# Dish AutoHop vs Networks Commercial Skipping Discussion



## phrelin

Will the broadcast TV networks sue Dish Network over the Auto Hop feature?

Today was the first day of the "Upfronts" for broadcast TV's 2012-13 season, the week the broadcast networks pitch their programming to advertisers. NBC had the Monday morning assignment.

The chairman of NBC Broadcasting, Ted Harbert, led off with an introduction that confronted the ratings issues, criticizing the Nielsen company which is not unusual.

But then he took on Dish Network's Auto Hop. The simplest summary was in Dateline Hollywood:


> He told the Radio City Music Hall audience that Dish Network's new Auto Hop DVR feature, which enables viewers to automatically jump over ads in recorded shows, is "an insult to our joint programming, and I'm against it." Many analysts have wondered whether broadcasters will ask the courts to rule that the feature violates their copyrights.


The New York Times quoted him extensively:


> And finally, we all know that advanced technology provides new options to virtually every business. But just because technology gives you the ability to do something, does that mean you should? Not always.
> 
> Here's a good example that popped up late last week. Did you hear about the new Hop initiative from Dish? With their new DVR, you hit a button on the remote and all the commercials in a program just disappear. Gone. You don't even have to fast forward through them. Please refer to my earlier comments about our ecosystem. This is an insult to our joint investment in programming, and I'm against it.


The LA Times Business Section, which frequently runs articles about the business side of TV, ran a long article Dish Network ad-skipping feature Auto Hop irks network TV execs that contained this ominous information:


> "It seems a strange thing to do," said Peter Rice, chairman of entertainment for the Fox Networks Group.
> 
> Rice, speaking with reporters on a conference call Monday to announce Fox's fall schedule, noted that broadcast networks such as Fox are the largest content providers to pay-TV distributors such as Dish, and wondered why they'd risk alienating that relationship. As for whether the network will consider legal action to try to derail Dish's new commercial-zapping offering, Rice said Fox is "still evaluating it."
> 
> This is not the first time such a technology has been launched. Several years ago, a service called ReplayTV did virtually the same thing and the broadcast networks sued and won on copyright infringement grounds.


----------



## sregener

The networks have their heads in the sand. The barn door has been open since DVR technology came along. I almost never watch commercials anyway - I skip them and rarely (less than once a week, and less than once a month for more than five minutes) watch live television. I love the auto hop not because it lets me skip commercials, but because it makes it quicker and more accurate.

Oddly, the NASCAR race on Saturday did not have auto-hop enabled, even two days later.


----------



## Marlin Guy

sregener said:


> Oddly, the NASCAR race on Saturday did not have auto-hop enabled, even two days later.


It can't. That was a live unscripted event. The commercial breaks are determined on the fly.


----------



## sregener

"Marlin Guy" said:


> It can't. That was a live unscripted event. The commercial breaks are determined on the fly.


Hmmm. Now I'm confused. Auto Hop is unavailable until midnight of the day it airs. I thought this was because Dish sends down a set of time stamps to skip from/to. Thus they could create the stamps regardless of program type. But maybe I don't understand how it works.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

sregener said:


> Hmmm. Now I'm confused. Auto Hop is unavailable until midnight of the day it airs. I thought this was because Dish sends down a set of time stamps to skip from/to. Thus they could create the stamps regardless of program type. But maybe I don't understand how it works.


I don't know how it works either... but I'm sure the main reason why it is delayed until 24 hours is because if they enabled it for "live" watching then the networks would likely have a legal case. Customers pausing and skipping manually is one thing, but Dish skipping during live/delayed TV viewing would be a whole 'nother ball of wax.

But... since the advertisers don't care about DVR viewings the next day because advertisers assume if you watch the next day that you skip the commercials... then Dish figured it is less of an issue 24 hours later.

Some of the networks put their shows up on their own Web sites for free streaming without commercials the next day too.. so it seems like that would be ok for Dish to allow the same.

That, I assume, is the reason behind the 24 hour delay.


----------



## Marlin Guy

My thoughts were that pre-recorded programs (meaning non-live broadcasts) would have pre-determined commercial breaks in them, which Dish used as triggers for Auto-Hop.
Live sports broadcasts go to commercial when there's a break in the action. Fox will cut a commercial short during a NASCAR race to go back live when there's a serious accident or other significant event, so there's no way for Dish to know when these occur.


----------



## phrelin

Perhaps I should have expanded on this a bit. Harbert, NBC Chairman, was advocating the use of C7 ratings - commercial viewings over seven days. What wasn't made clear in his rantings was that most advertisers are accepting C3 - commercial viewings ratings as a supplement to the Nielsen Live+same day.

Auto Hop threatens to make the C7 and the C3 useless.

One of the things C3 evaluations are showing is that a majority of viewers are too lazy to skip commercials. Auto Hop helps the lazy.


----------



## paulman182

Don't worry. Technology such as this will win out, meaning that broadcasters who depend upon advertising for their existence will either go out of business, or increase the number and size of ads superimposed on the screen during the programs themselves.

Those don't bother anyone, do they?


----------



## Jhon69

Stewart Vernon said:


> I don't know how it works either... but I'm sure the main reason why it is delayed until 24 hours is because if they enabled it for "live" watching then the networks would likely have a legal case. Customers pausing and skipping manually is one thing, but Dish skipping during live/delayed TV viewing would be a whole 'nother ball of wax.
> 
> But... since the advertisers don't care about DVR viewings the next day because advertisers assume if you watch the next day that you skip the commercials... then Dish figured it is less of an issue 24 hours later.
> 
> Some of the networks put their shows up on their own Web sites for free streaming without commercials the next day too.. so it seems like that would be ok for Dish to allow the same.
> 
> That, I assume, is the reason behind the 24 hour delay.


That was my thoughts also,so if you watch the program the next day you can use AutoHop.Where we wait a few hours and then view our recorded programs,so nothing will beat FFWx15/then SkipBack on my 922(that just got [email protected] Today/S118!).


----------



## 356B

Dish is a multi-billion dollar corporation with millions of customers, I have no way of knowing but one would assume the "Auto Hop" was thoroughly vetted through legal. Whether Dish uses this on the other channels? probably...eventually.
I believe any perceived loss of revenue by networks because of "Auto Hop", real or otherwise will be placed squarely on the backs of the customers...as usual. I'm looking at rates for locals to go up the next time around and Auto Hop staying exactly where it is.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

phrelin said:


> What wasn't made clear in his rantings was that most advertisers are accepting C3 - commercial viewings ratings as a supplement to the Nielsen Live+same day.
> 
> Auto Hop threatens to make the C7 and the C3 useless.
> 
> One of the things C3 evaluations are showing is that a majority of viewers are too lazy to skip commercials. Auto Hop helps the lazy.


I think you touched on this before (either in this thread or another) and I forgot about that. It is surprising, but IF advertisers do start paying attention to people who DVR but still watch commercials later... then yeah, this Auto-Hop feature will put the screws to that.

I would hate to see advertisers coming to the party and willing to meet us DVR delayers half way... and then back off because of an auto-skip feature.

Truth be told, I probably end up watching more commercials on my DVR than live... because live I "tune out" mentally during commercial breaks like always... but when watching DVR programs, since the skips aren't accurate, I end up watching parts of some commercials AND if something catches my eye while skipping ahead I will backup and watch commercials sometimes.

The Auto-Hop feature, while convenient, means I miss all of the commercials.

Also, ESPN has done something kind of cool that I wish other networks and shows would try... If you watch Around the Horn or Pardon the Interruption... during their commercial breaks they throw in some behind the scenes clips and things that happen between takes... and if you skip commercials you miss those. I thought it was ingenious to throw in those things because I want to watch them, so I don't skip the commercials during those shows.

Imagine if primetime shows threw in a blooper or deleted scene or something during some commercial breaks... I bet more people would stop skipping commercials to catch those extras.


----------



## 4HiMarks

A few years ago, I saw what I thought was the future of commercials on an episode of "Las Vegas", where three guys in SUVs drove up to the Montecito and jumped out, running into the casino. Later in the show, we saw them again, driving the same SUVs up into the mountains to ski or something, where the off-road and snow/ice capabilities of the vehicles were very conspicuous. Then came an overlay graphic of the make and model and some sort of tagline. It was so seamlessly integrated into the storyline, I didn't realize it was an ad until it was almost over.


----------



## phrelin

Keep in mind that it would be possible for the networks to stop using blocks of commercials and start spreading them seamlessly through shows at more random points without even advising their affiliates.

Right now commercial blocks serve the affiliates who can "insert local commercial here." That may end up being the only ones we'll be able to skip easily.

Oh, and I agree with Stewart as we do stop to watch an interesting commercial and used to space out or talk "among ourselves" back when we couldn't skip.


----------



## Earl Bonovich

4HiMarks said:


> A few years ago, I saw what I thought was the future of commercials on an episode of "Las Vegas", where three guys in SUVs drove up to the Montecito and jumped out, running into the casino. Later in the show, we saw them again, driving the same SUVs up into the mountains to ski or something, where the off-road and snow/ice capabilities of the vehicles were very conspicuous. Then came an overlay graphic of the make and model and some sort of tagline. It was so seamlessly integrated into the storyline, I didn't realize it was an ad until it was almost over.


For every good example of an in-line product placement, there are at least two or three bad ones.

Bones is currently one of the absolute worst with their Toyota inserts... it is so forced and bad. I have to pause the program sometimes, because I just shook my head.

Pawn Stars, I believe is purposly done bad (Subway), because it fits the show.

Hawaii 5-O is hit/miss with their Microsoft hooks, but good on their Chevy ones.

Dell is pretty seamless on Big Bang

It can be done well, but it often done very porely.


----------



## sigma1914

Earl Bonovich said:


> ...
> It can be done well, but it often done very porely.


How about this way?


----------



## James Long

*Describing the AutoHop Feature:*
In my experience it has been available after 2am the night of airing. No 24 hour wait, just "the next day". (I am on Eastern Time.) The NASCAR race which ran from 6:30pm to after 11:00pm (with PTA cutting off the last three laps and celebrations) was a live event with commercials placed where the network could between the "action". The last commercial breaks during the race were done in a "side by side" format with the commercial on one side and the race on the other.

*As for the potential lawsuit:*
It doesn't surprise me - I even predicted it when AutoHop was announced. But I do not believe DISH is doing anything illegal.

AutoHop is an option. Customers are given the option every time the watch the flagged programs whether or not they want to use the feature. Call me lazy, but I'm actually waiting until the next day now to watch broadcast prime time because I want AutoHop.

Legally - retransmission of locals requires satellite providers to retransmit the programs unedited. Which is what DISH does up until 2am. Delayed retransmission is a separate issue. If it were a local cable system that aired ONLY the program and not the commercials and did not have the "live" feed I believe there would be a violation. DISH moving the technology to the receiver instead of editing the program at the headend makes the lawsuit more interesting.

Quite frankly, if copyright law prevents AutoHop it probably should prevent PTA as well ... if not the entire DVR concept. I don't believe the courts are ready to do that.


----------



## 356B

I agree with the conclusion that if Auto Hop in found to be illegal then the manual skip feature of a DVR is illegal....and we all know that's not going away.
The NBC posturing was just that, these people are not stupid, they knew this was coming, but what the gonna say? Oh isn't Auto Hop great, don't you just love not having to skip through all those commercials? 
No Dish kicked Auto Hop down the road for months if not years and it's not going away either.
The only change we'll see is the price we pay...


----------



## Stewart Vernon

356B said:


> I agree with the conclusion that if Auto Hop in found to be illegal then the manual skip feature of a DVR is illegal....


I'm not saying either will or should be illegal... but they are two VERY different things.

Skipping commercials manually requires user intervention, which means you have to be there watching the TV, which means you can't help but see some commercial portions as you skip forward/back.

Auto Hop, however, means it jumps directly across the entire commercial break automatically without user intervention or potential exposure to commercials at all... and all you have to do is enable the feature once and you're done.

Illegal or not... I could see it being a bone of contention with networks. They can't force anyone to watch commercials, which is why the trick play on the DVR can't be put back into the genie bottle... BUT networks surely could fight any feature that automatically skips the commercials without user intervention.

Think of it like junk mail... I toss a lot of junk mail directly into the trash from my mailbox... but there is still a possibility I might see something I like during that process... but if the USPS allowed an automatic "junk" filter to have the postman trash my junk mail for me before I have a chance to see it, then there would be a problem... the post office makes a lot of money charging postage on those junk mail that IF they started tossing them for the customer, they would lose that revenue.

Similarly... Auto Hop starts the conversation with advertisers to the networks to say "we aren't going to pay for ads that we know no one sees because they can turn the ads off" and if the networks start losing that ad revenue then they start knocking on Dish's door for higher fees to retransmit... and then we are on a fast downward spiral.

A better example might be say DBSTalk selling ad space on the Web... people see and click ads and it helps those advertisers so they keep paying DBSTalk for ad placement... Now, there is ad-blocker software out there... but DBSTalk isn't selling or promoting it. Imagine if one hand of DBSTalk was saying "pay us for ad space" while the other hand of DBSTalk was saying "here, use ad blocker to block all the ads on our site"... do you think DBSTalk would be getting a lot of advertisers willing to pay for placement after that?


----------



## 3HaloODST

I agree with Mr. Vernon. Pretty much the same thing I've been saying at the "other" forum only to be called Chicken Little :nono: .


----------



## 356B

It is of little consequence what any of us think is legal, illegal or litigious. The facts are clear, Dish has opted to release a software device which with the interaction of the subscriber eliminates portions of their broadcast after a specific period of time has elapsed. 
I think the significance of the 1am rule cannot be ignored. That prerequisite to the use of Auto Hop tells the tale, the deal was stuck, the rules are clear... Posturing and chest beating aside.


----------



## Nick

Commercial advertisers have delivered "free" television programming to American viewers since the beginnings of tv. The phrase _"brought to you by..."_ or _"sponsored by..."_ has real significance to tv advertisers. They bring "free" tv to your living room, in return, you watch their commercials -- at least, that's the model, the way it's supposed to work...the price we pay for free tv. Subverting the free tv model by skipping commercials is like going sneaking into a movie theater or walking into a retail store, ripping the price tags off the merchandise and walking out with the goods without paying.

Either way, it's stealing.


----------



## 356B

So let me get this straight....you really believe the Networks had no idea this was coming or what Dish was up to?


----------



## bigdog9586

I had a Panasonic VCR a good 15 years ago that had the skip feature. Didn't work EVERYTIME but most of the time.


----------



## James Long

Stewart Vernon said:


> Auto Hop, however, means it jumps directly across the entire commercial break automatically without user intervention or potential exposure to commercials at all... and all you have to do is enable the feature once and you're done.


AutoHOP is not once and done. The customer makes the choice every time they start playback of an AutoHOP program ... including replays of the same program on the same Hopper/Joey.

It is easy to say yes ... but it is a decision presented every time the show plays.



> Illegal or not... I could see it being a bone of contention with networks.


It certainly will be a topic at contract renewal for retransmission.



> ... but if the USPS allowed an automatic "junk" filter to have the postman trash my junk mail for me before I have a chance to see it, then there would be a problem...


The Direct Marketing Association allows people to opt out of commercials: https://www.dmachoice.org/ At least they give the option.



> A better example might be say DBSTalk selling ad space on the Web... people see and click ads and it helps those advertisers so they keep paying DBSTalk for ad placement... Now, there is ad-blocker software out there... but DBSTalk isn't selling or promoting it. Imagine if one hand of DBSTalk was saying "pay us for ad space" while the other hand of DBSTalk was saying "here, use ad blocker to block all the ads on our site"... do you think DBSTalk would be getting a lot of advertisers willing to pay for placement after that?


The trouble is DISH is paying broadcasters for their channels ... local broadcasters are not paying DISH for carriage - local stations are specifically prohibited by law from paying for cable or satellite carriage.

The ad example doesn't work, as site like ours are paid by those advertisers and any attempt to block ads immediately hurts the site. (I am not involved with advertising at this site - but in general, sites with advertising are paid for impressions and or click throughs. If an ad is not displayed there is simply no payment ... if no one clicks on an ad there are no click through payments. The penalty for not showing the ads is built in to the deal.)

If DBSTalk had an integrated content service ... some company that was paid for their presence of the site (which we don't) and then we allowed our users to choose to watch the integrated content with or without that company's commercials that company might get ticked. But there is no such company.


----------



## phrelin

Much to my surprise, The Hollywood Reporter on Monday published an article How the TV Industry Blew Its Best Chance to Kill Dish's Ad-Skipping Technology. It's worth reading the whole article, but here's some highlights. The ReplayTV suit was never resolved because Sonicblue declared bankruptcy. There was never any substantial judicial determination about the merits of the case. According to the article:


> ...The biggest question at the time was a service provider's vicarious responsibility for its users. In the Supreme Court's Grokster ruling, it was affirmed that there was responsibility, but then broadcasters sued Cablevision over a remote-storage DVR system, and the 2nd Circuit found that the system was "akin" to the VCR and that Cablevision's system was only acting at the best of its users.
> 
> ...Michael Elkin, a partner at Winston & Strawn, currently defending Aereo against claims made by broadcasters, believes the Cablevision case "validated the DVR functionality" and also gives another reason why a potential Auto Hop lawsuit is more likely to resemble Cablevision than ReplayTV. "Here, Dish is a licensee of the major television broadcasting companies and intends as I understand to limit the commercial-skipping device to discrete TV programs just on the major networks," he says.
> 
> In other words, Dish has a licensing agreement over programming, and the threshold question will be whether the company has breached the agreement.


This article and other articles note that taking on Charlie Ergen in court is not anywhere near the walk in the park the ReplayTV lawsuit represented.

It is true, of course, that at some point they could refuse to renew retransmission agreements with Dish. But it isn't as simple as it sounds.

The network that would most likely be a critical player in a lawsuit, Fox, just signed a retransmission agreement which even gives Dish subscribers early access to on line content. It won't expire for a number of years. So missing from the mix will be Rupert Murdoch, the only true worthy opponent for Charlie.

NBCU has a very big problem since it is 51% owned by and completely controlled by Comcast, one of Dish's biggest competitors. What are they going to argue? Well, yeah, our DVR does allow manual skipping. But this one makes it more convenient than our box to skip limited programming on one of our many channels.

CBS can't afford to lose Dish customers, most of whom don't use Hoppers anyway.

And whether the folks over in the Disney executive suites realize this or not, Dish would seriously consider dumping Disney/ESPN/ABC altogether, allowing them to knock _*at least*_ $13/mo off the price of all packages. That's the kind of number that gets the favorable attention of subscribers and unfavorable attention of Congress.

It's always interesting to watch Charlie's machinations. The Hopper as a problem represents...

a small percentage of Dish customers watching...
non-live content...
recorded during a few hours out of the day...
from just 4 local broadcast network channels among the hundreds of channels available.
And think how long it took to resolve the Tivo case....

But it is a fundamental challenge to the 1958 broadcast network TV channel model, which has outlived its usefulness.


----------



## sregener

"Nick" said:


> Either way, it's stealing.


Is it? Then I've been stealing since 1984 when I started time shifting with a VCR. But I don't think it is stealing, any more than it is stealing to ignore the advertisements in the newspaper or magazine. Tell me, do you read them all, word-for-word, every day or month those print editions show up on your doorstep? In my view, television ads are there for me to watch if I want to, not something that I am obligated to watch.


----------



## James Long

phrelin said:


> And think how long it took to resolve the Tivo case....


The broadcasters are a little more powerful than Tivo ... or at least they were. Probably a better direct comparison is the broadcaster's suit against DISH in the Distants case.

If one were to use the Tivo case my first question would be "who won?". Other than the lawyers, Tivo ended up with some money, DISH removed Tivo technology once it was deemed infringing (please put it back) and other than DVR performance issues and people who follow the industry, customers didn't notice.

The Distants case led to new federal law ALLOWING what DISH and DirecTV wanted to do ... a victory for satellite broadcasters. DISH's eventual loss came from not following the new federal law and allowing customers to receive distants who were not qualified. Even that has been repaired through additional changes in federal law.

It will be a long drawn out battle ... but I do not expect it to be solved in the courts. I expect it to be solved at the negotiating table when retransmission consent is renewed for each local station. Stations demanding that AutoHOP be disabled on their station as a term of carriage.

Broadcasters have already proven that they don't care about satellite viewers ... and they are willing to sacrifice the viewership during contract disputes. They assume that their viewers want the local channel more than they want satellite - and in some ways that is true. But it needs to be more of a partnership.

Perhaps a local non-skipable ad at the beginning of the program could "pay" for the use of AutoHOP on each channel? "This AutoHOP program is brought to you with limited commercial interruptions by ... local sponsor." Or a national sponsor with the "per impression" money going to the local station.

Something will be worked out.


----------



## 356B

I believe the issue is, is it worth the money and effort to take on a lengthly legal war over a negligible position? Clearly it is not, but that is no guarantee that it won't happen. My wife is affiliated with Media News which owns her local newspaper, there's a saying in the newsroom when a suit is threaten by a pissed off politician or local....go ahead... we have lawyers sitting around waiting for the phone to ring....! 
Posturing... Auto Hop is to big to fail....


----------



## Cable Lover

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/17/business/media/dish-networks-hopper-cuts-ads-and-causes-tremors-at-tv-upfronts.html?_r=1

I think it's the coolest thing yet, but NBC, CBS and the other's disagree.


----------



## Cable Lover

*So they are closing ranks to try to stop it. At least one of the network owners, News Corporation, is no longer accepting Dish's new DVR ads on any of its television properties. It and several other owners are examining whether they can sue Dish, the same way they sued a maker of DVRs a decade ago, according to several people with knowledge of the deliberations, who insisted on anonymity to speak freely about the internal discussions*


----------



## TheRatPatrol

I wonder if this will be the beginning of the end of skipping commercials?

I bet the networks will require it be stopped altogether, or will start charging a monthly fee to skip them. Its going to get interesting.


----------



## dpeters11

I fully admit I don't have a Hopper, but this is something that potentially affects all of us.

My main thing is that those using the Hopper and skipping the commercials generally were anyway. Same thing with a lot of other Dish and DirecTV customers either by fast forwarding or using a 30 second skip.

If the networks end up putting contrived ads into programming with awkward dialog (like Fox did on Bones), it will drive viewers nuts.


----------



## shuye

They should go to a price model like many of the apps - if the customer wants it free, they get commercials. If they don't want commercials, then they pay a monthly subscription. I'd gladly pay $1 per month per network channel to have no commercials and just fill in the "dead" time with a local news or weather update


----------



## Davenlr

shuye said:


> They should go to a price model like many of the apps - if the customer wants it free, they get commercials. If they don't want commercials, then they pay a monthly subscription.


That is the problem. We already DO pay a monthly subscription, and STILL get commercials.


----------



## Cable Lover

dpeters11 said:


> If the networks end up putting contrived ads into programming with awkward dialog (like Fox did on Bones), it will drive viewers nuts.


HOUSE has become bad about that as well. This season I've seen many Ford ads worked into the show.


----------



## SayWhat?

shuye said:


> I'd gladly pay $1 per month per network channel to have no commercials and just fill in the "dead" time with a local news or weather update


Not me. The networks rake in enough already.


----------



## TheRatPatrol

"shuye" said:


> They should go to a price model like many of the apps - if the customer wants it free, they get commercials. If they don't want commercials, then they pay a monthly subscription. I'd gladly pay $1 per month per network channel to have no commercials and just fill in the "dead" time with a local news or weather update


And if the cable networks get in on this as well you'll still pay $1.00 per channel? I don't think so.


----------



## zer0cool

That you can't use the feature until AFTER the show airs, which means if you are watching, you are watching some kind of recording, be it DVR or Video tape (ugh). Who doesn't skip the commercials on their recorded programming?

Now, granted when using the standard skip buttons, I occasionally see part of an ad that makes me rewind and watch the whole thing, but not very often.


----------



## phrelin

There is a discussion thread about this subject over in the Hopper Forum area Auto Hop versus broadcast TV lawsuit an early topic at the Upfronts.

Perhaps a moderator could combine them.


----------



## satcrazy

Davenlr said:


> That is the problem. We already DO pay a monthly subscription, and STILL get commercials.


Exactly.

The locals can produce all the commercials they want. [ no one is fighting that] and by the way, [ for the huge sums of money spent on advertising] has anyone seen at least a "clever" commercial lately? 99.9% of them are incredibly stupid.

Why do we have to be force-fed them? Especially at obnoxiously higher decibel levels? The tv industry is still dragging their feet on that one.

I don't even have a hopper, but I hope Dish doesn't cave.


----------



## TvilleBee

Will they outlaw ad blockers for the internet too??? We're flooded w/ so much advertising everywhere that it's absurd...


----------



## SayWhat?

^^  Don't give'em any ideas.


----------



## Richard

The networks, by charging DISH and DirecTV to "retransmit" their signals, are already making more money than they should. We shouldn't have to also sit through commercial after commercial.

I always fast forward through commercials, and always will. DISH is just making it easier for their customers to do so. They are already limiting it to next day viewing, that should have been enough to placate them.


----------



## Michael P

I bet they could put this ad zapper feature in older model DVR's as well.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

_Threads merged._


----------



## sregener

"Michael P" said:


> I bet they could put this ad zapper feature in older model DVR's as well.


No doubt, but it makes a great selling point for existing customers to upgrade, does it not?


----------



## Grandude

satcrazy said:


> Exactly.
> 
> has anyone seen at least a "clever" commercial lately? 99.9% of them are incredibly stupid.


Only a few but even the clever ones become annoying after you've seen them 83 times. (except for, of course, the Victoria's Secret ones.:grin


----------



## BillJ

sregener said:


> The networks have their heads in the sand. The barn door has been open since DVR technology came along. I almost never watch commercials anyway - I skip them and rarely (less than once a week, and less than once a month for more than five minutes) watch live television. I love the auto hop not because it lets me skip commercials, but because it makes it quicker and more accurate.
> 
> Oddly, the NASCAR race on Saturday did not have auto-hop enabled, even two days later.


You must be a youngster. That ability has been around since the VCR was invented. It just keeps getting easier. First the skip button on remotes and now with auto hop we don't even have to exercise our thumbs.


----------



## FilmMixer

satcrazy said:


> Why do we have to be force-fed them? Especially at obnoxiously higher decibel levels? The tv industry is still dragging their feet on that one.


Unfortunately the networks did nothing on their own, so the government has stepped in...

The unfortunate side effect has been stricter regulation by some content makers that I work for in also reducing the dynamic range of the regular content...

The CALM Act



> Q: Does the FCC currently regulate loud commercials?
> A: The Commission adopted rules on December 13, 2011 that will require commercials to have the same average volume as the programs they accompany. *The rules will become effective on December 13, 2012*, 1 year after the date of their adoption. This gives broadcast television stations and pay TV providers until this date to be in full compliance.


----------



## lparsons21

dpeters11 said:


> I fully admit I don't have a Hopper, but this is something that potentially affects all of us.
> 
> My main thing is that those using the Hopper and skipping the commercials generally were anyway. Same thing with a lot of other Dish and DirecTV customers either by fast forwarding or using a 30 second skip.
> 
> If the networks end up putting contrived ads into programming with awkward dialog (like Fox did on Bones), it will drive viewers nuts.


Integrated ads haven't been used much for many years, but it isn't something new at all. I can vaguely remember some old crime show from the black & white days that slipped ads in when a character would go into the tobacco shop for Model pipe tobacco (that comes to mind, maybe other brands/products too). Those are much harder to skip since they weren't really fixed in time and often were made part of the story line.

Maybe that is an approach the broadcasters can use.


----------



## satcrazy

FilmMixer said:


> Unfortunately the networks did nothing on their own, so the government has stepped in...
> 
> The unfortunate side effect has been stricter regulation by some content makers that I work for in also reducing the dynamic range of the regular content...
> 
> The CALM Act


So you are saying they implemented a work-around by lowering the sound of programming so the commericials at "normal"[?] levels will still be louder than the programming, correct? [ you will have to turn up sound for regular programming, making the commercials loud anyway, so much for government intervention]

Unbelievable.

and the networks are PO'd at Dish? Are the inmates running the asylum?

Don't they realize that the louder and more inane the commercials are the faster people will skip or mute them?

IMO the hopper"s work-around is the answer.

I can remember only a handfull of commercials in the last 10 to 15 years I would watch because they were done well.

Even they got boring by being aired too many times like Grandude said.


----------



## sregener

"BillJ" said:


> You must be a youngster. That ability has been around since the VCR was invented. It just keeps getting easier. First the skip button on remotes and now with auto hop we don't even have to exercise our thumbs.


Oh, I time shifted with VCRs, starting in 1984. But VCR recordings looked horrible compared to live television. And you had to wait for the program to finish before watching it, and couldn't watch a recorded program while another recording was happening. DVRs fixed both problems, which is when it became practical to record a football game and skip commercials and halftime.


----------



## scooper

satcrazy said:


> So you are saying they implemented a work-around by lowering the sound of programming so the commericials at "normal"[?] levels will still be louder than the programming, correct? [ you will have to turn up sound for regular programming, making the commercials loud anyway, so much for government intervention]
> 
> Unbelievable.
> 
> and the networks are PO'd at Dish? Are the inmates running the asylum?
> 
> Don't they realize that the louder and more inane the commercials are the faster people will skip or mute them?
> 
> IMO the hopper"s work-around is the answer.
> 
> I can remember only a handfull of commercials in the last 10 to 15 years I would watch because they were done well.
> 
> Even they got boring by being aired too many times like Grandude said.


Just another good reason to skip them or leave the room and do something else while the commercials are on.


----------



## oldschoolecw

http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-57438352-93/discovery-ceo-warns-dish-network-against-skipping-ads/



> During a panel here at the National Cable and Telecommunications Association's annual tradeshow, Zaslav told CNN's Erin Burnett that the new feature Dish Network introduced recently on its Hopper DVR, which skips advertising during shows that are recorded from broadcast TV could disrupt the industry in a negative way. He said the model is unsustainable since content owners need the advertising revenue to help pay the cost of the content they offer.
> "Charlie Ergen and Dish are a distributor of content," he said. "They need us to reach homes with our content. And if there is not going to be advertising fees, then there needs to be a lot higher subscriber fees."
> The new Hopper DVR users an ad erasing technology that is embedded in the device. Once turned on, the technology will erase all the advertising that has been recorded on TV shows that air over broadcast TV channels. So far, Dish has limited the technology to broadcast TV channels only.


----------
Things are going to get very interesting


----------



## MysteryMan

The games afoot.


----------



## SayWhat?

> He said the model is unsustainable since content owners need the advertising revenue to help pay the cost of the content they offer.


I'll be much more supportive of that position when I see that Execs from the various entities are no longer taking home multi-million dollar salaries.


----------



## RasputinAXP

I'm sorry, does having AutoHop enabled somehow siphon the money out of your account, Mr. CEO? No? Great. Shut up.


----------



## oldschoolecw

SayWhat? said:


> I'll be much more supportive of that position when I see that Execs from the various entities are no longer taking home multi-million dollar salaries.


And besides that, it's like double payments we as customers are making. looking at what we are paying for ESPN today through me for a loop, then they expect us to watch commercials as well. :lol: Cable will be going the way of the dinosaur if this price gouging keeps up. We will only be Lemming for a certain time, then we riot err I mean stop paying all together


----------



## farmerdave4

Maybe this is be Charlies payback for having to paying higher fees than Cable companies do for all these years. Play fair are we remove your commercials.


----------



## Jason Whiddon

Even though FFW'd is around an used by all, marketing a feature that bypasses their ads, which are already hurting, is just not a smart move in this market. 

I think you'll see more disputes because if it, or it will be disabled on all or some of the channels which I assume they could pick and choose with software changes.

I dont think the feature is gonna last, I also dont see it as something a user really needs, it's just pissing off networks. Thats my 0.02 anyways.


----------



## MikeW

I agree with James. This will only fan the flames for the retrans fees. In the end, we will be paying more for content because of this feature.


----------



## Paul Secic

SayWhat? said:


> I'll be much more supportive of that position when I see that Execs from the various entities are no longer taking home multi-million dollar salaries.


+1


----------



## oldschoolecw

SayWhat? said:


> I'll be much more supportive of that position when I see that Execs from the various entities are no longer taking home multi-million dollar salaries.





Paul Secic said:


> +1


Agreed but
Not in our life time :lol:


----------



## pfred

I am wondering how it knows where the ads are. If it is some signal, couldn't they just stop transmitting the ad start/stop signal?


----------



## SayWhat?

Jason Whiddon said:


> marketing a feature that bypasses their ads, which are already hurting,


They're not hurting. The entertainment industry is one of the few that has been going strong for the last few years while almost everybody else was hurting.

They're hurting us by extorting higher fees. We're not hurting them by not watching commercials. They get paid for the commercials whether anyone watches them or not.


----------



## Jason Whiddon

The *ad revenue is hurting*, which is why you see $2.99 an episode on digital fronts and now *higher licensing fees*. Sure, CSB for example is doing well because of online sales and higher fees for their channels, but if you add a feature that further hurts ad revenue, that equals higher licensing fees down the road in my mind.


----------



## oldschoolecw

pfred said:


> I am wondering how it knows where the ads are. If it is some signal, couldn't they just stop transmitting the ad start/stop signal?


I would think so

And now that I think of it, wasn't there some kind of VHS VCR recorder that knew when to pause out commercials back in the mid 90's but never really worked?


----------



## Marlin Guy

Sounds like they've been talking to the RIAA / MPA legal team. :nono2:
They're probably working on a way to subpoena your provider for records on how many commercials you've skipped. Then they'll sue for the damages for every Shark Vacuum and Activia you didn't buy. :lol:


----------



## SayWhat?

Jason Whiddon said:


> The *ad revenue is hurting*....


If so, it's because less people are watching, moving to on-line methods, or DVDs or other methods, or just not watching TV at all, not because they're skipping commercials (which many have been doing since the first VCRs came out).


----------



## SayWhat?

Marlin Guy said:


> Sounds like they've been talking to the RIAA / MPA legal team.


Apparently, so has the Supreme Court......

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-...ng-damages-left-intact-by-u-s-high-court.html


----------



## Jason Whiddon

SayWhat? said:


> If so, it's because less people are watching, moving to on-line methods, or DVDs or other methods, or just not watching TV at all, not because they're skipping commercials (which many have been doing since the first VCRs came out).


Comparing todays DVR functions and use to VCR's is laughable at best. People are watching a lot less live TV than they used too, which devalues commercials. Im not defending them in any way, its just a fact. I got my first one tuner Dish DVR back in the day, and most people I knew didnt even have one.

FFW'd to now, everyone I know with video service has a DVR. People paying for commercials realize this, so they expect to pay less. When this happens, CBS, etc... have to find other ways to produce costly series, plus other experimental shows that never make it. So when ad revenue decrease like it has lately, someone is going to pay. Going out of your way to make an obvious feature to bypass ads (which offers little value to a customer), is dumb, period. Their negotiating stance just took a hit when it comes to retrans fee time. As commercials are devalued, who pays for it? Us.


----------



## Marlin Guy

SayWhat? said:


> Apparently, so has the Supreme Court......
> 
> http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-...ng-damages-left-intact-by-u-s-high-court.html


I lost faith in that group a long time ago.


----------



## phrelin

Since the Hopper doesn't offer the ability to automatically skip commercials on anything but local broadcast network channels during the prime time hours, why is the Discovery CEO advertising for Dish?

And I'll mention again the Hollywood Reporter article How the TV Industry Blew Its Best Chance to Kill Dish's Ad-Skipping Technology.


----------



## Davenlr

Marlin Guy said:


> Then they'll sue for the damages for every Shark Vacuum and Activia you didn't buy. :lol:


But I bought a Shark Vacuum (really good vacuum btw). Does that exempt me?


----------



## lacruz

Great, another Dish Lawsuit on the horizon, which ultimately means higher subscriber fees to pay Charlie's lawyers.


----------



## inkahauts

I am not sure this will come to lawsuits. I think its more likely to come to them not being able to get any more licensing deals without the new carriage deals expliciting saying, no more autohopp, or you pay me 10 times as much to have it on your service.


----------



## inazsully

Companies wonder why not enough people watch their ads resulting in loss of profits. They shouldn't blame DVR technology that allow customers to skip their ads, they should blame their own ad companies that puke out such stupid stupid ads that insult the customers intelligence to the point of making them run for the nearest barf bag. All they have to do is look at the Super Bowl when it comes to actual good ad writing. Those ads are so popular that they have their own awards show. My wife doesn't watch the game at all but wants me to call her to watch the ads.


----------



## satcrazy

inazsully said:


> Companies wonder why not enough people watch their ads resulting in loss of profits. They shouldn't blame DVR technology that allow customers to skip their ads, they should blame their own ad companies that puke out such stupid stupid ads that insult the customers intelligence to the point of making them run for the nearest barf bag. All they have to do is look at the Super Bowl when it comes to actual good ad writing. Those ads are so popular that they have their own awards show. My wife doesn't watch the game at all but wants me to call her to watch the ads.


Yup, pretty much posted the same thing in the "networks are angry at Dish hopper" post that was moved to the hopper forum.

I'm glad I'm not the only one that sees this as part of the problem.


----------



## TheRatPatrol

I wonder If this is the beginning to the end of skipping commercials?


----------



## phrelin

The really dumb part of this discussion is that by restructuring commercial placement - kind of random for no more than 60 seconds, 45 seconds being the ideal length, but occasionally running longer to keep us confused, with no distinguishing breaks - the networks could eliminate most commercial skipping. I've never really understood the "woe is me" view from advertising supported TV that crams four or more thirty-to-sixty second commercials into blocks of up to 4 minutes.

And they could provide spots where local stations could "insert here" providing confidential advanced notice.

And technology would allow it to be pretty automated, much like Auto Hop.


----------



## LI-SVT

oldschoolecw said:


> I would think so
> 
> And now that I think of it, wasn't there some kind of VHS VCR recorder that knew when to pause out commercials back in the mid 90's but never really worked?


I had a JVC VCR that did this, and it works very well.


----------



## grover517

Ahhh ReplayTV, we knew thee well. Sadly, it was WAY ahead of it's time.

http://www.technewsworld.com/story/32580.html

DISH must just LOVE it's attorneys and feels they just don't have enough work yet to keep them busy.


----------



## sregener

Many of you assume that Dish will lose this battle in court. Where Replay ran afoul was in deleting the commercials - the argument could be made that by doing that, they were modifying a copyrighted work without permission. Dish retains the commercials, and they make the user select the auto-hop feature with each use. As such, they are making no modifications to the recording, and the viewer is in control of the process.

My only fear is that the networks will require the disabling of the 30-second skip as a condition for carriage. The barn door is now open for negotiating software features as past of transmission consent. They could even require recordings to be deleted 24 hours after airing if they chose. Now these moves would be very anti-viewer, but arguing against auto-hop is also anti-viewer, and that doesn't seem to stop any of the networks from griping. We may see the day when DVR technology is effectively eliminated by contract. And the courts wouldn't say boo about it.


----------



## Marlin Guy

sregener said:


> Dish retains the commercials, and they make the user select the auto-hop feature with each use. As such, they are making no modifications to the recording, and the viewer is in control of the process.


I think that's where Dish's position legally is going to be strongest.

Other DVR's have features that allow users to skip commercials, and they have for years. Dish simply made it into a much more refined and streamlined process. Like the man said, the commercials are still there for anyone who chooses to view them. 
A judgement against Auto-Hop could well set a precedent that ripples through the industry and affects every DVR on the market that has a skip feature.

I can see why the industry is fighting it. It's a lot of money to them.


----------



## mdavej

HERE's what happened to the last company that made a device that skipped commercials. It's bankrupt, not necessarily due to lawsuits, but it just shows Dish is in for a long road of legal battles. Frankly, I'd rather use my skip button than fund the millions in legal fees it's going to cost both sides. I don't like commercials either, but I realize it pays the bills. So I think we have a good system and that Charlie needs to play nice. Otherwise we'll all be paying more in the end.


----------



## oldschoolecw

What I can't understand is why TV networks just don't forgo on traditional commercials and put there products in the TV shows then selves. "The Big Bang Theory tv show" is a great example of how it's done. Dell laptops, Alienware laptops and XBOX360's are always being shown on this show, and it's advertising at it's best.


----------



## Herdfan

sregener said:


> My only fear is that the networks will require the disabling of the 30-second skip as a condition for carriage. The barn door is now open for negotiating software features as past of transmission consent.


Charlie is many things, but stupid is not one of them.

Imagine a situation where he has all the networks "hopping" mad about this and they want blood in the next round of negotiations. Well, he then agrees to remove the feature from future devices (can't penalize existing users), but they agree that 30-second skip and FF though commercials is OK.

Bing bang boom, he just got them.


----------



## Paul Secic

oldschoolecw said:


> I would think so
> 
> And now that I think of it, wasn't there some kind of VHS VCR recorder that knew when to pause out commercials back in the mid 90's but never really worked?


What's a VCR?:lol::lol::lol:


----------



## oldschoolecw

Paul Secic said:


> What's a VCR?:lol::lol::lol:


You know, I have a huge VHS collection and my niece asked what are these, I said there movies. She asked can we watch one, I said no, because I don't have a VCR to play them, she said then why do you have all of these tapes? Good question:lol:


----------



## SayWhat?

oldschoolecw said:


> What I can't understand is why TV networks just don't forgo on traditional commercials and put there products in the TV shows then selves. "The Big Bang Theory tv show" is a great example of how it's done. Dell laptops, Alienware laptops and XBOX360's are always being shown on this show, and it's advertising at it's best.


Product placement is getting out of hand too. Maybe Charlie can come up with a device to automatically fog/blur/digitize brand names and logos during the program?


----------



## oldschoolecw

SayWhat? said:


> Product placement is getting out of hand too. Maybe Charlie can come up with a device to automatically fog/blur/digitize brand names and logos during the program?


I would rather see product placement any day of the week over 6 + minutes of commercials every half hour while watching live TV


----------



## BAHitman

SayWhat? said:


> Product placement is getting out of hand too. Maybe Charlie can come up with a device to automatically fog/blur/digitize brand names and logos during the program?


Companies pay a lot of money and donate a lot of products to have placement...

If this trend keeps up with cutting out commercials, I think we will end up with more product placement, as well as embedded advertising--either banners through the bottom of the show--like they do now with other show promos, or we will end up with a 15 second spot during the show telling us how good that coca-cola tastes or how great the latest ED drug works. just what we need during scripted tv shows...


----------



## SayWhat?

^^ I'd LOVE to see somebody find a way to kill banners and bugs!!!! Some of them are so big they cover significant portions of the show.


