# What Irks me :) Paying for channels that have Ads!



## RVRambler

Well not completely but I've always thought the whole purpose of Ads on a channel were to pay for it, so with non OTA viewing (sat, cable) we pay & then have to watch these crap Ads, ie - pay again (with our time/attention). Yuck!

Seems like 'redundant fornication' to me! 

AMC has Ads, lots of Ads, as many as a 'free' network channel, but just like 'free' network, we get to pay! And to break our backs, the channels get 'angered' just because we can FF our DVR's (skip, Hopper jump) thru these crap Ads, well A__Holes, stop charging & maybe I will watch a few Ads!

H&LL, you should pay to be 'carried' since you get the Ad revenue, Chumps!!

But until 'no Ads', bite my hairy 'anal enclosure' all of you greedy Billionaires! Hear this AMC! Same to you Charlie! Same to you Disney/ABC/ESPN et al. !!

Billionaires, just a bunch of cry baby children, Charlie you have enough money!


----------



## mike1977

What aggravates me is that they pop graphical ads for programming when there may be subtitles to read or other text part of the film. But I can't read it because the stupid ad is blocking it!


----------



## SayWhat?

Remember, you're not really paying for those channels as such. You're paying for the delivery of channels you wouldn't otherwise see at all.

The only channels you're really paying for are any that you might subscribe to specifically like HBO or Showtime. Now, when those start running ads, you'll have a legitimate beef.

Regarding the on-screen graphics......

** I'll be watching the news and they'll run a story where all you see is sky. The main content of whatever outdoor incident the story is about is only towards the bottom of the screen which is usually covered with graphics. In this digital age, why not resize the news content video so it's fully visible above the graphics?

** What is the point of adding multiple layers of graphics on top of each other so that you really can't seen any of them clearly even if you wanted to?


----------



## tommiet

YEAH... I hate add popping up when I watching Jerry Springer!


----------



## Marlin Guy

This should be in a general discussion sub-forum. All providers show ads. :lol:


----------



## jdskycaster

At least you won't have to watch all of those ads on AMC anymore!


----------



## Stewart Vernon

_Moved to General Satellite forum since it was not Dish-specific._


----------



## Stewart Vernon

SayWhat? said:


> Remember, you're not really paying for those channels as such. You're paying for the delivery of channels you wouldn't otherwise see at all.


Agreed. This discussion pops up from time to time... and people just don't seem to understand that they are paying to get the channels, not paying the total cost of running that channel and producing content for it.

IF it weren't for ad revenue on those channels, we would be paying the $15-$20 HBO-pricing for every channel we wanted to watch.

Whether we watch or like ads or not... it is undeniable that ad revenue pays for a lot of the programming we watch on TV. Without ad revenue, a lot of our favorite shows would not exist.


----------



## mirak

Television networks are going to get whatever money is necessary to turn a profit, whether that is through ads, payment from cable/satellite providers, or a combination of both.

If AMC were to drop its ads, it would have to make up the difference by charging cable/satellite providers more, but that's not going to happen. I believe Dish just dumped AMC because they couldn't agree on a new contract. So maybe AMC should have run _more_ ads instead of asking for more money from Dish?

So why complain about it, especially now that DVRs allow us to easily skip the ads?

Speaking of which, if I were a content provider, it would really irk me that the cable/satellite companies I am contracting with are making money renting DVRs that specifically allow their customers to skip my ads. I might even file a lawsuit over it....


----------



## mike1977

SayWhat? said:


> Remember, you're not really paying for those channels as such. You're paying for the delivery of channels you wouldn't otherwise see at all.
> 
> The only channels you're really paying for are any that you might subscribe to specifically like HBO or Showtime. Now, when those start running ads, you'll have a legitimate beef.
> 
> ?


I don't have Starz anymore after witnessing banner snipes during movies, a solid distracting channel bug that interfered with subtitles, and putting the end credits in a little box so they can run promos and I can't hear the credit music. I've witnessed the same on Showtime.

HBO and Cinemax are the only true premium channels left.


----------



## P Smith

> not paying the total cost of running that channel and producing content for it.





> Television networks are going to get whatever money is necessary to turn a profit, whether that is through ads, payment from cable/satellite providers, or a combination of both.


Without real numbers, I mean $$$ cash flow tables I can't accept the blind defense of the sat companies.

Why RIAA, MPAA and other defenders of the content doesn't rise against altering its content by the excessive overlays with graphics, logos, alteration ?


----------



## Nick

I have many, many tv and movie channels with _no_ ads whatsoever. It's called Netflix (streaming).


