the costs.


----------



## tonyd79 (Jul 24, 2006)

Interesting topic.

I am of mixed mind.

1. CNet is overrated when it comes to reviews and ratings. And their reviews have been anything but unbiased in the past. They are NOT Consumer Reports in that they accept advertising, which makes them dubious at best.

2. A policy from a corporate entity to not engage in any reviews or awards one way or another of products for a company they are in active litigation with is not a bad idea. Who would think the review was unbiased even if it was glowing. It could have a more devious intent. Like praising the Hopper as terrific for consumers to avoid commercials, helping establish injury in a court of law.

3. However, CBS did NOT set up a set of rules until they saw that CNet was going to praise the Hopper. This is where CBS fails and damages itself in several ways. Bad move.

4. Charlie is NOT defending the customer any more than any carrier is other than he wants to sell and the commercial skipping is a selling point, nothing more. He is a feisty SOB and his tactics are not my taste at all, so I have no sympathy for him when another company pulls crap on him. His short term gain may cause us all issues down the road, but that is another discussion. But, he is NOT the good guy here and is milking this for all the pub he can get.

No good guys here.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Hoosier205 said:


> Commercial skipping technology is not good. If you understood the correlation between ad revenue and production costs, you would understand that as well.


Good. I hope you do not have a DVR. DVRs contain commercial skipping technology ... it may be more cumbersome to use 30 second skip or slip than to choose to skip all the commercials in enabled shows, but it remains commercial skipping technology.

So right here in the DISH forum are you making a pledge that in support of television stations and networks that you will NEVER use technology to skip a commercial?

One thing I expect ... that as soon as DISH wins the fight DirecTV will pull out their Replay patents and either sue DISH for copying Replay or introduce their own "Hopping" technology. This is the next step in DVRs.


----------



## Hoosier205 (Sep 3, 2007)

James Long;3166588 said:


> Good. I hope you do not have a DVR. DVRs contain commercial skipping technology ... it may be more cumbersome to use 30 second skip or slip than to choose to skip all the commercials in enabled shows, but it remains commercial skipping technology.
> 
> So right here in the DISH forum are you making a pledge that in support of television stations and networks that you will NEVER use technology to skip a commercial?


I'd explain the differences, but you would choose to ignore them.


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

The difference between auto hop and skipping through manually are very minimal. Auto hop is not a global selection, nor is it persistent. You must select it each and every time you start watching a show that has it available. I doubt that anyone that would use autohop would watch an ad even if it were not there.

To think otherwise is just to have an argument against it!


----------



## JR_Baas (May 5, 2005)

With my new hopper, I am watching more commercials than I did with my 722. I see the start of the commercial before the hop and the end of a commercial before the show starts. With the 722, as soon as a commercial came on, i used the skip button until I saw the show start.


----------



## SayWhat? (Jun 7, 2009)

Hoosier205 said:


> I'd explain the differences,


There really is no difference, but that's been discussed several times in different threads here and it isn't what this thread is about.

This thread is about CBS interference in a CNET program and decision.


----------



## Hoosier205 (Sep 3, 2007)

SayWhat?;3166880 said:


> There really is no difference...


 Sure Charlie...



SayWhat?;3166880 said:


> This thread is about CBS interference in a CNET program and decision.


You say that as if they are not their parent company. Charlie is used to second place...or worse. As long as he himself is making money, nothing else matters.


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

Here's the big difference. 

Manual skipping was a battle won and lost already. Autohop is just another chance to lose but enrich plenty of lawyers in the process!


----------



## SayWhat? (Jun 7, 2009)

Hoosier205 said:


> You say that as if they are not their parent company.


Again, a perfect argument against cross-media ownership. A broadcast company should not be able to own a print company so that these types of conflicts of interest couldn't happen.


----------



## sregener (Apr 17, 2012)

SayWhat? said:


> Again, a perfect argument against cross-media ownership. A broadcast company should not be able to own a print company so that these types of conflicts of interest couldn't happen.


Is it a conflict of interest? Yes. But there's no need to regulate this or say, "This type of thing should not be allowed." The market has worked. The news is out that CNET had selected the Hopper with Sling as best in show. The news is also out that CBS interfered with that decision. People will now look skeptically at CNET (and, I hope, CBS's other news products as well) in the future. That skepticism essentially kills CNET's credibility, which will ultimately destroy any media company. The free market will destroy a company for its abuse of power, and there's no need for a government entity to step in.