----------



## SayWhat?

BAHitman said:


> or we will end up with a 15 second spot during the show telling us how good that coca-cola tastes or how great the latest ED drug works. just what we need during scripted tv shows...


That harkens back to the Golden Era of TV. Remember when the lead cast member would hold up a product and talk about it?


----------



## BAHitman

SayWhat? said:


> That harkens back to the Golden Era of TV. Remember when the lead cast member would hold up a product and talk about it?


I remember seeing that as a youngster, vaguely...


----------



## harsh

SayWhat? said:


> They're not hurting. The entertainment industry is one of the few that has been going strong for the last few years while almost everybody else was hurting.


Would you say that your viewing of Discovery networks has increased, stayed the same or decreased lately?

For my part, I've largely lost interest in their offerings as a bundle.

Even without Auto-Hop, there's a pretty big premium paid for the first commercial slot in each break. Subsequent commercials don't get much attention either due to disinterest or people skipping out.


----------



## harsh

SayWhat? said:


> That harkens back to the Golden Era of TV. Remember when the lead cast member would hold up a product and talk about it?


In the Golden Era, shows were typically sponsored by a single company and the commercials were built in to the program.

I have to say that I really appreciate the more recent programs that were done this way. One of my favorites was the tie-in with ABC's American Dreams and Ford Motor Company.


----------



## Marlin Guy

Some of the programs that I've seen doing the product placements have sucked at it.
Fringe was by far the worst I've seen. It was like the products were shoehorned into the script as an afterthought or a rewrite.
Ugly stuff.

I didn't think we could Auto-Hop on Discovery anyway.


----------



## inkahauts

"Marlin Guy" said:


> I think that's where Dish's position legally is going to be strongest.
> 
> Other DVR's have features that allow users to skip commercials, and they have for years. Dish simply made it into a much more refined and streamlined process. Like the man said, the commercials are still there for anyone who chooses to view them.
> A judgement against Auto-Hop could well set a precedent that ripples through the industry and affects every DVR on the market that has a skip feature.
> 
> I can see why the industry is fighting it. It's a lot of money to them.


Again, this isn't like replaytv though. The networks don't even need to sue. All they need to do is refuse to renew any contracts and dish will be out of buisness and will cost them far less than sueing dish anyway. Why sue when you don't need to. And this would guarantee them winning, and would guarantee that a bad (for the networks) court ruling wouldn't give all DVRs encouragement to follow dishs path.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

inkahauts said:


> Again, this isn't like replaytv though. The networks don't even need to sue. All they need to do is refuse to renew any contracts and dish will be out of buisness and will cost them far less than sueing dish anyway. Why sue when you don't need to. And this would guarantee them winning, and would guarantee that a bad (for the networks) court ruling wouldn't give all DVRs encouragement to follow dishs path.


Exactly...

Dish isn't doing anything illegal... but the networks can choose to not renew contracts with Dish if they think they will lose more money in ad revenue when the advertisers renegotiate rates vs lost subscription money from Dish subscribers.

Dish isn't doing anything illegal... but this is a bite-the-hand-that-feeds-you scenario to some degree.

Keep in mind too that Dish has a conflict of interest here with AutoHop... because Dish sells ad spots itself that it inserts during commercial breaks... so Dish may be undercutting its own advertising revenue here!


----------



## Herdfan

SayWhat? said:


> Product placement is getting out of hand too.





oldschoolecw said:


> I would rather see product placement any day of the week over 6 + minutes of commercials every half hour while watching live TV


Seeing a product logo is fine. I would actually rather see a logo than poor attempts to cover it up. Does anyone really not know those are Chevy Suburbans?

But some shows have gone too far. _Bones_ immediately comes to mind with Toyota. They are always playing with some feature in the vehicles. _Modern Family_ did this as well (Claire answered a call on BT and Phil didn't realize it. It was then mentioned she was connected via BT on their new van.) but it was much better integrated into the show and didn't seem like they were forcing the product on you.

Anyone remember Friends and how they all had the Panasonic cordless phones? Subtle works and doesn't take away from the show.

One other thing that bugs me is to use an iPhone mockup of an incoming call on a device that is clearly not an iPhone.


----------



## James Long

phrelin said:


> The really dumb part of this discussion is that by restructuring commercial placement - kind of random for no more than 60 seconds, 45 seconds being the ideal length, but occasionally running longer to keep us confused, with no distinguishing breaks - the networks could eliminate most commercial skipping. I've never really understood the "woe is me" view from advertising supported TV that crams four or more thirty-to-sixty second commercials into blocks of up to 4 minutes.


Please --- NOOOOOO!

It is bad enough that shows build up and pivot over commercial breaks ... with a few seconds overlap in plot on some shows to remind you of what happened right before the break. The breaks change the rhythm of the show ... and now you suggest more of them?

I've attempted to watch movies on commercial channels that seemed to be 50% commercials ... the more breaks the worse it seems.

Where are we now? 18+ minutes of commercials per hour? If one kept the same ratio and one minute breaks that would be a commercial break every 2.3 minutes. I don't see how one could tell a recognizable story in 2.3 minute segments.


----------



## jerry downing

SayWhat? said:


> That harkens back to the Golden Era of TV. Remember when the lead cast member would hold up a product and talk about it?


I have videos of Red Skelton from the 1950's. Product placements were the ONLY ads. He would do a Tide ad which was written into the show. I remember Bob Hope doing the same with Texaco.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

jerry downing said:


> I have videos of Red Skelton from the 1950's. Product placements were the ONLY ads. He would do a Tide ad which was written into the show. I remember Bob Hope doing the same with Texaco.


Johnny Carson did this too...

I actually don't have any issues with product placement, even when poorly scripted. If companies are willing to pay for it and I otherwise like the show, I think that's the lesser of evils as compared to commercials, banners across the screen, or not having the show be made at all.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

Somebody on dslreports.com said something that got me to thinking about this in a different way.

Maybe Charlie is playing poker... like usual.

Maybe he expected this backlash... that the networks would say "hey, we need commercials to pay for programming"... and then Charlie can use that at the negotiating table the next time those channels want a rate increase. He can say "do you want a rate increase OR AutoHop skipping your commercials and driving down your commercial pricing?"

Just a thought.


----------



## James Long

Stewart Vernon said:


> Maybe he expected this backlash... that the networks would say "hey, we need commercials to pay for programming"... and then Charlie can use that at the negotiating table the next time those channels want a rate increase. He can say "do you want a rate increase OR AutoHop skipping your commercials and driving down your commercial pricing?"


Do you think DISH is planning on giving local stations the choice?
Stations will want the money and DISH will want to keep the feature.
Even without the feature stations want more money.


----------



## LazhilUT

I love the Auto Hop but I think we'll see Dish have a LOT more pricing disputes with these networks because they are now livid at Dish...


----------



## domingos35

why isn't auto hop available on any of my recordings?


----------



## harsh

Do the networks hold the rights to the _combination_ of their programming and the commercials?

I don't recall that anyone went after JVC for offering a commercial skip feature on their VCRs back in the day. It worked much the same way: commercials appeared when watching live and were marked with in and out points after the recording had completed.

This doesn't go nearly as far as the self-righteous movie rental companies that engage in editing the daylights out of movies to remove the content that they find objectionable (this has withstood some pretty serious legal wrangling).


----------



## harsh

satcrazy said:


> Are the inmates running the asylum?


Yes.

Pretty much any time businesses use legislation and/or government policy to further its objectives, that's what you get.

Lobbying is the other name for this.


----------



## Paul Secic

James Long said:


> Please --- NOOOOOO!
> 
> It is bad enough that shows build up and pivot over commercial breaks ... with a few seconds overlap in plot on some shows to remind you of what happened right before the break. The breaks change the rhythm of the show ... and now you suggest more of them?
> 
> I've attempted to watch movies on commercial channels that seemed to be 50% commercials ... the more breaks the worse it seems.
> 
> Where are we now? 18+ minutes of commercials per hour? If one kept the same ratio and one minute breaks that would be a commercial break every 2.3 minutes. I don't see how one could tell a recognizable story in 2.3 minute segments.


And that's why I have HBO, STARZ.


----------



## farmerdave4

Charlie could be pulling a fast one to help with negotiations.
Remember dish creating a make shift weather channel and removed the TWC from the network. One of the reasons was because TWC had moved away from doing 24/7 weather to being a documentary channel.
Weeks later both companies came to agreement and the new weather channel was gone. I’m still not happy that nothing has changed since then. Maybe The hopper will prove me wrong some day if I ever upgrade.


----------



## SayWhat?

Yeah, that one still ticks me off. Somebody bought somebody off there. That deal stunk from day one.


----------



## phrelin

Again, keep in mind Auto Hop only works on the top four broadcast network affiliated local channels in each DMA.

These are the channels that have FCC licenses, the ones that Congress has protected up to this point. They are the remnants of the 1958 TV economic model that would be gone today without Congress protecting them.

The overwhelming majority of Congress members running for office right now voted to force most Americans to pay retransmission fees to the local channel owners, some of which is passed through to the networks.

These are the free channels using "our airwaves" which in 1958 most people put up an antenna to receive, assuming Americans would never have to pay a dime to watch these channels. Some people can still do that.

But Congress decided that those of us (actually over 90% of Americans) who subscribe to a cable or satellite provider must subsidize the likes of News Corp, Comcast/NBCU, Disney/ESPN/ABC, and CBS (and keep in mind they all own and operate the local broadcast channels serving the major metropolitan populations).

What Charlie seems to be doing here is forcing the Congressman and two U.S. Senators you elect to say to you, the voters, that they would vote for Rupert Murdoch's interests anytime over your's, you putz.

If the networks and their affiliates challenge Auto Hop in any way, they risk facing Congress which is far more worrisome than the courts.

Charlie does take on some interesting battles.


----------



## SayWhat?

Rupie may have lost considerable influence though over the UK issue. There was talk of stripping him of his ownership rights here.


----------



## inkahauts

"Stewart Vernon" said:


> Somebody on dslreports.com said something that got me to thinking about this in a different way.
> 
> Maybe Charlie is playing poker... like usual.
> 
> Maybe he expected this backlash... that the networks would say "hey, we need commercials to pay for programming"... and then Charlie can use that at the negotiating table the next time those channels want a rate increase. He can say "do you want a rate increase OR AutoHop skipping your commercials and driving down your commercial pricing?"
> 
> Just a thought.


We'll that would be a loose loose situation if he took that approach. The only approach I can see is he will offer to charge for the auto hop feature for those that want it and split the costs. But giving people auto hop and then taking it away so he might be able to lower costs of programing, that won't work. The stations will just yank their channels, and make no mistake, if one does it, they will all follow on this one, because they know that they have the biggest bargaining chip. If all the stations leave, dish will go under, or they will cave in to their demands. I really wouldn't sue, I'd just yank my programing.


----------



## jdskycaster

Jason Whiddon said:


> Even though FFW'd is around an used by all, marketing a feature that bypasses their ads, which are already hurting, is just not a smart move in this market.


Which is why I am glad you are not making this decision for those of us that can see the positive side of this debate and how Dish works to advocate for their customers.



Jason Whiddon said:


> I think you'll see more disputes because if it, or it will be disabled on all or some of the channels which I assume they could pick and choose with software changes..


It is only available on the big four networks now, not any others. Everyone has the right to receive these networks for free OTA. These are the only customers that should have to endure endless advertising barrages. Dish subscribers pay monthly to receive these networks via an alternative method. If Dish dumps them due to an argument over a software feature then so be it. If I want to watch hours of ads I can plug in my antenna.



Jason Whiddon said:


> I dont think the feature is gonna last, I also dont see it as something a user really needs, it's just pissing off networks. Thats my 0.02 anyways.


I have been using it since day one and absolutely love it! It works perfectly and allows me the opportunity to watch a program or two while the remote is out of sight and out of mind. Very refreshing for someone that has been pressing the skip button for more years than I care to remember. I still have my JVC VCR BTW. Sitting on a shelf collecting dust unless DVR's are banned.

As for pissing of the networks I could care less. Do they really act like they care about their primary viewers? NO.


----------



## Darcaine

I agree with inkahauts on this one. The networks don't need to sue, I'm surprised they are even considering it, although they probably want to play the breech of contract/copywrite infringement card first before using their ace in the hole and pulling their programming off dish entirely unless they get vastly higher subscriber fees.

Either way though, the networks are the ones with the power here. They team up and they can pull nearly every channel off Dish over time and cripple Dish.

I expect this feature to be gone by the end of the year, or anyone with a hopper paying out the nose in increased subscriber fees (but then, maybe that's how they should do it, if you want autoskip, you pay extra for it, and those who don't have the option to sit through commercials).

As for product placement, yuck. I would rather be able to get up and walk away from the tv during ads than having them infect my favorite shows and storylines, where I have no choice but to suffer through them. Especially when they are as heavy handed as the Subway placements.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

James Long said:


> Do you think DISH is planning on giving local stations the choice?
> Stations will want the money and DISH will want to keep the feature.
> Even without the feature stations want more money.


True... but it could be used as a negotiating crowbar. IF the networks get steamed about it... Charlie knows they can't legally take it away from him, so he can offer it as a bargaining chip in the negotiations. IF they take a little less then he will disable the feature... OR he can say "see, we have this technology now and can extend it to any commercial channel"...



farmerdave4 said:


> Charlie could be pulling a fast one to help with negotiations.
> Remember dish creating a make shift weather channel and removed the TWC from the network.


Yeah, that's what the dslreports post made me think of... although we didn't really get the better Weather Channel stuff we were "promised", I figure Charlie must have gotten something in exchange for his bluff there.



inkahauts said:


> The stations will just yank their channels, and make no mistake, if one does it, they will all follow on this one, because they know that they have the biggest bargaining chip. If all the stations leave, dish will go under, or they will cave in to their demands. I really wouldn't sue, I'd just yank my programing.


You're forgetting the other side of this. IF those channels pull from Dish, then they lose the ability to count those millions of viewers... so their advertisers will all say "charge us less OR we will pull all of our ads from your channel"... so the choice to yank your channel from Dish is a measured one. Nobody wants to throw away millions of viewers that can't be counted in their advertising charges... so yeah, Dish could be hurt by a bunch of channels leaving but those channels would be hurt too.

Any response here has to be a measured one... because Charlie knows networks aren't going to yank en masse over this.


----------



## phrelin

I couldn't figure out why the CEO of Discovery Communications would be interjecting himself into the middle of this. I thought Discovery Communications was pretty much outside the cozy media corporations that own broadcast networks and local channels.

But according to Wikipedia Zaslav worked for NBC Universal 1989-2006. He was President, Cable and Domestic TV and New Media Distribution, from October 1999 to November 2006.

He'd better be careful or four of his channels on the same transponder will be an optional PTAT. Charlie doesn't respond well to people interfering where he thinks they don't belong.


----------



## jdskycaster

^Excellent point, and the optional Discovery Channel PTAT would be an awesome software feature. It should be added to a list of requested options.


----------



## SayWhat?

Stewart Vernon said:


> Somebody on dslreports.com said something that got me to thinking about this in a different way.


I can't find anything over there on Dish.


----------



## Mokanic

I offer this attachment as a defense exhibit for the court case, should it come to fruition. It seems commercials were looked upon as long AND annoying ever since the invention of the first remote. It was a selling point back then and it STILL is today. 

It is totally harmless to humans because it works "with a beam of MAGIC light!".

Do we have a 60 year old lawsuit waiting in the wings for Zenith and the invention that revolutionized the way we watch television today?


----------



## MysteryMan

Mokanic said:


> I offer this attachment as a defense exhibit for the court case, should it come to fruition. It seems commercials were looked upon as long AND annoying ever since the invention of the first remote. It was a selling point back then and it STILL is today.
> 
> It is totally harmless to humans because it works "with a beam of MAGIC light!".
> 
> Do we have a 60 year old lawsuit waiting in the wings for Zenith and the invention that revolutionized the way we watch television today?


Least we forget Alfred Hitchcock's snide remarks about his sponsors on the TV series "Alfred Hitchcock Presents".


----------



## SayWhat?

_"with a beam of MAGIC light!"_

I thought the first remotes used sound? (tuning forks or something)


----------



## MysteryMan

SayWhat? said:


> _"with a beam of MAGIC light!"_
> 
> I thought the first remotes used sound? (tuning forks or something)


The "Flash-Matic" in Mokanic's post was designed by the inventor of the remote, Eugene Polley who passed away yesterday at the age of 96. Polley's Flash-Matic projected a beam of light at photo cells located at the TV's corners. Each corner performed a different function (Channel change, picture on/off, sound on/off).


----------



## 356B

Discovery is weak, more chest beating....:lol:


----------



## SayWhat?

MysteryMan said:


> The "Flash-Matic"


OK, shall we say the first TV remote that actually worked properly? And at relatively the same time, 1956.

Zenith Space Command. _It was mechanical and used ultrasound to change the channel and volume. When the user pushed a button on the remote control, it clicked and struck a bar, hence the term "clicker". Each bar emitted a different frequency and circuits in the television detected this sound. _

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Remote_control


----------



## Mokanic

MysteryMan said:


> The "Flash-Matic" in Mokanic's post was designed by the inventor of the remote, Eugene Polley who passed away yesterday at the age of 96. Polley's Flash-Matic projected a beam of light at photo cells located at the TV's corners. Each corner performed a different function (Channel change, picture on/off, sound on/off).


I saw the news report of his death on my local news and the irony of the ad copy was too much to pass up and not "share".


----------



## MysteryMan

SayWhat? said:


> OK, shall we say the first TV remote that actually worked properly? And at relatively the same time, 1956.
> 
> Zenith Space Command. _It was mechanical and used ultrasound to change the channel and volume. When the user pushed a button on the remote control, it clicked and struck a bar, hence the term "clicker". Each bar emitted a different frequency and circuits in the television detected this sound. _
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Remote_control


Zenith Remotes: Lazy Bone (Wired) early 50s, Flash-Matic (Light Beam) 1955, Space Command (Ultrasonic) 1956.


----------



## Shades228

People need to look at the big picture rather and realise the impacts it will have though. If your contention is that people make more money and you don't think it's right then get over it because it's always going to happen and nothing you do will ever stop that.

Right now MMVPD's are trying to convince the powers that be that content providers pulling channels as the ultimate leverage is bad. The content providers now have the rallying cry of the MMVPD's are creating devices that will kill our revenue from ads. 

Right now I'm sure litigators are determing what the best course of action is and I can tell you that if the big 4 decide that they can press the issue in court about a contract breach and pull their channels DISH will have happen to them what they did to VOOM. Even if they're found in err and have to pay fines DISH will never recover.

I think Charlie will change the time frame to be longer than what it is now to make them happy but still be able to advertise that you can skip commercials with the hopper.


For the record I think Chuck has been the only show where product placement worked out well enough to be noticed but not intrusive. Their commercials were good as well.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

SayWhat? said:


> I can't find anything over there on Dish.


Here's the link to their discussion:

*http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/Dishs-New-AdSkipping-DVR-Making-Cable-Execs-Cry-119638*

There is a comment most of the way down the page from someone that made me re-think this a little, like Charlie might have something up his sleeve.


----------



## SayWhat?

^^ Weird. I did a search for Dish, Hopper and a few other terms, but didn't get any reasonable hits.

Oh well.


----------



## Darcaine

Shades228 said:


> People need to look at the big picture rather and realise the impacts it will have though. If your contention is that people make more money and you don't think it's right then get over it because it's always going to happen and nothing you do will ever stop that.
> 
> Right now MMVPD's are trying to convince the powers that be that content providers pulling channels as the ultimate leverage is bad. The content providers now have the rallying cry of the MMVPD's are creating devices that will kill our revenue from ads.
> 
> Right now I'm sure litigators are determing what the best course of action is and I can tell you that if the big 4 decide that they can press the issue in court about a contract breach and pull their channels DISH will have happen to them what they did to VOOM. Even if they're found in err and have to pay fines DISH will never recover.
> 
> I think Charlie will change the time frame to be longer than what it is now to make them happy but still be able to advertise that you can skip commercials with the hopper.
> 
> For the record I think Chuck has been the only show where product placement worked out well enough to be noticed but not intrusive. Their commercials were good as well.


Did we watch the same Chuck? The Subway product placements on that show were horrendous. In fact, Subway product placement has been terrible in every show they've added it to, even Community, naming one of it's characters Subway was ridiculous.

Edit: Looks like FOX is the first to get the lawsuit ball rolling. http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/fox-sues-dish-network-auto-329287


----------



## Stewart Vernon

*DISH Looks for Ruling on Questions Related to Copyright, Compliance*

ENGLEWOOD, CO -- (Marketwire) -- 05/24/12 -- DISH today filed suit against ABC, CBS, Fox and NBC in federal court for a declaratory judgment on questions that have arisen related to the pay-TV provider's May 10 introduction of a user-enabled commercial skipping technology called AutoHop. This feature is an advancement that is generating buzz and already seeing a groundswell of support from consumers.

Filed with the United States District Court, Southern District of New York, the suit asks for a declaratory judgment that the AutoHop feature does not infringe any copyrights that could be claimed by the major networks, and that DISH, while providing the AutoHop feature, remains in compliance with its agreements with the networks.

DISH's monthly subscriber fees include significant "retransmission fees" that DISH pays to the major networks. Although the broadcasters have made much of their content available for free using sites such as Hulu, they have continued to demand substantial increases in their retransmission fees.

"Consumers should be able to fairly choose for themselves what they do and do not want to watch," said David Shull, DISH senior vice president of Programming. "Viewers have been skipping commercials since the advent of the remote control; we are giving them a feature they want and that gives them more control."

"We don't believe AutoHop will substantially change established consumer behavior, but we do believe it makes the viewing experience better," said Shull.

In addition to increasing media reports of planned legal action against DISH, three of the networks -- CBS, Fox and NBC -- have rejected ads for DISH's Hopper Whole-Home DVR, the device that features the AutoHop function.

"We respect the business models that drive our industry, but we also embrace the evolving nature of technology and new ideas," said Shull. "Advances in the ability to measure and target viewership will give the entire industry -- including advertisers -- the ability to develop better programming, more effective advertising and deliver an overall better experience to the viewer."

_About AutoHop
_AutoHop is an extension of the Hopper's PrimeTime Anytime™ capability, the exclusive feature that allows viewers, with one click, to record all of the primetime TV programming on ABC, CBS, FOX and NBC in HD -- the networks that deliver some of the most popular shows during primetime. 
Once the viewer enables the PrimeTime Anytime feature, the Hopper automatically stores these shows for eight days after they have aired, creating an on-demand library of approximately 100 hours of primetime TV shows, and making it easy to access episodes from last night, or last week. AutoHop, using patented technology, works with most shows recorded using PrimeTime Anytime (patent pending).

A viewer can watch a show with the AutoHop option commercial-free starting at 1 a.m. ET, after a show has been recorded to the Hopper's PrimeTime Anytime library. Prior to that, the Hopper's 30-second "hop forward" feature continues to work for same-day viewing.

_About DISH
_DISH Network Corporation (NASDAQ: DISH), through its subsidiary DISH Network L.L.C., provides approximately 14.071 million satellite TV customers, as of March 31, 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 lineup 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.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

_With this gaining more and more national attention, and the lawsuits, I have merged the thread from the Hopper/Joey forum with the one in the General Dish forum to keep this in one place since the issues have began to transcend just being a Hopper/Joey discussion.

Please keep discussion of Hopper/Joey issues with this feature itself to the Hopper/Joey support forum... but discussions about the AutoHop concept and network implications to this thread.

Thanks!_


----------



## Araxen

It'll be interesting to see how this pans out. There will not be any settlements and this case could very well go right up to the SCOTUS.


----------



## Davenlr

Araxen said:


> this case could very well go right up to the SCOTUS.


Sorry to hear that. It will just be another 5-4 decision in favor of the networks.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

I do have to point out the irony that Dish introduces AutoHop feature, then networks decide not to accept commercial advertising money from Dish to promote their Hopper/Joey receivers.

So... on the one hand Dish argues "customers should be able to watch what they want, and they don't want to watch commercials"... but on the other hand Dish is paying money to get commercials airing that sell their products.

What customers does Dish think will be watching those commercials? I mean, if Dish wants to block commercials they seem to be saying customers don't watch them so why throw money in the garbage by paying for your own commercials?


----------



## Grampa67

Dish Sues Networks, Fox Sues Dish Over Ad-Skipping Auto Hop

http://tv.yahoo.com/news/dish-sues-networks-fox-sues-dish-over-ad-211728859.html


----------



## Shades228

Grampa67 said:


> Dish Sues Networks, Fox Sues Dish Over Ad-Skipping Auto Hop
> 
> http://tv.yahoo.com/news/dish-sues-networks-fox-sues-dish-over-ad-211728859.html


I don't see this going well for consumers during the litigations.


----------



## phrelin

Stewart Vernon said:


> I do have to point out the irony that Dish introduces AutoHop feature, then networks decide not to accept commercial advertising money from Dish to promote their Hopper/Joey receivers.
> 
> So... on the one hand Dish argues "customers should be able to watch what they want, and they don't want to watch commercials"... but on the other hand Dish is paying money to get commercials airing that sell their products.
> 
> What customers does Dish think will be watching those commercials? I mean, if Dish wants to block commercials they seem to be saying customers don't watch them so why throw money in the garbage by paying for your own commercials?


Only Dish customers with Hoppers can automatically skip commercials. What Dish wants is folks who are not currently Dish customers. They can't automatically skip commercials.


----------



## SayWhat?

Davenlr said:


> Sorry to hear that. It will just be another 5-4 decision in favor of the networks.


Which could be several years down the road, with the only winners being the lawyers.


----------



## lacruz

Another Dish Lawsuit = Price Increases. The customer is always left paying Charlie's lawyers. The customers will be the losers here, regardless of the outcome, our rates will go up.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

phrelin said:


> Only Dish customers with Hoppers can automatically skip commercials. What Dish wants is folks who are not currently Dish customers. They can't automatically skip commercials.


Exactly... thus the irony. Dish will have a hard time arguing that commercials have no value when they are themselves advertising... so they are kind of undercutting their own defense because the networks will claim Dish AutoHop eliminates commercials that their advertisers paid for assuming viewers would at least have a chance of watching.

Dish clearly recognizes value in advertising or they wouldn't be making commercials of their own and buying spots on networks. Would Dish pay as much for those spots if DirecTV and cable customers had their own "AutoHop" feature such that Dish commercials might never be seen?

The answer to that question will undercut Dish's stance on defending AutoHop.


----------



## Earl Bonovich

Darcaine said:


> Did we watch the same Chuck? The Subway product placements on that show were horrendous. In fact, Subway product placement has been terrible in every show they've added it to, even Community, naming one of it's characters Subway was ridiculous.
> 
> Edit: Looks like FOX is the first to get the lawsuit ball rolling. http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/fox-sues-dish-network-auto-329287


While there were a few tmes it was over the top... it is a lot better then the Toyota ones on Bones.

Community by design is an over the top, and purposely does that... as does Pawn Stars (With Subway).


----------



## djpadz

Wasn't this battle already fought and lost over a decade ago with ReplayTV's commercial-skip feature?


----------



## 356B

SayWhat? said:


> Which could be several years down the road, with the only winners being the lawyers.


 And the only real losers will be the subscribers.
There is no way the networks didn't know this was in the works. If one was a paranoid, conspiracy type you might deduct this is a capitalist plot to raise the price of programing. 
The posturing is just that, the refusal to runs ads for Dish is stupid, revenue is revenue, these guys would take ads from the Devil if they thought they could pull if off. No this is about big money and Dish's stock was up today in a down Nasdaq market...this ain't no FB deal. What fun...!


----------



## SayWhat?

Stewart Vernon said:


> Dish will have a hard time arguing that commercials have no value when they are themselves advertising... so they are kind of undercutting their own defense because the networks will claim Dish AutoHop eliminates commercials that their advertisers paid for assuming viewers would at least have a chance of watching.


I don't see them saying they have no value, only that the viewer should be able to choose whether to watch them or not. I choose not to, even without a 'spensive 'Roo contraption.


----------



## Shades228

djpadz said:


> Wasn't this battle already fought and lost over a decade ago with ReplayTV's commercial-skip feature?


The lawsuit was dismissed due to the people who purchased replays assetts chose to not use that feature due to fear of damages. So while it was fought it was never finished.

I believe this may have been posted earlier;

http://tv.yahoo.com/news/networks-dont-dishs-commercial-skipping-auto-hop-try-200728242.html


----------



## Stewart Vernon

SayWhat? said:


> I don't see them saying they have no value, only that the viewer should be able to choose whether to watch them or not. I choose not to, even without a 'spensive 'Roo contraption.


Users can already choose not to watch commercials by DVRing and skipping them OR by closing their eyes or getting up and going to the bathroom.

The AutoHop feature, however, is different since it lets the user press a button once and skip all commercials for the duration of that program without further interaction.

Using the Manual skipping method means you actually still watch snippets of commercials in order to find where to start watching your program again... whereas AutoHop ensures you see none of the commercials.

That's why AutoHop is different and why the networks are complaining. Nobody can make you watch commercials, but until now there was no automated way to easily skip all of the commercials with one press of a button.

IF this feature wins, customers might be temporarily happy... but networks will not be able to sell commercials anymore and then the cost of programming (and channels) will go up OR those channels and programs will go away.

I don't think people understand just how much of the programming they like exists because of commercial revenue to the networks.


----------



## jdskycaster

Stewart Vernon said:


> IF this feature wins, customers might be temporarily happy... but networks will not be able to sell commercials anymore and then the cost of programming (and channels) will go up OR those channels and programs will go away.
> 
> I don't think people understand just how much of the programming they like exists because of commercial revenue to the networks.


You are trying to say that time shifting and using the skip button is somehow different but fundamentally it is not. In the end you are still skipping the ad. I am sure advertisers do think in terms of how effective their ad is based on a consumer viewing 1 or 2 seconds of it

The argument that ad revenues will be lost forever was already put forth and proven wrong when the DVR first hit the streets and became wildly popular. The truth is it (VCR,DVR,TIVO etc) has had ZERO effect on ad revenues.


----------



## Shades228

And the rest join the fray. NBC and CBS file suits and ABC is probably just waiting until tomorrow to get headlines.

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/fox-cbs-nbc-sue-dish-329287


----------



## cypherx

Ugh, just knew this was going to happen. If the networks win, wouldn't that make ad block plugins for web browsers illegal?

Interesting the networks use terminology like copyright violation, unlawful, unauthorized modification, etc...

Thing is nothing is modified. AFAIK the transport stream is copied bit for bit from whats uplinked by the networks. Copyright violation? That would make all DVR's illegal. Unauthorized modification? To what? The end user makes a conscious decision to turn the feature on, and even then they can't use it until the next day. All it does is automate the 30skip / FF or whatever I would be normally doing on DirecTV, Comcast, or whoever.

Oh and what about the retrans fee's that keep going up every single year?


----------



## Mike Bertelson

IMHO, this is just plain bad for the subscriber. If they can't show their commercials on a particular service providers DVR then they charge that providers more to carry their channels...higher bills for us. I don't like where this is going.

Mike


----------



## Shades228

cypherx said:


> Ugh, just knew this was going to happen. If the networks win, wouldn't that make ad block plugins for web browsers illegal?
> 
> Interesting the networks use terminology like copyright violation, unlawful, unauthorized modification, etc...
> 
> Thing is nothing is modified. AFAIK the transport stream is copied bit for bit from whats uplinked by the networks. Copyright violation? That would make all DVR's illegal. Unauthorized modification? To what? The end user makes a conscious decision to turn the feature on, and even then they can't use it until the next day. All it does is automate the 30skip / FF or whatever I would be normally doing on DirecTV, Comcast, or whoever.
> 
> Oh and what about the retrans fee's that keep going up every single year?


It would be a large jump to ad blockers so I wouldn't worry about that plus this is going to take years to resolve (See Tivo vs Echostar).

I would be more concerned with other things. Networks get an injunction to stop autoskip, PTAT, Sling, they pull services completely, or they refuse to allow new contracts to take place during this litigation. While those are extremes they're certainly not FUD at this time.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

jdskycaster said:


> You are trying to say that time shifting and using the skip button is somehow different but fundamentally it is not. In the end you are still skipping the ad. I am sure advertisers do think in terms of how effective their ad is based on a consumer viewing 1 or 2 seconds of it
> 
> The argument that ad revenues will be lost forever was already put forth and proven wrong when the DVR first hit the streets and became wildly popular. The truth is it (VCR,DVR,TIVO etc) has had ZERO effect on ad revenues.


You and many others keep missing the difference.

There's a huge difference between you throwing away junk mail and your mailman not delivering it to you in the first place!

You recording and skipping commercials manually is no different than using the bathroom or going to get a snack. This is largely why the DVR and trick play features won out because they can't make you watch anything you don't want to watch.

AutoHop is a whole new ball of wax. AutoHop gives you the ability to disable all commercials in a given program with the press of one button.

Now... they don't know whether or not I watch any commercials ever... but with AutoHop they know I don't even have a chance.

If you were an advertiser, how much money would you pay for an ad that you know people aren't watching because they can disable commercials entirely?

Your boss doesn't know if you goof off at work sometimes... maybe your lunch hour is a lunch 75 minutes some days... but IF you put a big sign up announcing your mid-day absence then you can bet your boss takes notices.

AutoHop is a big sign saying "no commercials here"... which is way more definitive than maybe customers skip and maybe they don't. AutoHop is definitely they do.

That's the difference.

Dish is paying for Hopper commercials. Can you imagine how mad Dish would be if they paid NBC for a 30-second commercial spot and then NBC doesn't air it? Yeah, maybe no one watches it... but they can't watch it if it isn't on.

Dish implementing AutoHop is a world of difference to you skipping commercials yourself.

I know people think commercials are evil... but do you want every channel to cost as much as HBO does? That would be where we would be headed IF commercial TV goes away.

Complain all you want, but I'd rather the networks and advertisers "think" I might be watching their commercials so they will keep funding the programming so all my networks don't cost $15-$20 each like the premium channels.


----------



## Renard

Do you think Directv will do it as well?
I hope YES BIG TIME.


----------



## Marlin Guy

Renard said:


> Do you think Directv will do it as well?
> I hope YES BIG TIME.


They'll wait and see how the innovator comes out legally, and then copy the genius.


----------



## TheRatPatrol

I really hope this isn't the beginning to the end of skipping ads altogether.


----------



## Marlin Guy

Stewart Vernon said:


> You and many others keep missing the difference.
> 
> There's a huge difference between you throwing away junk mail and your mailman not delivering it to you in the first place!


Apples and peaches.
The commercials are delivered. Your analogy is only valid if Dish were stripping out the commercials before they got to your DVR.
That is not what they do.
Every time you start playback on a PTAT program, you are presented with the option of consciously throwing out the junk mail or opening it.

The number of times the user has to press a button to facilitate that is irrelevant. Dish just built a better mousetrap, and made the previous models look primitive.

On a side note, Newscorp should have known this was coming well in advance. Their hackers are slipping.


----------



## Shades228

TheRatPatrol said:


> I really hope this isn't the beginning to the end of skipping ads altogether.


It won't go that far but they want the customer to initiate it. Then there is a chance that it's still played.


----------



## Shades228

Marlin Guy said:


> Apples and peaches.
> The commercials are delivered. Your analogy is only valid if Dish were stripping out the commercials before they got to your DVR.
> That is not what they do.
> Every time you start playback on a PTAT program, you are presented with the option of consciously throwing out the junk mail or opening it.
> 
> The number of times the user has to press a button to facilitate that is irrelevant. Dish just built a better mousetrap, and made the previous models look primitive.
> 
> On a side note, Newscorp should have known this was coming well in advance. Their hackers are slipping.


His analogy is fine and was appropriate. There is never an analogy that is perfect for every situation. Just because you don't like something doesn't make it more right.

Sorry but this time Charlie has gone too far and you're the one who's going to pay for it. This is his **** fight and as much as I can admire some of the things he's done for the industry, much like Al Davis of the NFL, sometimes you just lose touch or go against what's best for the people you think you're doing it for because it's an ego trip.


----------



## Jhon69

Stewart Vernon said:


> You and many others keep missing the difference.
> 
> There's a huge difference between you throwing away junk mail and your mailman not delivering it to you in the first place!
> 
> You recording and skipping commercials manually is no different than using the bathroom or going to get a snack. This is largely why the DVR and trick play features won out because they can't make you watch anything you don't want to watch.
> 
> AutoHop is a whole new ball of wax. AutoHop gives you the ability to disable all commercials in a given program with the press of one button.
> 
> Now... they don't know whether or not I watch any commercials ever... but with AutoHop they know I don't even have a chance.
> 
> If you were an advertiser, how much money would you pay for an ad that you know people aren't watching because they can disable commercials entirely?
> 
> Your boss doesn't know if you goof off at work sometimes... maybe your lunch hour is a lunch 75 minutes some days... but IF you put a big sign up announcing your mid-day absence then you can bet your boss takes notices.
> 
> AutoHop is a big sign saying "no commercials here"... which is way more definitive than maybe customers skip and maybe they don't. AutoHop is definitely they do.
> 
> That's the difference.
> 
> Dish is paying for Hopper commercials. Can you imagine how mad Dish would be if they paid NBC for a 30-second commercial spot and then NBC doesn't air it? Yeah, maybe no one watches it... but they can't watch it if it isn't on.
> 
> Dish implementing AutoHop is a world of difference to you skipping commercials yourself.
> 
> I know people think commercials are evil... but do you want every channel to cost as much as HBO does? That would be where we would be headed IF commercial TV goes away.
> 
> Complain all you want, but I'd rather the networks and advertisers "think" I might be watching their commercials so they will keep funding the programming so all my networks don't cost $15-$20 each like the premium channels.


Another excellent post Stewart and of course I agree also.


----------



## phrelin

Come on guys, its all about context here, the big picture.



Stewart Vernon said:


> IF this feature wins, customers might be temporarily happy... but networks will not be able to sell commercials anymore and then the cost of programming (and channels) will go up OR those channels and programs will go away.
> 
> I don't think people understand just how much of the programming they like exists because of commercial revenue to the networks.


Keep the context in mind. Dish has not chosen to lump some cable channels together to strip the commercials out.

What they have done is DMA-by-DMA given the viewer who is now paying a retransmission fee to a bunch of local channels to skip the commercials on those channels. I'm not even sure what kind of legal standing the networks have as _their_ contracts are with the local station, even if that station is an O&O. Auto Hop only works on local channels.

Charlie apparently has no problem with broadcasting national channels with commercials without allowing the Auto Hop feature. That's the context.



Stewart Vernon said:


> You recording and skipping commercials manually is no different than using the bathroom or going to get a snack. This is largely why the DVR and trick play features won out because they can't make you watch anything you don't want to watch.


Yeah, but now they can't force me to leave a room in my house to avoid commercials. They don't control what I do. It's all about context.



> AutoHop is a whole new ball of wax. AutoHop gives you the ability to disable all commercials in a given program with the press of one button.


 Yes it does. it gives *me* the ability in the privacy of *my own home* with my old arthritic fingers to press a button once to skip commercials in a show instead of pressing a dozen or more times. That's the context.



> If you were an advertiser, how much money would you pay for an ad that you know people aren't watching because they can disable commercials entirely?


Actually, whether *I* watch commercials is not even in the formula computing the value of commercials. I'm old and live in a rural area. So I don't matter to them and they don't matter to me. That's my context.

Perhaps what they would prefer to do would be to require everyone between the ages of 18-49 to be handcuffed to their chairs for three hours a night to watch commercial-filled national programming via a local television channel. But I don't think Congress would vote for that. I'm not sure, but I don't think they would.



> Complain all you want, but I'd rather the networks and advertisers "think" I might be watching their commercials so they will keep funding the programming so all my networks don't cost $15-$20 each like the premium channels.


Actually, here you really need to understand the big picture.

It is likely that you do pay to Disney/ESPN/ABC, News Corp, and NBCU each about what a block of premium channels cost. It's just that you cannot opt not to buy each of their blocks of channels like you do HBO, Showtime and Starz. In fact, it is very clear that when contract time comes up, the Disney suits intend to negotiate the Disney/ESPN/ABC channels as a block - including the ABC O&O - but they will not be giving me the option to not buy them. That's the context.

You, like the broadcast networks and local station owners, are defending a 1958 economic model that should have died sometime in the past ten years.

It is very likely that your Congressman and two Senators have voted to maintain that model and to force you to subsidize it, big time. I have been writing to protest this for years.

There should be a national NBC cable channel, along with USA and Syfy. There should be a national Fox cable channel, along with FX, Speed, etc. There should be a national ABC cable channel, along with ESPN, Disney, etc.

So I respectfully disagree and would happily file a friend-of-the-court brief supporting Auto Hop if I could.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

Another bit of irony... How many posters who hate commercials and want to skip them all... how many of you have links or things in your signatures or avatars that are advertisements? Or maybe you wear clothes with logos on them? Or a bumper sticker on your car perhaps?

If advertisements are evil and to be skipped... why are you advertising?

Food for thought.

I still say as a fan of TV shows... that we should all be hoping this is just a ploy by Charlie to negotiate and use as a bargaining chip... because if the networks push this and lose in court, then we viewers will ultimately lose because ad revenue will go down and network transmission fees will go up... and then our cable/satellite bills will go up... and then everyone will complain about that and wonder why TV suddenly costs so much.


----------



## SayWhat?

Marlin Guy said:


> Apples and peaches.
> The commercials are delivered. Your analogy is only valid if Dish were stripping out the commercials before they got to your DVR.
> That is not what they do.
> Every time you start playback on a PTAT program, you are presented with the option of consciously throwing out the junk mail or opening it.


Right. The postal carrier still puts the junk mail in by box, but I make the choice to dump it enmasse without unfolding or opening any of it.

And No, I don't wear any clothing that displays labels, sayings, slogans or logos, nor do I have any bumper stickers on my cars.


----------



## sregener

cypherx said:


> Copyright violation? That would make all DVR's illegal. Unauthorized modification? To what?


Copyright does more than protect against copying someone else's work - it also pertains to keeping the work as the original author intended. In other words, copyright not only prevents you from making an unauthorized copy of a book, it prevents you from altering the book when you make a legitimate copy. What the networks are arguing is that the commercials are part of the "artistic work" and displaying the program without them modifies their copyrighted work. This is a rather weak foot to stand on, IMO, because when they rerun them later, they use different advertisements, which points to the interchangeability of the ads themselves. The other side of it is that networks write their scripts in such a way as to utilize commercial breaks at strategic points within the plot, and skipping those times to ponder or discuss the program changes the artistic worth of the program. How many times will Ryan Seacrest say, "We'll find out... after the break" and then instantly say, "And we're back!" before it seems comical?