----------



## Stewart Vernon

P Smith said:


> Without real numbers, I mean $$$ cash flow tables I can't accept the blind defense of the sat companies.


I understand where you are coming from... but if you apply the concept of "not having enough info" then how can you side with the opposition either? I mean... if lack of info keeps you from deciding, then it should keep you from deciding either way, right?



P Smith said:


> Why RIAA, MPAA and other defenders of the content doesn't rise against altering its content by the excessive overlays with graphics, logos, alteration ?


How do we know they haven't? Or that it isn't already addressed in their selling the content to the network for original broadcast? I expect they enforce some conditions on how their programming can be altered BUT also have to be open to other things in order to get broadcast... then they can show their unaltered program on DVD, Blu-ray, or other methods if they sign those contracts.



Nick said:


> I have many, many tv and movie channels with _no_ ads whatsoever. It's called Netflix (streaming).


Yes... but you only have those options because the content has already been paid for elsewhere. With Netflix you are talking about content that other places have already paid for... so Netflix gets a better deal down the road.

Think of it like your $1 movie theater. The $1 theater gets the same movie that the $10 theater does... but months later. The $1 theater wouldn't keep getting movies, however, if the $10 theater wasn't getting new ones.

Stop the flow of movies to the $10 theater... then the $1 theater goes out of business.

Stop the flow of content to satellite, cable, etc. and Netflix either would go belly-up OR would have to start paying a lot more OR consumers would have to start paying Netflix more OR some combination thereof.


----------



## SayWhat?

Stewart Vernon said:


> then they can show their unaltered program on DVD, Blu-ray,


That doesn't even always work. I know of several TV shows that are altered on the DVD from the way they aired originally. Usually it's something related to the music or opening theme song.


----------



## Nick

Nick said:


> I have many, many tv and movie channels with _no_ ads whatsoever. It's called Netflix (streaming).





Stewart Vernon said:


> ...Yes... but you only have those options because the content has already been paid for elsewhere. With Netflix you are talking about content that other places have already paid for... so Netflix gets a better deal down the road.
> 
> Think of it like your $1 movie theater. The $1 theater gets the same movie that the $10 theater does... but months later. The $1 theater wouldn't keep getting movies, however, if the $10 theater wasn't getting new ones.
> 
> Stop the flow of movies to the $10 theater... then the $1 theater goes out of business.
> 
> Stop the flow of content to satellite, cable, etc. and Netflix either would go belly-up OR would have to start paying a lot more OR consumers would have to start paying Netflix more OR some combination thereof.


 Or, or, or...

Thanks for explaining what most of us already know, Stewart, but for unlimited flicks and tv shows for only $8 a month, I'll ride the Roku/Netflix pony into the ground. I couldn't care less about who paid for what previously or what happens down the road...something else will come along. It alway does.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

Nick said:


> Or, or, or...
> 
> Thanks for explaining what most of us already know, Stewart, but for unlimited flicks and tv shows for only $8 a month, I'll ride the Roku/Netflix pony into the ground. I couldn't care less about who paid for what previously or what happens down the road...something else will come along. It alway does.


Just as long as you are aware that the only reason you have cheap Netflix options is because of the other payments that go to other companies...

IF everyone takes you up on your "go to Netflix and Roku" suggestion, though, you might be surprised at the results. So maybe Netflix/Roku customers shouldn't want other people to jump ship?


----------



## Nick

Stewart Vernon said:


> Just as long as you are aware that the only reason you have cheap Netflix options is because of the other payments that go to other companies...


I'm aware, although there is no requirement that I be aware of which I am aware!


> IF everyone takes you up on your "go to Netflix and Roku" suggestion, though, you might be surprised at the results. So maybe Netflix/Roku customers shouldn't want other people to jump ship?


I made no such suggestion, but I shall try my best to keep Netflix a secret. :sure:


----------



## kenglish

Nick said:


> I have many, many tv and movie channels with _no_ ads whatsoever. It's called Netflix (streaming).


As a fellow Georgian/Southerner, I'm sure you remember "Free Cigarette Samples" (long ago). Get you hooked, then charge whatever they can.

TV is like that. One day, they'll start charging the BIG BUCKS.


----------



## James Long

kenglish said:


> As a fellow Georgian/Southerner, I'm sure you remember "Free Cigarette Samples" (long ago). Get you hooked, then charge whatever they can.
> 
> TV is like that. One day, they'll start charging the BIG BUCKS.


Isn't that what local, commercial filled, television stations are doing?
How many minutes per hour are actual program content and not ads?