At this point, the only thing I think CBS can do to restore credibility is to publicly apologize to Dish and CNET employees and sign a public pledge to never interfere again. They'd still have a black eye, but over time it could heal. Right now, they have a gushing, mortal wound.

Where this would have been a problem is if CBS had managed to do all of this on the hush-hush, and we would never have found out about it. But right now, Dish has some marketing fodder: "You have to see the new Hopper - it's so good, even CBS doesn't want you to know about it!" The perfect message for the rebel-minded American viewer.

However, I don't think there has to be an inherent conflict-of-interest for ownership of media companies. It is entirely possible to have a stone wall between marketing and editing. But I also think the reality is that we all have to maintain a certain skepticism of all news outlets, whether they have a conflict-of-interest or not.


----------



## djlong (Jul 8, 2002)

The "free market" didn't stop Time-Warner cable from blocking internet access to streaming sites when certain channels were lost in carriage disputes.


----------



## AZ. (Mar 27, 2011)

djlong said:


> The "free market" didn't stop Time-Warner cable from blocking internet access to streaming sites when certain channels were lost in carriage disputes.


Yep, the " Free Market " is just a talking point! Sounds good tho. lol :lol:


----------



## Jim5506 (Jun 7, 2004)

"Free Market" does not mean it is free, it means that each element in the market is governed by price and subscriber pressures, not by edicts from some outside authority.

Time-Warner's action was a method of putting pressure on those channels to come to the barganing table and make an agreement, it was one of their pressure tools, just like TV stations whining and puttin a scroll at the bottom of the picture that your system is going to deprive you of their channel because they are cheap, ect.

If a channel is allowed to use the Time-Warner internet system to bypass negotiations on the Time-Warner cable system it weakens their hand.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

djlong said:


> The "free market" didn't stop Time-Warner cable from blocking internet access to streaming sites when certain channels were lost in carriage disputes.


It did not, but net neutrality should have. People subscribe to Time-Warner internet for connectivity ... and while TWC may bundle additional content with that connectivity, blocking sites that are available on the Internet outside of TWC is not appropriate.


----------



## sregener (Apr 17, 2012)

djlong said:


> The "free market" didn't stop Time-Warner cable from blocking internet access to streaming sites when certain channels were lost in carriage disputes.


And who, exactly, is forced to do business with Time-Warner? There is an underlying assumption that a free market will be perfect. It won't be. What needs to be free is the flow of information, so consumers can make the choices they want to, based on the things they value. If TW blocked some things, but nobody knew those things were being blocked, then the free market would have failed. But if TW blocked those things and TW customers knew that those things were being blocked, then the free market has not failed. The free market is not a failure when a customer cannot have exactly what they want at the price they want, nor is the free market a failure when the customer's only choices are to do without or accept a less-than-ideal solution. In this case, it would be necessary for a large number of customers to cancel service, which would effectively send a signal to TW that their actions are counterproductive. Customers vote with their wallet. The rest is just posturing.


----------



## SayWhat? (Jun 7, 2009)

sregener said:


> And who, exactly, is forced to do business with Time-Warner?


That depends on your definition of 'forced'. If they're the only provider in town, you either use them or you go without cable TV and/or internet.


----------



## djlong (Jul 8, 2002)

Franchising agreements (which may have made sense in the 70s and 80s) have long inhibited competition in cable service. I can't deal with Time-Warner if I want their service. My choices in an aparment building are: Comcast. That's it. They have the franchise in this town. Fortunately I'm in a single family home and I have the option of satellite for TV service and Fairpoint's fiber for internet connectivity.


----------



## RasputinAXP (Jan 23, 2008)

sregener said:


> And who, exactly, is forced to do business with Time-Warner? ... Customers vote with their wallet. The rest is just posturing.


That you can say that with a theoretically straight face is remarkable.


----------



## sregener (Apr 17, 2012)

SayWhat? said:


> That depends on your definition of 'forced'. If they're the only provider in town, you either use them or you go without cable TV and/or internet.


That's right. Either you choose one of the choices offered, or you choose none of them. It isn't as though having high-speed Internet and cable television are necessities we cannot live without. In fact, for most of us, they are luxury goods that the vast majority of the world could not afford, even if they were offered to them. Now, that's an unpopular viewpoint to the typical American, who cannot imagine a house without running water or electricity, a dishwasher, microwave, stove and clothes washing machine, let alone a television or computer.