----------



## sregener

phrelin said:


> There should be a national NBC cable channel, along with USA and Syfy. There should be a national Fox cable channel, along with FX, Speed, etc. There should be a national ABC cable channel, along with ESPN, Disney, etc.


While I may agree with you, there are a few facts that are undeniable. First, broadcast television consistently delivers the highest ratings in the country. There must be something about the economic model that allows them to afford higher quality programming in larger quantities than the cable model does. It may have something to with the fact that many people use antennas or get "lifeline" cable - which includes almost nothing but local broadcast stations.

It isn't the commercials themselves, because USA and SyFy have commercials, too. I believe it is the ubiquity of these channels - they are in almost every single household with a television.


----------



## Nick

*Law of Unintended Consequences *



Stewart Vernon said:


> I do have to point out the irony that Dish introduces AutoHop feature, then networks decide not to accept commercial advertising money from Dish to promote their Hopper/Joey receivers.
> 
> So... on the one hand Dish argues "customers should be able to watch what they want, and they don't want to watch commercials"... but on the other hand Dish is paying money to get commercials airing that sell their products.
> 
> What customers does Dish think will be watching those commercials? I mean, if Dish wants to block commercials they seem to be saying customers don't watch them so why throw money in the garbage by paying for your own commercials?


The spector of Dish's AutoHop feature skipping it's own Hopper/Joey commercials portends far-reaching, but as yet aunknown ramifications when the use of such auto-skipping maneuvers by users reaches critical mass, possibly akin to the time-travel paradox, and once again proving that the law of unintended consequences is in full effect..

Perhaps the Mayans prognosticators were right. It's probably no coincidink that Charlie introduces the Harper in the same year that the Mayans have predicted time will cease. Conspiracy or not, these are facts which cannot be denied. You be the judge.


----------



## Marlin Guy

SayWhat? said:


> And No, I don't wear any clothing that displays labels, sayings, slogans or logos, nor do I have any bumper stickers on my cars.


I go even further than that.
I tell the dealership that if they stick one of their dealer emblems on the back of my new car then there is no deal.
I do let them install the advertising license plate brackets, but I remove them as soon as I get home and get some plain ones.

What I will do is help to promote a product in which I believe, in person, in forums, or on facebook.


----------



## grover517

Renard said:


> Do you think Directv will do it as well?
> I hope YES BIG TIME.


DirecTV bought the rights to ReplayTV's software technology including the patents, so they already have the capability. Have had for quite a while now, but haven't chosen to do so.

But even if Dish wins, unless DirecTV starts losing subscribers specifically because of this feature, we won't see it.


----------



## damondlt

Stewart Vernon said:


> You and many others keep missing the difference.
> 
> There's a huge difference between you throwing away junk mail and your mailman not delivering it to you in the first place!
> 
> You recording and skipping commercials manually is no different than using the bathroom or going to get a snack. This is largely why the DVR and trick play features won out because they can't make you watch anything you don't want to watch.
> 
> AutoHop is a whole new ball of wax. AutoHop gives you the ability to disable all commercials in a given program with the press of one button.
> 
> Now... they don't know whether or not I watch any commercials ever... but with AutoHop they know I don't even have a chance.
> 
> If you were an advertiser, how much money would you pay for an ad that you know people aren't watching because they can disable commercials entirely?
> 
> Your boss doesn't know if you goof off at work sometimes... maybe your lunch hour is a lunch 75 minutes some days... but IF you put a big sign up announcing your mid-day absence then you can bet your boss takes notices.
> 
> AutoHop is a big sign saying "no commercials here"... which is way more definitive than maybe customers skip and maybe they don't. AutoHop is definitely they do.
> 
> That's the difference.
> 
> Dish is paying for Hopper commercials. Can you imagine how mad Dish would be if they paid NBC for a 30-second commercial spot and then NBC doesn't air it? Yeah, maybe no one watches it... but they can't watch it if it isn't on.
> 
> Dish implementing AutoHop is a world of difference to you skipping commercials yourself.
> 
> I know people think commercials are evil... but do you want every channel to cost as much as HBO does? That would be where we would be headed IF commercial TV goes away.
> 
> Complain all you want, but I'd rather the networks and advertisers "think" I might be watching their commercials so they will keep funding the programming so all my networks don't cost $15-$20 each like the premium channels.


 Thanks , good post!
I keep hearing , well everyone elses DVRs can skip commercials. um , NO they can't.

You can choose not to watch them, but they are still there.

I look at it this way, and you all can get mad.

But are you really Surprised??
Dish pisses off the networks so bad, CBS,and ABC is already sour with them.

Dish always makes it seem like they are doing it all for you, but in the end the customer suffers.
Having Dish network is like being married to an abusive husband!

Same crap Different day!


----------



## Diana C

cypherx said:


> .Oh and what about the retrans fee's that keep going up every single year?


If Dish wins, you ain't seen nothin' yet. The networks and their affiliates will punish Dish Network with monumental retransmission fees.



Marlin Guy said:


> Apples and peaches.
> The commercials are delivered. Your analogy is only valid if Dish were stripping out the commercials before they got to your DVR.


This is likely the very point upon which the lawsuit will hinge. Does the deployment of technology to a viewer's local device versus being implemented at the retransmission source, make a material difference under the law? The fact that it is offered for free, and enablement is optional to the viewer will help Dish's cause. However, regardless of the legal details, if Dish prevails on Auto-Hop you can expect retransmission lawsuits involving Dish that will make the previous fights look like a picnic.


----------



## Marlin Guy

damondlt said:


> Thanks , good post!
> I keep hearing , well everyone elses DVRs can skip commercials. um , NO they can't.
> 
> You can choose not to watch them, but they are still there.


That is EXACTLY how the Hopper works. They do not remove the commercials. If you FFWD or REW past the Auto Hop point by one second, the commercials will play.


----------



## harsh

SayWhat? said:


> I thought the first remotes used sound? (tuning forks or something)


The non-Zenith ones did (until the Zenith patent ran out).


----------



## SayWhat?

Marlin Guy said:


> I go even further than that.
> I tell the dealership that if they stick one of their dealer emblems on the back of my new car then there is no deal.


Same here. If I buy a used car with one, it's the first thing that gets removed.

I ripped into a hardware store manager one day because most everything I wanted to buy had not only the True Value logo, but the local store's name branded all over them. He couldn't quite see the difference between "Scott's" or "Vermont American" and his store name.


----------



## damondlt

Marlin Guy said:


> That is EXACTLY how the Hopper works. They do not remove the commercials. If you FFWD or REW past the Auto Hop point by one second, the commercials will play.


I think the problem is , most receivers do like a 10 second or 30 second skip. I know any of the boxes i had did. But you can still see, the commercial.
It doesn't skip an entire 3 minute period , like it sound like the hopper can do.

There was nothing wrong with the old system, so something has obviously changed form the VIP to the Hopper.

You guys act like the Networks just don't know how it works. 
OK They are not that DUMB! They see something they don't like!


----------



## jdskycaster

Stewart Vernon said:


> You and many others keep missing the difference. There's a huge difference between you throwing away junk mail and your mailman not delivering it to you in the first place!
> 
> You recording and skipping commercials manually is no different than using the bathroom or going to get a snack. This is largely why the DVR and trick play features won out because they can't make you watch anything you don't want to watch.
> 
> AutoHop is a whole new ball of wax. AutoHop gives you the ability to disable all commercials in a given program with the press of one button.


I absolutely understand the difference. What you fail to acknowledge is that the results are the same. In either case hitting the forward button 7 times in a row or activating the auto hop feature for each and every show provides the exact same outcome.



> Now... they don't know whether or not I watch any commercials ever... but with AutoHop they know I don't even have a chance.


Only if you activate it and they do not know if you do!


> If you were an advertiser, how much money would you pay for an ad that you know people aren't watching because they can disable commercials entirely?


I do not know if anybody is watching it without autohop either and you cannot disable commercials entirely. Only for programs that PTAT records and only after a designated amount of time passes. There could be room for negotiation on the last point alone.


> Your boss doesn't know if you goof off at work sometimes... maybe your lunch hour is a lunch 75 minutes some days... but IF you put a big sign up announcing your mid-day absence then you can bet your boss takes notices.


The advertisers, just like my boss, are not stupid. They (advertisers) already know millions of people are skipping their ads every night. My boss knows if I am goofing off because my work is not done. 


> AutoHop is a big sign saying "no commercials here"... which is way more definitive than maybe customers skip and maybe they don't. AutoHop is definitely they do.


Customers still have to acknowledge they want to skip. Some may and some may not. It may be definitive in your mind but that does not mean it is.



> Dish is paying for Hopper commercials. Can you imagine how mad Dish would be if they paid NBC for a 30-second commercial spot and then NBC doesn't air it? Yeah, maybe no one watches it... but they can't watch it if it isn't on.


Dish is not preventing the networks from transmitting the commercials. Nor are they deleting the commercials from the stream. The commercials still exist in the recording and if you do not choose to autohop you can watch the broadcast just as it aired.


> Dish implementing AutoHop is a world of difference to you skipping commercials yourself.


The networks will definitely be looking for advocates to work on their case and/or testify and argue this point on their behalf. I am sure this job pays very well. Forward resume and credentials to the major networks taking part in the litigation.



> I know people think commercials are evil... but do you want every channel to cost as much as HBO does? That would be where we would be headed IF commercial TV goes away.


We Dish subscribers already pay the network retransmission fees for channels that are supposed to be free. Commercials and advertisers are not evil, in this particular case the networks are and swizzle in just a pinch of greed into that description as well. If the big four are supposed to be completely paid for with ads why do we then have to pay them anything additional just to receive them from our provider?



> Complain all you want, but I'd rather the networks and advertisers "think" I might be watching their commercials so they will keep funding the programming so all my networks don't cost $15-$20 each like the premium channels.


I would argue that the cost of "free" networks subsidized with ads will never equal the cost of an HBO with zero ads. It will always be something less. I agree there is an argument on both sides of this coin. I am far from complaining here. I acknowledge that this is just part of the process and by now you know which side I am on.

JD


----------



## RasputinAXP

Until a little while ago, broadcast stations WERE 'free and subsidized by ads'.


----------



## Ray [email protected] Network

Auto Hop does not remove commercials from the recordings. When a program is selected with the RED Kangoroo in the upper right hand corner, a box appears asking if you want to enable the feature, so the choice is yours if you want to watch commercials or not. If you select NO you can watch all the commercial you want. Thanks.



jdskycaster said:


> I absolutely understand the difference. What you fail to acknowledge is that the results are the same. In either case hitting the forward button 7 times in a row or activating the auto hop feature for each and every show provides the exact same outcome.
> 
> Only if you activate it and they do not know if you do!
> 
> I do not know if anybody is watching it without autohop either and you cannot disable commercials entirely. Only for programs that PTAT records and only after a designated amount of time passes. There could be room for negotiation on the last point alone.
> 
> The advertisers, just like my boss, are not stupid. They (advertisers) already know millions of people are skipping their ads every night. My boss knows if I am goofing off because my work is not done.
> 
> Customers still have to acknowledge they want to skip. Some may and some may not. It may be definitive in your mind but that does not mean it is.
> 
> Dish is not preventing the networks from transmitting the commercials. Nor are they deleting the commercials from the stream. The commercials still exist in the recording and if you do not choose to autohop you can watch the broadcast just as it aired.
> 
> The networks will definitely be looking for advocates to work on their case and/or testify and argue this point on their behalf. I am sure this job pays very well. Forward resume and credentials to the major networks taking part in the litigation.
> 
> We Dish subscribers already pay the network retransmission fees for channels that are supposed to be free. Commercials and advertisers are not evil, in this particular case the networks are and swizzle in just a pinch of greed into that description as well. If the big four are supposed to be completely paid for with ads why do we then have to pay them anything additional just to receive them from our provider?
> 
> I would argue that the cost of "free" networks subsidized with ads will never equal the cost of an HBO with zero ads. It will always be something less. I agree there is an argument on both sides of this coin. I am far from complaining here. I acknowledge that this is just part of the process and by now you know which side I am on.
> 
> JD


----------



## SayWhat?

RasputinAXP said:


> Until a little while ago, broadcast stations WERE 'free and subsidized by ads'.


They still are. I watch and record a number of broadcast stations and their subchannels and skip commercials at will without paying a dime for any of them.


----------



## Laxguy

SayWhat? said:


> They still are. I watch and record a number of broadcast stations and their subchannels and skip commercials at will without paying a dime for any of them.


OTA? Maybe, but you're still paying for networks in your overall bill........


----------



## Laxguy

Ray [email protected] Network said:


> Auto Hop does not remove commercials from the recordings. When a program is selected with the RED Kangoroo in the upper right hand corner, a box appears asking if you want to enable the feature, so the choice is yours if you want to watch commercials or not. If you select NO you can watch all the commercial you want. Thanks.


That point has been made many times already, and please trim what you quote to what's relevant.


----------



## jdskycaster

^Correct. They are only free to those with only an antenna. Everyone else is paying something for them.


----------



## Herdfan

Stewart Vernon said:


> Another bit of irony... How many posters who hate commercials and want to skip them all... how many of you have links or things in your signatures or avatars that are advertisements? Or maybe you wear clothes with logos on them? Or a bumper sticker on your car perhaps?
> 
> If advertisements are evil and to be skipped... why are you advertising?


Because putting on a shirt takes "X" amount of time whether or not it has a logo or not. Watching 40 minutes of show that take 60 because of commercials is the difference. The advertising is not bad, the time it takes is.

I am starting to understand Charlie's point. Why should customers have to pay to receive a signal via satellite or cable that is free OTA? So to punish the networks and affiliates for making customers pay for something that should be free, he developed Auto-Hop. Good for him.


----------



## SayWhat?

jdskycaster said:


> ^Correct. They are only free to those with only an antenna. Everyone else is paying something for them.


So, get an antenna. That way you get all the sub-channels and other minor channels not carried by the satellite and cable companies.

You don't HAVE to pay for the networks.


----------



## SayWhat?

Herdfan said:


> I am starting to understand Charlie's point. Why should customers have to pay to receive a signal via satellite or cable that is free OTA?


That goes into another thread we've seen here many times. Just ban retransmission fees and get it over with.


----------



## RasputinAXP

SayWhat? said:


> They still are. I watch and record a number of broadcast stations and their subchannels and skip commercials at will without paying a dime for any of them.


No they're not. They're available for free OTA, but Dish pays retrans fees to at least one station in my market.


----------



## domingos35

i don't think dish will have any problems winning this case in court


----------



## sigma1914

domingos35 said:


> i don't think dish will have any problems winning this case in court


Why?


----------



## Marlin Guy

damondlt said:


> I think the problem is , most receivers do like a 10 second or 30 second skip. I know any of the boxes i had did. But you can still see, the commercial.


You are probably used to 30 second "slip" on DirecTV. It's similar to Dish's 60x FFWD, only in regulated 30 second bursts. That and auto-correct were two things that really annoyed me about my DriecTV DVR.
Dish has always had true skip function. You don't see anything during the skip. It simply jumps ahead in time instantly. They also don't do auto-correct, Thank God!


----------



## Laxguy

Quite a bit seems to annoy you! DIRECTV® has a 30 Skip but you have to enable it via entering a keyword. 

I find it easier to use FF 3 and with a tiny bit of skill, land it exactly where I want, be it a .5, 1, 2, 3, 3.5 etc. commercial block.


----------



## Marlin Guy

Laxguy said:


> DIRECTV® has a 30 Skip but you have to enable it via entering a keyword.


And how many everyday users know about that little song and dance?
http://www.weaknees.com/hr20-tips.php


----------



## Laxguy

Marlin Guy said:


> And how many everyday users know about that little song and dance?
> http://www.weaknees.com/hr20-tips.php


2,788,498 though there's neither song nor dance....:nono2:


----------



## phrelin

"sregener" said:


> While I may agree with you, there are a few facts that are undeniable. First, broadcast television consistently delivers the highest ratings in the country. There must be something about the economic model that allows them to afford higher quality programming in larger quantities than the cable model does. It may have something to with the fact that many people use antennas or get "lifeline" cable - which includes almost nothing but local broadcast stations.
> 
> It isn't the commercials themselves, because USA and SyFy have commercials, too. I believe it is the ubiquity of these channels - they are in almost every single household with a television.


Actually, the consistency of broadcast ratings is in decline. This year NBC had a number of decent-to-good shows get terrible ratings. Fox and ABC struggle more than they used to. CBS may be the winner, but the pot has gotten smaller. And The CW....

I've posted this before, but IMHO if satellite/cable would be allowed to deliver directly broadcast network content consistent with time zones, ratings would not change and the networks would make more money by not sharing ad revenue with locals. Local channels would instantly lose their entitlement status and would have to offer desirable content to survive.

In most DMA's we would likely see two or three channels offering network content on sub channels for OTA folks.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

Another thing worth mentioning...

I don't think Dish is doing anything illegal. I think they were very careful about this... so I don't think the networks will be able to win anything in court.

However... IF Dish does (as I expect) win this in court... then as I said earlier, it spells something of an end to commercial broadcast TV because the other satellite and cable companies will soon follow suit most likely if customers demand this... and then the networks will be unable to sell commercial time for what they do today.

The networks will have to look elsewhere for that money... and that means your and my pockets!

This commercial skipping thing will not be free to us... mark my words.

You want the end of commercials... be careful what you ask for... you might just get it.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

ENGLEWOOD, CO -- (Marketwire) -- 05/25/12 -- DISH (NASDAQ: DISH) filed a lawsuit in defense of its AutoHop™ commercial-skipping feature after threats from broadcasters and responded to subsequent suits filed against it late Thursday by CBS, FOX and NBC.

The following statements can be attributed to Dave Shull, senior vice president of Programming for DISH:

"The lawsuits filed by the networks essentially argue that 'consumers must watch commercials.' We find that proposition absurd and profoundly anti-consumer."

"Customers have been skipping commercials since the birth of the remote control, and the networks are arguing against that fact. Taken to the extreme, will the networks next ask consumers to stop changing channels?"

"Collectively, the networks reap billions in retransmission fees -- fees that are reflected in subscribers' growing bills. For their money, consumers deserve to use content they pay for as they wish."

"AutoHop needs to be put in perspective: the majority of our viewers watch their primetime shows live or during the same evening -- the time that is most valuable to advertisers. We chose to incorporate AutoHop as a next day feature and only if enabled by the consumer."

_About DISH
_DISH Network Corporation (NASDAQ: DISH), through its subsidiary DISH Network L.L.C., provides approximately 14.071 million satellite TV customers, as of March 31, 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 lineup 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.


----------



## TBoneit

harsh said:


> Do the networks hold the rights to the _combination_ of their programming and the commercials?


I think for that to fly the networks would need to hold the copyright to the commercial?



> I don't recall that anyone went after JVC for offering a commercial skip feature on their VCRs back in the day. It worked much the same way: commercials appeared when watching live and were marked with in and out points after the recording had completed.


As I remember several brands had a system where you could could manually put a chapter mark onto the tape that you could skip to when playing back.

Not very automatic TBO.



> This doesn't go nearly as far as the self-righteous movie rental companies that engage in editing the daylights out of movies to remove the content that they find objectionable (this has withstood some pretty serious legal wrangling).


It was my understanding that they lost indirectly.

To be able to edit the "Objectionable" content they have to violate the DMCA that makes it illegal to defeat Copy protection /DRM.

So I don't see how they can do it legally.

I am waiting to see the fallout from autohop.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

I just posted a new press release from Dish... and I think Dish is stepping into a mess here with the quotes from their VP of Programming.

Consider:

"_For their money, consumers deserve to use content they pay for as they wish._"

So... one might just as well ask why can't Dish Sling customers use the Slingplayer software on their PC and Mac to Sling? Why do we have to use their Web site or mobile app? Why can't we "use content" that we "pay for" as we wish?

Also... Why can't we play our external hard drive content on our PCs? After all, we are paying for that content too, right?

Making that kind of a blanket statement about customers while already restricting (sometimes for logical and understood reasons) the use of the content makes Dish look a little foolish in my opinion.

They can't take a "let the consumer use content as they wish" stance when they are not in fact pushing this fully themselves.


----------



## Marlin Guy

Stewart Vernon said:


> So... one might just as well ask why can't Dish Sling customers use the Slingplayer software on their PC and Mac to Sling?


I've been doing that from almost the start. Live TV only though.


----------



## Marlin Guy

Laxguy said:


> 2,788,498 though there's neither song nor dance....:nono2:


You're saying 2.8 million subscribers know how to enable 30 second skip?
Show me.


----------



## SayWhat?

> "Customers have been skipping commercials since the birth of the remote control,


And prior to that, they'd just get up and leave the room for a bathroom break or a snack.


----------



## sregener

phrelin said:


> I've posted this before, but IMHO if satellite/cable would be allowed to deliver directly broadcast network content consistent with time zones, ratings would not change and the networks would make more money by not sharing ad revenue with locals. Local channels would instantly lose their entitlement status and would have to offer desirable content to survive.


Okay, so ABC Family could run all the new ABC programs. USA could run all the new NBC programs. FX could run all the new Fox programs. I'm don't know what network would run all the CBS programs, but they could create one if they wanted. They don't. And their first-run series are usually pretty awful compared to broadcast television. They don't have to share their ad time with local channels. So why don't they run the good stuff and fill their broadcast networks with the crap? Why are most major sporting events still on broadcast television? What you seem to be saying is that the only reason these shows don't get the ratings is because they aren't timed for the different time zones (which means those Mountain Time Zone viewers are skewing the results, since they all re-air their programs 3 hours later, which means the same time zone coverage for ET, CT and PT.)

And while cable has had a few notable exceptions when it comes to a highly-rated show now and then, no station comes close to delivering the numbers 7 nights a week for three hours a night (two for Fox.) And it isn't because the networks couldn't run those programs on their pay channels - it is because they choose not to. And the reason is a simple and obvious one: money. Broadcast television is the king for money. It has the most potential viewers of any distribution system. By a lot.

If AMC was offering original programming 7 nights a week for 2-3 hours a night, I don't think there'd be any question about their being worth $0.70/subscriber. But they don't deliver that kind of value. How much satellite space do DirecTV and Dish devote to local channels? They don't have to carry them. They choose to because they know that most customers would choose cable over satellite because they have those precious few local channels. The rest of the lineup doesn't compare to those 5-6 channels.

Broadcast television is king.


----------



## Shades228

Marlin Guy said:


> You're saying 2.8 million subscribers know how to enable 30 second skip?
> Show me.


Prove they don't.

You won't be able so I'd just move on as it's not relevant to this thread.

I can understand why people would want to do this. However just because you want it doesn't make it legal, or the best thing for you. If you really think as a consumer you will benefit from this lawsuit then you're drinking the koolaid. If I did business with a company and they started litigation of this type with the companies that they need but are not legally required to provide their service I would get concerned fast.

Then there's the whole economy issue but unless someone is directly impacted I doubt they'll care.


----------



## damondlt

Marlin Guy said:


> You're saying 2.8 million subscribers know how to enable 30 second skip?
> Show me.


 Does it really make a difference in this thread?


----------



## mdavej

Many cable companies removed the skip function a few years ago. They even removed the skip button entirely from their remotes. Did they do this because of potential legal issues, fear, pressure from the networks, or because some of them own a lot of the content? Does DirecTV essentially hide skip for similar reasons? Is slip viewed any differently by the networks because you can still see the commercial?

(Cable remote with missing skip)


----------



## sregener

Shades228 said:


> I can understand why people would want to do this. However just because you want it doesn't make it legal, or the best thing for you. If you really think as a consumer you will benefit from this lawsuit then you're drinking the koolaid. If I did business with a company and they started litigation of this type with the companies that they need but are not legally required to provide their service I would get concerned fast.


Which lawsuit are you talking about? The one where the networks are suing Dish, or the one where Dish sued for a declaratory ruling that their technology is legal in the face of impending lawsuits from the networks? The only ones I see complaining that this isn't legal are the networks. I think they're wrong.

Skipping commercials may not be in our best interest as viewers. But I'm working hard to come up with a reason why. The best one I can come up with is that if everybody, everywhere uses this type of technology, a lot of unnecessary channels will go away and the cost for the remaining ones will go up. OTOH, if commercials go away, I think we'll see the price of the average car drop, not to mention dishwasher detergent and beverages. Would it be a wash? I don't know, but running to the government for help because new technology is changing the game seems so... old fashioned. That would make the networks the new railroad barons, no?

If the commercials are part of the artistic work, why aren't they included in the Amazon.com and iTunes versions?


----------



## sigma1914

mdavej said:


> Many cable companies removed the skip function a few years ago. They even removed the skip button entirely from their remotes. Did they do this because of potential legal issues, fear, pressure from the networks, or because some of them own a lot of the content? Does DirecTV essentially hide skip for similar reasons? Is slip viewed any differently by the networks because you can still see the commercial?
> ...


I think that's the key...with FFW & "slip" you're still _somewhat _seeing commercials. TWC has removed 30 skip from Navigator completely & UVerse slips like DirecTV's default.


----------



## Laxguy

sigma1914 said:


> I think that's the key...with FFW & "slip" you're still _somewhat _seeing commercials. TWC has removed 30 skip from Navigator completely & UVerse slips like DirecTV's default.


Yes. In fact, while FF or 30 slipping I've stopped once in a while to view a commercial that piques my interest. Not real often, but sometimes.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

Marlin Guy said:


> I've been doing that from almost the start. Live TV only though.


Only if you are using the separate Slingbox OR a very old version of the software.

The 922 built-in Sling and the Sling Adapter are incompatible with SlingPlayer software for PC and Mac. You have to use the mobile app or the Web site to access those devices.

Not to go way off-topic, but my point here was that Dish can't take the "use your content you pay for any way you want" stance when they aren't really promoting that in all areas themselves. Dish is being very selective.

Heck, even AutoHop only functions on the "big 4" OTA networks... Why didn't Dish enable this commercial skipping feature on all channels that have commercials? I mean, if they believe customers "shouldn't be forced to watch commercials"... why are they not enabling this feature across the board?


----------



## Shades228

sregener said:


> Which lawsuit are you talking about? The one where the networks are suing Dish, or the one where Dish sued for a declaratory ruling that their technology is legal in the face of impending lawsuits from the networks? The only ones I see complaining that this isn't legal are the networks. I think they're wrong.
> 
> Skipping commercials may not be in our best interest as viewers. But I'm working hard to come up with a reason why. The best one I can come up with is that if everybody, everywhere uses this type of technology, a lot of unnecessary channels will go away and the cost for the remaining ones will go up. OTOH, if commercials go away, I think we'll see the price of the average car drop, not to mention dishwasher detergent and beverages. Would it be a wash? I don't know, but running to the government for help because new technology is changing the game seems so... old fashioned. That would make the networks the new railroad barons, no?
> 
> If the commercials are part of the artistic work, why aren't they included in the Amazon.com and iTunes versions?


Amazon and iTunes by a different version of it. If they received a copy with commercials and then offered a service to remove them I bet there would be issues.

It's been said a few times why this is going to be bad for consumers. Whether you want to believe they will happen or not is your choice. Most products we buy today are cheaper to manufacture then when they acme out and yet cost more. Not paying for commercials will not result in less overall costs for products.


----------



## inkahauts

"jdskycaster" said:


> You are trying to say that time shifting and using the skip button is somehow different but fundamentally it is not. In the end you are still skipping the ad. I am sure advertisers do think in terms of how effective their ad is based on a consumer viewing 1 or 2 seconds of it
> 
> The argument that ad revenues will be lost forever was already put forth and proven wrong when the DVR first hit the streets and became wildly popular. The truth is it (VCR,DVR,TIVO etc) has had ZERO effect on ad revenues.


It's completely different if dish is erasing the ads from the program. That's why replaytv figured they'd loose their copyright fight and removed the feature. Dish altering what you see versus the customer altering it is fundamentally different and the reason I think dish will lose.


----------



## sregener

"inkahauts" said:


> It's completely different if dish is erasing the ads from the program. That's why replaytv figured they'd loose their copyright fight and removed the feature. Dish altering what you see versus the customer altering it is fundamentally different and the reason I think dish will lose.


How many times must it be said?!? Dish does not erase the commercials. In effect, Dish presses the 30-second skip button at the right moment the proper number of times to skip over ads instantly, nothing more. And the viewer must choose to skip them each time they watch a program, so the feature is not automatic. Granted, it is one button press rather than many, but nothing is being altered outside of the user's control.


----------



## sigma1914

sregener said:


> How many times must it be said?!? Dish does not erase the commercials. In effect, Dish presses the 30-second skip button at the right moment the proper number of times to skip over ads instantly, nothing more. And the viewer must choose to skip them each time they watch a program, so the feature is not automatic. Granted, it is one button press rather than many, but nothing is being altered outside of the user's control.


Is any commercial visible or is it like an instant transport?


----------



## sregener

"sigma1914" said:


> Is any commercial visible or is it like an instant transport?


No commercials visible. Just a brief pause and maybe 1-2 seconds of audio before the program returns.


----------



## sigma1914

sregener said:


> No commercials visible. Just a brief pause and maybe 1-2 seconds of audio before the program returns.


IMO, that's what might make the biggest difference:



sigma1914 said:


> mdavej said:
> 
> 
> 
> Many cable companies removed the skip function a few years ago. They even removed the skip button entirely from their remotes. Did they do this because of potential legal issues, fear, pressure from the networks, or because some of them own a lot of the content? Does DirecTV essentially hide skip for similar reasons? Is slip viewed any differently by the networks because you can still see the commercial?
> ...
> 
> 
> 
> I think that's the key...with FFW & "slip" you're still _somewhat _seeing commercials. TWC has removed 30 skip from Navigator completely & UVerse slips like DirecTV's default.
Click to expand...


----------



## Shades228

sregener said:


> How many times must it be said?!? Dish does not erase the commercials. In effect, Dish presses the 30-second skip button at the right moment the proper number of times to skip over ads instantly, nothing more. And the viewer must choose to skip them each time they watch a program, so the feature is not automatic. Granted, it is one button press rather than many, but nothing is being altered outside of the user's control.


So you've seen the code and you're stating that it reaches a time in the file and then presses the skip button a pre determined amount, because all commercial length breaks are the same (they're not), and then it just resumes like normal?

The argument is going to be about HOW the end result happens not what is the end result.


----------



## James Long

Stewart Vernon said:


> Not to go way off-topic, but my point here was that Dish can't take the "use your content you pay for any way you want" stance when they aren't really promoting that in all areas themselves. Dish is being very selective.


Many of the restrictions on DISH equipment are there because of the content providers. Perhaps they are simply choosing their battles.

The same "use your content you pay for any way you want" stance could be applied to HBO, PPV, VOD and other channels with DRM enabled. Why doesn't DISH allow people to save any recording or snip of recording to a shareable or burnable file like Tivo users can do? Losing the premium channels, PPV and VOD is not a battle that DISH can afford to lose. (And now DirecTV is adding DRM on certain channels ... because they can't afford to lose those channels either.)



> Heck, even AutoHop only functions on the "big 4" OTA networks... Why didn't Dish enable this commercial skipping feature on all channels that have commercials? I mean, if they believe customers "shouldn't be forced to watch commercials"... why are they not enabling this feature across the board?


That one I'll give them. The ability to find the commercials in the content is key to the ability to skip them. With PTA the exact time of every recording is controlled by the DVR. PTA records a system controlled window ... and the placement of commercials within that window can be observed or determined by monitoring the feeds.

With individual timers the user sets the start and end time padding ... so the calculation as to where the commercials are would vary based on the start time. Also monitoring more than four networks in three time zones and providing accurate break times would be more cumbersome. Perhaps a few top channels could be monitored but skipping ALL commercials is cumbersome.

AutoHOP fits within the realm of something that CAN be done. The technology exists and making it work accurately for a few hours per evening is possible. Every channel isn't within that realm.


----------



## James Long

Shades228 said:


> So you've seen the code and you're stating that it reaches a time in the file and then presses the skip button a pre determined amount, because all commercial length breaks are the same (they're not), and then it just resumes like normal?


Playback or skip that passes the beginning of a commercial break makes a giant hop to the end of the break. There is no stutter or slip ... just a jump.

I keep finding myself reaching for the remote to skip the commercials myself and thinking "OH, this thing skips for me". I still skip the bad parts of the programming (I don't care about "auditions that popped" - especially ones I have not seen yet).



> The argument is going to be about HOW the end result happens not what is the end result.


I disagree. The complaint is focused on the end result ... no commercials on network TV during prime time if you wait until the next day. And DISH is advertising commercial free primetime as part of their Hopper ad series (on stations airing the spots).

Perhaps if there was a HOP button that users had to press during each break to "skip all" the industry would like it better. But the industry has been pushing for DISH and others to make commercials unskipable on their DVRs. DISH decided to go the other way.


----------



## Shades228

James Long said:


> Playback or skip that passes the beginning of a commercial break makes a giant hop to the end of the break. There is no stutter or slip ... just a jump.
> 
> I keep finding myself reaching for the remote to skip the commercials myself and thinking "OH, this thing skips for me". I still skip the bad parts of the programming (I don't care about "auditions that popped" - especially ones I have not seen yet).
> 
> I disagree. The complaint is focused on the end result ... no commercials on network TV during prime time if you wait until the next day. And DISH is advertising commercial free primetime as part of their Hopper ad series (on stations airing the spots).
> 
> Perhaps if there was a HOP button that users had to press during each break to "skip all" the industry would like it better. But the industry has been pushing for DISH and others to make commercials unskipable on their DVRs. DISH decided to go the other way.


I understand the end result is what they're caring about but the how is giving them the legal basis for the case.


----------



## sregener

Shades228 said:


> So you've seen the code and you're stating that it reaches a time in the file and then presses the skip button a pre determined amount, because all commercial length breaks are the same (they're not), and then it just resumes like normal?
> 
> The argument is going to be about HOW the end result happens not what is the end result.


I said, "in effect." That is, the argument that what Dish is doing is somehow something the end user could not do is silly. All that Dish's technology does is automate the process and make it more accurate - no skipping back necessary. And no, I never said that it is doing something predetermined - this is based on timestamps that Dish sends to the Hopper to allow it to hop.

I don't think any network cares how it happens. I think it is the end result (nobody seeing commercials) that they care about.


----------



## 356B

I don't think the media is going to be sympathetic to Dish, and why should they? Auto Hop is a threat, all media is keenly aware of the shrinking revenue stream. Auto hop is fouling another piece of the revenue that is already threatened by many but profoundly by streaming and ultimately the internet. 
Even though the percentages Auto Hop affects seem small now, in reality the Networks know that if this is not stopped right here right now all TV programing could be at the whim of a PTAT, a Auto Hop or the next best manipulation to come along. Advertising is the fuel that runs the machine, if that dries up, even in a small area a new source must be found to maintain the status quo.
I suspect the Networks knew this was coming, but the Advertisers probably didn't. The advertisers have been putting the screws to the networks since this hit the street. If I was running the ad department at Apple, my line would be, get this fixed now or adjust my advertising rate considerably. 
This could be a game changer, Dish has the populous now and knows it, but if subscription fees rise and or the fear of legal entanglement escalates, who knows.
This is akin to the insert ads in Newspapers, most people throw them away with out looking, but the advertiser knows they are there and readers at the very least handles them....the beauty of Auto Hop is, the ads go away with a click.


----------



## Laxguy

sregener said:


> I said, "in effect." That is, the argument that what Dish is doing is somehow something the end user could not do is silly. All that Dish's technology does is automate the process and make it more accurate - no skipping back necessary. And no, I never said that it is doing something predetermined - this is based on timestamps that Dish sends to the Hopper to allow it to hop.
> 
> I don't think any network cares how it happens. I think it is the end result (nobody seeing commercials) that they care about.


Agree.

Will this require that staff at Dish will have to hand code flags for commercials in some (or all) programs, or do such flags already exist by custom or fiat?


----------



## Darcaine

sregener said:


> Okay, so ABC Family could run all the new ABC programs. USA could run all the new NBC programs. FX could run all the new Fox programs. I'm don't know what network would run all the CBS programs, but they could create one if they wanted. They don't. And their first-run series are usually pretty awful compared to broadcast television. They don't have to share their ad time with local channels. So why don't they run the good stuff and fill their broadcast networks with the crap? Why are most major sporting events still on broadcast television? What you seem to be saying is that the only reason these shows don't get the ratings is because they aren't timed for the different time zones (which means those Mountain Time Zone viewers are skewing the results, since they all re-air their programs 3 hours later, which means the same time zone coverage for ET, CT and PT.)
> 
> And while cable has had a few notable exceptions when it comes to a highly-rated show now and then, no station comes close to delivering the numbers 7 nights a week for three hours a night (two for Fox.) And it isn't because the networks couldn't run those programs on their pay channels - it is because they choose not to. And the reason is a simple and obvious one: money. Broadcast television is the king for money. It has the most potential viewers of any distribution system. By a lot.
> 
> If AMC was offering original programming 7 nights a week for 2-3 hours a night, I don't think there'd be any question about their being worth $0.70/subscriber. But they don't deliver that kind of value. How much satellite space do DirecTV and Dish devote to local channels? They don't have to carry them. They choose to because they know that most customers would choose cable over satellite because they have those precious few local channels. The rest of the lineup doesn't compare to those 5-6 channels.
> 
> Broadcast television is king.


True, but it's been leveling out for years. Cable is rising and Broadcast TV audiences are dropping.

Nowadays a show that gets 5 - 7 million viewers most nights of the week on broadcast TV, still has a shot of staying on the air. No way would a show like Fringe live for 5 seasons, with an average viewer rating of 3 - 4 million viewers on a major broadcast channel, 10 years ago.

Cable, and IPTV have also forced the Broadcast Networks to be more patient with shows, no more dropping a show after 3 episodes because it doesn't premiere to huge ratings.

So yeah, Broadcast is still king for now, but the days of it having a captive audience are over.


----------



## Diana C

sregener said:


> ...All that Dish's technology does is automate the process and make it more accurate - no skipping back necessary...





Laxguy said:


> Will this require that staff at Dish will have to hand code flags for commercials in some (or all) programs, or do such flags already exist by custom or fiat?


There are flags in the direct network feeds that allow the automatic substitution of local ads for certain network spots, but how they determine the start or end of the commercial break is not really the issue. The point is that Dish is adding some data to the DVR's information to allow truly accurate editing out of commercials.

it seems to me that a lot of the discussion is still missing a point made here earlier that in the business of broadcast entertainment (and this includes OTA and cable) the viewer is NOT the customer, that role belongs to the advertiser.

The entertainment content is simply bait, designed to attract the largest number of the most desirable viewers so we can be sold by the broadcaster to the advertiser. The viewer is no more the customer of the networks than cows are customers of a rancher.

Without commercials being seen by viewers the networks have nothing to sell. If this technology survives the legal challenges (which I'd give it slightly better than 50/50 odds of so doing) it will ultimately mean the end of broadcast television as we know it. There will be a vast reduction in the number of channels and those channels that remain will be subscription only (think HBO).

Is that a "better" model than we have now? Maybe, but it sure is different.


----------



## TBoneit

I suspect that the hopper is using the signals the networks send. The cure is don't send them. Use an alternative method that would require dish to recreate them manually for every show.


----------



## Laxguy

TBoneit said:


> I suspect that the hopper is using the signals the networks send. The cure is don't send them. Use an alternative method that would require dish to recreate them manually for every show.


Titan says Dish is already adding something. It would not surprise me if they're already doing it manually. Possibly one reason to not make it available until a day later.


----------



## inkahauts

"sregener" said:


> How many times must it be said?!? Dish does not erase the commercials. In effect, Dish presses the 30-second skip button at the right moment the proper number of times to skip over ads instantly, nothing more. And the viewer must choose to skip them each time they watch a program, so the feature is not automatic. Granted, it is one button press rather than many, but nothing is being altered outside of the user's control.


Let me state in a different way... If you don't have to actively make the unit skip the commercials, then dish is erasing them from your viewing stream. And pressing one button at the beginning of a show is not making you actively skip commercials as they appear.


----------



## inkahauts

Would not be surprised if dish had their lawsuit ready to go before they even announced this feature public ally. I also wouldn't be surprised if Charlie was trying to win this first with only the locals being affected, and then if they win in Charlie's eyes, they will launch this for all channels.

Frankly, I think this is going to cost dish big time in the end, one way or the other. I see this ending somewhere between massive fee hikes to keep channels at best, or loss of so may channels they go out of business. And that's if they win their lawsuits, which I don't see happening.


----------



## phrelin

Titan25 said:


> it seems to me that a lot of the discussion is still missing a point made here earlier that in the business of broadcast entertainment (and this includes OTA and cable) the viewer is NOT the customer, that role belongs to the advertiser.
> 
> The entertainment content is simply bait, designed to attract the largest number of the most desirable viewers so we can be sold by the broadcaster to the advertiser. The viewer is no more the customer of the networks than cows are customers of a rancher.


Yes but....

According to prime time ratings over two-thirds of the viewers are just deer stealing the feed from the rancher and should be shot. As a percentage of live+same day viewers, the cows - those in the 18-49 demo - are getting through breaks in the fence in droves.



> Without commercials being seen by viewers the networks have nothing to sell. If this technology survives the legal challenges (which I'd give it slightly better than 50/50 odds of so doing) it will ultimately mean the end of broadcast television as we know it. There will be a vast reduction in the number of channels and those channels that remain will be subscription only (think HBO).
> 
> Is that a "better" model than we have now? Maybe, but it sure is different.


 As part of the deer population rather than the herd of cows, it's fine with me _*because of retransmission fees*_.

Let's backup a bit here.

My perspective on Auto Hop is that when and if I get it, I'll be finally be trading the *free* federally-licensed advertising-supported network-affiliated broadcast channels _I was entitled to watch for free in 1958_ to subscription-based advertising-free channels I'm already not allowed to watch for free.

The 1958 broadcast TV economic model was built around a 3-hour (4 hours on Sunday) prime-time (8-11 pm) schedule totaling 22 hours a week primarily based upon three networks - ABC, CBS, and NBC. This economic model was to be solely financed by selling advertising. There were an estimated 43,950,000 TV households. Just 30 years later, when there were an estimated 90,400,000 TV households, Fox started to be a serious competitor, but even today only offers its affiliates 15-hours of prime time programming, having "cherry-picked" the two highest rated hours 8-10 pm.

HBO created the premium subscription based model in the 1970's. It and all its direct competition are still subscription based.

Then there are the cable channels. In 2002 the cable channel USA brought us "Monk". In 2005 TNT brought us "The Closer". In less than 10 years a few _advertising+subscription-based_ cable channels have become successful scripted-and-reality content competitors and a sources.