After decades of "free TV" those stations raise the cost of viewing by not only increasing the number of commercials one must put up with each hour, but to charge our cable and satellite providers for helping distribute their signals.

But the American people are hooked ... so they will charge what they can.


----------



## jimisham

James Long said:


> Isn't that what local, commercial filled, television stations are doing?
> How many minutes per hour are actual program content and not ads?
> 
> After decades of "free TV" those stations raise the cost of viewing by not only increasing the number of commercials one must put up with each hour, but to charge our cable and satellite providers for helping distribute their signals.
> 
> But the American people are hooked ... so they will charge what they can.


Take a look at this.

http://waynesthisandthat.com/commerciallength.htm

I can believe it. I worked in a couple of TV stations in the early 60's and station breaks during prime time were 40 seconds.
That was when networks were paying local stations to carry their programming. Now it's the other way around.


----------



## PrinceLH

It's such crap, how the Viacom channels....TVLand has abused the commercial overdrive, making the programs longer then they need to be. They also edit programming, to cram more commercials in and delete the start and end credits, to stick even more into their programming. Then we get to pay more, thanks to the Viacom deal with Directv. I wish that Directv would have pulled their programming and added some of the oldies channels instead.


----------



## jimmie57

Commercials during the movies is why I will not add *EDIT* : *HD* *EXTRA PACK* to my package of programming.
I am an old dude, 69, and I remeber that the commercials used to be only between shows / programs. Then every 15 minutes. Even then it was just 1, not what we are fed today.
This makes a big case for a DVR. I record at night and watch the next night while it is recording again. I can usually watch 4 hours of programming in just 3 hours by fast forwarding thru the commercials.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

jimmie57 said:


> Commercials during the movies is why I will not add HD Net to my package of programming.
> I am an old dude, 69, and I remeber that the commercials used to be only between shows / programs. Then every 15 minutes. Even then it was just 1, not what we are fed today.
> This makes a big case for a DVR. I record at night and watch the next night while it is recording again. I can usually watch 4 hours of programming in just 3 hours by fast forwarding thru the commercials.


I'm not sure what you are talking about here... Doesn't HDNet show commercial-free movies? I know HDNet Movies does... but I haven't watched HDNet (now AXS) in a while.


----------



## jimmie57

I corrected it. It is the $4.99 package of HD stuff. Has lots of commercials.


----------



## PrinceLH

Some do, but some only have one commercial break, for an intermission. MGM is one that is good that way. Viacom are nothing but greedy swine. The programming that they are showing, on TVLand, is syndicated stuff from decades ago and it costs them very little to show. If Encore Westerns can show their westerns, commercial free and also remaster the old shows, or movies, then what is Viacom doing, outside of ripping off the consumer?


----------



## Dude111

mike1977 said:


> What aggravates me is that they pop graphical ads for programming when there may be subtitles to read or other text part of the film. But I can't read it because the stupid ad is blocking it!


Ya watching MAINSTREAM networks is pretty much a joke now...... I THINK DIRECTV,DISH,TWC SHOULD CREATE THIER OWN NETWORKS WITH NO ADS ON THEM!!!! (Your paying them already,WHY SHOULD WE HAVE TO SEE THIS CRAP??)


----------



## Stewart Vernon

Dude111 said:


> Ya watching MAINSTREAM networks is pretty much a joke now...... I THINK DIRECTV,DISH,TWC SHOULD CREATE THIER OWN NETWORKS WITH NO ADS ON THEM!!!! (Your paying them already,WHY SHOULD WE HAVE TO SEE THIS CRAP??)


As has been said before... you are ONLY paying to see the channel, you aren't paying enough to fund content creation. IF you had to also pay all the bills to create content too, your bill would be MUCH higher.


----------



## Jhon69

Dude111 said:


> Ya watching MAINSTREAM networks is pretty much a joke now...... I THINK DIRECTV,DISH,TWC SHOULD CREATE THIER OWN NETWORKS WITH NO ADS ON THEM!!!! (Your paying them already,WHY SHOULD WE HAVE TO SEE THIS CRAP??)


Sounds like a good deal,with no ads comes a Premium channel price and the cheapest I have on DISH is the Encore package a la cart for $5. a month,but you also have to realize Encore is also subsidized by the Starz network.


----------



## PrinceLH

Stewart Vernon said:


> As has been said before... you are ONLY paying to see the channel, you aren't paying enough to fund content creation. IF you had to also pay all the bills to create content too, your bill would be MUCH higher.