If what Time-Warner did was so horrible that you could not continue to do business with them, dial-up Internet would be an acceptable alternative. Or Dish's new satellite Internet service. You might even consider relocating so you'd never have to do business with them again. The reality, however, is that compared to the vast value you derive from having High-Speed Internet, the temporary pain of having a few channels blocked fails to motivate you to action. That's a market-based decision, and as much as we all hate to compromise, that's what it is: a compromise. Not your ideal. And not theirs, either, for that matter.

Asking the government to step in and fix every compromise that exists is only asking for trouble, because then we have no one left to appeal to when the government itself forces us to accept their chosen compromise. Which, in a sense, is what some of you are protesting when it comes to cable companies to begin with. In effect: "Government, you've screwed things up and made a royal mess of things as you always do, so please come and fix it right for a change."


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

To be fair, though.. sometimes it is the government imposing the restrictions that results in Time-Warner (or Comcast or whomever) being your only options.

Many areas have local-government-imposed mini-monopolies where other companies that want to compete are not allowed to compete.

So... while I agree that such things are luxuries and not necessities... I can't agree that everyone has equal options in a true "free market."


----------



## Inkosaurus (Jul 29, 2011)

Tv and cable can still be seen as a luxury sure..

But High Speed internet? No way, not in this day and age. Its definitely a necessity for a lot of folks. Im a full time youtuber and get paid by a partner network to upload content regularly. If I didnt have high speed internet I wouldnt be able to entertain my subscribers, much less compete with other youtubers..

I know my current job isnt what the average American does but I can think of several job titles that require high speed net access in the home to function too. 
Being locked into either High speed through 1 provider, or choosing to either move or pay more for slower internet via satellite is not ideal at all.


----------



## Darcaine (Aug 31, 2009)

Germany and several other countries disagree with the notion that internet access is a luxury...Going so far as to create a law that says internet providers have to pay customers for outages.

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/...sers-can-be-compensated-for-internet-outages/


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

Internet access might fall closer into a category like phones have been... in that they are useful as much as they are entertaining... and as such are closer to necessity than luxury.

But...

Is high-speed internet a necessity? OR merely enough access to get news, be connected via email/messenging, etc.?

It would be hard to argue that people "need" high-speed access... but I could be persuaded that people "need" some access.

But I think we have taken an exit and gone WAY down an off-topic off-ramp here!

So...

Back to CNET... I read somewhere that CBS put the kibosh on Aero (sp?) product reviews going forward too... so CBS is choosing to double-down on the interference policy.


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

CES and the CEA has announced that the Hopper will be the co-winner of Best of CES, and that they will look for a new partner to replace CNET for the awards program.

http://www.cesweb.org/News/CES-Pres...x?NodeID=f6a52fe4-1e93-4108-a2de-6dfe11ede40a


----------



## tsmacro (Apr 28, 2005)

dpeters11 said:


> CES and the CEA has announced that the Hopper will be the co-winner of Best of CES, and that they will look for a new partner to replace CNET for the awards program.
> 
> http://www.cesweb.org/News/CES-Pres...x?NodeID=f6a52fe4-1e93-4108-a2de-6dfe11ede40a


Dish Network's release about this:

DISH Honored to Accept CES "Best of Show" Award

CEA stands with consumers and innovation

ENGLEWOOD, Colo.--(BUSINESS WIRE)-- Today the International CES® announced DISH's Hopper™ with Sling® Whole-Home HD DVR as an official co-recipient of "Best of Show" out of 20,000 products featured at the 2013 International CES. In response, DISH issued the following statement attributable to DISH President and CEO, Joseph Clayton:

DISH's Hopper with Sling. (Photo: Business Wire) 
"We appreciate the International CES' decision to stand with the consumer in the acknowledgement of this award. With today's announcement, the Consumer Electronics Association demonstrates the roles innovation and leadership must play in our industry.

"I regret that the award has come in the face of CBS' undermining of CNET's editorial independence. We look forward to continuing our longstanding relationship with CNET's editorial staff and hope they are able to return to their long tradition of unbiased evaluation and commentary of the industry's products and services."

About DISH

DISH Network Corporation (NASDAQ: DISH), through its subsidiary DISH Network L.L.C., provides approximately 14.042 million satellite TV customers, as of Sept. 30, 2012, 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 with more than 200 national HD channels, 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.


----------



## Travisimo (Aug 4, 2007)

The ironic thing about all of this is that Dish has gotten more publicity with CBS interference than they ever would have if they had just allowed CNET to give them the award in the first place!


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

I kind of feel sorry for the company that made the Razer Edge tablet. They may be co-winner, but no press.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

dpeters11 said:


> I kind of feel sorry for the company that made the Razer Edge tablet. They may be co-winner, but no press.