In the past decade, the broadcast affiliate channels, losing all those "cows" while retaining us "deer", decided to use their federally protected status to become advertising_*+subscription*_-based (see various retransmission dispute threads). Watching this, the networks decided to use their affiliates to become advertising_*+subscription*_-based like their cable channels, not like HBO.

The problem here is that many of us deer including Charlie Ergen still remember and we're irked. The affiliates' got their federally protected status by agreeing to broadcast free to anyone within their viewing area who could afford a TV antenna. CATV started as simply a "group antenna" and, as far as I'm concerned, over the years the cable and satellite systems developed as simply a substitute for an antenna that I can hire. About 90% of Americans have decided to hire these substitutes for antennas.

Taking advantage of that, the affiliates got Congress and the FCC to bless exclusive DMA's which in my DMA's case covers hundreds of square miles of area in which the residents could never receive a TV signal from the stations involved using an antenna. Now, using that federal protection, the affiliate stations and their networks got Congress and the FCC to let them charge 90% of Americans for the right to watch TV. I can't decide to watch only cable and premium channels without paying for local broadcast channels.

This Dish v Networks is interesting because Dish's Auto Hop affects four local channels in the various DMA's across the nation. No national cable channels are affected.

Hence my attitude is that when and if I get Auto Hop, I'll be finally be trading the *free* federally-licensed advertising-supported network-affiliated broadcast channels _*I was entitled to watch for free in 1958*_ to subscription-based advertising-free channels I'm already not allowed to watch for free.

Sure, Congress can tell me I have to use my finger to push a button hundreds of times a week to skip commercials. But since I don't count towards advertising revenue because of age discrimination that would be illegal in any other federal law context ... why?????


----------



## Stewart Vernon

I don't know why some people fail to get an important point.

People think because "I pay for TV" that you are paying for all the costs... but you aren't.

I hear people say "I pay my medical bills, I have insurance"... and it is a clear failure to understand that because you are paying all that you are asked to pay doesn't mean you are paying all of the costs!

If you have medical insurance, then the Insurance is paying your actual medical bills... which cost a lot more... you are merely paying what you are asked to pay in terms of premium, co-pay, and deductibles... but the total cost of your medical bills are paid from the pool of money collected from ALL the other people who have that same insurance.

That's how insurance works! And I see way too many people who don't get that.

So... that is relevant here, because?

Because it's the same argument when someone says "I pay Dish for my TV so I shouldn't see commercials"...

You aren't paying for the whole cost of the content. You are paying part of the cost... you are definitely paying Dish their chunk that they want as a profitable company... and then the part that goes to the network is a small part of their total costs.

The network keeps the cost to you lower by selling ads!

Think of magazines... You might have paid $5.95 for a printed magazine with ads... That $5.95 barely pays the costs of printing the magazine and distributing it... it doesn't pay the staff, the writers, the photographers, etc... The advertising pays those bills!

In order for you to get that magazine every week... they need far more than the $5.95 per issue to make that happen... but they can bring it to you for $5.95 because they are selling ads!

Your TV costs as little as it does because of the networks selling ads. Anything that undermines their ability to sell those ads ultimately means either:

1. More cost to the consumer in raising the rates of the channel to the viewer.

OR

2. Loss of the channel and content because it can't sustain.

And people think their favorite shows get canceled now... just wait until commercials go away and there are only a small number of channels that can survive... then you'll see how you don't even get your favorite shows in the first place because there is no room for them on the few remaining channels.


----------



## phrelin

Stewart Vernon said:


> I don't know why some people fail to get an important point.
> 
> People think because "I pay for TV" that you are paying for all the costs... but you aren't.


Let me restate my basic point.

From the beginning, we subscribers paid differing amounts for cable channel packages for Disney, NBCU, Time Warner, etc. cable TV channels with advertising, as a "buy-in" to multiple channel cable TV: we never thought I was paying all the costs.
From the beginning, we subscribers paid a premium for HBO (and other premiums) for TV content without advertising; we understood we were paying all the costs.
From the beginning until recently, without payment we viewers watched federally-licensed-to-use-the-public's-airwaves broadcast TV stations; the deal was they got a license, they sold advertising, and we watched for free.
Without our consent or approval or even serious public debate, for 90% of us the corporations involved in #3 above converted to a pay TV cable channel model (#1 above) - subscription-plus-advertising - by leveraging those federal license we gave them.

Auto Hop simply says "Hey, you want to be subscription-based while having a federal license, that's ok but you don't get the advertising revenue that was part of our original agreement."

The critical question is "where in the 21st Century home entertainment business do local broadcast channels fit?" My answer begins with "without any national affiliation."

That then could lead to the second question "where in the 21st Century home entertainment business do the huge media companies that have federally licensed and protected affiliates and O&O channels fit?" My answer begins with "(a) on cable TV, (b) maybe the internet - that's their choice, and (c) perhaps through free-to-everyone advertising-supported government-licensed-and-protected broadcast TV. If you don't want to take the no-subscriber-fee '(c)' choice and your affiliates fold, we'll sell to others the license for the frequencies."

Home entertainment content will continue to get produced.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

phrelin said:


> Without our consent or approval or even serious public debate, for 90% of us the corporations involved in #3 above converted to a pay TV cable channel model (#1 above) - subscription-plus-advertising - by leveraging those federal license we gave them.


Not sure where you are going with this... but the OTA broadcast model is still the same and is still available for free OTA for anyone that can get it whether cable or satellite ever existed.

You can put up an antenna and get OTA for free just like always... Also just like always, there were some people in areas where it was hard to receive OTA even with a high/big antenna. Nothing has changed in that regard, has it?

In the old pre-cable days... IF you were outside of the range of OTA you were completely out of luck.

In the cable/satellite world you can get those OTA stations for a nominal retransmission fee via cable/satellite if you are outside range of antenna OR choose not to put up your own antenna for those free broadcasts.

You and I both know that LiLs is a big part of Dish and DirecTV business. How often did we hear "does Dish/DirecTV have my locals" until most markets were covered? How often do we now hear that same question but asking about HD versions?

People want their local channels... and are willing to pay a nominal retransmission fee to get them. That seems fair to me.

The forum has lit up every time a LiL is up for carriage negotiations and might be dropped and people threaten to leave if they can't get their LiL... that seems to say they are important to people.



phrelin said:


> Home entertainment content will continue to get produced.


Only if there is funding for it. Take away commercials and the only source of revenue is subscription fees... so take away commercials and expect those subscription fees to rise sharply. It isn't rocket science.

IF you want to pay $15-$20 for ABC, NBC, CBS, and FOX like you do for HBO and other non-commercially funded channels... then you are on the right track.


----------



## phrelin

Stewart Vernon said:


> Only if there is funding for it. Take away commercials and the only source of revenue is subscription fees... so take away commercials and expect those subscription fees to rise sharply. It isn't rocket science.
> 
> IF you want to pay $15-$20 for ABC, NBC, CBS, and FOX like you do for HBO and other non-commercially funded channels... then you are on the right track.


I already pay $15-$20 for the Disney/ESPN/ABC block of channels including ABC but have to put up with ads. I think I'm paying somewhat less for the NBCU block and the Fox block, but it's tough to get an honest answer. I guess I pay about $15 to CBS because I pay $13 for Showtime, the latter being ad free.


----------



## Mike Bertelson

I wonder where those of us who can't get locals OTA fit into any of the "models". I think auto-skipping commercials is bad for the consumer regardless of what we consider the viewing habits/models are.

IMHO, we'll pay more for service. It's bad for the consumer.

My 2¢ FWIW.

Mike


----------



## puckwithahalo

Stewart Vernon said:


> In the cable/satellite world you can get those OTA stations for a nominal retransmission fee via cable/satellite if you are outside range of antenna OR choose not to put up your own antenna for those free broadcasts.


I'd be interested to see how much money the networks make in retransmission fees vs how much they'd lose from advertising revenue because of people skipping the commercials. I think for a long time they've been sort of double-dipping, getting paid for retransmission and getting additional add revenue for the added viewers retransmission gives them. I don't feel so bad about the traditional cable tv channels like USA doing this as they don't get all the benefits the broadcast networks do from the government, which they get because they are supposed to be free to the consumer.


----------



## tampa8

Maybe some posters here don't quite get what Dish has accomplished? The most important thing is how they are doing it. It has nothing, I will repeat, nothing to do with the commercials themselves. Dish is looking at the CC info, and it can be determined from that when the program starts and starts. What happens in-between is skipped, not erased. If it was erased you wouldn't be able to go back and watch the commercials if you wanted to, and you can do that. The Networks are particularly mad I bet because changing the coding for CC would be near impossible without changing everyone's equipment they already have.

Further, if after the show stops, instead of a commercial the network does a news update, something CBS used to do, that would be skipped also as I understand it. So it can be said it is not directed at just commercials. To those that think this is not going to be legal, then you are saying pushing a button once to tell the system for that program to skip the space in between, is illegal, but pushing twice or three times to tell the system the same thing is ok?

Perhaps the Networks can find something else to argue on, but I don't think it will be that this is any different in a material way than what happens now or how Dish is doing it.

Finally read this:
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/...mote-dvr-stays-legal-supremes-wont-hear-case/

Read the wording, sure seems to me Dish used this when they decided how to implement it. Also shows the Networks do not always win.


----------



## 356B

How about one of those unscientific Polls?
Do you like Auto hop or not....yes or no, no commentary.
If the Networks are monitoring pubic opinion at all a poll would be very simple for them....


----------



## Shades228

356B said:


> How about one of those unscientific Polls?
> Do you like Auto hop or not....yes or no, no commentary.
> If the Networks are monitoring pubic opinion at all a poll would be very simple for them....


Because it would be a worthless poll for data. Most people would vote no because they don't have a Hopper. I also wonder why you think public opinion would matter. Commercials are unpopular which hasn't changed since they were invented you might as well ask if they like rate hikes as well.


----------



## 356B

Shades228 said:


> Because it would be a worthless poll for data. Most people would vote no because they don't have a Hopper. I also wonder why you think public opinion would matter. Commercials are unpopular which hasn't changed since they were invented you might as well ask if they like rate hikes as well.


So most people would vote no....but commercials are unpopular? 
Well that's clear as mud....:lol:
Hey public opinion always matters in America....ain't that why we vote for stuff?

PS... your pissed caused DirectTV ain't got it...


----------



## sigma1914

356B said:


> ...
> PS... your pissed caused DirectTV ain't got it...


Not every topic is DirecTV vs Dish so don't make what's been great discussion into that.


----------



## 356B

sigma1914 said:


> Not every topic is DirecTV vs Dish so don't make what's been great discussion into that.


 Shucks....I guess that means no poll..... ......:eek2:


----------



## Shades228

356B said:


> So most people would vote no....but commercials are unpopular?
> Well that's clear as mud....:lol:
> Hey public opinion always matters in America....ain't that why we vote for stuff?
> 
> PS... your pissed caused DirectTV ain't got it...


Sorry let me break it down for you.

Most people aint got a hopper because only 14 million people (technically less but it's the advertised number) in America have Dish service and a very small fraction of a fraction have a hopper out of that 14 million.

Making a poll asking if people like commercials would only be about as enlightening as asking people in northern California if there is a southern California.

People vote for many reasons however the vote on a public poll on if a company should do something is about as relevant as someone voting if you should quit your job just because. You're going to do what is necessary for you to maintain a lifestyle you choose to do.

Hopefully that adds some transparency to your wet dirt.

I would be concerned if DIRECTV implimented something like this as I don't think that the situation will be a good one for consumers. However if it makes you giddy to think that I might take personally what happens between two rival companies than who am I to ruin that.


----------



## Herdfan

"356B" said:


> PS... your pissed caused DirectTV ain't got it...


I'm not. Given that it can only be done on the special recording of the networks, no thanks.


----------



## 356B

Shades228 said:


> Sorry let me break it down for you.
> 
> Most people aint got a hopper because only 14 million people (technically less but it's the advertised number) in America have Dish service and a very small fraction of a fraction have a hopper out of that 14 million.
> 
> Making a poll asking if people like commercials would only be about as enlightening as asking people in northern California if there is a southern California.
> 
> People vote for many reasons however the vote on a public poll on if a company should do something is about as relevant as someone voting if you should quit your job just because. You're going to do what is necessary for you to maintain a lifestyle you choose to do.
> 
> Hopefully that adds some transparency to your wet dirt.
> 
> I would be concerned if DIRECTV implimented something like this as I don't think that the situation will be a good one for consumers. However if it makes you giddy to think that I might take personally what happens between two rival companies than who am I to ruin that.


We run Newspapers, among other things, I wish we could ditch the ads, just write award winners and still charge, a lot.. we can't....for Dish to do this, they've got something figured out...that the others don't.
Safe travels...:grin:


----------



## Stewart Vernon

phrelin said:


> I already pay $15-$20 for the Disney/ESPN/ABC block of channels including ABC but have to put up with ads. I think I'm paying somewhat less for the NBCU block and the Fox block, but it's tough to get an honest answer. I guess I pay about $15 to CBS because I pay $13 for Showtime, the latter being ad free.


The ABC, FOX, CBS, and NBC programs that air on the OTA networks are not on any of those packages you mention are they?

No...

The funding for the programs that air on the OTA channels comes from a different source... primarily the ad-revenue on those OTA channels.

Trying to say you pay $15 for existing Disney/ABC/ESPN channels entitles you to free ABC OTA programming is not even apples vs oranges.

It would be like saying I bought an Apple iPad so they should give me an iMac to synch it to for free because I already paid Apple $800 for my iPad... why should I also have to buy an iMac?

You pay for other Disney-owned channels in other packages... those have nothing to do with the money that goes to the ABC OTA broadcast network.

It shouldn't be rocket science, but I guess it is. I don't understand why so many have a difficult time grasping the concept that commercials pay for the bulk of the costs of producing much of the quality TV programming we watch... and without those commercials we would either have to pay a lot more OR view a lot less OR quite possibly both!


----------



## phrelin

Stewart Vernon said:


> phrelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> I already pay $15-$20 for the Disney/ESPN/ABC block of channels including ABC but have to put up with ads. I think I'm paying somewhat less for the NBCU block and the Fox block, but it's tough to get an honest answer. I guess I pay about $15 to CBS because I pay $13 for Showtime, the latter being ad free.
> 
> 
> 
> The ABC, FOX, CBS, and NBC programs that air on the OTA networks are not on any of those packages you mention are they?
> 
> No...
> 
> The funding for the programs that air on the OTA channels comes from a different source... primarily the ad-revenue on those OTA channels.
> 
> Trying to say you pay $15 for existing Disney/ABC/ESPN channels entitles you to free ABC OTA programming is not even apples vs oranges.
> 
> It would be like saying I bought an Apple iPad so they should give me an iMac to synch it to for free because I already paid Apple $800 for my iPad... why should I also have to buy an iMac?
> 
> You pay for other Disney-owned channels in other packages... those have nothing to do with the money that goes to the ABC OTA broadcast network.
> 
> It shouldn't be rocket science, but I guess it is. I don't understand why so many have a difficult time grasping the concept that commercials pay for the bulk of the costs of producing much of the quality TV programming we watch... and without those commercials we would either have to pay a lot more OR view a lot less OR quite possibly both!
Click to expand...

Hmmm. I must not communicate well. Sorry.

The package I buy is from Dish Network and not only does it include the NBCU cable channels, but it also includes NBC. In fact, I can't buy a package of NBCU cable channels with or without NBC. And I can't buy a cable package without the local NBC channel. The same facts are true for ABC, Fox, and CBS.

And it's funny how Disney suits deals with their corporate financials. The company's last quarter _net income_ was $1.1 billion. According to news stories:


> Disney said advertising revenue climbed in the second quarter for its television networks - both its perennially strong cable networks, which include ESPN and Disney Channels, and its long-struggling broadcaster, ABC. Total operating profit at the media networks rose 13 percent for the quarter to $1.7 billion on revenue that was up 9 percent to $4.7 billion.


For corporate PR purposes, they simply don't separate ABC from their cable channels.

If you ask the suits at News Corp they will tell you that commercials aren't cutting it. From their perspective it is so bad that they not only refused to negotiate with affiliates who balked at gathering on their behalf from cable and satellite providers a $1 per month per subscriber retrans fee. They simply notified them that their affiliation would not be renewed.

Most cable channels don't get anything like a $1 a month.

I'd prefer to see Disney's television networks, including ABC, marketed and offered as packages with specified conditions related to advertising.
I'd prefer to see NBCU's television networks, including NBC, marketed and offered as packages with specified conditions related to advertising.
I'd prefer to see News Corp's television networks, including Fox, marketed and offered as packages with specified conditions related to advertising.
I'd prefer to see some package arrangements involving CBS, The CW, Time Warner channels, and Viacom channels with specified conditions related to advertising.
Let them stand on their own as corporations functioning in the free market, unsubsidized by mish-mash cable/satellite company bundling and government licensing.

If as an option, at a high cost the Disney folks want to offer only one package including all their channels, with the ESPN channels and Disney channels included, allowing access through all sources including internet sites, so be it. I wouldn't buy it, but people who wanted it would.

If as an option, CBS were willing to sell their broadcast network content solely through local broadcast channels with the ability to skip commercials disabled, so be it. I'd buy it, commercials and all.

Just as Comcast is my ISP, I'd be perfectly willing to pay them or Dish Network to be my TSP, renting equipment, etc.

That's one vision of what TV could look like in 2025. I know it won't.

But I certainly do not think affordable, quality home entertainment content won't be there in 2025 because Dish told the four broadcast networks "yeah, sure, we'll collect from our subscribers $1 per month for each of you, plus whatever the local local channel wants in addition, all for what people thought would be free, but we will allow those subscribers now involuntarily paying that amount to skip the commercials in prime time only - it all seems fair and good."

In fact, I think in 2025 this whole issue will be irrelevant except to the extent that through it Charlie Ergen helped formulate the outcome of the whole transformation of the home entertainment delivery system.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

I don't even know where to begin. There's so much not quite right in there. You've got things so muddled it is impossible for me to untangle to reply.

Since you think you are paying NBC directly (and ABC and CBS and FOX) when you very clearly should know you are not... I don't know how to proceed.

We can disagree on opinions, but when your mind is closed to actual facts, I don't know how to discuss it.

All I can say is... I hope you don't get your wish. I hope we don't see the end of TV as we know it, because I feel confident that TV as you suggest will cost more and not provide as much quality entertainment for that dollar value.


----------



## Davenlr

Stewart Vernon said:


> All I can say is... I hope you don't get your wish. I hope we don't see the end of TV as we know it, because I feel confident that TV as you suggest will cost more and not provide as much quality entertainment for that dollar value.


You dont think if the big 4 were to go to a single point distro like the rest of the "cable" channels, leaving the OTA stations to the news, local sports, and independent operation, it would be a major entertainment problem? I think the big 4 would do just fine as a "cable" channel, and would prefer the locals to be local anyway.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

Davenlr said:


> You dont think if the big 4 were to go to a single point distro like the rest of the "cable" channels, leaving the OTA stations to the news, local sports, and independent operation, it would be a major entertainment problem? I think the big 4 would do just fine as a "cable" channel, and would prefer the locals to be local anyway.


That is certainly a possibility... but again, without the advertising revenue they would still have to charge more than they do today.

The "big four" have way more original programming than any of the other cable/satellite channels. The money to pay for all of that has to come from somewhere... and today it mostly comes from advertising. So if you take commercials away as a viable source of revenue, then up go the subscription rates. That's just basic math.

Meanwhile... IF this path were chosen by the networks... then what would be left to sustain the local channels? Without the network programming, there would be no reason to watch your local channel except for the local interest stuff... and they wouldn't be able to afford to do that in most markets without the revenue that comes from having the network affiliation.

Just look at any local channel you have that is an independent station and see how well they do compared to the network affiliates. Yeah, there are other channels, but not much to watch on them... and if you suddenly had 4 more channels in your market become independent if the "big four" drop them... a bunch of channels would likely fall off the map.

Maybe that needs to happen in some markets... maybe it even needs to happen for TV in general... but I think a lot of people won't like what they get if they get what they wish for, because the prices are only going to go up. This isn't going to benefit the consumer, you can bet on that.

Consider the AMC dispute where AMC has been tossing around the idea of wanting 75 cents for that channel instead of 25 cents (there's an article somewhere quoting an AMC rep stating that)... and AMC doesn't have anywhere near the ratings of shows on the "big four" and while it does have some high quality original programs, it doesn't have nearly as much as the "big four"... so if AMC thinks it is worth 75 cents... start taking guesses as to there ABC, CBS, FOX, and NBC will start the negotiations.


----------



## sregener

Stewart Vernon said:


> You pay for other Disney-owned channels in other packages... those have nothing to do with the money that goes to the ABC OTA broadcast network.


Really? Then why does Disney demand that satellite and cable providers place ESPN in a specific tier in order to permit them to retransmit ABC OTA? This is the point - the broadcast locals are used as the sword to force Dish to pay outrageous amounts to Disney/Fox/Whoever for channels that are rather unpopular. If they have nothing to do with each other, than the sword should be rather dull.

I agree with your basic point that the costs for broadcast channels will have to go up if commercial-skipping becomes even more prevalent. The question is whether we want to restrict freedom and technological innovation to protect one business' primary source of revenue. That there are implications and changes due to technology advances is logical. That we should therefore not innovate seems rather protectionist.

FWIW, I wish I could unsubscribe from LiL. I have a perfectly working antenna setup, and the picture OTA is much, much better than the retransmitted one.


----------



## phrelin

Stewart Vernon said:


> I don't even know where to begin. There's so much not quite right in there. You've got things so muddled it is impossible for me to untangle to reply.
> 
> Since you think you are paying NBC directly (and ABC and CBS and FOX) when you very clearly should know you are not... I don't know how to proceed.
> 
> We can disagree on opinions, but when your mind is closed to actual facts, I don't know how to discuss it.


Of course, Stewart, you are correct. Technically we aren't paying "directly." In fact, I'm paying Dish. But even Dish isn't paying directly. That's because Dish and the other signal providers have no contracts with the broadcast networks, just with their federally protected affiliates and Owned & Operated (O&O) local stations. But either you're arguing semantics or you haven't been following the media conglomerate business news.

Perhaps you aren't aware that in a 2009 News Corp shareholders meeting Rupert Murdoch laid down the gauntlet saying Fox would be seeking through the local stations a piece of the retransmission fees. Once it was clear he wasn't going to be pilloried by the feds, others followed suit more quietly.

In early 2011 we saw this from Bloomberg:


> News Corp.'s Fox network said it may drop some affiliates if the local TV stations are unwilling to pay a program fee sought by the broadcaster.
> 
> ...Fox said it would seek direct talks with station owners after nine months of discussions with the affiliates' board "made no progress." Fox is demanding a share of so-called retransmission fees that stations are starting to receive from cable and satellite-TV systems for access to local signals.


The details can be understood from these letters, the first sent on Jan. 28, 2011 to all Fox affiliates (GM's and owners)from Brian Brady, president and CEO of Northwest Broadcasting and the chairman of the Fox Affiliate Board and the second Mike Hopkins, president of affiliate sales & marketing for Fox Networks.

And then we started seeing stories like this story in the LA Times headlined Fox replaces two affiliates in smaller markets over fee dispute.

New long-term affiliate agreements with Fox now require that a few years out the affiliates pay them $1 per month per cable/satellite subscriber.


----------



## Davenlr

phrelin said:


> New long-term affiliate agreements with Fox now require that a few years out the affiliates pay them $1 per month per cable/satellite subscriber.


The citizens (via the FCC) should require FOX to pay each and every person with a TV in each and every DMA for which they hold a public broadcast license, $1 per month for rental of the public airwaves, which could otherwise be leased/sold to cell companies to expand their 4LTE networks.

Tie the price into the retransmission agreements, they raise the price of the agreement, the airspace lease fee increases at a matching rate.


----------



## Stuart Sweet

I am pretty sure that broadcasters already pay the FCC for licensing the airwaves.


----------



## jsk

I fear that the outcome of this lawsuit is that cable/satellite companies will not be able to offer the ability to fast forward or skip commercials without the authorization of the cable network or local station. I could see that happening, especially since they already force you to watch commercials if you watch a program on Hulu.

In my opinion, DRM is going too far so that you can't use the programming that you pay for in the way you want to use it.


----------



## Laxguy

I *think that won't happen*, but *hope and pray* it won't......


----------



## Davenlr

Stuart Sweet said:


> I am pretty sure that broadcasters already pay the FCC for licensing the airwaves.


The local stations do, not the networks (except of course, those owned directly by the networks). If the networks are going to swipe all the revenue from the local affiliates, then they should be made to pay for the licenses, and the license fee should match the retransmission agreement fee.

I am pretty sure the retransmission fees were put in place to assist the local stations which were not in large DMAs, to assist them in continuing to provide service, since satellite extends the reach of those stations 100's of miles further than the advertisers are interested in. A hometown car dealer isnt going to pay rates based upon viewers who arent even within reasonable driving distance to their dealership, for example. Our locals via satellite extend out 140 miles from the broadcast site. The actual broadcast signal is lucky to make it 60 miles. Forcing the affiliate to cough up $1 per satellite sub to their network for 2 or 3 hours of programming per night is not consistent with the intended purpose of the fee.


----------



## xmguy

sregener said:


> Oh, I time shifted with VCRs, starting in 1984. But VCR recordings looked horrible compared to live television. And you had to wait for the program to finish before watching it, and couldn't watch a recorded program while another recording was happening. DVRs fixed both problems, which is when it became practical to record a football game and skip commercials and halftime.


I too grew up with a VCR. I remember having to set 2 VCRs if I wanted to record 2 shows at the same time and make sure the tape had atleast 2 hours.
I don't mind fast-forwarding over commercials. The networks "accept" the current methods that all the DVRs offer now. I can see if Dish pushes this too far this could have HUGE effects with all DVR users. No matter Satellite, Cable or even OTA. I could see the providers BLOCKING FFWD for a set time after and during the recording. I wish Dish would stop while they are ahead.

I will also add I had a Replay TV that offered Commercial Skip. Worked semi-well. Not perfect. Sometimes overshot or under shot when the show was back on. I remember when they removed it too. They then branded it "Show | Nav". I've still got my 5504. Fully works and all. Commercials could still be skipped however it was more like how modern day 30-skip works however the Replay TV could still sense when the show was back and and stop the skip unlike most 30 skip DVR functions today. Where it will go 30 seconds more like a VCR or other recordable media would aimlessly.


----------



## inkahauts

sregener said:


> Really? Then why does Disney demand that satellite and cable providers place ESPN in a specific tier in order to permit them to retransmit ABC OTA?


Where did you hear those two things where tied together? They have demanded ESPN be on a basic tier since day one of any carriage agreement completely independent of abc carriage, since they don't run all their affiliates, that wouldn't be useful anyway across the entire country.

Does the skipping commercials work on OTA, or just sat delivered locals right now?

If Dish had implemented this so that it worked when you hit the skip button at the beginning of each commercial block, and then it would skip all the way through all the commercials in just that block, then I think they'd have a better chance at this lawsuit, if the networks would have even filed one, since it that would have required active interaction at each commercial point.


----------



## phrelin

One of the things to keep in mind is that the advertisers not only don't care if people age 50+ watch prime time commercials, they don't consider ratings beyond the live+same day. According to all the articles I read in Advertising Age most advertisers just aren't willing to embrace ratings beyond that time frame. This is generally confirmed in the TV business press.

I'm going to be very focused on how the networks and their affiliates are going to argue that, beginning the day after a program is aired, allowing viewers to skip ads on a show with one press of a button instead of 20 presses of the button iwould change the economics of broadcast TV.

Anything they argue would have to be supported by the advertising community stating "yes, we are going to accept ad rates based on live+7" or C3 or some other standard currently not generally accepted.

As near as I can tell, my wife and I don't count towards generating ad revenue for the networks and locals because we are over 50, but even if we were 28 we still wouldn't count because we watch nearly everything at least a day after it airs.

I'm trying to figure out how the Auto Hop endangers the prevalent economic model for prime time broadcast TV advertising support.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

phrelin said:


> I'm trying to figure out how the Auto Hop endangers the prevalent economic model for prime time broadcast TV advertising support.


As you and others point out... a lot of people already DVR or pause so that they can manually skip commercials.

IF you found out that you could wait until 1am and then have the receiver skip them automatically, don't you think that would impact your desire to watch things now vs a little bit later?

My guess is that the networks and advertisers see that the easier the skipping becomes, the more likely viewers will wait and not watch primetime in primetime so that they can use the new feature.

I don't know how they would "know" that... but if the Dish receivers do collect/report that info, then there could very well be data to suggest that since the introduction of AutoHop perhaps more viewers have been waiting to watch their shows until the feature kicks in.


----------



## coolman302003

inkahauts said:


> Does the skipping commercials work on OTA, or just sat delivered locals right now?


Only sat delivered currently since the OTA tuner has not been released yet. Its supposed to be coming out late summer and will be a single tuner.


----------



## SayWhat?

Stewart Vernon said:


> As you and others point out... a lot of people already DVR or pause so that they can manually skip commercials.
> 
> IF you found out that you could wait until 1am and then have the receiver skip them automatically, don't you think that would impact your desire to watch things now vs a little bit later?
> 
> My guess is that the networks and advertisers see that the easier the skipping becomes, the more likely viewers will wait and not watch primetime in primetime so that they can use the new feature.


Does anybody watch anything LIVE in Primetime anymore?

I haven't done so in many years. Everything is recorded and watched days or weeks later.


----------



## Shades228

Before you make another post read this article, or at least read the legal complaints that are filed with the court that are in the article.

http://tv.yahoo.com/news/fox-cbs-nbc-sue-dish-network-over-autohop-224625705.html

The premise people keep arguing about is not relevant to the legality of this lawsuit. It doesn't matter what the executives believe or don't believe. It's about what DISH is doing that the networks deem copyright violations and license agreement violations.

In reality the Auto Hop was just the icing on the cake and if I were a consumer I'd be more concerns with the other part of the complaints as well.

So continually rehashing the whole "do they think people watch live tv, commercials, stuff the same day" or any other behavior isn't going to have anything to do with the lawsuit.


----------



## RasputinAXP

Shades228 said:


> The premise people keep arguing about is not relevant to the legality of this lawsuit. It doesn't matter what the executives believe or don't believe. It's about what DISH is doing that the networks deem copyright violations and license agreement violations.


They're claiming Dish edits the programming to remove the commercials.

Dish does not in fact edit anything.

This case is ridiculous.

edit: Fox is also..well...being Fox:


> Fox also argues that Dish's Sling Adapter service "redistributes and streams Fox's programming over the Internet in violation of copyright law and Dish's agreements with Fox. In doing so, it competes unfairly with licensed providers such as iTunes and Amazon."


So now they're all just piling on to say what we've all known forever: that they don't like consumers having the ability to do with their hardware and signal as they please. Unreal.


----------



## MysteryMan

RasputinAXP said:


> They're claiming Dish edits the programming to remove the commercials.
> 
> Dish does not in fact edit anything.
> 
> This case is ridiculous.


Well, if you want to get technical DISH is providing the technology that allows it's customers to to the editing.


----------



## SayWhat?

MysteryMan said:


> Well, if you want to get technical DISH is providing the technology that allows it's customers to to the editing.


Which has been provided since the earliest VCRs, not to mention various video editing programs.


----------



## SayWhat?

RasputinAXP said:


> edit: Fox is also..well...being Fox:
> 
> So now they're all just piling on to say what we've all known forever: that they don't like consumers having the ability to do with their hardware and signal as they please. Unreal.


Including the privacy of their cell phone voice mail, right Fox?


----------



## scooper

And just how is it a "copyright violation" ? The commercials ARE in fact being recorded (and if I was a lawyer for Dish this would be demonstrated in court if it comes down to it). 

You don't like people skipping your commercials ? Then come up with something truly creative . Make your commercials as compelling as the programming.

And yes - some of us DO watching in realtime - even with DVRs. 

The comment about how they think all this Internet stuff and what can be done just shows their mentality - it's about THEM having the only control of WHEN and WHERE it is available. Hint- that ship left a long time ago.


----------



## Nick

MysteryMan said:


> Well, if you want to get technical DISH is providing the technology that allows it's customers to to the editing.


There is no editing of programming content. DVR users simply have the ability to skip parts (or all) of recorded content.

It's no different than (not then) if, when a commercial starts, you get up and walk to the kitchen for a snack.


----------



## Marlin Guy

Precisely. Dish simply refined something that has existed for a very long time.
Commercials are still there. They just made skipping them easier, but it's a still case-by-case decision on behalf of the viewer.


----------



## Stuart Sweet

Anyone else notice that the Fox complaint also takes aim at the Sling adapter?


----------



## Laxguy

Yes; what took them so long?? :eek2:


----------



## Stuart Sweet

The Sling discussion is a whole different thing. What's funny is Dish's customer agreement actually forbids rebroadcasting, despite the fact that they sell the sling adapter. You could make an argument that what the sling adapter does is encrypted broadcasting. This could potentially be the end of slingboxing, or ir could establish once and for all that placeshifting for one's own use is completely legal.


----------



## James Long

Stuart Sweet said:


> Anyone else notice that the Fox complaint also takes aim at the Sling adapter?


Scatter shot. DISH has owned Sling for years and now Fox notices? DISH even had Sling built in to a receiver in the past (not a add on) and Fox didn't notice?

This reminds me of the suit a few years ago when Fox News complained that they were not in DISH's lowest package (AT120). Their agreement with DISH placed the channel in DISH's most popular package (AT200). Fox does not seem to be able to pay attention to their contracts.


----------



## Laxguy

I sure hope the latter! I've never had a chance to experiment with Sling, so I've assume: 1.) The re-casting is at a limited resolution.. (?) 2.) Only the owner can access the stream on his registered equipment. (?)


----------



## SayWhat?

Having seen Sling advertised elsewhere, I wasn't even sure it was a Dish product.



> DISH has owned Sling for years and now Fox notices?


So, did Dish develop it or buy it? If they bought it, why didn't/doesn't Murdoch go after the source?


----------



## Stuart Sweet

Echostar, the hardware arm, owns Sling if I'm not mistaken.


----------



## MysteryMan

Nick said:


> There is no editing of programming content. DVR users simply have the ability to skip parts (or all) of recorded content.
> 
> It's no different than (not then) if, when a commercial starts, you get up and walk to the kitchen for a snack.


Your right Nick! I do exactly that every time a DISH commercial starts.


----------



## Inkosaurus

SayWhat? said:


> Having seen Sling advertised elsewhere, I wasn't even sure it was a Dish product.
> 
> So, did Dish develop it or buy it? If they bought it, why didn't/doesn't Murdoch go after the source?


Sling was originally a company that made peripherals that could work with any set top box. Echostar saw this and liked what they saw so they bought out Sling.

Sling still sells there own hardware that works with any provider, Dish just bought the company so that they could put there own spin on the tech lol.


----------



## Marlin Guy

MysteryMan said:


> Your right Nick! I do exactly that every time a DISH commercial starts.


You must be fat. :lol:


----------



## inkahauts

"SayWhat?" said:


> Having seen Sling advertised elsewhere, I wasn't even sure it was a Dish product.
> 
> So, did Dish develop it or buy it? If they bought it, why didn't/doesn't Murdoch go after the source?


Sling was an independent company that developed and built it, and then sold to echostar, the hardware arm of dish, although I do believe that dish and echo start are considered to completely different companies now and that may have happened after sling was bought.


----------



## inkahauts

I think this lawsuit boils down to one question. When someone skips a commercial with their remote by pressing fast forward or skip, they are actively and purposefully skipping that commercial, on their own. What dish has done is make it so dish now alters the stream that you see and they are the ones actively altering what you are viewing, without you actively participating in that changing of the viewing stream. That's a big difference. Is it ok for a company to actively change what you see, without any input from you each time it changes what the original stream is? 

I don't see how this isn't a copy right violation, because dish has created something that alters your viewing stream without active participation from the viewer, who is the only one that has the right to manipulate the viewing stream under copy right rules as I understand it. Can anyone point out how it's ok for a provider to alter the viewing stream of a broadcaster and it not be a copyright violation?

If they had just made it so it was one button push as soon as a commercial started and it would jump to the end of that block of commercials, I don't think the networks would have anything to stand on, but this is so different.

And sling part is a joke. Everyone is now trying to get their streaming content in their contracts, so they want to get rid of the sling loophole so they can try and force dish and everyone else to pony up more money for their shows. Sling is not rebroadcasting a show to everyone, just the person who owns the rights to view the content in the first piece. Back in the day, it'd be like taking a VCR recording with you to a friends house and watching it there. I don't see FOX winning that part.


----------



## satcrazy

harsh said:


> Do the networks hold the rights to the _combination_ of their programming and the commercials?
> 
> I don't recall that anyone went after JVC for offering a commercial skip feature on their VCRs back in the day. It worked much the same way: commercials appeared when watching live and were marked with in and out points after the recording had completed.
> 
> This doesn't go nearly as far as the self-righteous movie rental companies that engage in editing the daylights out of movies to remove the content that they find objectionable (this has withstood some pretty serious legal wrangling).




Interesting point.

How about the actual broadcasting channels "editing for content"?

If they determine what I'm "allowed to watch", why can't I determine what I want to watch?

What's the matter, don't like the shoe on the other foot?


----------



## Nick

Nick said:


> There is no editing of programming content. DVR users simply have the ability to skip parts (or all) of recorded content.
> 
> It's no different than (not then) if, when a commercial starts, you get up and walk to the kitchen for a snack.





MysteryMan said:


> Your right Nick! I do exactly that every time a DISH commercial starts.


You're


----------



## harsh

inkahauts said:


> Sling was an independent company that developed and built it, and then sold to echostar, the hardware arm of dish, although I do believe that dish and echo start are considered to completely different companies now and that may have happened after sling was bought.


Headscratching is not necessary. Sling was purchased prior to the split.

http://www.slingmedia.com/get/pr-echostar-slingmedia.html

http://techcrunch.com/2007/12/07/echostar-to-split-in-two-satellite-tv-and-sling-top-boxes/


----------



## harsh

satcrazy said:


> How about the actual broadcasting channels "editing for content"?


It is quite likely that any kind of edited content must have the approval of both the owners and the censors.

I don't believe that the combination of a program and the commercials that it shows with is copyrighted. I think you would see a lot fewer clips of Superbowl commercials floating around if it were.


----------



## harsh

inkahauts said:


> I think this lawsuit boils down to one question. When someone skips a commercial with their remote by pressing fast forward or skip, they are actively and purposefully skipping that commercial, on their own.


Do you also believe that proxy voting should be outlawed? Turning your skipping preferences over to a device seems a very similar delegation.

Whether you choose once or each break, you've still made the choice.


----------



## satcrazy

harsh said:


> It is quite likely that any kind of edited content must have the approval of both the owners and the censors.
> 
> I don't believe that the combination of a program and the commercials that it shows with is copyrighted. I think you would see a lot fewer clips of Superbowl commercials floating around if it were.


Often programming is edited for time, so they can insert MORE commercials.

More commercials = less incentive for me to watch.

Yeah, it's all about control, but in the end, I can change the channel,or shut it off.

[Now with nice weather, that'll be much easier to do]


----------



## MysteryMan

Marlin Guy said:


> You must be fat. :lol:


Wrong again genius. I snack on fruit or raw vegetables. As I posted on another thread I'm in my sixties. My height is 72'', weight 200lbs. I meet the Army's weight standard for a man of my years and can still pass their PT test.


----------



## MysteryMan

Nick said:


> You're


Got me again Mr. Grammar Police.


----------



## Laxguy

MysteryMan said:


> Got me again Mr. Grammar Police.


You forgot the comma!!!!!! 

Help stamp out repetition, gratuitous apostrophe's, and NEEDLESS, redundant, and UNNECESSARY CAPITALIZATION, **along with** superfluous *EMPHASIS*!!!! And tautological statements which waste space and can be repetitive or even wordy in and of themselves.

These are *THE* internet *SCOURGES'*, along with exclamation point's!!!


----------



## MysteryMan

Laxguy said:


> You forgot the comma!!!!!!
> 
> Help stamp out repetition, gratuitous apostrophe's, and NEEDLESS, redundant, and UNNECESSARY CAPITALIZATION, **along with** superfluous *EMPHASIS*!!!! And tautological statements which waste space and can be repetitive or even wordy in and of themselves.
> 
> These are *THE* internet *SCOURGES'*, along with exclamation point's!!!


My attorney's garmmar is worse than mine. When I point it out to him he reminds me he gets payed the big bucks to handle my affairs. His secretary makes a modest living correcting his grammar.


----------



## inkahauts

"harsh" said:


> Do you also believe that proxy voting should be outlawed? Turning your skipping preferences over to a device seems a very similar delegation.
> 
> Whether you choose once or each break, you've still made the choice.


Could you please find a relevant statement to make. Proxy voting is not at all the same thing.


----------



## Laxguy

MysteryMan said:


> My attorney's garmmar is worse than mine. When I point it out to him he reminds me he gets payed the big bucks to handle my affairs. His secretary makes a modest living correcting his grammar.


Heh. I have no idea why some of us find speling and grammer easy, and others don't. I've paid attention long enough to the gratuitous use of apostrophes in the possessive "its" that I expect to see it a dozen times a day. I've even noticed it in a bronze plaque, and carved in granite. And I take litttle for granite these days!


----------



## MysteryMan

Laxguy said:


> Heh. I have no idea why some of us find speling and grammer easy, and others don't. I've paid attention long enough to the gratuitous use of apostrophes in the possessive "its" that I expect to see it a dozen times a day. I've even noticed it in a bronze plaque, and carved in granite. And I take litttle for granite these days!


Very eloquenty stated.


----------



## James Long

Ok ... let us see more posts on the DISH vs the networks - and less (preferably zero) posts about each other's posts (grammar, personal comments, etc).


----------



## Stewart Vernon

_Moderator reminder... this is not the spelling and grammar thread, nor is it the attack-each-other thread.

Please stick to the topic.

Thanks!_


----------



## coldsteel

inkahauts said:


> I think this lawsuit boils down to one question. When someone skips a commercial with their remote by pressing fast forward or skip, they are actively and purposefully skipping that commercial, on their own. What dish has done is make it so dish now alters the stream that you see and they are the ones actively altering what you are viewing, without you actively participating in that changing of the viewing stream. That's a big difference. Is it ok for a company to actively change what you see, without any input from you each time it changes what the original stream is?


Not quite. The consumer must still CHOOSE to use the Auto-hop feature. It's not automatic.


----------



## Shades228

coldsteel said:


> Not quite. The consumer must still CHOOSE to use the Auto-hop feature. It's not automatic.


Customer's also must choose to pirate something but hosting it is illegal.


----------



## harsh

inkahauts said:


> Could you please find a relevant statement to make. Proxy voting is not at all the same thing.


Rather than passing summary judgement, perhaps you could explain how voting (skipping) is different than proxy voting (automated skipping). [hint: the mechanism doesn't much count as what you end up with]


----------



## Laxguy

Shades228 said:


> Customer's also must choose to pirate something but hosting it is illegal.


Could you elaborate a bit? I'm not sure those are parallel.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

Laxguy said:


> Could you elaborate a bit? I'm not sure those are parallel.


We don't know yet IF Dish will be found to have done anything illegal... though I don't think they have.

However, I think the point was generally meant there in his example that just because the user presses the button doesn't mean Dish is absolved IF the courts go against them. The ruling likely would be that customers did nothing wrong in using a feature supplied to them BUT that Dish was wrong to give them that feature.

Now, I don't think the ruling will go that way... but that is a possible outcome and courts have given unexpected rulings before so we will have to wait and see.


----------



## Shades228

Laxguy said:


> Could you elaborate a bit? I'm not sure those are parallel.


Really at the core of the complaints the networks are stating that with various features DISH has setup their own private on demand network and provides abilities that reduce the value of their programming. By doing so they have infringed on copyright violations by modifying the content provided to them without authorization and rebroadcasting it in a manner which they are not allowed to in their carriage contracts.

So DISH is the enabler of the issue however yes the consumers would be the ones using the technology to violate said agreements. It's the same argument that the PirateBay is using. "We only allow people to use our network and we do not host anything it's the users that are the ones who choose what is shared and what is downloaded."

When DISH was being pirated they focused on the enablers not always the end consumers unless in extreme situations. Remove the enabler and the other problems fade away.


----------



## harsh

Shades228 said:


> Customer's also must choose to pirate something but hosting it is illegal.


Skipping commercials is not prohibited by law nor government policy (and probably not yet by contract).

Both piracy and trafficking of warez is illegal.


----------



## harsh

Laxguy said:


> Could you elaborate a bit? I'm not sure those are parallel.


Sounds more like an argument against DIRECTV's nomad.


----------



## Davenlr

harsh said:


> Skipping commercials is not prohibited by law nor government policy (and probably not yet by contract).
> 
> Both piracy and trafficking of warez is illegal.


I actually have to agree with HARSH here...I know of no law that says its illegal to skip a commercial. If its a violation of the contract, then it should be in civil court.
As long as the original is intact on the drive, I cannot see where the networks can claim any modification.

I think the big 4 are going to lose, if the judge doesnt throw it out before it starts.


----------



## Shades228

harsh said:


> Skipping commercials is not prohibited by law nor government policy (and probably not yet by contract).
> 
> Both piracy and trafficking of warez is illegal.


Again focusing on one single item of the complaint is ignore the whole reason of the complaint.

I was asked to clarify so I provided examples that people can understand.

Downloading something that you have the right to have is not illegal regardless of the means. This has been proven in court so again it's the consumer who chooses to do something illegal. However this can spawn a whole tangent not related to this specific suit so let's just let it go or take it to PM if you wish.


----------



## Laxguy

OK, I don't want to join an argument re file sharing etc., but it really seems a stretch to claim, as I have read, that the show plus commercials is an integrated work (OH, guffaw: What a crock), and that passing over via FF or skip the commercials is tantamount to an unauthorized alteration of content. 

Still, I am not sure that Dish made a great move by starting this, especially if it soaks up management attention and other resources (such as $$$) to defend itself.


----------



## scooper

Davenlr said:


> I actually have to agree with HARSH here...I know of no law that says its illegal to skip a commercial. If its a violation of the contract, then it should be in civil court.
> As long as the original is intact on the drive, I cannot see where the networks can claim any modification.
> 
> I think the big 4 are going to lose, if the judge doesnt throw it out before it starts.


The quoted states it exactly, IMO.


----------



## Shades228

Oh well it's clear that all people want to focus on is if they can skip commercials or not so I guess we just wait 10 years for the courts to resolve it for people to see the whole picture.


----------



## SayWhat?

^^ Is it because of your employment with Direct that you're so focused on demonizing Dish?

Dish is right in this matter and hopefully more carriers and vendors will develop and offer auto-skip technology; and then stand up to the networks.


----------



## Shades228

SayWhat? said:


> ^^ Is it because of your employment with Direct that you're so focused on demonizing Dish?


How am I demonizing them? Last I checked I've just stated what the actual lawsuit is really about while people just keep saying "People don't watch commercials". I have said that this will be bad for consumers as well as others who are DISH subs because it's true.

Charlie is pissing off the people who provide the programming and they're not legally required to do so if they can prove this is a breach of contract. If they can't then they just decide that they no longer want to do business with DISH. This isn't rocket science and ultimately it will be consumers that pay. This is something that could create scenarios that are far more impacting than people realize. How bad do you think the churn would be if any of the local stations announced what DISH did about AMC. Then what happens to DISH? What happens to competition and innovation. So if being concerned for the average consumer and business landscape is demonizing them so be it.


----------



## strikes2k

Shades228 said:


> Really at the core of the complaints the networks are stating that with various features DISH has setup their own private on demand network and provides abilities that reduce the value of their programming. By doing so they have infringed on copyright violations by *modifying the content provided to them without authorization and rebroadcasting it in a manner which they are not allowed to in their carriage contracts.*
> 
> .


Could you please elaborate on the part where DISH has rebroadcast the program in a manner they are not allowed. They remove the commercials during the processing of the program on the Hopper, not at the broadcasting stage. The program exists unedited on the DVR's hard drive.


----------



## Shades228

strikes2k said:


> Could you please elaborate on the part where DISH has rebroadcast the program in a manner they are not allowed. They remove the commercials during the processing of the program on the Hopper, not at the broadcasting stage. The program exists unedited on the DVR's hard drive.


http://tv.yahoo.com/news/fox-cbs-nbc-sue-dish-network-over-autohop-224625705.html

If you read the complaints it breaks out each part and how they all tie in to each other to create a whole of the complaint. If I quoted just one part it wouldn't make sense when looked at singly.

Basically what the broadcasters have done is taken small things that may have been grey areas before and compiled them into a complaint because DISH has compiled them all into one receiver.

This is why when people state that they can't make you watch commercials it's not really what the suit is about. What it's about is DISH creating a system that now works outside of legal permissions either due to copyright law or by contractual terms.


----------



## jdskycaster

Shades228,
Not sure you have stated anything that is actually true or factual about the lawsuit. You have also attempted to confuse this case with illegal file sharing. How is that in any way related to how this new feature for a DVR system actually works? 

Dish created a new feature for their DVR which is creating animosity on the behalf of the major networks. I argue that this feature does not in any way alter the content but some here seem to feel that it does. 

The reason you provide the appearance of an agenda is that you imply that this specific case will harm all viewers in the end. Charlie would only hope to have that much power and influence over the entire industry and viewing public. Unfortunately he does not. Will you be just as quick to praise him if the outcome regarding the positives side of this case becomes reality? Only time will tell.


----------



## Shades228

jdskycaster said:


> Shades228,
> Not sure you have stated anything that is actually true or factual about the lawsuit. You have also attempted to confuse this case with illegal file sharing. How is that in any way related to how this new feature for a DVR system actually works?
> 
> Dish created a new feature for their DVR which is creating animosity on the behalf of the major networks. I argue that this feature does not in any way alter the content but some here seem to feel that it does.
> 
> The reason you provide the appearance of an agenda is that you imply that this specific case will harm all viewers in the end. Charlie would only hope to have that much power and influence over the entire industry and viewing public. Unfortunately he does not. Will you be just as quick to praise him if the outcome regarding the positives side of this case becomes reality? Only time will tell.


If you see where I have posted something that is not factual or true in regards to the complaints please let me know.

If I did business with you and then found a way to harm your business model would you be inclined to do business with me in the future? Would you treat me as well as you have other people who have not damaged you in some way?

So I guess my agenda to try to educate is stifled by the fact that I work for a competitor so rather than be seen as a detractor in the thread I'll just vacate the thread. If people have questions I'll be more than happy to discuss them via PM.


----------



## SayWhat?

> If they can't then they just decide that they no longer want to do business with DISH.


That's where Direct, Comcast, AT&T and other carriers need to close ranks with Dish against the money machines of Hollywood and Madison Avenue.


----------



## James Long

Shades228 said:


> Charlie is pissing off the people who provide the programming and they're not legally required to do so if they can prove this is a breach of contract. If they can't then they just decide that they no longer want to do business with DISH.


When the contracts run out the providers do not have to continue. It will be more difficult for the channels who run out first in each market ... if the broadcasters choose to withhold their signals one might lose their NBC station in a different year than their FOX station. The contracts vary by market with the only real connection between stations being the ownership ... for example, all the Fox O&Os negotiate together, the Gray Television stations negotiate together, the Sinclair stations negotiate together.

A complete coordinated cut off of all channels in all markets would not be possible outside of a court ruling that determined DISH had violated the copyright on that programming -which could lead to DISH losing permission to carry ANY local station in any market via the current law.

This is not a situation broadcasters want to be in ... but over the years they have devalued free carriage via satellite (which increases their viewer base) and moved to a pay per viewer model. It is almost like some broadcasters want to slit their own throats by not being on cable and satellite.

But throw away the current permissive laws that allow DISH to carry broadcast TV under the must carry/consent to carry model and the only way carriage would be possible would be under individual copyright arrangements with each station (not illegal, but working outside the currently used carriage law). And perhaps that is what the greedier stations/station groups/networks want. More money from the satellite providers and less competition from other stations.

Not all stations are greedy ... but all need to look out for those stations that are greedy. The cheering if stations win an AutoHop lawsuit will be short lived if the determination is "copyright violation" and full stations lose carriage. It may get to the point where congress will need to step in again and redraw the law to protect consumers again from the greed of select stations, station groups and networks.


----------



## Jhon69

Well normally I support DISH in their endeavors but I must abstain from any support of Primetime Anytime and AutoHop.I also feel fortunate that I live in an excellent OTA area as I am afraid the networks may retaliate against DISH.If NBC does this since this is an Olympics year I just hope NBC does not restrict some programming from DISH viewers because of this issue.Let's hope the courts can convene concerning this issue and the jury solve it quickly one way or the other.:nono2:


----------



## runner861

I don't think that this issue will receive a final resolution on the merits any time soon. A court may issue an injunction stopping the practice pending a resolution, or a court may decline to do so. That is the immediate issue.

What the stations will do with regard to retransmission authorization is a longer-term issue, and one not directly related to the legality of Dish's autohop feature.

The ultimate resolution of the matter is a very long-term issue. It could well end up at the Supreme Court.


----------



## sregener

inkahauts said:


> I think this lawsuit boils down to one question. When someone skips a commercial with their remote by pressing fast forward or skip, they are actively and purposefully skipping that commercial, on their own. What dish has done is make it so dish now alters the stream that you see and they are the ones actively altering what you are viewing, without you actively participating in that changing of the viewing stream.


I think you are making too much of this software feature. I can see somebody saying that the remote control, by changing the channel without requiring the viewer to get up and turn the knob, alters the viewing experience and thus should be illegal. Or that 30-second skip, by not requiring the viewer to press the fast-forward button and time the pressing of play, alters the viewing experience and thus should be illegal. Auto-Hop makes skipping commercials easier, but it is by no means altering the viewer's control of the situation.


----------



## MysteryMan

Personally I like the Auto Hop feature and would like to see all service providers offering this technology. I can also see the Networks point of view as well. It would be best if both sides can resolve this between themselves. Any attorney will tell you the last thing you want is going into a courtroom and having a judge make a decision for you.


----------



## Mike Bertelson

MysteryMan said:


> Personally I like the Auto Hop feature and would like to see all service providers offering this technology. I can also see the Networks point of view as well. It would be best if both sides can resolve this between themselves. Any attorney will tell you the last thing you want is going into a courtroom and having a judge make a decision for you.


I think it's a very, very bad idea.

Any service provider that does this will wind up paying higher carriage fees charged by the broadcasters to make up for the lost ad revenue and right into the bills of the subscribers.

This is finacially bad for everyone...except maybe Dish. :nono2:

Mike


----------



## MysteryMan

Mike Bertelson said:


> I think it's a very, very bad idea.
> 
> Any service provider that does this will wind up paying higher carriage fees charged by the broadcasters to make up for the lost ad revenue and right into the bills of the subscribers.
> 
> This is finacially bad for everyone...except maybe Dish. :nono2:
> 
> Mike


You must be of the belief that we should have more government in our lives. I once witnessed a civil case in your home state, Connecticut. A young couple were divorcing. There were no children involved nor was there any animosity between the parties. They were very civil and respectful toward each other. Neither wanted anything from the other. Both were gainfully employed and could provide for themselves. They were simply not compatible and wished to sell their home, divide the profit equally between them and to go their own way and start over. Their attorney's presented the agreement expecting the judge to agree. He did not. He said the wife was entitled to more than half of the profits of the sale of the home and should consider other entitlements as well. The dead silence and look of astonishment on everyone's faces said it all. Judges don't always make a fair or wise decision. Better to settle your differences out of court.


----------



## Mike Bertelson

MysteryMan said:


> *You must be of the belief that we should have more government in our lives.* <snip>.


Wow! Jump to conclusions much? 

This isn't a political discussion. My point is purely economic.

If the broadcasters are going to lose ad revenue because a service provider is going automatically skip commercials then the broadcaster is going to make it up by charging that service provider more in carriage fees. I have no doubt the service provider will pass the increase on to the subscriber.

Or, do you think the broadcasters will simply eat the loss of revenue? IMHO, not likely.

IOW, you can't mess with someone's income and expect it isn't gonna cost you more for their service. If it costs you more it's gonna cost your customers more.

Mike


----------



## SayWhat?

Or Dish could simply say they're not carrying locals anymore and use the bandwidth for something else. That would end the retrans gravy train and suddenly the locals would have bigger things to worry about than a few people skipping commercials, which most people do anyways.


----------



## Mike Bertelson

SayWhat? said:


> Or Dish could simply say they're not carrying locals anymore and use the bandwidth for something else. That would end the retrans gravy train and suddenly the locals would have bigger things to worry about than a few people skipping commercials, which most people do anyways.


Then what happens to people like me who can't get locals OTA. I have to have a service provider in order to get locals as does everyone in South East CT.

I could be wrong but I don't think any service provider would implement a policy that would potentially lose millions of customers.

Both Dish and DIRECTV spent years building up local channels to be competitive. I, like others in my area, waited until one of the satellite providers started carrying locals before switching.

I doubt any service provider is going to stop carrying locals as long as the competition is carrying them. IMHO, it ain't gonna happen. :grin:

Mike


----------



## DawgLink

DirecTV user wishing Dish the best in luck in kicking the TV companies butts


----------



## SayWhat?

If you're not willing to stand up to the networks then you may be as big a part of the problem as their greed is.

At some point, people have to say 'enough is enough'.


But maybe you can get 'locals' from really, really, really, really far away where Mork and ET call home.


----------



## DawgLink

Mike Bertelson said:


> Any service provider that does this will wind up paying higher carriage fees charged by the broadcasters to make up for the lost ad revenue and right into the bills of the subscribers.


You think even if this didn't exist the exact same high carriage fees wouldn't be charged onto the consumers?


----------



## lparsons21

I keep wondering if this is an issue that Charlie should be suing or getting sued for is worth it. Other than a small marketing message, is this such a big deal that you want to spend millions on?

IMO, not to me. But then again, this is Charlie!


----------



## Mike Bertelson

DawgLink said:


> You think even if this didn't exist the exact same high carriage fees wouldn't be charged onto the consumers?


I think the carriage fees would go even higher. It gives companies like Lin & Tribune the perfect excuse to charge Dish, or any provider using this kind of technology, an additional premium on top of the usual fee.

You think they wouldn't try to squeeze more money out of this situation?

Mike


----------



## Jhon69

Mike Bertelson said:


> Then what happens to people like me who can't get locals OTA. I have to have a service provider in order to get locals as does everyone in South East CT.
> 
> I could be wrong but I don't think any service provider would implement a policy that would potentially lose millions of customers.
> 
> Both Dish and DIRECTV spent years building up local channels to be competitive. I, like others in my area, waited until one of the satellite providers started carrying locals before switching.
> 
> I doubt any service provider is going to stop carrying locals as long as the competition is carrying them. IMHO, it ain't gonna happen. :grin:
> 
> Mike


We would have to go back to cable,in fact where I live I'm between two cities both DirecTV&DISH cannot offer me both cities local channels,only one city.Cable can and does have both cities locals in their guide.


----------



## Jhon69

Mike Bertelson said:


> I think the carriage fees would go even higher. It gives companies like Lin & Tribune the perfect excuse to charge Dish, or any provider using this kind of technology, an additional premium on top of the usual fee.
> 
> You think they would try to squeeze more money out of this situation?
> 
> Mike


Sure the fees will go higher because once a number is reached of how many subscribers have this feature,the advertisers will start leaving so an increase in carriage fees will be put into the contracts to survive.


----------



## Mike Bertelson

SayWhat? said:


> If you're not willing to stand up to the networks then you may be as big a part of the problem as their greed is.
> 
> At some point, people have to say 'enough is enough'.


An interesting point but not very realistic.

If you're a service provider all you care about is what the other guy is doing. If all the other service providers carry those locals then you gotta have them too.

You can rail on about "enough is enough" all you want but in order to stay competitive a service provider has to keep up with the Joneses.

Outside of forums like this one, the vast majority of subs have no idea how pervasive the problem is. Heck most subs don't even know this is a subject about which they need to be an informed consumer let alone be outraged by it. Until you can get subs across all providers to say "NO" nothing is going to change.


> But maybe you can get 'locals' from really, really, really, really far away where Mork and ET call home.


I have no idea what this means but ummm...okay. :scratchin

Mike


----------



## Mike Bertelson

Jhon69 said:


> We would have to go back to cable,in fact where I live I'm between two cities both DirecTV&DISH cannot offer me both cities local channels,only one city.Cable can and does have both cities locals in their guide.


My locals are either the four networks from CT or RI. One set of networks from each State but I prefer the locals from my own State. :grin:

However, DIRECTV does carry a couple of the RI networks in SD. I'm not sure why but we have them. :shrug:

Mike


----------



## SayWhat?

> I have no idea what this means but ummm...okay.





> [email protected]/Team USA, [email protected]/Team USA, [email protected], [email protected]


Personally, I think we need to find intelligent life on Earth first, but we're stuck with network execs and lawyers.


----------



## Herdfan

SayWhat? said:


> Or Dish could simply say they're not carrying locals anymore and use the bandwidth for something else. That would end the retrans gravy train and suddenly the locals would have bigger things to worry about than a few people skipping commercials, which most people do anyways.


IF there was an easy OTA solution for everyone, this would work. But alas there is not.

I know for me it takes 2 antennas, a power booster and a combiner to get it done. Too much work for the average homeowner or tech. But if pulling in OTA signals were as easy as aligning a dish, then it would work great. Both DISH and DirecTV have shown they can integrate OTA feeds into receivers and DVR's. But instead they decided to spend $$$$ on satellites instead of developing a comprehensive OTA plan. But like Mike B pointed out, some people can't get OTA no matter what.

The true solution actually would have been government intervention at the beginning. Instead of licensing both carriers to carry locals, a joint provider should have been created to beam down locals. The feeds would have been just like locals where anyone could have bought a satellite converter box and received the signals for free. DISH and DirecTV could have integrated them into their current receivers and we would not have had any of this holding customers hostage.


----------



## Jhon69

lparsons21 said:


> I keep wondering if this is an issue that Charlie should be suing or getting sued for is worth it. Other than a small marketing message, is this such a big deal that you want to spend millions on?
> 
> IMO, not to me. But then again, this is Charlie!


I don't believe it is and here's why.Primetime Anytime discriminates because it's not recording all the networks in Primetime so the "other"networks are not showing an increase in viewership like the four networks being recorded.

AutoHop will cause advertisers to spend their advertising dollars elsewhere where the consumer cannot use a feature to"eliminate" commercials.So an increase in carriage fees will be needed for the networks to survive.

I have normally supported DISH but this idea I have to say"What are you thinking"!.:nono2:


----------



## SayWhat?

Jhon69 said:


> AutoHop will cause advertisers to spend their advertising dollars elsewhere where the consumer cannot use a feature to"eliminate" commercials.


Once again, it is NOT eliminating commercials.


----------



## lparsons21

SayWhat? said:


> Once again, it is NOT eliminating commercials.


Technically correct, but in actual practice that is exactly what it is doing! Who wouldn't opt to have it automagically skip commercials?


----------



## Jhon69

SayWhat? said:


> Once again, it is NOT eliminating commercials.


With all due respect I believe it is,but that will actually be a judge and jury's job to decide.


----------



## Mike Bertelson

SayWhat? said:


> Jhon69 said:
> 
> 
> 
> AutoHop will cause advertisers to spend their advertising dollars elsewhere where the consumer cannot use a feature to"eliminate" commercials.
> 
> 
> 
> Once again, it is NOT eliminating commercials.
Click to expand...

You are correct. However, it is the net effect.

Either the consumer is potentially exposed to the commercials due leaving it playing during bathroom breaks or what have you, or that potential is completely removed by AutoHop.

It's an all or nothing proposition that interferes with the largest money making portion of the networks' day.

You can argue semantics all you want but it permanently removes eyeballs from the commercials *effectively eliminating* a significant portion of the target demographics the advertisers are aiming for.

Heck, one could argue this is one company directly interfering with the commerce of another company. I have no idea if that's even a real legal argument but it certainly sound like what's going on.

Mike


----------



## phrelin

Mike Bertelson said:


> It's an all or nothing proposition that interferes with the largest money making portion of the networks' day.
> 
> You can argue semantics all you want but it permanently removes eyeballs from the commercials *effectively eliminating* a significant portion of the target demographics the advertisers are aiming for.


If Dish's technology remains effective and spreads to other providers or Tivo, the problem may become real. But today it isn't real.

The network broadcasters likely have two problems in going to court now:

Most Hopper users were DVR users before they changed to Hopper, so the once versus 20 button pushes per show is going to be a lame argument.
While C3 (commercial views within the first three days of a show's airing) is now used in ad sales, the primary determinant to measure a show's success or failures is Live+same day viewing by people ages 18-49, the demo that's shrinking the fastest because they have alternatives to traditional TV. The media biz term used now for the 18-25 age group is not "cord cutters" but "cord nevers."
This is going to be an argument that will run through the courts while commercial viewing on traditional TV continues to disappear.


----------



## Nick

SayWhat? said:


> Personally, I think we need to find intelligent life on Earth first, but we're stuck with network execs and lawyers.


:thats: Now _that's_ funny! !rolling


----------



## Jhon69

phrelin said:


> If Dish's technology remains effective and spreads to other providers or Tivo, the problem may become real. But today it isn't real.
> 
> The network broadcasters likely have two problems in going to court now:
> 
> Most Hopper users were DVR users before they changed to Hopper, so the once versus 20 button pushes per show is going to be a lame argument.
> While C3 (commercial views within the first three days of a show's airing) is now used in ad sales, the primary determinant to measure a show's success or failures is Live+same day viewing by people ages 18-49, the demo that's shrinking the fastest because they have alternatives to traditional TV. The media biz term used now for the 18-25 age group is not "cord cutters" but "cord nevers."
> This is going to be an argument that will run through the courts while commercial viewing on traditional TV continues to disappear.


Oh I believe that in fact like alot of people have said the networks will probably insert the commercials into the program like they used to.Then that would take care of AutoHop and the Skip and the FFW button being used at all.:eek2:


----------



## Stewart Vernon

As far as the "customer demanding" or even "requesting" this feature... I could be wrong, but in all of my time at DBSTalk I can't remember anything like "AutoHop" being requested much if at all. Maybe I'm not remembering correctly, but it doesn't seem like most customers have an issue with commercials to the degree they would request a feature like this that potentially will cause more harm than it helps.


----------



## Mike Bertelson

phrelin said:


> If Dish's technology remains effective and spreads to other providers or Tivo, the problem may become real. But today it isn't real.
> 
> The network broadcasters likely have two problems in going to court now:
> 
> Most Hopper users were DVR users before they changed to Hopper, so the once versus 20 button pushes per show is going to be a lame argument.
> While C3 (commercial views within the first three days of a show's airing) is now used in ad sales, the primary determinant to measure a show's success or failures is Live+same day viewing by people ages 18-49, the demo that's shrinking the fastest because they have alternatives to traditional TV. The media biz term used now for the 18-25 age group is not "cord cutters" but "cord nevers."
> This is going to be an argument that will run through the courts while commercial viewing on traditional TV continues to disappear.


You're right, it currently isn't real.

However, the networks will treat it as if is a threat because if they don't then it will spread to other providers/TiVo.

From the broadcasters point of view it's as real now as it ever will be in the future.

Mike


----------



## Nick

Stewart Vernon said:


> As far as the "customer demanding" or even "requesting" this feature... I could be wrong, but in all of my time at DBSTalk I can't remember anything like "AutoHop" being requested much if at all. Maybe I'm not remembering correctly, but it doesn't seem like most customers have an issue with commercials to the degree they would request a feature like this that potentially will cause more harm than it helps.


No one knew they "needed" an i-Pad before it was invented, either. The secret to success is simple: _'create a need, then fill it.'_

Charlie knows that very well.


----------



## lparsons21

I don't remember any requests for it either. Maybe a wouldn't if be nice kind of comment maybe.


----------



## sigma1914

Stewart Vernon said:


> As far as the "customer demanding" or even "requesting" this feature... I could be wrong, but in all of my time at DBSTalk I can't remember anything like "AutoHop" being requested much if at all. Maybe I'm not remembering correctly, but it doesn't seem like most customers have an issue with commercials to the degree they would request a feature like this that potentially will cause more harm than it helps.


I think it's one of those things we never thought was feasible so why request it type of things.


----------



## Nick

sigma1914 said:


> I think it's one of those things we never thought was feasible so why request it type of things.


Feasibility studies are the hob goblins of small minds.


----------



## jdskycaster

Have the feature and love it, thanks Dish. How many times do I actually use it? Surprisingly not that often because the bulk of my viewing does not come from the major ad subsidized networks to begin with and then often times I watch prior to 1AM on the day of the broadcast.

I really think this feature will have mininal effect on ad revenue. In other words, where do the advertisers go? To fixed billboards, the internet, facebook? Maybe P&G and the automakers place more ads on people wearing electronic sandwich boards? I highly doubt it. This may give the networks some headaches with advertisors at the negotiating table but in the end there will always be ads on so-called free TV. 

I will gladly pay more to have them ad-free or with the ability to skip ads just like I have been doing now for more than 20 years. Technology marches on and marketing adapts to the marketplace.


----------



## TBoneit

I don't have a hopper but if I did I would still be watching shows the same evening and using the 30 second skip for commercials and every now and then backing up when something caught my eye and my finger was faster hitting the button.

If I had it I don't know if I'd use the skip the whole block of commercials.

I do recall watching something and during the show they were advertising some movie on the bottom of the screen.

And the race, what was up with the split screen race on the right and commercials on the left with the commercials having the sound.

Seems like they already found a way around it.


----------



## inkahauts

"SayWhat?" said:


> Or Dish could simply say they're not carrying locals anymore and use the bandwidth for something else. That would end the retrans gravy train and suddenly the locals would have bigger things to worry about than a few people skipping commercials, which most people do anyways.


I think your very mistaken if you think dish isn't trying to set a precedence and role this out to all programs on all channels at some point


----------



## inkahauts

"DawgLink" said:


> You think even if this didn't exist the exact same high carriage fees wouldn't be charged onto the consumers?


If this stays I think he's saying and I agree that rates for channels will go up astronomically. I'd guess six bucks a channel or more for channels with hop.


----------



## inkahauts

"SayWhat?" said:


> Once again, it is NOT eliminating commercials.


It is eliminating them from the viewing stream without the need for any active participation from the user.


----------



## jdskycaster

^Still in the stream just automatically hopping past them. The user is participating by choosing to enable the feature and also by watching after a predetermined amount of time. Not enough participation for you but more than enough for me.


----------



## satcrazy

inkahauts said:


> It is eliminating them from the viewing stream without the need for any active participation from the user.


Ummmm
I thought I read earlier on this thread the user has to enable this feature.


----------



## thomasjk

Correct, the user can enable the feature for each show they wish to view without commercials.


----------



## PBowie

Dunno what all the fuss is about-I have worked out how ads work as I had a week off work and watched tv all day and night !
In the morning its all ads for going back to school and careers and if your involved in an accident call me Im a lawyer etc

at lunchtime its all house hold products
at dinner time its all drugs and tell your doctor or ask your doctor this and that and 24/7 its all cars/cars/cars !

see- easy  I'll take a hopper !


----------



## phrelin

From a story at the web site paidContent - THE ECONOMICS OF DIGITAL CONTENT that begins with "This media litigation is so hot, you need a multituner DVR to follow all of the action. (Just don't skip the ads.)":


> Noting that consumers have been trained for over a decade to avoid advertising, noted media technology analyst Richard Greenfield on Friday posted a blog calling for media companies to "innovate, not litigate."
> 
> As Greenfield noted, most DVRs leased to consumers by pay TV providers already have robust commercial-skipping capabilities.
> 
> Fair use advocate Public Knowledge also weighed in, with organization president and CEO Gigi B. Sohn arguing in a statement, "Consumers have the right to control their TV watching, using whatever technology is available to them."


 From their web site:


> Public Knowledge preserves the openness of the Internet and the public's access to knowledge; promotes creativity through balanced copyright; and upholds and protects the rights of consumers to use innovative technology lawfully.


 They are a non-profit fighting for consumers.

I have a feeling Dish is not going to be without partners in this fight.


----------



## bobcamp1

grover517 said:


> DirecTV bought the rights to ReplayTV's software technology including the patents, so they already have the capability. Have had for quite a while now, but haven't chosen to do so.
> 
> But even if Dish wins, unless DirecTV starts losing subscribers specifically because of this feature, we won't see it.


If D* wanted to get brownie points from the networks, it could sue Dish for patent infringement. Or maybe the networks could pressure D* into suing. The likelihood of that is very low, but it remains a possibility.


----------



## tcatdbs

I think the networks are crazy to sue. I've had a Hopper for a few days and have used autohop. In most cases it gives you about a 1-3 second shot of the upcoming commercial (it's not real clean), so it's like a hypnotic suggestion. Actually has me more interested in the commercial than I normally would be fast forwarding through them. It's also only shows that have been recorded for personal use (isn't that what a DVR is for?), networks should have no say. Commercials show up on all live broadcasts as they should. Networks just need to move all their advertising to non-primetime shows if they're concerned.


----------



## Darcaine

phrelin said:


> From a story at the web site paidContent - THE ECONOMICS OF DIGITAL CONTENT that begins with "This media litigation is so hot, you need a multituner DVR to follow all of the action. (Just don't skip the ads.)": From their web site: They are a non-profit fighting for consumers.
> 
> I have a feeling Dish is not going to be without partners in this fight.


But the Networks have Hollywood (and by association the music industy) on their side, and as various lawsuits, Pipa, Sopa, TPP, Acta, etc show, they have a lot of judges, politicians, and whole governments in their pockets.

They have ignorant people in power so freaked out about piracy, copyright infringement, and the death of ther "multi-trillion dollar" business model that all they have to do is snap their figures and those people jump. They may not always be successful (sopa/pipa) but they still have the power to do a lot of damage.


----------



## Jhon69

tcatdbs said:


> I think the networks are crazy to sue. I've had a Hopper for a few days and have used autohop. In most cases it gives you about a 1-3 second shot of the upcoming commercial (it's not real clean), so it's like a hypnotic suggestion. Actually has me more interested in the commercial than I normally would be fast forwarding through them. It's also only shows that have been recorded for personal use (isn't that what a DVR is for?), networks should have no say. Commercials show up on all live broadcasts as they should. Networks just need to move all their advertising to non-primetime shows if they're concerned.


If the networks get too concerned they will probably put the commercials inside the program.Then AutoHop and FFWing past commercials will not work.:eek2:


----------



## domingos35

inkahauts said:


> It is eliminating them from the viewing stream without the need for any active participation from the user.


u obviously don't know what u are talking about.
the user needs to activate the feature


----------



## Stewart Vernon

Jhon69 said:


> If the networks get too concerned they will probably put the commercials inside the program.Then AutoHop and FFWing past commercials will not work.:eek2:


Yep... That's the other way this could go... I've been harping on the "end of commercials" scenario where all of our prices go up.

But you hit upon the other way around this... All those banner ads that piss people off on channels like TNT... where an ad for something bounces around the screen during a program you are watching...

Get rid of commercial breaks, and you could find this the norm... and you can't skip them because they are part of the show... That would be a nasty way around commercial skipping IF networks decided to go that way.


----------



## phrelin

Here's some numbers to put this issue into perspective. From The Morning Bridge:


> According to Janney Capital Markets' Tony Wible, only 1% of ad revs will even be at risk "given the viewing patterns and low penetration" of the feature. Further, the analyst says, 82% of broadcast viewing is done on the same day the content airs (ad-skipping can only be done the next day), and DISH's 14M subs only account for 12% of broadcast HHs. Throw in the fact that only 53% of DISH HHs have a DVR, and only 6% could participate even if they wanted.
> 
> According to the analyst's figures, there are 115M TV households in the U.S., and of those only 7.46M are DVR-owning DISH customers. Wible estimates that at best, advertisements within broadcaster's primetime content exposed to the ad-hopping technology "would likely be less than $162 million, or 1.1% of broadcast's total advertising revenues" of $14.1 billion.


----------



## thomasjk

inkahauts said:


> It is eliminating them from the viewing stream without the need for any active participation from the user.


Dead wrong the user has to enable Autohop for each program that has it available.


----------



## tcatdbs

No kidding! And don't forget all those logos that sit there and burn into Plasma screens, ruining a $1K-$3K investment. There should really be a way to turn those off! Or WE should sue the networks for putting those there without a removal option.



Stewart Vernon said:


> Yep... That's the other way this could go... I've been harping on the "end of commercials" scenario where all of our prices go up.
> 
> But you hit upon the other way around this... All those banner ads that piss people off on channels like TNT... where an ad for something bounces around the screen during a program you are watching...
> 
> Get rid of commercial breaks, and you could find this the norm... and you can't skip them because they are part of the show... That would be a nasty way around commercial skipping IF networks decided to go that way.


----------



## Herdfan

> and of those only 7.46M are DVR-owning DISH customers.


Correct me if I am wrong, but this feature is only available on the Hopper. And I don't think there is any way DISH has 7.46M Hoppers out there already. So take those number an apply them only to Hopper users and they become miniscule.


----------



## Jhon69

Herdfan said:


> Correct me if I am wrong, but this feature is only available on the Hopper. And I don't think there is any way DISH has 7.46M Hoppers out there already. So take those number an apply them only to Hopper users and they become miniscule.


DISH could add it to the 922.


----------



## patmurphey

"According to the analyst's figures, there are 115M TV households in the U.S., and of those only *7.46M are DVR-owning DISH customers*. Wible estimates that at best, advertisements within broadcaster's primetime content exposed to the ad-hopping technology "would likely be less than $162 million, or 1.1% of broadcast's total advertising revenues" of $14.1 billion."

Most of them are already skipping commercials!


----------



## mdavej

phrelin said:


> Here's some numbers to put this issue into perspective. From The Morning Bridge:


Interesting analysis. While I agree the impact is very small today (even smaller than the analyst says, due to the small number of Hoppers out there), what happens if the feature spreads to other networks and other providers? That's a potentially huge impact that the networks fear.


----------



## phrelin

mdavej said:


> Interesting analysis. While I agree the impact is very small today (even smaller than the analyst says, due to the small number of Hoppers out there), what happens if the feature spreads to other networks and other providers? That's a potentially huge impact that the networks fear.


 I agree. If this is some kind of automated technology that the networks cannot effectively disable by changing how they handle commercials, then the risk is that Echostar might license it to others, or more likely others will figure it out and we'll have patent infringement lawsuits.

But Dish has forced the networks to challenge the technology on copyright issues. That's going to get complicated because:

Dish is using it on streams of content provided by, and under contract with, local broadcast stations not the national networks.
The issue is not the program content but commercials which, except for self-promotion, are owned not by the networks or local stations but by the advertisers and their advertising agencies.
Dish does not automatically cut out the commercials from the signal, but just allows the end user to push a button once instead of 20+ times to skip commercials during a show and the networks have had to accept technology allowing viewers to push the button 20+ times.
I hope we can see copies of all filings on this case. How the networks are going to argue that they are having their copyrights violated because the viewer's 1-time-button-push infringes on material copyrighted by others while the viewer's 20-times-button-push doesn't infringe on material copyrighted by others will be interesting.


----------



## Mike Bertelson

phrelin said:


> I agree. If this is some kind of automated technology that the networks cannot effectively disable by changing how they handle commercials, then the risk is that Echostar might license it to others, or more likely others will figure it out and we'll have patent infringement lawsuits.
> 
> But Dish has forced the networks to challenge the technology on copyright issues. That's going to get complicated because:
> 
> Dish is using it on streams of content provided by, and under contract with, local broadcast stations not the national networks.
> The issue is not the program content but commercials which, except for self-promotion, are owned not by the networks or local stations but by the advertisers and their advertising agencies.
> Dish does not automatically cut out the commercials from the signal, but just allows the end user to push a button once instead of 20+ times to skip commercials during a show and the networks have had to accept technology allowing viewers to push the button 20+ times.
> I hope we can see copies of all filings on this case. How the networks are going to argue that they are having their copyrights violated because the viewer's 1-time-button-push infringes on material copyrighted by others while the viewer's 20-times-button-push doesn't infringe on material copyrighted by others will be interesting.


 I don't know how carriage agreements are made but always assumed that part of having the locals is to also provide us with the networks.

If AutoHop is specifically targeted at the prime time network feeds it seems to me that it must necessarily involve both the local and network broadcasters as they're both affected?

Mike


----------



## Laxguy

tcatdbs said:


> No kidding! And don't forget all those logos that sit there and burn into Plasma screens, ruining a $1K-$3K investment. There should really be a way to turn those off! Or WE should sue the networks for putting those there without a removal option.


What you mean, "We"??   We don't need no steekin' suits....

Have you actually had burn in due to logos or feed bars? I have a Sammy plasma, no sign of burn in at all.


----------



## cypherx

"Laxguy" said:


> What you mean, "We"??   We don't need no steekin' suits....
> 
> Have you actually had burn in due to logos or feed bars? I have a Sammy plasma, no sign of burn in at all.


I have a Sammy plasma too. I get IR all the time. After different content is displayed for awhile it goes away. You have to have a keen eye to spot the I.R. and unfortunately I do...


----------



## tcatdbs

6 year old Panny, you can see faint top and bottom bars, and faint logos at times, mainly on light bacikgrounds. Some stations are just nasty with ugly bright white logos. 



Laxguy said:


> What you mean, "We"??   We don't need no steekin' suits....
> 
> Have you actually had burn in due to logos or feed bars? I have a Sammy plasma, no sign of burn in at all.


----------



## inkahauts

"domingos35" said:


> u obviously don't know what u are talking about.
> the user needs to activate the feature





"thomasjk" said:


> Dead wrong the user has to enable Autohop for each program that has it available.


Actually you guys are the ones that haven't heard a word I have been saying.

One button press at the beginning of the program is not the same as making someone actively advance commercials throughout a program. Dish is doing all the work after you tell it to, so dish is in effect deciding what to remove from the stream, rather than the customer. Dish, the provider, is altering the broadcast, rather than letting the consumer alter the broadcast like normal trickplay does. I know exactly what I am talking about.

I realize that a lot of people see no difference between those two points, but all the networks do, and I believe they are completely right about that. The real question is, does that violate copyright and rebroadcast rights that dish has been granted for those channels. I am not sure either way that point, but I do know that any kind of win for dish will surely cost consumers one way or the other, unfortunately I don't think anyone sees that.

162 million is a huge amount of money to studios. And what happens when suddenly dish makes this work on all shows. Dont kid yourself if you don't think that's the long term plan.

I also think it's pretty interesting they released this feature days after the season ended. I think they are hopping that they can get this worked out before the new season starts in the fall.


----------



## phrelin

tcatdbs said:


> 6 year old Panny, you can see faint top and bottom bars, and faint logos at times, mainly on light bacikgrounds. Some stations are just nasty with ugly bright white logos.


Hmmm. You made me go look again at my 2003 Panny (750p - it was 2003) - I don't see anything.

Back in 2008 Cnet had an article Plasma burn-in: Seven things you need to know.

Last year they had this article Is plasma HDTV burn-in a problem?.

The first few months I noticed the side bar (pillarbox) burn in effect because most channels still were 4:3, then discovered Dish's option for grey side bars.

After that I guess our TV watching varies from hour-to-hour so there really is no problem with those logos.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

Another thing...

I have often spoken about commercials and advertising in general, questioning the purpose. For example... Does Pepsi need to advertise at all? I mean, who doesn't know there is Pepsi? It is in every store that sells any beverage (except for liquor-only stores)... so it seems like throwing money down the drain to me.

I've long argued that commercials should be for new products, new management, changes, or maybe say every 5-10 years you might have a reminder campaign to let people know you are still around just to be sure nobody forgets.

But major products that have been around a long time and are easily recognizable and you can't help but see them in stores? Like Pepsi, Coke, and a lot of other common household products... Why waste the money on ads?

Ok... so whenever I have brought all this up... people inevitably counter against my argument and say that "companies know better" than I do... and that "marketing is necessary" and these ads "bring in revenue" or they wouldn't do it.

So then we have a thread like this one where people (many of the same mindset I suspect) will vehemently argue that nobody watches commercials... so... how can these commercials be working if nobody watches them?

I'm sure some will argue against what I said about commercials... but then turn around and say that most people don't watch them even though they are smart to advertise.

And I'll be confused at people yet again 

My point again, though... is that I wish advertisers would stay convinced that their commercials do something for their revenue... because once they wake up and realize they could save money on ad campaigns... we get the privilege of paying more for TV!


----------



## phrelin

I agree. The ads by Dish, DirecTV, cable, and telco companies are the best example of the limits of advertising.

Those particular ads mostly feed the churn plus a few new folks who find themselves in a new (to them) home.

And that's probably why advertisers focus on the 18-49 or 18-39 or 18-29 demo - people who haven't yet developed rigid habits as opposed to me.

I suppose a Pepsi ad would encourage a person who normally drinks Pepsi to want some.

But you're right. New products stand to gain more from advertising.


----------



## olguy

I'm in complete agreement Stewart. To me advertising long established brands just adds unnecessarily to the cost of the product. Some may enjoy the Super Bowl ads but do you learn anything that will make you buy a certain product you've never used before? I don't ever remember buying anything based on a TV commercial.


----------



## jdskycaster

^The ads work because market research tells them it does. Nobody advertises for the fun of it. I found out about the Hopper from the Dish ad.


----------



## Laxguy

olguy said:


> I'm in complete agreement Stewart. To me advertising long established brands just adds unnecessarily to the cost of the product. Some may enjoy the Super Bowl ads but do you learn anything that will make you buy a certain product you've never used before? I don't ever remember buying anything based on a TV commercial.


Then the ads are doing what they should!  Unless you purposely manage your buying so as to eschew products that are advertised on TV, you are buying tons of things so advertised. Granted, you aren't conciously doing so, and you may be consciously buying the item based on its features, but TV and all forms of ads wouldn't be done if those purchasing them weren't convinced there was a benefit to the company. Some ads merely reinforce what we know, some just the company's name or brand. Some try to convince or educate.

Me, I think the current DIRECTV® TV ads are pretty darned good. Memorable, amusing, no education, but it sticks in the mind.

As does "Hoppah!", just not as amusing.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

jdskycaster said:


> ^The ads work because market research tells them it does. Nobody advertises for the fun of it. I found out about the Hopper from the Dish ad.


The Hopper is a new product... of course advertising works for a new product... that was one of my points 

But less effective for products that most people know about already.


----------



## Laxguy

*One more thing®*: I'd say most people on the forum who post a lot do FF through many/most/all commercials. I do most. But again, we are a minority, perhaps even a small one.


----------



## James Long

Jhon69 said:


> DISH could add it to the 922.


Wouldn't it be amazing to see DISH add it to the 622/722 and everything in between?

It would have to work differently on a non-Hopper due to the lack of PTA - but going back and putting this feature on the older DVRs would be good.


----------



## James Long

Stewart Vernon said:


> so... how can these commercials be working if nobody watches them?


We live in a country filled with nobodys.

DISH only has 14 million subscribers. The rest of TV viewers can watch the commercials (or wear out their DVR remotes pressing the slip/skip button). And if DirecTV and cable license or copy DISH's new feature programmers will just have to get more creative with their programming and make more programs that MUST be watched same day.

If broadcasters want to survive, why not make better programming?


----------



## Mike Bertelson

James Long said:


> We live in a country filled with nobodys.
> 
> DISH only has 14 million subscribers. The rest of TV viewers can watch the commercials (or wear out their DVR remotes pressing the slip/skip button). And if DirecTV and cable license or copy DISH's new feature programmers will just have to get more creative with their programming and make more programs that MUST be watched same day.
> 
> If broadcasters want to survive, why not make better programming?


What good is better programming if they can't sell ad time? 

If Dish licenses this technology to other providers that's where we're headed.

Will be limited to the networks or will it eventually branch out to every other channel out there? If that happens how will it affect the subscription cost to the customer?

IMHO, this all leads to more money out of my pocket...regardless of the quality of the programming. 

Mike


----------



## cypherx

Maybe it eventually becomes a premium feature you have to pay extra for?


----------



## Mike Bertelson

cypherx said:


> Maybe it eventually becomes a premium feature you have to pay extra for?


That may work. Could it satisfy the broadcasters?

If it does then we may have something that could work with minimal impact on the subscriber.

Mike


----------



## James Long

Mike Bertelson said:


> What good is better programming if they can't sell ad time?
> 
> If Dish licenses this technology to other providers that's where we're headed.


DISH's AutoHOP does not prevent advertising sales.
DISH's AutoHOP does nothing new to prevent viewing commercials the same evening.

It would be interesting to see factually how many commercials are watched the next day. People watching programming the next day by definition have some way of recording the programming and playing it back themselves. They are DVR users. They could be VCR users since it is the next day (no playback while recording required).

Are most DVR users watching commercials? If so, why?

DISH's AutoHOP works best on programming that is so non-compelling that people don't watch it the same day. Programming that is blah enough that people are not afraid of missing out at the watercooler discussions the next day. Make compelling TV and it will be viewed the same day and AutoHOP will have no impact.


----------



## Nick

cypherx said:


> Maybe it eventually becomes a premium feature you have to pay extra for?


Did you learn nothing from the Netflix fiasco? You can't start at zero or, as in the case of Netflix, a low price and then raise the price or you'll risk starting a rebellion.


----------



## Nick

James Long said:


> ...Programming that is blah enough that people are not afraid of missing out at the watercooler discussions the next day...


Watercooler discussions? That ship sailed a long time ago. With hundreds of channels, few of us are watching the same programs, and even if we were, thanks to the DVR we're all watching on different days and at different times. Watercooler talk? Not so much anymore.


----------



## Herdfan

jdskycaster said:


> ^The ads work because market research tells them it does. Nobody advertises for the fun of it. I found out about the Hopper from the Dish ad.


Doing business without advertising is like winking at a pretty girl in a dark room. You know what you are doing, but no one else does. - S. Henderson

In the case of Pepsi and Coke and the beer makers. They have such a large market share that even a slip of a single percentage point means a big revenue hit. Pepsi and Coke advertise so you won't forget about them. When I was a kid, Coke was king and Pepsi and RC were closer to equals fighting for second. (I realize this was not the case all over the country, but in the south, RC was formidable). Somehow Pepsi gained traction and RC became a discount brand. So advertising to stay relevant does matter.


----------



## Mike Bertelson

James Long said:


> DISH's AutoHOP does not prevent advertising sales.
> DISH's AutoHOP does nothing new to prevent viewing commercials the same evening.


True but the ad sale issues is the potential net effect. Even if it isn't, advertisers will certainly try to use the potential, real or not, as leverage. I will bet the networks, including national channel broadcasters, will try to head that potential off with everything they've got.

IOW, the net effect is the broadcasters will act as if it is real.


> _It would be interesting to see factually how many commercials are watched the next day. People watching programming the next day by definition have some way of recording the programming and playing it back themselves. They are DVR users. They could be VCR users since it is the next day (no playback while recording required). _


I think what will factually happen is irrelevant. It may not be factual but how the broadcasters react is a very real effect whether or not it has a real cause. It's gonna be interesting to see how this plays out.


> _Are most DVR users watching commercials? If so, why?_


I do occasionally watch a commercial. I really like the Hopper commercials..."meatloaf, and some beers" !rolling

Most times I don't intentionally watch commercials but we do let the commercials run while we use the bathroom, get a snack, answer the phone, etc.


> _DISH's AutoHOP works best on programming that is so non-compelling that people don't watch it the same day. Programming that is blah enough that people are not afraid of missing out at the watercooler discussions the next day. Make compelling TV and it will be viewed the same day and AutoHOP will have no impact._


We usually watch last night's recordings tonight while tonight's shows are recording. The compelling-ness has nothing to do with it. 

Mike


----------



## Jhon69

James Long said:


> Wouldn't it be amazing to see DISH add it to the 622/722 and everything in between?
> 
> It would have to work differently on a non-Hopper due to the lack of PTA - but going back and putting this feature on the older DVRs would be good.


Now that I have thought about it more it would probably need PTAT to work.

I know I would not use it on my 922/wMT2 as I like to skim through the commercials,stopping only when I see something that interest me.

Plus there's the little fact that I schedule all my network recordings OTA which allows me more recording options for satellite channels.


----------



## Jhon69

James Long said:


> DISH's AutoHOP does not prevent advertising sales.
> DISH's AutoHOP does nothing new to prevent viewing commercials the same evening.
> 
> It would be interesting to see factually how many commercials are watched the next day. People watching programming the next day by definition have some way of recording the programming and playing it back themselves. They are DVR users. They could be VCR users since it is the next day (no playback while recording required).
> 
> Are most DVR users watching commercials? If so, why?
> 
> DISH's AutoHOP works best on programming that is so non-compelling that people don't watch it the same day. Programming that is blah enough that people are not afraid of missing out at the watercooler discussions the next day. Make compelling TV and it will be viewed the same day and AutoHOP will have no impact.


That is true but we all know who the networks will blame for a reduction in advertisement sales.Where PTAT is a plus for the 4 networks,AutoHop will be seen as a minus there's also the fact we can already skip through commercials so why risk it?.

Guess Charlie and Joe like the drama,or they don't care and want to drop the networks? I have no idea.I'm confused.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

I can't believe Dish would stop with just the big 4... If they win the court battle (and they should)... I see no reason why Dish wouldn't extend this commercial-skipping to other LiLs besides the big 4, OTA, and other commercial satellite channels.

Right from the Dish press release about the lawsuit we have Dish saying that networks shouldn't be able to force you to watch commercials... that statement right there applies to any commercial channel... not just the ABC, CBS, NBC, and FOX currently supported by AutoHop.

If this feature sticks, no way it only gets used for just those 4 channels.

Meanwhile... the notion that it doesn't matter because of waiting until the next day. The problem with that is, there is a new thing here different from just DVRing in the past.

Give the average viewer a choice to watch now live and have to watch commercials OR DVR and watch tomorrow and have the receiver automatically skip all the commercials with one touch of the button. Don't you imagine more live TV viewers will make that choice?

People that already DVR because of scheduling conflicts or wanting to watch more shows that come on the same time... those people already DVR to watch tomorrow but still watch some things live. Give them the option of AutoHop if only they will wait until tomorrow and you can bet a lot of people will change their schedule to allow that.

So... Dish is, in effect, not just allowing you to skip commercials easier... Dish is providing direct incentive for you NOT to watch live even if you are home and want to watch TV. Dish is saying "just wait a few hours" and then watch...

I keep beating the drums, and most aren't listening... but this will only end badly for consumers. Dish should win the lawsuits... but channel prices will go up and we will all pay more. Mark that down with a pen.


----------



## Jhon69

Stewart Vernon said:


> I can't believe Dish would stop with just the big 4... If they win the court battle (and they should)... I see no reason why Dish wouldn't extend this commercial-skipping to other LiLs besides the big 4, OTA, and other commercial satellite channels.
> 
> Right from the Dish press release about the lawsuit we have Dish saying that networks shouldn't be able to force you to watch commercials... that statement right there applies to any commercial channel... not just the ABC, CBS, NBC, and FOX currently supported by AutoHop.
> 
> If this feature sticks, no way it only gets used for just those 4 channels.
> 
> Meanwhile... the notion that it doesn't matter because of waiting until the next day. The problem with that is, there is a new thing here different from just DVRing in the past.
> 
> Give the average viewer a choice to watch now live and have to watch commercials OR DVR and watch tomorrow and have the receiver automatically skip all the commercials with one touch of the button. Don't you imagine more live TV viewers will make that choice?
> 
> People that already DVR because of scheduling conflicts or wanting to watch more shows that come on the same time... those people already DVR to watch tomorrow but still watch some things live. Give them the option of AutoHop if only they will wait until tomorrow and you can bet a lot of people will change their schedule to allow that.
> 
> So... Dish is, in effect, not just allowing you to skip commercials easier... Dish is providing direct incentive for you NOT to watch live even if you are home and want to watch TV. Dish is saying "just wait a few hours" and then watch...
> 
> I keep beating the drums, and most aren't listening... but this will only end badly for consumers. Dish should win the lawsuits... but channel prices will go up and we will all pay more. Mark that down with a pen.


Well Stewart over at the other place the rumor coming out is DISH is going to let the genie out of the bottle soon,so I take that to mean AutoHop for all recordings on the Hopper,guess they want to throw more crap in the fan.

At least with DISH there's never a dull moment!.


----------



## James Long

Stewart Vernon said:


> The problem with that is, there is a new thing here different from just DVRing in the past.


Once upon a time DVRing was a new thing ... a way to watch programs AS they recorded - start a few minutes late and still see the whole show skipping the commercials. Make your own commercial breaks.

If broadcasters had their way DVRs would work like Hulu ... you can skip the program but not the commercials. Perhaps that will be the compromise here. Instead of jumping from just after the break begins to just before the break ends DISH will insert a commercial that pays the local broadcaster for the program. If you fast forward through the show your playback will stop at the commercial breaks and you'll have to watch the commercial to continue.

That is what broadcasters want, isn't it? And even before DISH introduced AutoHOP broadcasters wanted $1 per subscriber per month regardless of if the subscriber watched their channel. And next renewal, AutoHOP or not, they would want more.

There must be a balance between what broadcasters want and what viewers want. If there isn't at some point the viewers are going to leave the broadcasters and the content will move to cable channels.

The more broadcasters do that is anti-consumer, such as charging a large monthly fee for their programming or working to require commercial viewing, the more the broadcasters themselves lose.

(Yes, I know people are not required to watch commercials ... that is only the broadcaster's dream ... but if people can incorrectly portray AutoHOP as "deleting" commercials it is only fair to portray the opposite of that argument as forced commercial viewing. Especially when content providers are already forcing - as much as they can - commercial viewing online.)


----------



## Jhon69

James Long said:


> Once upon a time DVRing was a new thing ... a way to watch programs AS they recorded - start a few minutes late and still see the whole show skipping the commercials. Make your own commercial breaks.
> 
> If broadcasters had their way DVRs would work like Hulu ... you can skip the program but not the commercials. Perhaps that will be the compromise here. Instead of jumping from just after the break begins to just before the break ends DISH will insert a commercial that pays the local broadcaster for the program. If you fast forward through the show your playback will stop at the commercial breaks and you'll have to watch the commercial to continue.
> 
> That is what broadcasters want, isn't it? And even before DISH introduced AutoHOP broadcasters wanted $1 per subscriber per month regardless of if the subscriber watched their channel. And next renewal, AutoHOP or not, they would want more.
> 
> There must be a balance between what broadcasters want and what viewers want. If there isn't at some point the viewers are going to leave the broadcasters and the content will move to cable channels.
> 
> The more broadcasters do that is anti-consumer, such as charging a large monthly fee for their programming or working to require commercial viewing, the more the broadcasters themselves lose.
> 
> (Yes, I know people are not required to watch commercials ... that is only the broadcaster's dream ... but if people can incorrectly portray AutoHOP as "deleting" commercials it is only fair to portray the opposite of that argument as forced commercial viewing. Especially when content providers are already forcing - as much as they can - commercial viewing online.)


Well it looks like DISH needs to tell the good ole boys down at the NAB that DISH has decided to use the National Network feeds for everybody or nobody and take it to the Supreme Court if they have to.Then put up all these extra HD channels that need to be put up on satellite because if DISH did that it would free up alittle bandwith.

Everyone start your over the air antennas!.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

Jhon69 said:


> Well Stewart over at the other place the rumor coming out is DISH is going to let the genie out of the bottle soon,so I take that to mean AutoHop for all recordings on the Hopper,guess they want to throw more crap in the fan.
> 
> At least with DISH there's never a dull moment!.


I wonder which genie will that be?

AutoHop for all channels? AutoHop for all Dish receivers? Maybe both?

That's the thing... as cool as this feature sounds (I don't have a Hopper so I have to read the forums for the coolness) I don't know what to root for. If I got the feature on my 922 it would be cool... but I also fear the ramifications.

Those who watched "Once Upon a Time" this season on ABC will appreciate the quote...

"Magic always comes with a price."


----------



## phrelin

Jhon69 said:


> Well Stewart over at the other place the rumor coming out is DISH is going to let the genie out of the bottle soon,so I take that to mean AutoHop for all recordings on the Hopper,guess they want to throw more crap in the fan.
> 
> At least with DISH there's never a dull moment!.


I hope it's not going to be a major firmware/software change on my 722. It takes forever to fix the things they screw up while adding a feature.

But it would be nice if they put it on the 922 as many users feel abandoned.:sure:


----------



## domingos35

if dish wins this court battle they will have the upper hand in the next contract negotiations.


----------



## Jhon69

phrelin said:


> I hope it's not going to be a major firmware/software change on my 722. It takes forever to fix the things they screw up while adding a feature.
> 
> But it would be nice if they put it on the 922 as many users feel abandoned.:sure:


Don't know why they should now,I have [email protected] on my 922 with S118,I thought that was the biggest complaint,also DISH has been updating my channel logos in my EPG.


----------



## Jhon69

Stewart Vernon said:


> I wonder which genie will that be?
> 
> AutoHop for all channels? AutoHop for all Dish receivers? Maybe both?
> 
> That's the thing... as cool as this feature sounds (I don't have a Hopper so I have to read the forums for the coolness) I don't know what to root for. If I got the feature on my 922 it would be cool... but I also fear the ramifications.
> 
> Those who watched "Once Upon a Time" this season on ABC will appreciate the quote...
> 
> "Magic always comes with a price."


Yes it does.if I got the AutoHop on my 922 I would not use it because I like to"skim" through the commercials because if I see something that interest me I stop to watch it.

But if DISH wanted me to beta test it, I'd do it.


----------



## TBoneit

James Long said:


> DISH's AutoHOP does not prevent advertising sales.
> DISH's AutoHOP does nothing new to prevent viewing commercials the same evening.
> 
> It would be interesting to see factually how many commercials are watched the next day. People watching programming the next day by definition have some way of recording the programming and playing it back themselves. They are DVR users. They could be VCR users since it is the next day (no playback while recording required).
> 
> Are most DVR users watching commercials? If so, why?
> 
> DISH's AutoHOP works best on programming that is so non-compelling that people don't watch it the same day. Programming that is blah enough that people are not afraid of missing out at the watercooler discussions the next day. Make compelling TV and it will be viewed the same day and AutoHOP will have no impact.


As I'm jumping through the commercials not the day the shows are broadcast.
It is amazing how many seem to be teasers for the news broadcast or shows coming up that same day. If I had a hopper I could at least watch the Prime Time shows that they are teasing. And Yes I'd probably use a 30 second skip rather than Autohop. How else can I learn about new shows that are coming up?


----------



## satcrazy

tcatdbs said:


> No kidding! And don't forget all those logos that sit there and burn into Plasma screens, ruining a $1K-$3K investment. There should really be a way to turn those off! Or WE should sue the networks for putting those there without a removal option.


Yup.
Just browse the AVS plasma forums.

The stations could display their logo every half hour for thirty seconds to solve this. 99% of the time I know what station I'm watching:bang


----------



## Doug Brott

satcrazy said:


> Yup.
> Just browse the AVS plasma forums.
> 
> The stations could display their logo every half hour for thirty seconds to solve this. 99% of the time I know what station I'm watching:bang


A long time ago in the early days of TV (1990s ), that was the case. Apparently all of the networks see a need to watermark their broadcasts.


----------



## Laxguy

Doug Brott said:


> A long time ago in the early days of TV (1990s ), that was the case. Apparently all of the networks see a need to watermark their broadcasts.


Or put up persistent crawls or plaques... but at least few, if any, are bright white, and plasmas within the last few years have few if any problems with image persistence. phrelin put in some good links on this.


----------



## phrelin

I started a thread in an area that is not specific to Dish Disney/ESPN/ABC: Where Investor Dreams Come True. In it I note that Disney's CEO took a shot at Auto Hop asserting he believes their legal case is a winner. I also note that when combined Iger's various statements add up to a philosophy that seems to say viewers are the customers of cable/satellite companies. Disney/ESPN/ABC's customers are cable/satellite companies, so viewers are not of concern to the Disney/ESPN/ABC organizations.


----------



## sregener

phrelin said:


> Disney/ESPN/ABC's customers are cable/satellite companies, so viewers are not of concern to the Disney/ESPN/ABC organizations.


It's actually more complex than that. As far as the paid networks are concerned, there are two customers: the cable/satellite companies and the advertising agencies. Viewers are, in effect, the product they are selling to the advertisers, and the programming is what they are selling to the cable/satellite companies. In both cases, if they fail to provide content that appeals to viewers, they have no product to sell.


----------



## harsh

James Long said:


> It would have to work differently on a non-Hopper due to the lack of PTA - but going back and putting this feature on the older DVRs would be good.


What about AutoHop makes you think it is inextricably tied to PTA?

I can't see any kind of tie (other than both require a certain amount of post-processing).


----------



## Laxguy

harsh said:


> What about AutoHop makes you think it is inextricably tied to PTA?
> 
> I can't see any kind of tie (other than both require a certain amount of post-processing).


It's quite possible that some hand encoding will need to be done, if not now, in the future when networks mess with the tags that show where commercials are. Thus a delay, thus more work to expand it.


----------



## Jhon69

harsh said:


> What about AutoHop makes you think it is inextricably tied to PTA?
> 
> I can't see any kind of tie (other than both require a certain amount of post-processing).


I know what makes me think that.It's because it's only being used right now with PTA,so normally one could think maybe it's tied to it,now if and when we see it used elsewhere,like for all channels? that could and would change what people think.


----------



## SayWhat?

satcrazy said:


> The stations could display their logo every half hour for thirty seconds to solve this. 99% of the time I know what station I'm watching


I'm sure that's more of a DCMA, anti-piracy thing than a 'what channel am I watching?' thing.

But I'd be a lot more interested in a 'de-bugger' than Auto-Hop. I can skip commercials quite easily on my own, but even a liberal spraying of RAID!! doesn't stop the bugs from bugging me.


----------



## goinsleeper

I think people are getting a little too fixated on the fact that DVR was not meant to skip commercials. It was not created under the assumption that people are going to wait to watch their programming so they can skip the commercials. DVR was created for the purpose of being able to record shows. If you are not available to watch it, just record it. 

The ability to FF through commercials is an added perk. That is why AutoHop is different. It's a specific feature built into the 'already dvr' device, that allows you skip commercials the next day.

If anyone thinks skipping commercials is not a big deal, then you don't understand why commercials are there. Advertising is setup in a business manor just like everything else. A return is expected and if that does not reach expected goals, something has to change. The networks do have money but also need revenue from advertisers. A Network is one thing but a local affiliate is something else. I know there is a fair amount of advertising that is for products purchased nationwide, but there is also a fair amount of local advertising. If there is a mom-n-pop shop in your city that you don't know about, how are you expected to find out?

All I'm really saying is, if advertising on these networks was meaningless, as many seem to think, then there would be no commercials. Advertisers aren't going to pay for advertising if they get no return.


----------



## inkahauts

"domingos35" said:


> if dish wins this court battle they will have the upper hand in the next contract negotiations.


Actually that's the opposite of true. If they win the court cases channels will say they can't carry their channels at all without removing the feature or paying way more so soon dish will lose all it's channels.

One way or the other auto hop will not fly for long. Channels will want to go dark on dish and hope customers find another provider than lose the millions on advertising dollars.


----------



## inkahauts

"SayWhat?" said:


> I'm sure that's more of a DCMA, anti-piracy thing than a 'what channel am I watching?' thing.
> 
> But I'd be a lot more interested in a 'de-bugger' than Auto-Hop. I can skip commercials quite easily on my own, but even a liberal spraying of RAID!! doesn't stop the bugs from bugging me.


I'd say it's a pure marketing thing and has nothing to do with piracy.

They started to think that they need to make sure people know what station they are watching when they find something they like because people's attention spans are getting shorter and shorter.


----------



## SayWhat?

inkahauts said:


> I'd say it's a pure marketing thing and has nothing to do with piracy.


I don't. It's on there so people can't put copies up on torrent sites (at least not without the bug). It started back before digital copies became so prevalent when people were making copies on VCR tapes and selling them.


----------



## James Long

harsh said:


> What about AutoHop makes you think it is inextricably tied to PTA?


On PTA DISH controls the recording. DISH tells the receiver to start at a specific time and end at a specific time for the evening. Finding the right start and stop times for each program and commercial segment within a DISH set timer is dealing with knowns.

Without PTA DISH has to rely on the user's padding. They may record 0 to 0 and miss the absolute beginning or end of the show. The math is different.

It isn't an insurmountable problem but it is different. I do not believe AutoHOP is inextricably tied to PTA or the Hopper - but it relies on the customer getting the recording right more than a DISH set tuner.


----------



## SayWhat?

Ad Wars, the next battle:http://news.cnet.com/8301-10805_3-5...ff-advertisers-with-ie10-do-not-track-policy/


> Microsoft's decision to turn off Web site tracking by default in IE10 is not sitting well with advertisers.
> 
> The Do Not Track feature prevents third-party Web sites from tracking your online activity. Web sites that receive the Do Not Track, or DNT, signal from your browser are supposed to honor that request, just as telemarketers are not supposed to call people on a "do not call" registry.


Who's next?


----------



## tampa8

goinsleeper said:


> I think people are getting a little too fixated on the fact that DVR was not meant to skip commercials. It was not created under the assumption that people are going to wait to watch their programming so they can skip the commercials. DVR was created for the purpose of being able to record shows. If you are not available to watch it, just record it.
> 
> The ability to FF through commercials is an added perk. That is why AutoHop is different. It's a specific feature built into the 'already dvr' device, that allows you skip commercials the next day.


*It's not different*, it too is a by product and that's exactly the point. As I posted, the technology is based on the CC to determine when a show starts and stops. Anything in between is not seen, news updates, election updates, weather updates, commercials, etc.... The technology is not based on commercials, nor does it just eliminate commercials. It's user controlled, and not during the original broadcast period, (see below) all just like it works now. The only difference, is that it is a little more automated, though still requires the user to initiate it. 
A case could be made it is MORE restrictive in that you can't use it till hours later, unlike the skip now used that can be utilized immediately from recording.


----------



## Mike Bertelson

goinsleeper said:


> I think people are getting a little too fixated on the fact that DVR was not meant to skip commercials. It was not created under the assumption that people are going to wait to watch their programming so they can skip the commercials. DVR was created for the purpose of being able to record shows. If you are not available to watch it, just record it.
> 
> The ability to FF through commercials is an added perk. That is why AutoHop is different. It's a specific feature built into the 'already dvr' device, that allows you skip commercials the next day.
> 
> If anyone thinks skipping commercials is not a big deal, then you don't understand why commercials are there. Advertising is setup in a business manor just like everything else. A return is expected and if that does not reach expected goals, something has to change. The networks do have money but also need revenue from advertisers. A Network is one thing but a local affiliate is something else. I know there is a fair amount of advertising that is for products purchased nationwide, but there is also a fair amount of local advertising. If there is a mom-n-pop shop in your city that you don't know about, how are you expected to find out?
> 
> All I'm really saying is, if advertising on these networks was meaningless, as many seem to think, then there would be no commercials. Advertisers aren't going to pay for advertising if they get no return.


I have to disagree with you here. People have been skipping commercials on VCRs for decades before the first consumer DVR.

It seems logical & natural for the DVR to have the basic transport functions we had in VCRs.

IMHO, FF/RW isn't an added perk but rather a basic function of the DVR.

Mike


----------



## James Long

Skipping commercials seems to have been the holy grail of VCRs and DVRs over the past few decades. I remember a device that was supposed to pause and restart VCR recordings when commercials were detected. The Zenith ad posted earlier in the thread suggested changing channels or muting during commercials.

DISH has achieved what the various equipment industries have been targeting for years. Every improvement in recording technology seems to have been one step closer to the holy grail. If DISH loses this battle how many steps back are "copyright infringement"?

The broadcast industry doesn't like it. They didn't like VCRs either. And while I don't like the slippery slope arguments where being able to AutoHOP four networks jumps to being able to AutoHOP all commercials on any channel I can see where the broadcaster's worry about VCR technology has slippery sloped to the reality we face today (although commercial skipping is not the worst of broadcaster's problems).


----------



## goinsleeper

Mike Bertelson said:


> I have to disagree with you here. People have been skipping commercials on VCRs for decades before the first consumer DVR.
> 
> It seems logical & natural for the DVR to have the basic transport functions we had in VCRs.
> 
> IMHO, FF/RW isn't an added perk but rather a basic function of the DVR.
> 
> Mike


My point is just that the VCR nor the DVR were originally created with the sole purpose of skipping commercials. They were created to record programs reguardless of what other reasons people began using them for.


----------



## Christopher Gould

Did replay auto delete/skip the commercials or did you have to tell it too.


----------



## harsh

Laxguy said:


> It's quite possible that some hand encoding will need to be done, if not now, in the future when networks mess with the tags that show where commercials are. Thus a delay, thus more work to expand it.


Whatever technique the networks use to notify those downstream of commercial breaks will, by necessity, need to be processable more or less in real time.

The other option would be an independent system (not part of the program stream) and that's not trivial to implement and deploy.


----------



## harsh

James Long said:


> On PTA DISH controls the recording. DISH tells the receiver to start at a specific time and end at a specific time for the evening. Finding the right start and stop times for each program and commercial segment within a DISH set timer is dealing with knowns.


This parsing process can happen whether PTAT is there or not. PTAT is more about taking one transponder and splitting out four independent streams. Once the streams are split, their no different from conventionally recorded channels.

None of the other devices that implement skipping have ever had anything as ambitious as PTAT and most of them were largely successful.


----------



## SayWhat?

harsh said:


> Whatever technique the networks use to notify those downstream of commercial breaks will, by necessity, need to be processable more or less in real time.


Necessary for local stations to insert local commercials, promos, news/weather, etc.


----------



## Mike Bertelson

goinsleeper said:


> My point is just that the VCR nor the DVR were originally created with the sole purpose of skipping commercials. They were created to record programs reguardless of what other reasons people began using them for.


It's the direction where they've both gone.

I had a Panasonic VCR that marked and automatically FW through commercials and that was fifteen years ago. The concept or implementation is nothing new.

What's new here is it's specifically targeted at the Primetime Network programming. The biggest target there is.

Mike


----------



## James Long

harsh said:


> This parsing process can happen whether PTAT is there or not. PTAT is more about taking one transponder and splitting out four independent streams. Once the streams are split, their no different from conventionally recorded channels.


It seems that you are misreading my posts ... I never said that it would be impossible to have AutoHOP without PTA - just that the process would be different.

As far as "once the streams are split" ... have we had a definitive answer on that? The "it records the full transponder" camp vs the "it only records the four network channels" camp. The early claims were that PTA recorded everything on the transponder ... something I felt was unneeded. Pre-Hopper tuners only recorded the PIDs associated with the program being recorded - with modern tuner design I see no problem with the Hopper only recording the PIDs associated with the four PTA channels (and not the full transponder). The streams are not split into individual shows until eight days later when the PTA streams for that day are deleted and only saved programs are kept. A timer recording on a non-PTA receiver is split from the stream immediately ... before "AutoHOP" could be applied.

I'll state it one more time so it doesn't get lost in the tech talk ... I never said that it would be impossible to have AutoHOP without PTA - just that the process would be different.


----------



## Laxguy

SayWhat? said:


> Necessary for local stations to insert local commercials, promos, news/weather, etc.


But is there anything to prevent networks from omitting them, at least from time to time?


----------



## James Long

SayWhat? said:


> harsh said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whatever technique the networks use to notify those downstream of commercial breaks will, by necessity, need to be processable more or less in real time.
> 
> 
> 
> Necessary for local stations to insert local commercials, promos, news/weather, etc.
Click to expand...

True ... but those cues do not have to be passed in a form that is passed on to DISH. Any cues sent to the station can be on streams that are not broadcast OTA. (We have come a long way from using information in the analog signal's vertical blanking to transmit such cues to affiliates.)

There are also network commercials that air on all affiliates. I can see the networks sending a cue for the local breaks ("ok, you can leave the feed" and "get back to the network" commands) but the only reason to cue stations for network breaks is to tell the affiliates to kill any modification of the signal - such as school closings. Requiring stations to be interruption free to carry the network ads. (There are also cues to tell affiliates when they can display a local bug and when to turn it off for the national bug. Plenty of information is transmitted between the network and affiliate ... but that information does not have to be passed on via OTA to DISH or the viewer.)



Laxguy said:


> But is there anything to prevent networks from omitting them, at least from time to time?


Those cues do not have to be in the OTA signal passed on to DISH.


----------



## SayWhat?

James Long said:


> ... the only reason to cue stations for network breaks is to tell the affiliates to kill any modification of the signal - such as school closings. Requiring stations to be interruption free to carry the network ads.


Always got a kick out of that. Messages like storm warning and school/business/road closures that are important enough to scroll over network programs aren't important enough to scroll over hair club or feminine hygiene commercials. :sure:


----------



## Laxguy

SayWhat? said:


> Always got a kick out of that. Messages like storm warning and school/business/road closures that are important enough to scroll over network programs aren't important enough to scroll over hair club or feminine hygiene commercials. :sure:


Ain't that the truth! :sure:

So, thanks, James for the specifics.

To me, my guess that Dish may have to do some special encoding seems very likely. And if networks, or other providers play hardball, impossible to do real time. Again, another- or perhaps primary-reason why there's a 24 hour delay in using that feature.


----------



## Jaspear

Laxguy said:


> Ain't that the truth! :sure:
> 
> So, thanks, James for the specifics.
> 
> To me, my guess that Dish may have to do some special encoding seems very likely. And if networks, or other providers play hardball, impossible to do real time. Again, another- or perhaps primary-reason why there's a 24 hour delay in using that feature.


It's not 24 hours. AH is available at 1 AM, two hours after PTAT ends each night. My guess is the primary reason for the delay to 1 AM is to get AH beyond the live+same day ratings. The networks won't be able to have it both ways in court, claiming it unduly impacts ratings while relying on live+same day for the majority of their ad revenue.


----------



## goinsleeper

Hopper = HD *DVR*
AutoHop = skips commercials

Am I wrong in seeing this as two different things?


----------



## Laxguy

Jaspear said:


> It's not 24 hours. AH is available at 1 AM, two hours after PTAT ends each night. My guess is the primary reason for the delay to 1 AM is to get AH beyond the live+same day ratings. The networks won't be able to have it both ways in court, claiming it unduly impacts ratings while relying on live+same day for the majority of their ad revenue.


Thanks for the clarification. Your guess may well be the main reason, but unless someone can disprove my theory, I am sticking to it! :nono2:


----------



## James Long

Jaspear said:


> My guess is the primary reason for the delay to 1 AM is to get AH beyond the live+same day ratings.


Perhaps ... there are tech reasons to wait until 1am (allowing the commercial breaks to be adjusted before sending the instructions to the receivers). Live plus same day counts playback up until 3am so if DISH wants to play that card they may want to delay when AutoHOP is available. 



goinsleeper said:


> Hopper = HD *DVR*
> AutoHop = skips commercials
> 
> Am I wrong in seeing this as two different things?


You're not wrong ... although the Hopper is more than a simple DVR and has features that land between the realm of DVR and AutoHOP commercial skipping.

AutoHOP seems to be the problem feature. If DISH placed it on other receivers it would still be a problem for the networks.


----------



## phrelin

Anyone here ever tried Autohop at 1:01 AM?


----------



## James Long

phrelin said:


> Anyone here ever tried Autohop at 1:01 AM?


Yes ... And one day last week I had to wait until 1:30am for AutoHOP to be available. (Sorry, I forgot to start a "this receiver is a piece of crap - autohop wasn't available until 1:30am 30 minutes LATE !!!! - I want a new receiver and a full months refund" thread to complain about it.)


----------



## phrelin

James Long said:


> Yes ... And one day last week I had to wait until 1:30am for AutoHOP to be available. (Sorry, I forgot to start a "this receiver is a piece of crap - autohop wasn't available until 1:30am 30 minutes LATE !!!! - I want a new receiver and a full months refund" thread to complain about it.)


!rolling


----------



## tampa8

:rolling:


----------



## Laxguy

James Long said:


> Yes ... And one day last week I had to wait until 1:30am for AutoHOP to be available. (Sorry, I forgot to start a "this receiver is a piece of crap - autohop wasn't available until 1:30am 30 minutes LATE !!!! - I want a new receiver and a full months refund" thread to complain about it.)


Oh, go ahead; it won't be even close to being the worst of that category! :nono2:

I am guessing that it's one a.m. local time for everyone?

I am rooting for Dish to prevail on all counts, but still wonder what the overall effect will be on programming over the next ten years if it's widely adopted.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

We should be thankful it is 1am his time... unless he is on Denver time. I forget where James is.

I find a lot of things we expect to happen at midnight don't happen until 3am... so I would have expected 3am to be the earliest for AutoHOP to become functional.

I'm waiting for the bobby-sox commercial for AutoHOP... "let's go to the HOP"

Also... for some reason I thought about "what if" Apple had come up with this... and named it iHOP


----------



## Laxguy

Stewart Vernon said:


> We should be thankful it is 1am his time... unless he is on Denver time. I forget where James is.
> 
> I find a lot of things we expect to happen at midnight don't happen until 3am... so I would have expected 3am to be the earliest for AutoHOP to become functional.
> 
> I'm waiting for the bobby-sox commercial for AutoHOP... "let's go to the HOP"
> 
> Also... for some reason I thought about "what if" Apple had come up with this... and named it iHOP


Bada-bing! :hurah: That's actually PDG.

You can rock n roll n yada yada, 
At the hop!


----------



## Nick

If we all meet at IHOPs across the nation at exactly 1:01 a.m., that should fix it. I don't have the Harper but I'm happy to help.

BTW, where does a one-legged waitress work?* :scratch:

(*with an appreciative nod to Jake Harper)


----------



## James Long

Stewart Vernon said:


> We should be thankful it is 1am his time... unless he is on Denver time. I forget where James is.


I believe it is 1am local ... I am only in one time zone. Any west coast subscribers getting AutoHOP before 1am PT?

BTW: My location is to the left of every post. I suppose if you forgot the how far north part you might put me in central time, but most of that line in the US is eastern time.


----------



## harsh

James Long said:


> Those cues do not have to be in the OTA signal passed on to DISH.


How would the implement such a scheme? The overhead would surely be substantial and trying to get it deployed across the nation would surely take a long time.

Syncronizing digital streams is exceedingly problematic as the various decodes, encodes and multiplexes take differing amounts of time from one setup to the next. Having to put time codes in the stream is something new that would require readers to ferret the data out and software to act on the flags.

What you propose is by no means trivial or even possible without absolutely everyone's cooperation and investment in the process.


----------



## Laxguy

harsh said:


> How would the implement such a scheme? The overhead would surely be substantial and trying to get it deployed across the nation would surely take a long time.
> 
> Syncronizing digital streams is exceedingly problematic as the various decodes, encodes and multiplexes take differing amounts of time from one setup to the next. Having to put time codes in the stream is something new that would require readers to ferret the data out and software to act on the flags.
> 
> What you propose is by no means trivial or even possible without absolutely everyone's cooperation and investment in the process.


No. While not trivial, it's quite possible to do with complete transparency as far as the end user goes. Dish has the capability to do it with no help from anyone else.


----------



## phrelin

Since there are over 450 posts before this one, I am just assuming no one outside Echostar/Dish really knows how Dish does this.

What crossed my mind is the thought that whatever was added to implement the C.A.L.M (Commercial Advertisement Loudness Mitigation) rule might have been a signal that somehow could be used.

I just have to believe that some engineer at some station is experimenting - lengthening the dead air space at the end of a commercial by a few seconds, then checking out his Hopper setup, eliminating signals from the video feed before retransmitting, etc.

I know that the retransmission of network shows by local stations are not perfectly synchronized in the entire Pacific Time Zone. Local ads are inserted, sometimes in error or out of order. Network promo slots are used for local ads but sometimes you see pieces of the promo at the beginning or end.

Local stations could eliminate a whole promo ad, starting back into the show 15 seconds earlier than scheduled.


----------



## inkahauts

I believe that back int he day when replaytv had this feature they where able to pick up the change in the signal from the show to the commercials. I would think that dish is doping something similar, because it has to be something that is present in all channels of any kind. 

It's funny, dish is trying to make commercials disappear, and DIRECTV has already rolled out in some markets (and slowly is adding more and more) the ability to show local ads on cable channels to add additional revenue. I don't think they could be moving in much more opposite directions in this regard. Charlie is essentially learning and figuring out how to cut revenue streams, and DIRECTV is adding them.


----------



## tampa8

phrelin said:


> Since there are over 450 posts before this one, I am just assuming no one outside Echostar/Dish really knows how Dish does this.


I know and I posted it.


tampa8 said:


> Dish is looking at the CC info, and it can be determined from that when the program starts and starts.


----------



## Laxguy

inkahauts said:


> I believe that back int he day when replaytv had this feature they where able to pick up the change in the signal from the show to the commercials. I would think that dish is doping something similar, because it has to be something that is present in all channels of any kind.


But it doesn't have to be something that's always there; you can bet some networks have already figured out how to defeat those. Exception would be if there's a contractual agreement or FCC rule mandating tags or flags for commercials. I don't think it's anything like ReplayTV in the mechanics, or if it is, it'll soon be defeated.


----------



## Laxguy

tampa8 said:


> I know and I posted it.


Well, thank you, but cannot the CC info be manipulated to a large extent? Could you describe more how it does work?


----------



## tampa8

http://www.faqs.org/patents/app/20120057847
That's clearly how Dish is doing it.

I don't claim to be an expert, but my understanding is no it can't really be manipulated because receivers are looking for specific info for CC to work. Even at that, if it is changed/manipulated how long would it take to adapt to the change? That's the beauty of technology too, it can adapt so long as someone is willing to make it do so.


----------



## harsh

Laxguy said:


> No. While not trivial, it's quite possible to do with complete transparency as far as the end user goes. Dish has the capability to do it with no help from anyone else.


But what we're talking about is taking away whatever DISH is using and replacing it with some other system that DISH can't utilize to enable commercial skipping.


----------



## James Long

harsh said:


> Syncronizing digital streams is exceedingly problematic as the various decodes, encodes and multiplexes take differing amounts of time from one setup to the next. Having to put time codes in the stream is something new that would require readers to ferret the data out and software to act on the flags.
> 
> What you propose is by no means trivial or even possible without absolutely everyone's cooperation and investment in the process.


Having worked with systems that DO the type of cues I am speaking about it could be described as trivial. Technology is at the state where networks CAN send cues to affiliates along with their network content without putting the cues in the signal that is passed on to the OTA viewer. It is done every day.

Cooperation is easy ... we're talking about how networks get their signal to a couple of hundred of affiliates each. The network either supplies or specifies the receivers and switch equipment that will work with their feeds and the desired results are delivered. And you can see the results by simply tuning to a broadcast affiliate. Brought to you by professional broadcast engineers.

The signals that networks use to cue breaks and other information do not have to be in the feed passed OTA.


----------



## James Long

phrelin said:


> Local stations could eliminate a whole promo ad, starting back into the show 15 seconds earlier than scheduled.


Not if they relied on the national feed. They might be able to delay the show a few seconds (causing the Hopper to cut out early at the beginning of a break, if time is the cue) but an affiliate cannot air the program before they receive it. In order for a station to be early, they would have to be a mountain or pacific station and record the eastern/central feed hours before.

A few years ago stations in Indiana (Fort Wayne and Indianapolis markets) would record networks during the summer months and delay broadcast for an hour due to the former Indiana time zone. When HD came they had to make the expensive decision to either stop doing this or buy HD delay equipment (at a time where local HD production was just starting in smaller markets). They bought the delay equipment ... and then the time zone changed to EST/EDT. I don't see a lot of west coast/mountain stations making that level of equipment investment just to mess with AutoHOP (and that is assuming they could get the east coast feed to delay).


----------



## Laxguy

harsh said:


> But what we're talking about is taking away whatever DISH is using and replacing it with some other system that DISH can't utilize to enable commercial skipping.


The first part is what I've been talking about all along, but DISH will be able to impose their own system that will enable Hopper to work just fine.


----------



## James Long

tampa8 said:


> http://www.faqs.org/patents/app/20120057847
> That's clearly how Dish is doing it.
> 
> I don't claim to be an expert, but my understanding is no it can't really be manipulated because receivers are looking for specific info for CC to work. Even at that, if it is changed/manipulated how long would it take to adapt to the change? That's the beauty of technology too, it can adapt so long as someone is willing to make it do so.


An interesting find ... although I find it hard to believe all of the work is done at the receiver level. I expect that some information from DISH (sent around 1am) would identify what indexed CC information should be used for the frame jump and how long that jump should last.

It is also interesting to note a referenced patent application: "[0001] This application claims the benefit of U.S. application Ser. No. 11/942,111, entitled "METHODS AND APPARATUS FOR FILTERING CONTENT IN A VIDEO STREAM USING TEXT DATA", filed on Nov. 19, 2007, which is hereby incorporated by reference in its entirety." If the patent you linked is key to AutoHOP it seems that DISH has been working on this for a long time.

As to the idea of using CC as the only queue:
All local affiliates would need to transmit CC, in sync with the programming. Errors in CC (which are common) would lead to errors in AutoHOP (which are less common).
The beginning of a network break would not be unique. What in CC is different between a show and a network commercial?
The end of the break consists of whatever local content is on before the show returns. It is by nature inconsistent, so separate information would need to be provided to the receiver by DISH to queue off of the beginning of the break plus the length of the break for the "hop".
The use of CC has changed from NTSC to ATSC. It isn't all in line 21 any more.


----------



## olguy

If it is CC how do they adjust for those times when the CC is actually lagging behind the dialog? Sometimes several seconds.


----------



## phrelin

tampa8 said:


> I know and I posted it.





tampa8 said:


> http://www.faqs.org/patents/app/20120057847
> That's clearly how Dish is doing it.
> 
> I don't claim to be an expert, but my understanding is no it can't really be manipulated because receivers are looking for specific info for CC to work. Even at that, if it is changed/manipulated how long would it take to adapt to the change? That's the beauty of technology too, it can adapt so long as someone is willing to make it do so.


 Thanks for that info. It's interesting reading.

These two paragraphs are going to be difficult for the broadcasters to create arguments to overcome simply because they are a statement of fact:


> Digital video recorders (DVRs) and personal video recorders (PVRs) allow viewers to record video in a digital format to a disk drive or other type of storage medium for later playback. DVRs are often incorporated into set-top boxes for satellite and cable television services. A television program stored on a set-top box allows a viewer to perform time shifting functions, and may additionally allow a viewer to skip over commercial breaks and other portions of the recording that the viewer does not desire to watch. However, the user performs this function manually, for example, using a fast forward button of a remote control associated with the DVR. This manual fast forwarding is an inconvenience for the user. Further, manual fast forwarding by a user often leads to inaccurate results, because the user may fast forward past portions of the recording they desire to watch, or may resume playback during the portion of the recording that they want to skip over.
> 
> For example, a user may desire to skip commercials, portions of a television program or other content which is of no interest to the user, or portions of the video stream which are offensive or should otherwise not be shown to certain users.


 I guess Dish could design an offensive word algorithm that a user could turn on which would make their technology appeal to a broader political and legal base.:sure:

CC is not foolproof. But in addition to avoiding the 'Live+same day" ratings issue, I guess they could have some kind of algorithm at the uplink center to monitor for more obvious problems developing and have some time to straighten it out.


----------



## James Long

phrelin said:


> I guess Dish could design an offensive word algorithm that a user could turn on which would make their technology appeal to a broader political and legal base.:sure:


That has already been done ... TVGuardian (Warning!!! Talking website).



> CC is not foolproof. But in addition to avoiding the 'Live+same day" ratings issue, I guess they could have some kind of algorithm at the uplink center to monitor for more obvious problems developing and have some time to straighten it out.


After taking more time to read the patent application it seems the task may be harder than I thought. The patent gives examples of different commercial break patterns in Denver than NYC. The examples give the same number of minutes for commercials but in Denver the breaks are in different locations. I don't see how the networks and affiliates could do that for programs in the same timezone ... perhaps this patent is more for the feared "next step" of adding AutoHOP to syndicated programming?

(Yes, I know Denver and NYC are not in the same timezone. But all markets in the same respective time zone should be airing the same feed with the same break times - which makes it easier to operate AutoHOP by a non per receiver CC based process.)


----------



## Stewart Vernon

I hadn't thought about it until some of the recent posts... but it probably wouldn't be difficult for the broadcast networks to separate the commercial cues from the standard transmission now.

The satellite-delivered feeds, though, would be more problematic... so depending on how Dish is doing this... the OTA channels have a way around it that the satellite channels don't have as easily.


----------



## harsh

James Long said:


> Having worked with systems that DO the type of cues I am speaking about it could be described as trivial.


Was your experience with a real-time system or something where timing is an issue? Real-time is easy. Where there are digital delays present everywhere in the system it is not trivial at all.

Everyone seems to be assuming that everything is carefully time coded as it comes down and I'm doubtful that's the case. If it is, then it might be straightforward to implement but certainly not trivial to implement. If the stream isn't time coded, it would need to be so the system knows where in the stream to apply the commercials.


----------



## Mike Bertelson

harsh said:


> Was your experience with a real-time system or something where timing is an issue? Real-time is easy. Where there are digital delays present everywhere in the system it is not trivial at all.
> 
> Everyone seems to be assuming that everything is carefully time coded as it comes down and I'm doubtful that's the case. If it is, then it might be straightforward to implement but certainly not trivial to implement. If the stream isn't time coded, it would need to be so the system knows where in the stream to apply the commercials.


I have a family member who is in the TV biz and I got to see how some of this works.

It was a long time ago and honestly most of what was happening was beyond me. I do remember there are timing mark ins and mark outs for transitions like commercials.

IIRC, prime time programming is very carefully timed. Local commercials are, for the most part, inserted seamlessly so it shouldn't be any more difficult to get AutoHop to work.

Of course I'm not at all familiar with how the systems work but the engineer in me thinks that proper timing of starts, stops, transitions, etc would be critical to ensure you get all your ads in the right place, at the right times. After all these years, and in the digital age, I would think that would be something broadcasters would do very well...I've been wrong before. :grin:

Mike


----------



## James Long

harsh said:


> Was your experience with a real-time system or something where timing is an issue?


Where did you find an or?

The system I worked with was real-time and timing was certainly an issue - that was solved. It is something that is done every day by the television broadcast networks. All sorts of synchronized signals in the digital pipe. Getting the cues for break start/stop and local logo on/off in sync with the video is just as easy as getting the audio in sync with the video. And it can be done on the feed to the affiliate in a way that is not passed on to the transmitter and viewer.

Or, for the sake of this thread, the hidden cues from the network that let the station know where the breaks are are not something DISH or any other viewer sees. That is why I call them hidden cues.


----------



## SayWhat?

Check Rizzoli & Isles on TBS right now........

What can Dish (or anyone else) to get rid of the nonsense at the bottom of the screen?


----------



## Nick

Change the channel.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

SayWhat? said:


> Check Rizzoli & Isles on TBS right now........
> 
> What can Dish (or anyone else) to get rid of the nonsense at the bottom of the screen?


Funny... I was about to post about this 

This is one of the ways channels can defeat the commercial skipping... devote 15% of the screen to commercials during the show!


----------



## Laxguy

A screen shot, please!


----------



## Stewart Vernon

Laxguy said:


> A screen shot, please!


Of what? Of the advertising banners that TNT runs during almost every show they air? At least almost every TNT-original production.


----------



## phrelin

I didn't notice them selling Chevy's like they do all over the screen in "Hawaii Five-0" showing the cars driving and driving and driving.

However it seemed like the intrusion on TNT tonight literally was a full-width signboard occupying about 30% of the screen at the bottom - admittedly promos for their shows. But that could change.

It isn't like this hasn't been coming down the pike. Autohop isn't any big deal. DVR's with skip buttons are much more of a problem.


----------



## Laxguy

Stewart Vernon said:


> Of what? Of the advertising banners that TNT runs during almost every show they air? At least almost every TNT-original production.


It was TBS that was mentioned. I tuned to it, but didn't see anything that noteworthy, so I asked for someone to demo it, esp. as maybe it was a Dish thing, not available on DIRECTV®'s 'casts.


----------



## SayWhat?

Stewart Vernon said:


> ... devote 15% of the screen to commercials during the show!


Maybe an AutoShrink/Stretch to crop out the offensive content?



Stewart Vernon said:


> Of what? Of the advertising banners that TNT runs during almost every show they air?


Oh it was a lot worse than that. Little Blue Birdie type droppings scrolling across the bottom of the screen full of #s and @s and whatever follows them.



Laxguy said:


> It was TBS that was mentioned. I tuned to it, but didn't see anything that noteworthy, so I asked for someone to demo it, esp. as maybe it was a Dish thing, not available on DIRECTV®'s 'casts.


Not a Dish thing. Definitely a load of TBS Twits.


----------



## satcrazy

Don't know if they still do this, but the local cable co. TW, had almost half the gui covered with TVguide crap and commercials, which left very little for actual channel space. You could die of old age just trying to get through the guide.

One of the big reasons I left for sat years ago.


----------



## Jaspear

phrelin said:


> I didn't notice them selling Chevy's like they do all over the screen in "Hawaii Five-0" showing the cars driving and driving and driving.
> 
> However it seemed like the intrusion on TNT tonight literally was a full-width signboard occupying about 30% of the screen at the bottom - admittedly promos for their shows. But that could change.
> 
> It isn't like this hasn't been coming down the pike. Autohop isn't any big deal. DVR's with skip buttons are much more of a problem.


The Global Network in Canada has been running paid advertising in the lower third graphics for several years. Global also airs paid ads in the closing credits. Also just recently, I've noticed what appear to be paid advertising for new movie releases in the LTGs on American networks.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

Laxguy said:


> It was TBS that was mentioned. I tuned to it, but didn't see anything that noteworthy, so I asked for someone to demo it, esp. as maybe it was a Dish thing, not available on DIRECTV®'s 'casts.


Sorry... I missed the poster's error. He definitely was talking about TNT and misspoke when saying TBS, because the specific show he noted was only on TNT last night.


----------



## SayWhat?

They're interchangeable. I really can't tell them apart.


----------



## harsh

James Long said:


> Getting the cues for break start/stop and local logo on/off in sync with the video is just as easy as getting the audio in sync with the video.


Are the audio and video feeds coming from the networks not in the same stream as the video?

Real-time is easy; dial it in once and it works. It is when you've decided to do your own pre-encoded inserts and stuff that adds several more time-based variables that it gets difficult.


----------



## catnapped

Someday you'll be telling your grandkids (or maybe even kids) how you remembered when the networks actually had *programming* and not commercials 24/7! :lol:


----------



## dlt

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/dishs-charlie-ergen-networks-criticism-335174


----------



## hilmar2k

Even his kids won't subscribe to Dish:



> Emphasizing the threat of online video, Ergen said that four of his five children have stopped paying for a TV subscription


I keed, I keed....


----------



## Wilf

A longer article is here:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303296604577452332545810776.html


----------



## jdskycaster

> "If the ad is skipped, the consumer likes it, but it's not necessarily good for me and it's not necessarily good for the broadcaster because I'm in the same ecosystem as him," Mr. Ergen said. "So we have to figure out how the broadcaster benefits, we benefit and the consumer continues to feel like he gets a fair deal. So maybe [the consumer] pays a little bit less for 'retrans,' his bill doesn't go up by double digits every year.... That's an interesting conversation to have."


Great summation of what everyone has been speculating. This is really about retransmission fees and the technology just levels the playing field a bit. If Dish wins there is finally a way for them to use the technology as a bargaining chip in negotiations. Again, it is a great feature but honestly one that I have not used all that much.


----------



## Marlin Guy

As I said in another thread - Napster paved the way for i-tunes.
Adapt and change or get left for dead.
Good for Charlie! He gets it.


----------



## Marlin Guy

I have two adult children. 27 and 23. Neither of them subscribe to any broadcast TV services. All of their content is either streamed or downloaded and then watched at their convenience. No commercials.


----------



## Arya Stark

If not for sports, our family would do that as well. We watch A LOT of tv too, but sports are the one thing tying us down to satellite. Probably why ESPN can charge so much!


----------



## Charise

I don't have a Hopper set-up yet, but when I do, if it's still available, I'll use auto-hop on everything recorded with PTAT. But I can go with lower prices and 30-second skip if it's not.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

_Threads merged. Please keep everything in this thread, starting new threads on the same very active topic just confuses people who don't know which thread to reply to. Thanks!_


----------



## Laxguy

Marlin Guy said:


> As I said in another thread - Napster paved the way for i-tunes.
> Adapt and change or get left for dead.
> Good for Charlie! He gets it.


What date are you assigning for the real start of Napster? 
My date for iTunes is when SoundJam was released. (Apple bought SoundJam which became the nucleus for iTunes).


----------



## Redbullsnation

this is absolutely stupid. I hope the judge throw the book to these networks...


----------



## Marlin Guy

Laxguy said:


> What date are you assigning for the real start of Napster?
> My date for iTunes is when SoundJam was released. (Apple bought SoundJam which became the nucleus for iTunes).


Napster was launched in 1999. SoundJam was in 2000, but that was not my point.
I was sharing MP3s via binary Usenet well before either of them hit the scene, but Napster brought easy peer-to-peer sharing to the masses. The masses didn't live in the Mac world. They lived in the PC world.

Electronic file sharing forced the music industry to make significant changes in the way they market and distribute music. Record stores closed and the manufacturing, distribution, and sale of physical media is rapidly dying.
The last album I paid for was Radiohead's "In Rainbows". The band broke new ground by putting the music online for free, but asked people to pay something for it if they liked it.
I paid for that in order to reward Radiohead for being bold and innovative, and becoming part of the solution, and not attacking their fans as if they were enemies.
The last movie I purchased was Louis CK's "Live At the Beacon Theatre". I could easily gotten that for free from other sources, but again, I wanted to let this artist know that I approved of his artist to consumer direct delivery model, and that I would still pay for media if it's packaged in a way that suits me.

Charlie's argument, and I think it's dead nuts right, is that with the expanded access to broadband and better compression technologies, the same thing is beginning to happen to his own business. 
He is trying to be pro-active and retain customer base, rather than being reactive and trying to get them back after millions are already gone.


----------



## Laxguy

Good exposition; thanks, and I agree that the changes going on are necessary- maybe not these exact ones, but time will tell.


----------



## SayWhat?

Marlin Guy said:


> Charlie's argument, and I think it's dead nuts right, is that with the expanded access to broadband and better compression technologies, the same thing is beginning to happen to his own business. He is trying to be pro-active and retain customer base, rather than being reactive and trying to get them back after millions are already gone.


May be going into a different thread, but isn't there speculation that Charlie is trying to position the company for a coming transition away from satellite to wireless without the big roadblocks to full-tilt streaming for the masses in the way of FAP policies, BW caps, limits and overage charges?


----------



## ggotch5445

Nick said:


> Commercial advertisers have delivered "free" television programming to American viewers since the beginnings of tv. The phrase _"brought to you by..."_ or _"sponsored by..."_ has real significance to tv advertisers. They bring "free" tv to your living room, in return, you watch their commercials -- at least, that's the model, the way it's supposed to work...the price we pay for free tv. Subverting the free tv model by skipping commercials is like going sneaking into a movie theater or walking into a retail store, ripping the price tags off the merchandise and walking out with the goods without paying.
> 
> Either way, it's stealing.


Having been a program time shifter since obtaining the first Sony Betamax, I have wrestled in my mind with this issue for many years. But I finally came to the conclusion that not viewing commercials is not stealing programming.

At no point, within the history of broadcast, over the air television, has there been any kind of contract or direction from the broadcasters that anyone is required to watch commercials. One simply bought one's TV and antenna and watched whatever one wished to watch. A viewer could switch channels or leave the room if he wished not to view a televised ad. That could be said about radio as well.

Network advertisers are gambling everyday that folks will take time to view their ads. And networks do exist, and profit from the ad revenue. But the contracts that exist are between the networks and the advertisers only. The viewer has no obligation to sit and watch every televised ad- in fact the broadcasters have made it excruciating to do so by scheduling 5 minutes of ads at every break.

A typical viewer's "price of admission" is his, or her's purchase of the TV equipment. There is no other official commitment, on the part of the viewer. The model that the networks and broadcasters have developed is based on the "hope" that we will watch ads and go out and buy products. If indeed we are looking at a moral cause and effect, we could be faulted for watching a given T V show, and not going out and buying every advertiser's product to pay for the broadcast.

I acknowledge the fact that the present ad model has paid for the continuation of "free" TV. I am simply saying that nothing has changed: 1. The viewer has never had an obligation to watch, or listen to ads; and 2. The viewer has always had an easy means to not watch or listen to ads.

As is the case potentially with all businesses, the broadcasters and their sponsors must start to say goodbye to traditional ways of advertising, and start thinking out of the box to maintain and increase their revenue.

All of this is not necessarily a bad thing for these folks. To again refer back to the Sony Betamax: remember when Disney, Universal, and others were suing Sony to stop Sony from selling The Betamax. The introduction of the VCR turns out to have been the near salvation of the movie industry. Who would have foreseen that back then? And would Disney and Universal now like to return to the pre- home video days?

Perhaps the networks simply need more Super Bowl concepts: where we might rather actually watch the ads than the programming!


----------



## Nick

> ...I finally came to the conclusion that not viewing commercials is not stealing programming...


I agree with you, of course. My earlier assertion to the contrary was intended to be thought-provoking. I wrote a white paper on the subject some 9-10 years ago. Shook some folks then as I recall.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

ggotch5445 said:


> Having been a program time shifter since obtaining the first Sony Betamax, I have wrestled in my mind with this issue for many years. But I finally came to the conclusion that not viewing commercials is not stealing programming.


Of course not... I don't think anyone has ever said that. No person is required to watch commercials. Even without DVRs and VCRs there has never been a requirement to sit and watch commercials. It would be unenforceable.

Auto-Hop is very different, though... because a lot of people don't skip commercials since it requires multiple keypresses for each break. You know, all those people who never set their clock on the VCR? Those people are too lazy or can't be bothered to hit skip or FFWD or whatever on the remote multiple times either.

The advertising industry banks on most people watching live (still true) and other people in the +1/2/3 category still watching some commercials even on DVRed content.

Now you and I may disagree on how many commercials actually get watched... but the advertisers operate under the illusion that their advertising does get watched enough to make it worth spending money on it.

IF the advertisers become further convinced, through the ease-of-use of something like Auto-Hop, that far less people are watching their commercials... then they will not pay as much (or perhaps at all) for those commercials... and then the networks will have to look elsewhere for their revenue... and if the advertisers don't pay, who do you think will be asked to pay next?

Ultimately you and I.


----------



## SayWhat?

I look at it this way.....

If I'm watching The Big Bang Theory, the part with the cast speaking their lines is the programming from the network. The part where a car manufacturer is trying to sell cars is paid programming. The part where a law firm is trying to drum up business for the ailment of the month is paid programming. The part where somebody is telling about frozen pizzas is paid programming. None of them are part of the scripted program so the network has no say in whether a gadget blots out those paid programs or not.

They're not written, shot or produced by the network, nor are they owned, commissioned or copyrighted by the network.


----------



## Laxguy

Except the Network can say, "No, we'll not allow our feed on your service". Or, "We will charge you 149% more". etc.


----------



## tampa8

Thinking about it, taking the Network stance, your remote is illegal. It assists you in changing the channel when there is a commercial.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

SayWhat? said:


> None of them are part of the scripted program so the network has no say in whether a gadget blots out those paid programs or not.





Laxguy said:


> Except the Network can say, "No, we'll not allow our feed on your service". Or, "We will charge you 149% more". etc.


Point and counterpoint exactly!

Networks can't force you to watch commercials, but the more the advertisers know you are NOT watching them, the less they are willing to pay the network... so either your programs can't afford to be produced because the network can't afford to buy them OR the network has to ask for more money from Dish (or DirecTV or cable, etc.).

I would rather still have the illusion that the ads might be watched so that the advertisers will keep paying and my TV bill can continue to be cheaper.


----------



## Herdfan

Marlin Guy said:


> I have two adult children. 27 and 23. Neither of them subscribe to any broadcast TV services. All of their content is either streamed or downloaded and then watched at their convenience. No commercials.


I get that on some level, but what there are still many in that age group that like to watch sports. That doesn't really work with sports.



ggotch5445 said:


> A viewer could switch channels or leave the room if he wished not to view a televised ad. That could be said about radio as well.


Actually, it was much easier with radio. Especially in the car. If a commercial came on, change the station. I had 6 presets and one of them would be playing music. Never listened to commercials.

I remember being in my teens and going to visit my grandmother in Florida. Her TV was acting up, so my dad and I went to get her a new one. All she wanted was one with a "Mute" button because the commercials were too loud. From that point on, she muted every commercial.


----------



## Marlin Guy

Herdfan said:


> I get that on some level, but what there are still many in that age group that like to watch sports. That doesn't really work with sports.


My son did watch the World Cup matches online while studying in Germany. I watched last year's July Daytona race streaming from his town home.
There are ways to still watch live sports. They are not as good in quality yet, but I would say in 5 years they will be.


----------



## lparsons21

Marlin Guy said:


> My son did watch the World Cup matches online while studying in Germany. I watched last year's July Daytona race streaming from his town home.
> There are ways to still watch live sports. They are not as good in quality yet, but I would say in 5 years they will be.


Not just the quality of the streaming sports videos, but the very few that are out there. Or at least from legal sites.

It is pretty easy to find old sports videos from just about any genre, but current events, not so much.


----------



## ggotch5445

Nick said:


> I agree with you, of course. My earlier assertion to the contrary was intended to be thought-provoking. I wrote a white paper on the subject some 9-10 years ago. Shook some folks then as I recall.


Thanks Nick- you did indeed thought-provoked me into commenting!


----------



## SayWhat?

Herdfan said:


> Actually, it was much easier with radio. Especially in the car. If a commercial came on, change the station. I had 6 presets and one of them would be playing music. Never listened to commercials.


Yeah, but have you noticed that commercial breaks seem to have become synchronized? Whether on radio or TV, when one goes to commercial, many others seem to also. You jump channels/stations and still get spam. Maybe a result of so many stations under common ownership?


----------



## Mike Bertelson

SayWhat? said:


> I look at it this way.....
> 
> If I'm watching The Big Bang Theory, the part with the cast speaking their lines is the programming from the network. The part where a car manufacturer is trying to sell cars is paid programming. The part where a law firm is trying to drum up business for the ailment of the month is paid programming. The part where somebody is telling about frozen pizzas is paid programming. None of them are part of the scripted program so the network has no say in whether a gadget blots out those paid programs or not.
> 
> They're not written, shot or produced by the network, nor are they owned, commissioned or copyrighted by the network.


The Big Bang Theory is not written, shot or produced by CBS. The Big Bang Theory is not owned, wasn't commissioned by, or copyrighted by CBS. It's written and produced by Chuck Lorre Productions and shot at Warner Bros. studios. AAMOF, CBS shot down the original pitch and Chuck Lorre re-worked the show and pitched it again, and the rest is history.

The broadcast is copyrighted by CBS and I think that's their point. I'm not sure agree with them but, in the case of The Big Bang Theory, CBS took all the components, the episode, commercials, PSAs, station breaks, etc., and produced a half hour timeslot. They purchased the rights to broadcast the show so they can sell the advertising and make money.

In their eyes the complete broadcast is CBS's copyright even though they don't have the copyright to any of the content.

It's gonna be and interesting legal battle.

Mike


----------



## Wilf

Mike Bertelson said:


> In their eyes the complete broadcast is CBS's copyright even though they don't have the copyright to any of the content.
> Mike


According to lawyers on a recent "This Week in Law" podcast, and an article I saw in the LA Times, the copyright argument doesn't stand a chance. The networks will need another ploy.


----------



## Mike Bertelson

Wilf said:


> According to lawyers on a recent "This Week in Law" podcast, and an article I saw in the LA Times, the copyright argument doesn't stand a chance. The networks will need another ploy.


It sound's kinda thin to me too...I'm not a lawyer so really have not idea how they will proceed.

Maybe interfering with interstate commerce? :grin:

Mike


----------



## ggotch5445

Stewart Vernon said:


> Of course not... I don't think anyone has ever said that. No person is required to watch commercials. Even without DVRs and VCRs there has never been a requirement to sit and watch commercials. It would be unenforceable.
> 
> Auto-Hop is very different, though... because a lot of people don't skip commercials since it requires multiple keypresses for each break. You know, all those people who never set their clock on the VCR? Those people are too lazy or can't be bothered to hit skip or FFWD or whatever on the remote multiple times either.
> 
> The advertising industry banks on most people watching live (still true) and other people in the +1/2/3 category still watching some commercials even on DVRed content.
> 
> Now you and I may disagree on how many commercials actually get watched... but the advertisers operate under the illusion that their advertising does get watched enough to make it worth spending money on it.
> 
> IF the advertisers become further convinced, through the ease-of-use of something like Auto-Hop, that far less people are watching their commercials... then they will not pay as much (or perhaps at all) for those commercials... and then the networks will have to look elsewhere for their revenue... and if the advertisers don't pay, who do you think will be asked to pay next?
> 
> Ultimately you and I.


Well Stewart, as I had quoted him, Nick did suggest that he felt that skipping commercials was stealing- though he replied to my post indicating that his intent was to provoke our thoughts. Overall my post was meant to respond to Nick, and note that perhaps a new way of promoting one's products is long overdue, as we all have long been skipping commercials in one fashion or another for years.

I agree with you that ultimately, as consumers, we will- and should pay for the actual products we consume. Advertising will continue, and Autohop should mean simply that we'll get product promotions through clever ad placement, which does seem to be starting. And such fresh, new ad positioning may actually benefit the networks and advertisers. Instead of potentially subjecting folks to lengthy stretches of commercials, many of which repeat within a single program break to the annoyance of the viewers, the networks/advertisers may well find that innovating kinds of product promos will sell these items more effectively.

Instead of bemoaning Autohop, the networks need to embrace what new technology is bringing and use it to their advantage. Companies that employ new ways of reaching consumers will win the day.


----------



## SayWhat?

Mike Bertelson said:


> In their eyes the complete broadcast is CBS's copyright even though they don't have the copyright to any of the content.





Wilf said:


> According to lawyers on a recent "This Week in Law" podcast, and an article I saw in the LA Times, the copyright argument doesn't stand a chance. The networks will need another ploy.


I never watch sports any more, but back when I did, when baseball was about baseball before the players' first temper tantrums, I seem to remember flags posted on screen about the broadcast being copyrighted 'in its entirety', but I don't remember if it was by the network or the team or league.


----------



## phrelin

Mike Bertelson said:


> The Big Bang Theory is not written, shot or produced by CBS. The Big Bang Theory is not owned, wasn't commissioned by, or copyrighted by CBS. It's written and produced by Chuck Lorre Productions and shot at Warner Bros. studios. AAMOF, CBS shot down the original pitch and Chuck Lorre re-worked the show and pitched it again, and the rest is history.
> 
> The broadcast is copyrighted by CBS and I think that's their point. I'm not sure agree with them but, in the case of The Big Bang Theory, CBS took all the components, the episode, commercials, PSAs, station breaks, etc., and produced a half hour timeslot. They purchased the rights to broadcast the show so they can sell the advertising and make money.
> 
> In their eyes the complete broadcast is CBS's copyright even though they don't have the copyright to any of the content.
> 
> It's gonna be and interesting legal battle.
> 
> Mike


Chain of events:

Production company produces content - owns copyright.
Auto manufacturer (for example) hires advertising agency to produce ad and the auto manufacturer owns copyright.
National broadcast network assembles content, ads, their own promos, transmits it to local broadcast station - national network thinks it owns copyright of mish-mash of content and ads.
Local broadcast station inserts local ads and station promos, id, etc., and transmits it all to the air, and for a fee to cable/satellite companies, and probably thinks it owns copyright of the mish-mash plus.
Dish transmits via satellite to customer viewers the entire mish-mash plus for fees received from customer viewers.
Customer-viewers pays fees and records mish-mash plus.
Customer-viewers watches mish-mash plus, skipping any portions of content, ads, promos, etc., they choose; apparently according to the networks, by skipping things they don't watch the customer-viewers are violating somebody's copyright, but whose????
Yeah, it will be an interesting case.


----------



## SayWhat?

4a. Dish inserts ads/promos for Dish products, programming and features.


----------



## Laxguy

SayWhat? said:


> I never watch sports any more, but back when I did, when baseball was about baseball before the players' first temper tantrums, I seem to remember flags posted on screen about the broadcast being copyrighted 'in its entirety', but I don't remember if it was by the network or the team or league.


*This post copyrighted in its entirety.*

:hurah:

Just because they said so doesn't make it true (though I bet in this case it is). But that still leaves open the question as to just what constitutes the broadcast. And, as you say, who owns it? Or them? (as in multiple parts being owned by different entitities.) As Mike noted, could be an interesting battle.


----------



## James Long

ggotch5445 said:


> Well Stewart, as I had quoted him, Nick did suggest that he felt that skipping commercials was stealing- though he replied to my post indicating that his intent was to provoke our thoughts.


Normally when "stealing" is applied to copyrighted materials it is when people watch something they have not paid for. I'm not watching commercials ... how is it that I'm violating a copyright by not watching them? It must be in the payment portion of the argument.

The networks think that I am paying for their content via the commercials. It is OK to watch the programming they provide as long as I am paying for it - and 18 minutes of commercials per hour is the apparent cost.

But as much as they pretend to be naive about it they KNOW that people skip commercials ... and have been skipping them for many years since VCRs and DVRs have provided the technology to do so. And when they offer their programs online (for free) the forced commercial breaks are shorter. Perhaps because they know we have to watch them and can't skip them (although we can).

Networks have been annoyed at DVRs since they were VCRs because they allowed the recording of content. Eventually that was expressed as a copyright violation and the networks won limited rights to protect their content. Now it seems that their target is requiring commercial viewing - something they have been after for years.

In the previous copyright decisions the focus was on the content and whether or not individuals could record it for personal use. Now the focus is on whether distributors can make it easy to remove commercials.

DISH is still delivering the program WITH COMMERCIALS to every one of their customers - and every DVR is recording the entire program with commercials. There is no editing of the feed on DISH's part (that would be a violation of a current law). All that is new is that DISH is also telling their receivers where to skip to avoid commercials ... information provided only for customers viewing the next day or beyond.

It should be an interesting case.


----------



## James Long

SayWhat? said:


> 4a. Dish inserts ads/promos for Dish products, programming and features.


Not in local programming. The feeds must be retransmitted intact.


----------



## James Long

Laxguy said:


> *This post copyrighted in its entirety.*
> 
> Just because they said so doesn't make it true (though I bet in this case it is).


It is true. Content on this site is covered by the compilation copyright of DBSTalk. All posts made on DBSTalk.Com become property of DBSTalk.Com.

And while I'm not going to get into an argument over this site's copyright and how it is enforced, the compilation copyright is the one that networks and their stations seem to be leaning on.


----------



## SayWhat?

James Long said:


> It is true. Content on this site is covered by the compilation copyright of DBSTalk. All posts made on DBSTalk.Com become property of DBSTalk.Com.
> 
> And while I'm not going to get into an argument over this site's copyright and how it is enforced, the compilation copyright is the one that networks and their stations seem to be leaning on.


And yet, we're not forced to view all posts, threads or even sections of the board. Tool are provided to omit entire forums (I omit all DirectTV forums and a few others) and to omit all posts by specified users.


----------



## inkahauts

"James Long" said:


> DISH is still delivering the program WITH COMMERCIALS to every one of their customers - and every DVR is recording the entire program with commercials. There is no editing of the feed on DISH's part (that would be a violation of a current law). All that is new is that DISH is also telling their receivers where to skip to avoid commercials ... information provided only for customers viewing the next day or beyond.
> 
> It should be an interesting case.


Dish is editing the program though. If the customer doesn't see the Entire program because dish altered the viewing stream, (not whats recorded) that's editing the program themselves, rather than making the customer do it. What's the difference if they. Do it before it hits the DVR or after? None. There are two question to come from this though since they are doing it at the box and because of the way they implemented it.

One, since dish is editing what the viewer sees only with permission from the viewer, does that circumvent the copyright violation, because one can assume that if dish wasn't editing it, the viewer would.

Two, since you can easily manually override dishes edits during playback, does that mean its ok they did it because it can so easily be undone.

I think in the end, that's the two question that the courts will be deciding this entire case on and if dish is doing anything illegal.


----------



## SayWhat?

inkahauts said:


> Dish is editing the program though.


You haven't been reading, have you? Nothing is edited or removed.


----------



## James Long

SayWhat? said:


> And yet, we're not forced to view all posts, threads or even sections of the board. Tool are provided to omit entire forums (I omit all DirectTV forums and a few others) and to omit all posts by specified users.


True, we have different rules from the networks and, in general, treat people better. Non registered users see a lot more advertising than those who simply register. Subscribe to the club and you can choose to see less advertising. The site is trying to stay alive through a balance of an acceptable level of advertising and voluntary subscriptions.

There are sites that have the level of advertising broadcast networks would like to require. We're not one of those sites.


----------



## Laxguy

SayWhat? said:


> And yet, we're not forced to view all posts, threads or even sections of the board. Tool are provided to omit entire forums (I omit all DirectTV forums and a few others) and to omit all posts by specified users.


True, but isn't that similar to custom channel lists and FF? Though a closer fit with the HopSkip®, a phrase I've just coined and copyrighted.


----------



## James Long

inkahauts said:


> Dish is editing the program though. If the customer doesn't see the Entire program because dish altered the viewing stream, (not whats recorded) that's editing the program themselves, rather than making the customer do it. What's the difference if they. Do it before it hits the DVR or after? None. There are two question to come from this though since they are doing it at the box and because of the way they implemented it.


ALL commercial skipping is done at the box ... the same way as it has been done since DISH released their first DVR.

The customer is doing it. It is their choice. Every time playback of an enabled event is started the customer is given the choice whether they want to see the commercials or not. 100% the customers choice.

The implementation makes it easy (trivial) to say yes to skipping the commercials ... perhaps only the baby in the Jimmy Fallon Capital One commercials is saying they don't want the feed without commercials. Is that DISH's fault that people want network programming without commercials? Or is DISH to be punished for giving customers what they want (an easier way to choose to skip commercials)?

I don't see it as a violation of copyright. If AutoHOP is ruled a violation of copyright for allowing the customer to skip recorded commercials then ALL commercial skipping is a violation of copyright - including skip/slip on DirecTV boxes, Tivo boxes and other DVRs.

Just because DISH does it better does not make it any more illegal.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

James Long said:


> True, we have different rules from the networks and, in general, treat people better. Non registered users see a lot more advertising than those who simply register. Subscribe to the club and you can choose to see less advertising. The site is trying to stay alive through a balance of an acceptable level of advertising and voluntary subscriptions.
> 
> There are sites that have the level of advertising broadcast networks would like to require. We're not one of those sites.


Yeah, in that sense I guess DBSTalk is more like FTA and a PI channel than Subscription satellite (Dish) and subscribed channel.

Of course, there might come a day (please note I do NOT speak for ownership of DBSTalk here, this is just an example for purposes of discussion) where the costs of running DBSTalk outweigh the voluntary subscriptions... and then the owners might have to decide what to do in order to keep the site running.


----------



## inkahauts

"James Long" said:


> ALL commercial skipping is done at the box ... the same way as it has been done since DISH released their first DVR.
> 
> The customer is doing it. It is their choice. Every time playback of an enabled event is started the customer is given the choice whether they want to see the commercials or not. 100% the customers choice.
> 
> The implementation makes it easy (trivial) to say yes to skipping the commercials ... perhaps only the baby in the Jimmy Fallon Capital One commercials is saying they don't want the feed without commercials. Is that DISH's fault that people want network programming without commercials? Or is DISH to be punished for giving customers what they want (an easier way to choose to skip commercials)?
> 
> I don't see it as a violation of copyright. If AutoHOP is ruled a violation of copyright for allowing the customer to skip recorded commercials then ALL commercial skipping is a violation of copyright - including skip/slip on DirecTV boxes, Tivo boxes and other DVRs.
> 
> Just because DISH does it better does not make it any more illegal.


But thats the point. This is not at all the same as any other skipping of programing done on dishes dvrs, much less anyone else. the customer is not choosing what to skip, dish is, even if it is something that everyone thinks those people would skip anyway. What happens when dish starts not skipping just their ad as one single 30 second spot but still skips all of the other commercials? Would they have the right to do that? To actively choose what commercials or part of the broadcast that the programers are providing them to pass on to the customer to show and which to not show? If they allow the customer to say, skip all commercials except dish ones? Would that be legal? No they don't have the right to do that, so why should they have the right to choose to skip all your commercials for you even if you give them permission to. Dish isn't the copyright holder, and only the end user is allowed to change what is viewed, not the middle man. And no matter how you spin it, dish is the one choosing the starting points and end points of the programing to skip, not the customer.

It's 100% the choice of the customer to let dish skip the commercials and thus alter the broadcast that they actually see, true, but that does not mean that overrides the rules that say dish can't alter the content of the broadcasters. Again, Only the viewer has that right under current laws to actually do the altering.

I am not saying dish should be punished, but they are altering what the customer sees actively, rather than letting the customer do it actively. That's a whole new ball game, and until they win a court judgement stating otherwise, they are breaking the laws.

And since when is it ok to do it just because the customer wants it? That's the most terrible argument there could be. "But Ma, his parents let him do it!"

Also, where the skipping is done is arbitrary, it's that dish is doing it for the customer that is in question.

No other provider except replaytv tried to make the decisions on what should be skipped for the customer, so it's not at all the same thing as the other forms of skipping that dish does, much less than anyone else.

Dish does it better? That's not really an argument for legality in either direction either. It's your sentiment. And they are doing it different, not necessarily better. Better wouldn't pose the potential problems long term that this is, for all of us.


----------



## inkahauts

"SayWhat?" said:


> You haven't been reading, have you? Nothing is edited or removed.


The viewing stream is edited by dish, they are the ones choosing the starting point and ending point and altering what the viewer sees without their active interaction. They ask the viewers for permission thinking that overrides the copyright laws saying they can't alter what the broadcaster provides. This is a whole other world from ffwd or skip forward, etc.


----------



## James Long

inkahauts said:


> What happens when dish starts not skipping just their ad as one single 30 second spot but still skips all of the other commercials? Would they have the right to do that?


They are not doing that. Why all the straw man arguments and false descriptions of what the feature does?

The AutoHOP feature operates just the way the subscribers who CHOOSE to use it expect it to operate. There is no need to add fear, uncertainty and doubt to the equation to stir up more trouble than the actual feature is.



> That's a whole new ball game, and until they win a court judgement stating otherwise, they are breaking the laws.


I'm sorry, what kountry is this? Amerika?

We have "innocent until proven guilty" in America. DISH is not "guilty until proven innocent".



> No other provider except replaytv tried to make the decisions on what should be skipped for the customer, so it's not at all the same thing as the other forms of skipping that dish does, much less than anyone else.


So if no one does it no one should be allowed to do it? No one provided whole home DVRs until someone figured that out ... I suppose that should be illegal until proven in court that it is not illegal, the same standard you claim AutoHOP should be held to.

There is an innovation killer ... we can't do this because no one else does it.


----------



## Mike Bertelson

James Long said:


> <snip>
> I don't see it as a violation of copyright. If AutoHOP is ruled a violation of copyright for allowing the customer to skip recorded commercials then ALL commercial skipping is a violation of copyright - including skip/slip on DirecTV boxes, Tivo boxes and other DVRs.
> <snip>


I'm not a lawyer but it seems to me that in order to make an argument against AutoHop they're gonna have to show that it's somehow different than the standard skip/slip or FW. Otherwise, I don't see how the courts could rule in the Networks favor.

I'm not sure how the Network lawyers can make the argument that it's different but then I've never understood how lawyers think anyway. :grin:

When our neighborhood took the city to court over our sewer assessments I did hundreds of hours of research into the case law and I learned three things:

What's right and what's legal are two different things.
Even when you win it's not likely to come out the way you expected.
There's nothing black & white in the law.
I'm an engineer. When I read the statute it seemed pretty cut and dry to me. When we went to court none of it worked liked we expected.

I expect there's gonna be a whole lotta weirdness in the AutoHop battle and we'll all be surprised how the decision is reached.

Mike


----------



## SayWhat?

Thing 4: No two courts/judges are the same. What works in one courtroom fails in another.

I would imagine the NetSuits have done a bit of court shopping to find one more likely to rule in their favor.


----------



## RasputinAXP

Laxguy said:


> *This post copyrighted in its entirety.*
> 
> :hurah:
> 
> Just because they said so doesn't make it true (though I bet in this case it is). But that still leaves open the question as to just what constitutes the broadcast. And, as you say, who owns it? Or them? (as in multiple parts being owned by different entitities.) As Mike noted, could be an interesting battle.


To prove that the claim was irrelevant, and for commentary and example in her class, a law professor excerpted the NFL's copyright banner:


> This telecast is copyrighted by the NFL for the private use of our
> audience. Any other use of this telecast or any pictures,
> descriptions, or accounts of the game without the NFL's consent is
> prohibited.


She put it on YouTube, got a pair of takedown notices, and then it was allowed to remain up because she was, in fact, correct. Valid Fair Use rules always apply for purposes of commentary or education. There's a lot of discussion about it, but her blog is probably the best place to check it out.


----------



## Herdfan

inkahauts said:


> *They ask the viewers for permission *thinking that overrides the copyright laws saying they can't alter what the broadcaster provides. This is a whole other world from ffwd or skip forward, etc.


They are not asking the viewers for permission. The viewers are telling them to do this. Small distinction yes, but one none the less.


----------



## harsh

Stewart Vernon said:


> Of course not... I don't think anyone has ever said that.


There have been more than a few posters who have pilloried DISH for offering such a solution. That many of them were subscribers of carriers that didn't offer the feature is not entirely important.


----------



## Laxguy

Ah, yes, everything, everyone has its homers. 
I applaud Dish for this innovation. 

It's made me consider how much I'd use it were it offered by DIRECTV® or I switched to Dish. It made me realize that I like to look at just about every new ad.... once, except Geico. So I'd use it a lot, but not all the time.


----------



## phrelin

What makes this legal case interesting to me is Dish is receiving the signal pursuant to a retransmission agreement with the local affiliate. While there are copyright issues involved, those two parties knew that some people record the shows on DVR's and via pushing buttons those people could skip commercials. How does that change because on each show the pushing of a button by the viewer gets reduced to once per show?


----------



## Herdfan

Laxguy said:


> I applaud Dish for this innovation.
> 
> It's made me consider how much I'd use it were it offered by DIRECTV®


I agree. Competition is good for subs of BOTH providers. If there were only one sat provider, we would have 60-80 HD channels just like cable.

In the current form with PTAT, probably not very much as I would most likely not use PTAT. But if would work on all shows the next day, then I would use it quite a bit.


----------



## inkahauts

"James Long" said:


> They are not doing that. Why all the straw man arguments and false descriptions of what the feature does?
> 
> The AutoHOP feature operates just the way the subscribers who CHOOSE to use it expect it to operate. There is no need to add fear, uncertainty and doubt to the equation to stir up more trouble than the actual feature is.
> 
> I'm sorry, what kountry is this? Amerika?
> 
> We have "innocent until proven guilty" in America. DISH is not "guilty until proven innocent".
> 
> So if no one does it no one should be allowed to do it? No one provided whole home DVRs until someone figured that out ... I suppose that should be illegal until proven in court that it is not illegal, the same standard you claim AutoHOP should be held to.
> 
> There is an innovation killer ... we can't do this because no one else does it.


You say don't stir up more than the actual feature is. But guess what, that is what the feature is. Dish says it can eliminate some of the programing if you will let it. You say yes. Why does it matter what part of the programing dish is eliminating from the viewing stream, they are eliminating part of it under the guise that they have been given permission to by the customer and that it's part of the programing the customer doesn't want anyway. You can't look at this as though they are eliminating commercials only and that's ok, because commercials are not any different than any of the rest of the program, as it is all part of the broadcast from the owner, and dish isn't the end user.

So I can steal money from a bank, and if no be ever catches me, it's ok? Innocent until proven guilty is more about punishment than it is about anything else.

And actually, there is precedence for whole home DVR. It was called the VCR. You could record programs in one room and then take the tape to another room and watch it in there. There is a lot more precedence out there than some "innovations" would have you believe. Innovations are often just a heck of a lot better ways of doing the exact same thing in the same fundamental manner. Auto hop is not the same foundation, same manner, or even trying to accomplish the same thing as any other feature. They are trying to change who has the rights to do something, rather than how something is done. That's not just innovation, that's changing rights.

Napster tried to innovate in the same way, by changing all the fundamentals and manners and rights. They failed miserably. However, apple and others came along, and changed all the fundamentals and manners the same way nastier did, but kept the rights the way they where and everyone got over it and is now happy with it.

This isn't about stiffening innovation, it's about changing rights.it's been long established that only an end user can mess with something and change its format for personal use, and no middle man can do it without permission front he original owner. Dish doesn't have permission.


----------



## inkahauts

"Herdfan" said:


> They are not asking the viewers for permission. The viewers are telling them to do this. Small distinction yes, but one none the less.


The only argument I have seen that might save dishes butt in this, but I still don't see it. Dish created a "program" and then asks the user if they want to use it. Then dish does something that has never been allowed legally in an industry, to alter what the customer sees on their side of the technology, rather than giving the customer the tools to do it (ffwd, skip, etc) How is the user saying yes, don't let me see my commercials not giving permission to dish to run their program? Dish is the one that created the program to do this, not the customer. If the customer had created it, I'd completely see your point, but dish did, so again, how is it not dish asking if you want it do something not asking for permission?


----------



## inkahauts

"phrelin" said:


> What makes this legal case interesting to me is Dish is receiving the signal pursuant to a retransmission agreement with the local affiliate. While there are copyright issues involved, those two parties knew that some people record the shows on DVR's and via pushing buttons those people could skip commercials. How does that change because on each show the pushing of a button by the viewer gets reduced to once per show?


Because dish is the one deciding what points to start skipping and end skipping. That's the issue.


----------



## inkahauts

Look I love this technology. I do wish people would stop saying dish is an innovator of this, they are not. Replaytv was. They just didn't have the money to fight the networks, and relented. Unfortunately as great as this feature is, I don't see how it's really going to win in court from a legal standpoint. And if it ever does, I don't see dish being able to resign a single carriage agreement with any broadcaster unless every single player out there offers the exact same feature immediately after they win, and I don't think there is a snow balls chance in hell of that happening, considering how many stations people like Comcast own.


----------



## SayWhat?

inkahauts said:


> Dish says it can* eliminate* some of the programing if you will let it.


You still haven't been reading, have you?

Nothing is 'eliminated'.


----------



## inkahauts

"SayWhat?" said:


> You still haven't been reading, have you?
> 
> Nothing is 'eliminated'.


If the viewer doesn't see it, it's been eliminated from the viewing stream. You just think that's different than physically erasing them. It's not.

Napster said the same thing, about how they are no different than a friend loaning them a copy of a tape to listen to. It's not the same thing.


----------



## Mike Bertelson

inkahauts said:


> If the viewer doesn't see it, it's been eliminated from the viewing stream. You just think that's different than physically erasing them. It's not.
> 
> Napster said the same thing, about how they are no different than a friend loaning them a copy of a tape to listen to. It's not the same thing.


 IMHO, eliminated isn't really a fair assessment of what Dish is doing. To be fair, it doesn't seem any different than a stacked set of 30skip button presses. I don't see the commercials, I just skipped over them.

With that said, I'm assuming the broadcasters/advertisers are going to perceive this as "eliminating" AutoHoppers from the demographics. From the broadcaster's perspective, they're assuming all the Hopper owners are no longer viewing their commercials and therefore can't be counted when presenting advertisers with the number of potential eyeballs on the screen. Otherwise there wouldn't be a lawsuit.

So, while Dish isn't actually eliminating anything, it is the net effect for the broadcasters/advertisers.

Mike


----------



## jdskycaster

inkahauts said:


> If the viewer doesn't see it, it's been eliminated from the viewing stream. You just think that's different than physically erasing them. It's not.
> 
> Napster said the same thing, about how they are no different than a friend loaning them a copy of a tape to listen to. It's not the same thing.


Napster has nothing to do with this case, not even remotely related so that is a really bad reference.

You have also made yourself more than abundantly clear that according to YOU Dish is editing, removing, tampering creating new programming etc. etc. etc. and you have every right to think this way but that does not make it so.

If you are correct, and I do not think you are, then the FF button originally placed on VCR remotes is copyright infgringement. NO difference at all. The skip button on my VCR is absolutely the same then as it just automated the FF process a bit more. Then along came digital DVR's and automated that process further with a timed interval skip using a single button. Press that button 7 times in a row (takes less than 2 seconds) and boom you are at the end of the commercial break. Now we have autohop and by pressing a button one time boom you continue to view your program without commercials. Really hard for me to believe you cannot understand a process that is so fundamentally simple. If they were editing the content then I could not go back to the show and watch it from start to finish including all the ads I originally skipped.


----------



## Laxguy

There is a difference between FF on a DVR/VCR and HopSkip®, aka AutoHop.

Perhaps not a legal difference, perhaps not enough to think the lawsuit has any chance, but even with 30Skip you are exposed to the start or end of an ad, and with FF, you actually see each ad for a second or two. For me, that makes a difference than not seeing any fragment of them. I'm not suggesting that this difference is important for anyone else, but it is a difference.


----------



## strikes2k

Laxguy said:


> There is a difference between FF on a DVR/VCR and HopSkip®, aka AutoHop.
> 
> Perhaps not a legal difference, perhaps not enough to think the lawsuit has any chance, but even with 30Skip you are exposed to the start or end of an ad, and with FF, you actually see each ad for a second or two. For me, that makes a difference than not seeing any fragment of them. I'm not suggesting that this difference is important for anyone else, but it is a difference.


It's a difference but, IMO, an insignificant one. Autohop just makes what the person was doing already more efficient. If they wanted to see the commercials they'd just watch them.


----------



## Nick

inkahauts said:


> If the viewer doesn't see it, it's been eliminated from the viewing stream. You just think that's different than physically erasing them. It's not...


You may not fully understand the hopper process, but the logic of your argument is faulty -- ad content is always intact in the stream. By invoking the hopper feature, the choice is made that, in playback, the ads are passed over, the same as if the viewer performs a manual skip or ff operation for each ad using his remote.

Dish's Hopper feature has done nothing but enable the viewer to invoke a preset to automate skipping, or 'hoppiing' over ad content instead of doing so manually via the remote. Either way, it's the same thing. The ad content is present in the recorded stream.


----------



## Marlin Guy

Nick said:


> Dish's Hopper feature has done nothing but enable the viewer to invoke a preset to automate skipping, or 'hoppiing' over ad content instead of doing so manually via the remote. Either way, it's the same thing. The ad content is present in the recorded stream.


And to further elaborate, the commercials are only skipped if the viewer chooses to skip them AND the viewer doesn't FFWD past the skip point. FFWD one second too long and the commercials play.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

The legal stuff really is off-base. Unless they get a really weird judge, I don't believe anything Dish has done here is illegal.

That isn't the point, ultimately... because Dish winning in court will not be the end of this.

All the channels that depend on advertising revenue that Dish enables the AutoHop feature will begin to demand more money. They will either get that money (and your bills will increase) OR those channels will be gone from Dish.

That is the likely endgame.

Either that,or as has been suggested, more in-show ads like on TNT that pop up stuff over the programming to distract you from the show you are watching... sometimes to the point of making the show unwatchable at worst, un-enjoyable at best.


----------



## James Long

Laxguy said:


> Perhaps not a legal difference, perhaps not enough to think the lawsuit has any chance, but even with 30Skip you are exposed to the start or end of an ad, and with FF, you actually see each ad for a second or two. For me, that makes a difference than not seeing any fragment of them. I'm not suggesting that this difference is important for anyone else, but it is a difference.


First of all, AutoHOP is not precise. To say that people are not seeing any fragment of commercials is inaccurate.

Second, copyright is copyright. Why would it be legal to skip 28 seconds of a commercial and not all of it? Is there some sort of inverse fair use rule where content can be edited out as long as it isn't all edited out?


----------



## Laxguy

James Long said:


> First of all, AutoHOP is not precise. To say that people are not seeing any fragment of commercials is inaccurate.
> 
> Second, copyright is copyright. Why would it be legal to skip 28 seconds of a commercial and not all of it? Is there some sort of inverse fair use rule where content can be edited out as long as it isn't all edited out?


Why wouldn't HopSkip be precise? And I only implied that people would not see any fragment of commercials, as I didn't know for sure. In any event, people would potentially see fragments of only the first and/or last spots.

Your second statement reaches for the absurd in a seeming attempt to argue with me. I didn't opine as to legal fine points, nor would I have ever indicated what you do via your questions. The answer in the respective cases is it wouldn't, and no.


----------



## James Long

Laxguy said:


> Why wouldn't HopSkip be precise?


Each market has their own feeds recorded with different backhauls and delays. It is pretty close but the cues must be intentionally off by design so that the show itself is shown in all markets - even if it costs a couple of seconds of commercials in other markets.

It would be nice not to hear people who do not have AutoHOP trying to be the experts on describing how the thing operates. Not specifically you, but there seem to be a lot of "experts" telling me my receiver that actually has AutoHOP on it works differently than I know it actually does.



> Your second statement reaches for the absurd in a seeming attempt to argue with me. I didn't opine as to legal fine points, nor would I have ever indicated what you do via your questions. The answer in the respective cases is it wouldn't, and no.


It is absurd that skipping 28 seconds of commercial at a time is fine but skipping an entire break (or nearly all of it) is somehow illegal. A skip is a skip. Would it appease those who think AutoHOP is illegal if the user had to press one button every break? Where is the line?

Those that are saying AutoHOP is illegal seem to be choosing an arbitrary line where skipping commercials is legal unless it is done so well that one can skip nearly all commercials with a press of one button per show. Either skipping is illegal or not. And if it is illegal, watch out non-Hopper DVR users ... the networks will be coming for your skip button next!


----------



## phrelin

Using the concept of legal and illegal in this context is weird. It isn't like someone is sharing a movie and others are downloading and watching it without paying.

Everyone in the chain from the content producer through the network through the local channel through Dish is getting paid by me in the form of a retransmission fee plus extra for Dish.

The issue is somebody feels slighted because I skip commercials. And yet, nobody would care if I skip the content to watch commercials. I'm not obligated to watch anythnig just because it appears on my DVR. How can I be obligated to watch commercial under threat of prosecution?


----------



## Laxguy

@ james long

• I have never said SkipHop was illegal, nor immoral, and certainly not fattening!

• I like SkipHop, and give credit to Dish for innovation.

• The differences I outlined, and you refined in how it currently works, are important to me, perhaps because I want to see most commercials, once. Some several times.

• Dish *could* manually insert markers into Hoppers Prime time network recording after the fact, that would make precise start and end of commercial runs. The'd have several hours to do this. I am not saying they are doing it or will do it, just that it could be done.


----------



## James Long

Laxguy, not every word in every post is intended to rebuke you. There are others in this thread who need rebuke and you should not read every word as directed at you.

BTW: DISH has a name for their feature, it is called "AutoHOP". I'm not sure if they could use that name on non Hopper receivers (should the feature be expanded to other DISH DVRs) since they are not Hoppers - but AutoHOP does hop commercials so the name could be used.


----------



## Laxguy

James Long said:


> Laxguy, not every word in every post is intended to rebuke you. There are others in this thread who need rebuke and you should not read every word as directed at you.
> 
> BTW: DISH has a name for their feature, it is called "AutoHOP". I'm not sure if they could use that name on non Hopper receivers (should the feature be expanded to other DISH DVRs) since they are not Hoppers - but AutoHOP does hop commercials so the name could be used.


I am less concerned about being wrongly rebuked than gaining understanding, so 'buke away!

My name for the feature is HopSkip®, but not jump, and I understand that Dish likes "AutoHOP"! My term is more playful, and incorporates part of the word "Hopper". Anyone on DBSTalk may use my term for free.  but I will have to charge if used out of this arena. :nono:


----------



## RasputinAXP

Don't confuse the noobs, Laxguy. Just call it auto hop.


----------



## Laxguy

RasputinAXP said:


> Don't confuse the noobs, Laxguy. Just call it auto hop.


Wouldn't that be "AutoHop®"?  Dang, two rebukes in one thread..... I was just funnin' anyhow, but I will try to be carefuller.


----------



## Marlin Guy

phrelin said:


> Using the concept of legal and illegal in this context is weird. It isn't like someone is sharing a movie and others are downloading and watching it without paying.


Now I'm confused.


----------



## jdskycaster

I have it, use it and it is not always exact. At times there are a couple seconds of a commercial sometimes it is a clean break.


----------



## harsh

Laxguy said:


> My name for the feature is HopSkip®, but not jump, and I understand that Dish likes "AutoHOP"! My term is more playful, and incorporates part of the word "Hopper".


I've decided I"m going to call a lacrosse stick a "laracket" because it looks more like a racket than a stick.


----------



## inkahauts

"jdskycaster" said:


> Napster has nothing to do with this case, not even remotely related so that is a really bad reference.
> 
> You have also made yourself more than abundantly clear that according to YOU Dish is editing, removing, tampering creating new programming etc. etc. etc. and you have every right to think this way but that does not make it so.
> 
> If you are correct, and I do not think you are, then the FF button originally placed on VCR remotes is copyright infgringement. NO difference at all. The skip button on my VCR is absolutely the same then as it just automated the FF process a bit more. Then along came digital DVR's and automated that process further with a timed interval skip using a single button. Press that button 7 times in a row (takes less than 2 seconds) and boom you are at the end of the commercial break. Now we have autohop and by pressing a button one time boom you continue to view your program without commercials. Really hard for me to believe you cannot understand a process that is so fundamentally simple. If they were editing the content then I could not go back to the show and watch it from start to finish including all the ads I originally skipped.


Your not seeing it like me. Dish is the one choosing the starting points and ending points of the skipping with auto hop. No other device that records tv has ever done that. The customer has always had to at least choose the starting point, and aside from a couple vcrs back in the day (which were not owned and crated by a provider by the way, which also is relevant) and replaytv, also chooses the ending point of the skipping or fast forwarding. That is completely different.

My big thing is that it's different and therefore they are messing with copyrights which say the provider can not alter what the viewer sees, only the viewer can determine what they do and don't see.

I don't think in any way shape or form anything to come out of this will affect any other trickplay abilities in anyone's machines, including dishes. I am not at all concerned about that.

And they are editing what you see on screen, rather than making you edit what you see onscreen. I find it amazing that people think even though the user has to hit the button that no one seems to understand that dish is the one determining what parts of the program to skip. Dish and no one else.


----------



## inkahauts

"Nick" said:


> You may not fully understand the hopper process, but the logic of your argument is faulty -- ad content is always intact in the stream. By invoking the hopper feature, the choice is made that, in playback, the ads are passed over, the same as if the viewer performs a manual skip or ff operation for each ad using his remote.
> 
> Dish's Hopper feature has done nothing but enable the viewer to invoke a preset to automate skipping, or 'hoppiing' over ad content instead of doing so manually via the remote. Either way, it's the same thing. The ad content is present in the recorded stream.


Again, you are making a mistake. It's not the same as a customer hitting skip or ffwd, because dish is deciding what part of the program is skipped.

Maybe everyone needs to look at it from further back to see my point. Don't think of it as skipping commercials, it's skipping part of a program. I think that's the biggest issue. No one seems to think that commercials are part of the program, and there fore don't count as part of the program and can be skipped by dish doing something automated. But the truth is they are a part of the program every bit as much as the scripted show you are interested in seeing.


----------



## jdskycaster

^So is it pure coincidence then that the parts Dish determines I do not see exactly match up to those parts that I do not want to see?

Furthermore, how much of the ad would autohop have to display in order for it to be an ok technology from your point of view? 1second, 2seconds, 3seconds? What if autohop showed 2 seconds of every commercial it was skipping over? Would that make any difference in you mind? 

How about if I had to shake the remote 3 times at the beginning of a commercial in order to skip? What if I had to jump up and down with the remote in my hand every time a commercial comes on and then I do not have to view the ad. There is a good reason why I do not see it like you do.


----------



## Laxguy

inkahauts said:


> Again, you are making a mistake. It's not the same as a customer hitting skip or ffwd, because dish is deciding what part of the program is skipped.
> 
> Maybe everyone needs to look at it from further back to see my point. Don't think of it as skipping commercials, it's skipping part of a program. I think that's the biggest issue. No one seems to think that commercials are part of the program, and there fore don't count as part of the program and can be skipped by dish doing something automated. But the truth is they are a part of the program every bit as much as the scripted show you are interested in seeing.


Wow! (You've posted that before, no?)

The truth is that only you seem to maintain that commercials are "part of the program". Perhaps network legal types will try to promulgate that, but few others.


----------



## inkahauts

"phrelin" said:


> Using the concept of legal and illegal in this context is weird. It isn't like someone is sharing a movie and others are downloading and watching it without paying.
> 
> Everyone in the chain from the content producer through the network through the local channel through Dish is getting paid by me in the form of a retransmission fee plus extra for Dish.
> 
> The issue is somebody feels slighted because I skip commercials. And yet, nobody would care if I skip the content to watch commercials. I'm not obligated to watch anythnig just because it appears on my DVR. How can I be obligated to watch commercial under threat of prosecution?


Your not obligated to watch it, but dish is obligated to not choose what parts of it should be shown to you in lineal format either, and auto hop changes the lineal presentation according to dishes standards, not the viewers, regardless if the viewers ask dish to do it or not.


----------



## inkahauts

"James Long" said:


> Laxguy, not every word in every post is intended to rebuke you. There are others in this thread who need rebuke and you should not read every word as directed at you.
> 
> BTW: DISH has a name for their feature, it is called "AutoHOP". I'm not sure if they could use that name on non Hopper receivers (should the feature be expanded to other DISH DVRs) since they are not Hoppers - but AutoHOP does hop commercials so the name could be used.


James, do you know if it works on dish the same way replaytv did it on theirs, from a technical standpoint?


----------



## inkahauts

"jdskycaster" said:


> ^So is it pure coincidence then that the parts Dish determines I do not see exactly match up to those parts that I do not want to see?
> 
> Furthermore, how much of the ad would autohop have to display in order for it to be an ok technology from your point of view? 1second, 2seconds, 3seconds? What if autohop showed 2 seconds of every commercial it was skipping over? Would that make any difference in you mind?
> 
> How about if I had to shake the remote 3 times at the beginning of a commercial in order to skip? What if I had to jump up and down with the remote in my hand every time a commercial comes on and then I do not have to view the ad. There is a good reason why I do not see it like you do.


If your asking me, there is no amount of time the commercial would have to show before they skipped all of them. It's not about them skipping commercials, it's about them deciding start and end points and skipping any part of the program based on their determinations of where to start and stop the skipping.

I still believe if they had simply set it up so the skip button when pressed would skip to the end of a commercial break, whenever pressed, they wouldn't have any issues. In that scenario, while they are still determining the end point, they are not also determining the start point. The user is. That is in the same class as a 30 second skip, or jumping to bookmarks created by the user, or even ffwd.

I know people hate that I see the distinction, but there is one because without deciding the beginning and the ending points both of skipping part of the programing, they aren't the ones altering the program, the user is.


----------



## inkahauts

"Laxguy" said:


> Wow! (You've posted that before, no?)
> 
> The truth is that only you seem to maintain that commercials are "part of the program". Perhaps network legal types will try to promulgate that, but few others.


Are the commercials not supplied by the broadcaster to the provider as part of the right to carry a program? Then it is part of the program. If not, then the provider is the one who would be selling all the commercials, not the broadcaster.


----------



## patmurphey

Inkahauts, looking at your signature, your assertions appear to to be just wishful thinking by a DTV advocate. Did you notice that your not getting much agreement here?


----------



## Marlin Guy

inkahauts said:


> Are the commercials not supplied by the broadcaster to the provider as part of the right to carry a program? Then it is part of the program. .


And they are delivered to the DVR the same way yours are.
The only difference is that Dish made skipping them easier.
Once again, COMPLETELY at the discretion of the viewer as whether they choose to use the feature or not.


----------



## Mike Bertelson

inkahauts said:


> Your not seeing it like me. Dish is the one choosing the starting points and ending points of the skipping with auto hop. *No other device that records tv has ever done that.* The customer has always had to at least choose the starting point, and aside from a couple vcrs back in the day (which were not owned and crated by a provider by the way, which also is relevant) and replaytv, also chooses the ending point of the skipping or fast forwarding. That is completely different. <snip>


That's not true. I had a Panasonic VCR that automatically skipped commercials (it was called Commercial Advance). As part of the recording timer we'd choose the skip option and when it was done recording it would rewind and then "mark" the start and stop times of the commercials. Then we would hit play, put the remote down, and the VCR detected the "marks" and skips over the commercials without any action by us. Identical to how AutoHop works now. 

Mike


----------



## Stewart Vernon

To those who keep debating the "legality"... that really isn't the issue here. You're missing the larger point.

Just because you can do something doesn't mean that you should.

I keep saying this... but unless something strange happens, Dish should win any court battles that would stop AutoHop because it all seems perfectly legal to me.

HOWEVER...

That is not where this story ends.

The story ends when we see the fallout. Do channels try to raise rates to recoup lost ad revenue from skipped commercials? Does Dish drop those channels?

If you are saying "yay Dish!" now for commercial skip... will you still be saying "yay" when your channel gets dropped because they want to double their carriage rates and Dish says no to that? Somehow I'm betting a lot of customers will suddenly switch sides there.

No matter what, I don't see an endgame here that is good for the consumer. Be careful what you wish for... you might get it.


----------



## Herdfan

Didn't see this already posted, but it looks like DirecTV would be interested in this as well:



> New York, June 11 - DirecTV Group (DTV.O), the largest U.S. satellite TV operator, could deploy technology that would enable its millions of subscribers to automatically skip television advertising, its top executive said on Monday.
> 
> Mike White, chief executive of DirecTV, said his company bought rights to the technology from a company called Replay TV nearly five years ago but has not seen any need to make it available to customers.


http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/06/11/us-media-tech-summit-directv-idUSBRE85A1KR20120611


----------



## jdskycaster

^No need to make it available because Directv customers just love to watch commercials.


----------



## phrelin

inkahauts said:


> Your not obligated to watch it, but dish is obligated to not choose what parts of it should be shown to you in lineal format either, and auto hop changes the lineal presentation according to dishes standards, not the viewers, regardless if the viewers ask dish to do it or not.





inkahauts said:


> Are the commercials not supplied by the broadcaster to the provider as part of the right to carry a program? Then it is part of the program. If not, then the provider is the one who would be selling all the commercials, not the broadcaster.


What you seem to be saying is that in 1960 when I had no VCR or DVR, I violated a copyright law or some other law by leaving the room during commercials. I didn't watch the program as was desired by my local TV station, the network, and the advertisers.

The logical problem with your argument is that it would apply to any FF or Skip ability. AutoHop isn't different from those capabilities. The content is still delivered in a linear format from beginning to end. It is there on the DVR in that format.

By providing a FF or skip button or a Autohop button with the software/firmware that makes the button work, DVR manufacturers (and VCR manufacturers before that) facilitate the skipping of commercials by viewers.

But those manufacturers don't decide whether to skip commercials. The viewer makes that choice.

When you construct your phrase as "should be shown to you in lineal format" it implies someone else is showing it to me. There is no someone else.

I have the video exactly as it was delivered to Dish. If I want to skip the show and watch commercials, I'll do that. If I want to skip commercials and watch the show, I'll do that. If I decide I don't want to watch the show, I'll delete it off of my DVR.

The issue ultimately must focus on what my pressing the buttons mean and, perhaps, whether the technology that allows me to press the buttons should be made available to me because it is specifically designed to somehow steal from another person.

Given previous court decisions regarding VCR technology and OTA TV, I don't believe my local Fox station KTVU has a case against me choosing (a) to have an intermediary between the station and me such as a cable or satellite company and (b) to use my skip button or AutoHop.

Whether Fox and KTVU could make a case against the Echostar/Dish AutoHop technology is unclear. If Dish actually modifies the audio/video stream provided to the uplink facility, maybe. But if they don't, then it's going to be tough to argue that giving me a little better control over my DVR is illegal.


----------



## James Long

inkahauts said:


> My big thing is that it's different and therefore they are messing with copyrights which say the provider can not alter what the viewer sees, only the viewer can determine what they do and don't see.


Care to provide proof of such a copyright? US Code or a CFR reference that says copyrighted material must be presented in it's entirety even if a user has decided they do not wish to view the entire presentation? (Noting that such wording would also make any skipping illegal.)

Find the law DISH is violating.


----------



## Laxguy

patmurphey said:


> Inkahauts, looking at your signature, your assertions appear to to be just wishful thinking by a DTV advocate. Did you notice that your not getting much agreement here?


I think that's unfair to Inky.

You're right: he's getting almost no agreement, but I don't see that he- or any DIRECTV® subscriber- wishes ill on Dish for this (or much else for that matter.)

I've said in the past it may not have been the smartest move, as they will incur $ costs and management focus defending lawsuits, etc., but I am rooting for Dish to make this a success, even though it will hasten changes that we TV viewers everywhere, may not like.


----------



## James Long

Laxguy said:


> I've said in the past it may not have been the smartest move, as they will incur $ costs and management focus defending lawsuits, etc. ...


:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:
DISH practically lives in court ... there have been times where we practically needed a subforum just for the "DISH lawsuit" threads. I don't know what DISH would do if they were not suing or being sued.

Voom, ESPN, Tivo, Distants and many more ... DISH and the court system are never far apart.


----------



## Nick

inkahauts said:


> ...No one seems to think that commercials are part of the program, and there fore don't count as part of the program and can be skipped by dish doing something automated. But the truth is they are a part of the program every bit as much as the scripted show you are interested in seeing.


Sorry, *inkahauts*, but as a former broadcaster, I must say that your assertion that commercials are part of a program is absolutely in error. Ad spots are definitely not a part of the program, but are inserted by the networks and/or local broadcasters.

And by the way, it's 'therefor', not "there fore".


----------



## phrelin

James Long said:


> DISH practically lives in court ... there have been times where we practically needed a subforum just for the "DISH lawsuit" threads.


 About that subforum with sticky threads for active lawsuits....


----------



## scooper

You know - we wouldn't all be cheering for this technology quite so hard *IF* the networks / broadcasters hadn't gotten so greedy and siphoned off almost 20 minutes per hour of programming for ads. 10 minutes per hour wouldn't be that hard to stomach, but 20 ? Let's get real - they are only kidding themselves if they think ANYONE ( including inkahauts) is watching every second of every commercial, whether the ad is one they've seen recently or not...


----------



## Stewart Vernon

scooper said:


> You know - we wouldn't all be cheering for this technology quite so hard *IF* the networks / broadcasters hadn't gotten so greedy and siphoned off almost 20 minutes per hour of programming for ads. 10 minutes per hour wouldn't be that hard to stomach, but 20 ? Let's get real - they are only kidding themselves if they think ANYONE ( including inkahauts) is watching every second of every commercial, whether the ad is one they've seen recently or not...


Some food for thought...

I know we all like to blame networks for selling ad space instead of airing content... but consider the other side of the equation.

IF you are a content-producer... and say you get 1 million for an episode of your show... would you rather produce a 50 minute show for that 1 million? OR a 40 minute show for that same 1 million?

My guess is that the producers and showrunners haven't really complained that much at being able to only produce 40 minutes of content per hour rather than 50 minutes since those extra 10 minutes cost them more to produce.

IF the showrunners wanted longer episodes, then our DVDs and Blu-rays would no doubt contain those longer "unedited" versions... and yet they usually don't. There are some exceptions, but usually the DVDs aren't containing longer versions of these shows than what airs originally.

Yes, I know syndication cuts episodes down even further for more commercials... but I'm talking about the original first-run airing.

So... I kind of think the producers and the networks are in synch here... where the network agrees to pay for the timeslot and not necessarily the length of the program delivered to them... and of course a shorter episode allows the network to sell more ad space which they like so they might be willing to pay more for a shorter episode than for a longer one.


----------



## inkahauts

"patmurphey" said:


> Inkahauts, looking at your signature, your assertions appear to to be just wishful thinking by a DTV advocate. Did you notice that your not getting much agreement here?


Has nothing to do with me being a directv sub at all. I'd be saying the same thing if directv did this. It's bad for us all. And they could have got around all this if they did what I suggested too. They knew they where picking a fight with this too, so they knew what they where doing was questionable in their minds from a legal standpoint.

I don't think I will get much agreement on this and don't expect it, because it is an awesome feature and who wouldn't want it as a consumer? Many will spin it in dish favor because they want the feature.

I don't think the networks do very much right these days but for once I do believe they are completely right on this because it is completely different in how it works for skipping commercials today by every other method out there and if dish wins nothing but bad will come form it for everyone everywhere.

Years ago when replaytv launched this I had also thought it was bad. They should have just given us all a skip button to jump to the end of a commercial break rather than automatically skipping them all without user input, and I'll reiterate that again for dish. That gets around the legality question completely. Instead dish is pushing something in hopes of gaining more bargaining power but doesn't see how this is just the wrong way to go about getting more bargaining power.


----------



## inkahauts

"Marlin Guy" said:


> And they are delivered to the DVR the same way yours are.
> The only difference is that Dish made skipping them easier.
> Once again, COMPLETELY at the discretion of the viewer as whether they choose to use the feature or not.


The viewer doesn't choose the start and stop points of the skipping dish does. Can you agree with that statement?


----------



## inkahauts

"Mike Bertelson" said:


> That's not true. I had a Panasonic VCR that automatically skipped commercials (it was called Commercial Advance). As part of the recording timer we'd choose the skip option and when it was done recording it would rewind and then "mark" the start and stop times of the commercials. Then we would hit play, put the remote down, and the VCR detected the "marks" and skips over the commercials without any action by us. Identical to how AutoHop works now.
> 
> Mike


I did note that In my post and also noted that those vcrs where not owned and controlled by the provider. Plus that wasn't really a skipping of comercials it was an automated fast forwarding of the commercials. That's also different.


----------



## inkahauts

"Herdfan" said:


> Didn't see this already posted, but it looks like DirecTV would be interested in this as well:
> 
> http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/06/11/us-media-tech-summit-directv-idUSBRE85A1KR20120611


Actually I think that was a swipe at dish for the benefit of the networks and him implicit on stating he won't touch that to the networks.

They seem to be going in the opposite direction by now offering local commercials to nation cable channels like all cable companies do.


----------



## inkahauts

"phrelin" said:


> What you seem to be saying is that in 1960 when I had no VCR or DVR, I violated a copyright law or some other law by leaving the room during commercials. I didn't watch the program as was desired by my local TV station, the network, and the advertisers.
> 
> The logical problem with your argument is that it would apply to any FF or Skip ability. AutoHop isn't different from those capabilities. The content is still delivered in a linear format from beginning to end. It is there on the DVR in that format.
> 
> By providing a FF or skip button or a Autohop button with the software/firmware that makes the button work, DVR manufacturers (and VCR manufacturers before that) facilitate the skipping of commercials by viewers.
> 
> But those manufacturers don't decide whether to skip commercials. The viewer makes that choice.
> 
> When you construct your phrase as "should be shown to you in lineal format" it implies someone else is showing it to me. There is no someone else.
> 
> I have the video exactly as it was delivered to Dish. If I want to skip the show and watch commercials, I'll do that. If I want to skip commercials and watch the show, I'll do that. If I decide I don't want to watch the show, I'll delete it off of my DVR.
> 
> The issue ultimately must focus on what my pressing the buttons mean and, perhaps, whether the technology that allows me to press the buttons should be made available to me because it is specifically designed to somehow steal from another person.
> 
> Given previous court decisions regarding VCR technology and OTA TV, I don't believe my local Fox station KTVU has a case against me choosing (a) to have an intermediary between the station and me such as a cable or satellite company and (b) to use my skip button or AutoHop.
> 
> Whether Fox and KTVU could make a case against the Echostar/Dish AutoHop technology is unclear. If Dish actually modifies the audio/video stream provided to the uplink facility, maybe. But if they don't, then it's going to be tough to argue that giving me a little better control over my DVR is illegal.


First, I have said many times that only the end user may decide what to skip or how to alter what is viewed. That tosses out your first sentence.

Second, why should it matter where dish alters what you view, if it's at the uplink site or at the DVR, if they are altering it, they are altering it. (set aside the debate of they are actually altering it for a second while you consider what I just said.)

Third if dish is the one determining the start and end point of what part of the program to skip, how can you say that is the same as using ffwd or skip? It's not at all. Again, take the they are only skipping commercials out of it, because I have never heard of any law saying that it's ok to alter the viewing stream, as long as its not the main program. It's you can't alter any of it if you are the provider without consent. Dish has no consent that I can tell.

And dish is that someone else if they are picking the start and end point of what parts of the program to skip from the original linear format, and they are doing it without any guidance other than go ahead and do it from the customer.

The key thing you said is that the viewer decides to skip the commercials. That may be the end result, but they are telling dish to figure it out and skip the commercials, and choose what points those commercials start and end, and dish is not allowed to do that, even if the customer says its ok, because the customer isn't the one that can approve that.

This isn't about dish giving you better control over your DVR. This is about dish altering what you watch if you ask them to. They do all the work and change the viewing stream.


----------



## inkahauts

"Nick" said:


> Sorry, inkahauts, but as a former broadcaster, I must say that your assertion that commercials are part of a program is absolutely in error. Ad spots are definitely not a part of the program, but are inserted by the networks and/or local broadcasters.
> 
> And by the way, it's 'therefor', not "there fore".


So when dish signs a deal to rebroadcast a local FOX station, they only have to air the actual main program, and can sell all their own ads? They only buy the rights to rebroadcast the actual main show? It seems like you are saying what the network is providing to dish and what a production company is providing the network are the same thing, and i cant see any contract being written that way. Please do some more explaining as to how a contract for dish to rebroadcast a station allows them to alter parts or the programing and limits it to commercials or other non main program programing.I have not been talking about the actual specific program that is being broadcast, but the entire channel as what dish has purchased to rebroadcast. I doubt you can show me a contract that says they can pick and choose what to broadcast that an individual station provides them, without express authorization.

And hey, sometimes, apple just disagrees with proper English grammar. Oh well.


----------



## inkahauts

"scooper" said:


> You know - we wouldn't all be cheering for this technology quite so hard IF the networks / broadcasters hadn't gotten so greedy and siphoned off almost 20 minutes per hour of programming for ads. 10 minutes per hour wouldn't be that hard to stomach, but 20 ? Let's get real - they are only kidding themselves if they think ANYONE ( including inkahauts) is watching every second of every commercial, whether the ad is one they've seen recently or not...


I haven't watched a scripted program live in many many years. I skip all commercials for the most part.

You could not be more right about how they are shortening the programs and then ticking everyone off even more by claiming that if sat can charge customers for their signal they should be getting a piece of that, rather than realizing it costs dish and DIRECTV millions of dollars a year to rebroadcast their signal, and I doubt there is any way any station could prove dish or DIRECTV are making money directly off the money they charge for local channel broadcasts.

It's really &)&/(;&#*\£!|% what the networks do.

By the way, do we have a court date yet? I'm eager to see if there are any injunctions in place before the start of the next fall season. I thinks that is the main reason dish released this at the start of summer. That way if there is an injunction, it won't tick off to many customers because I doubt this will get to much use till the fall season premieres.


----------



## Mike Bertelson

inkahauts said:


> I did note that In my post and also noted that those vcrs where not owned and controlled by the provider. Plus that wasn't really a skipping of comercials it was an automated fast forwarding of the commercials. That's also different.


True it's FW but it does automatically mark the start and end of the commercials and the FW occurs without any action by the viewer. In this way it's identical to AutoHop.

Not that it really matters how it's accomplished (I know you think that's the important part but as far as the broadcasters are concerned, the net effect would be the same whether it's FW or skip).

I believe unless the courts side with the broadcasters, which I see as unlikely, it will be bad for the consumer. It'll cost us even more out of pocket each month. IMHO, that's where this is all leading.

Mike


----------



## James Long

inkahauts said:


> They should have just given us all a skip button to jump to the end of a commercial break rather than automatically skipping them all without user input, and I'll reiterate that again for dish. That gets around the legality question completely.


You have yet to prove that anything DISH has done is illegal.

Please cite the law that DISH is violating by allowing their customers to choose to automate a skip at the beginning of a commercial by giving them the choice at the beginning of the program instead of at each break. Show us the law.

When this gets to court the court will be looking at the law.


----------



## SayWhat?

inkahauts said:


> First, I have said many times that only the end user may decide what to skip or how to alter what is viewed.


Says who? (Besides you)

Also, notice that only the line I'm responding to is quoted, not the entire post.


----------



## SayWhat?

> In a rare interview, Mr. Ergen for the first time explained publicly his rationale for introducing the ad-skipping service called Auto Hop last month. The reclusive satellite TV pioneer said the broadcast networks, several of which have sued Dish over the ad-skipping feature and have refused to run Dish ads promoting a Dish digital video recorder, have been "more emotional than realistic."





> "If the ad is skipped, the consumer likes it, but it's not necessarily good for me and it's not necessarily good for the broadcaster because I'm in the same ecosystem as him," Mr. Ergen said. "So we have to figure out how the broadcaster benefits, we benefit and the consumer continues to feel like he gets a fair deal. So maybe [the consumer] pays a little bit less for 'retrans,' his bill doesn't go up by double digits every year.... That's an interesting conversation to have."


http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303296604577452332545810776.html?mod=ITP_marketplace_0


----------



## Omahabrownie

I am new here but I have taken sometime and read thru all of the post. And like everyone else I find I have my own opinions on some of these topics.

1.	No matter what you say the hopper is still fast forwarding thru the commercial not skipping them. And it is my choice not dishes, dish has a software program on the hopper and by using it I am choosing to fast forward past the commercials. With the older VCR's we saw a fast forward thru the tape and it was slow, on the Hopper it is still fast forwarding from a start point to an end point on the disk of the hard drive, the read head on the hard drive still has to pass over the unwanted data, true it can do it very fast but it is still fast forwarding not skipping. But again by using the feature I have said I want to fast forward over the commercials.

2.	When someone buys a commercial time slot during a network program, it is only promised to be shown once at the promised time not again later. I think most of us watch a percent of our show live and wade thru mostly poor commercials. What they broadcast has not been free for the majority of us for a long time. When satellite and cable came along they chose to charge a fee for them to provide their service to us the consumer. At that time it no longer was free it became a paid for service for us. And as a paid service I feel I have the right to record what I have paid for and watch it later how I want to watch it. Do we see them telling us what percent of the cost of the shows they show are paid for by these fees? The networks have many revenue streams that pay for their shows and commercials in the shows are only one of them. The majority of the people out there getting a Hopper have already had a DVR of some sort so the difference in the amount of commercials not watched will be very minimal. 

3.	The networks are making lots of money and it wouldn’t surprise me if all of this blustering and spending a few million on lawyers isn’t seen by them as a way to excuse a jump in prices. Maybe they need to spend a little less for the big stars on these shows, if it’s a good show it will be watched whether it has high paid stars or not.


----------



## Stuart Sweet

First, :welcome_s to DBSTALK!

Hard drives are random-access devices (like a record player, the read head can move from place to place without reading everything in between.) In contrast, a VCR is a sequential-access device. With Auto Hop, it's presumed that the read head is honoring a request to go to a later file segment. 

I understand your points, but actually you have a fairly specific license to watch the program under specific circumstances. Several cases have ruled that recording a program, either in your home or in on a central server, is not in and of itself copyright infringement, and neither is manually manipulating the recording (such as fast forwarding.) However, you don't have an unlimited license to watch the program any way you want. You can't, for example, charge admission; you can't bring your DVR to a public place; you can't alter the programming and re-sell it. 

In the end I don't think this case is going to hinge on a person's right to do what he wants while watching. I think it will be decided by very minute factors of how