When TVLand and Nick At Night, where showing oldies programming, they were doing quite well. They never had to fund anything to create new programming. It was all syndicated, older programming. If they want to create new programming, by all means do so, but put it on another one of the Viacom channels and not on an oldies station, mixing and matching. It's ridiculous that they need to add an extra 16 minutes of commercials, per hour, to show the same old, lame, tired infocommercials. Less commercials, make them at a premium and make the sponsor pay more for them.


----------



## PrinceLH

Since I've been off work, I've been watching more T.V. Recently started watching some of the stuff on Hallmark HD. Of course, it's another Viabomb station. Tried to watch some episodes of Perry Mason. They cut to commercials right in the middle of some of the dialogue. How much more crap can they shove into that hour? They've pretty much gotten rid of the opening and closing credits, now cutting to commercial during dialogue? How much of the story can we lose to make any sense of it? It's terrible! Viacom is getting more ridiculous every day!


----------



## jerry downing

My elderly mother thought that she was getting senile when she was watching "Gunsmoke" on TVLand and could not understand what was going on. We then watched another episode of "Gunsmoke" together. Between the cutting to commercials in mid sentence and the fact that a significant portion of the show was missing made the show nearly unwatchable. It was like expecting to see a full length movie and getting only the trailer.
I will no longer watch TVLand after watching an episode of "MASH". Not only was the show expanded by five minutes but many scenes were cut out.


----------



## Hoosier205

"jerry downing" said:


> My elderly mother thought that she was getting senile when she was watching "Gunsmoke" on TVLand and could not understand what was going on. We then watched another episode of "Gunsmoke" together. Between the cutting to commercials in mid sentence and the fact that a significant portion of the show was missing made the show nearly unwatchable. It was like expecting to see a full length movie and getting only the trailer.
> I will no longer watch TVLand after watching an episode of "MASH". Not only was the show expanded by five minutes but many scenes were cut out.


Expanded?


----------



## Richard

SayWhat? said:


> The only channels you're really paying for are any that you might subscribe to specifically like HBO or Showtime. Now, when those start running ads, you'll have a legitimate beef.


They already do. They have their little channel ad at the bottom right hand side of the screen, and they also popup ads at the bottom of the screen advertising other shows.


----------



## PrinceLH

Hoosier205 said:


> Expanded?


Yes, they take an hour long episode of Bonanza, or Gunsmoke, turn it into an hour and 10 minutes long. They remove almost all of the opening credits and run the credits at end, during the end of the show, across the bottom of the screen. It's just horrible. I sure wish that Encore Westerns, would grab all of the early Bonanza and later color versions of Gunsmoke and add them to their lineup. Don't even get me started, on Perry Mason, on Hallmark HD. Being a crime drama, you do need to see the story play out, to get a feel for the story. Viacom cuts away, for commercials, right in mid sentence. You come back to a piece missing and you lose the flow of the investigation. It's just horrible. I truly have distain for Viacom, for what they're doing to classic television. It's a link to our past, in this country, and they exploit it and ruin it.


----------



## keifer27

Richard said:


> They already do. They have their little channel ad at the bottom right hand side of the screen, and they also popup ads at the bottom of the screen advertising other shows.


----------



## PrinceLH

Richard said:


> They already do. They have their little channel ad at the bottom right hand side of the screen, and they also popup ads at the bottom of the screen advertising other shows.


Yeah, you gotta love the stuff floating across your screen, when your trying to watch the end of a program. It's in black and white, but the ads are in color. Totally tasteless. Viacom is an abomination to television entertainment.


----------



## Dude111

jerry downing said:


> I will no longer watch TVLand after watching an episode of "MASH". Not only was the show expanded by five minutes but many scenes were cut out.


Game show network has become another dissapointment!!!!

They used to show GOOD 80s and earlier GAMES,now they got new remade versions of games i loved... I DONT WANNA SEE THAT GARBAGE!!! (Whammy,Family Feud,Pyramind,The Newlywed game -- *ALL CRAP COMPARED TO THE ORIGINALS OF THESE SHOWS!!!!*)

What a waste......


----------



## PrinceLH

I think that I've also detected something more ominous, on some of the Viacom channels. It almost sounds like they've speed up the the speech, by removing dead spots between syllables. It almost makes them sound like they're talking too fast. I also noticed something similar on some episodes of Perry Mason, as well on Hallmark, recently. If this is the case, it's a new low for Viacom.


----------



## sigma1914

PrinceLH said:


> I think that I've also detected something more ominous, on some of the Viacom channels. It almost sounds like they've speed up the the speech, by removing dead spots between syllables. It almost makes them sound like they're talking too fast. I also noticed something similar on some episodes of Perry Mason, as well on Hallmark, recently. If this is the case, it's a new low for Viacom.


----------