They would not have been "co-winner" if the contest had not been rigged by CBS.


----------



## SayWhat? (Jun 7, 2009)

dpeters11 said:


> and that they will look for a new partner to replace CNET for the awards program.


That's gotta hurt somebody's wallet.


----------



## Sixto (Nov 18, 2005)

And now the SodaStream issue, certainly crossing a line.


----------



## some guy (Oct 27, 2012)

Sixto;3173654 said:


> And now the SodaStream issue, certainly crossing a line.


Out of control


----------



## djlong (Jul 8, 2002)

SodaStream issue?


----------



## Sixto (Nov 18, 2005)

djlong said:


> SodaStream issue?


CBS Bans SodaStream Ad. Where's The Outrage?http://www.forbes.com/sites/willburns/2013/01/31/cbs-bans-sodastream-ad-wheres-the-outrage/​


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

To be fair... that is apples vs oranges.

I could be wrong but I do not believe any particular program or channel/network is required to accept advertising from any particular company.

As such... If Coke and/or Pepsi pay more for advertising, then it is a prerogative of CBS if they choose not to sell advertising to another beverage.

This is different than the CNET situation because CNET professes to be an unbiased product review source... so when you pull back the covers and see CBS overseeing and making decisions of what not to review, it takes the unbiased nature out of it.

Commercials were never sold or suspected to be an unbiased marketplace. Commercials are for whomever pays for the spot and whomever the spot is sold to... outside of political campaigns where generally "equal time" rules are in play... there is no otherwise requirement or expectation for any company to get equal advertising time.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

It is possible to be the "exclusive" advertiser in a category ... and Coke and Pepsi are large enough that they would not be able to buy a completely exclusive contract barring the other. No exec would turn down all of Coke's or Pepsi's dollars unless the other company was willing to pay more than the two companies combined AND they could sell all of the inventory.

It seems sad that the big companies have to compete by excluding others. SodaStream must really be a threat for such big companies to take them seriously. Just like The Hopper being such a threat to CBS that CBS has to go out of their way to try to prevent people from finding out how good a product it is.

Whatever happened to competing on the merits of your product?


----------



## SayWhat? (Jun 7, 2009)

This would be the third similar item on CBS recently. There was another item along these lines in the last week, but I don't remember the details and I can't find it now to post a link.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

I heard a pundit mention Soda Stream on a news channel with the statement that they never intended to air an ad and were getting a lot of free publicity. But I have been able to find reports that Soda Stream will be airing a different ad in the place of the "offensive" one "banned" by CBS.

The replacement ad will show bottles of soda exploding every time their machine is used ... getting the point across that the use of the machine replaces store bought soda while providing compelling images of explosions similar to the banned ad.

Allowing a replacement commercial changes the focus of the ban ... it isn't the product itself that CBS banned - it was the attack on Coke and Pepsi. CBS is not the government, so first amendment promises of free speech mean nothing as it is not their promise - but I suspect that we will see attacks on Coke by Pepsi and vice versa. It appears what CBS won't allow is an attack by an underdog. Somehow Coke and Pepsi can show a competitor's product but SodaStream can't? Strange.


----------



## SayWhat? (Jun 7, 2009)

I just remembered that the other incident was a GoDaddy ad that CBS wanted 'toned down'.


----------



## some guy (Oct 27, 2012)

Content providers really don't want to lose 14 million customers either. Charlie isn't stupid, in fact he's very intelligent and knows what hes doing. I'm glad he fights the crazy cost increases these little local affiliates are trying to force on dish customers and i'm glad he stood up to AMC and FX. I enjoy my dish bill being as low as it is right now, and lower than my friends who have Direct and cable. I would like my bill to remain as low as it possibly can.


----------



## djlong (Jul 8, 2002)

Well, I saw the "exploding soda bottles" ad for SodaStream during the Super Bowl. I wonder what changed or was all this hype based on a fabricated story?


----------



## Jim5506 (Jun 7, 2004)

The original ad had a Coke and a Pepsi "employees" watching as their products exploded off the shelves. The replacement ad was just generic bottled soft drinks.


----------



## Grandude (Oct 21, 2004)

Ad was kinda silly to me. The product will probably be just a niche one that a few will buy.
If I want a coke or pepsi, I'll buy a coke or pepsi. Or maybe an RC cola.
I would expect that most people would react the same as I did and then go out and buy their Coke or Pepsi.


----------



## SayWhat? (Jun 7, 2009)

CBS seems to be on a roll. Now they're getting all uppity and hoity-toity about the Grammys.


----------

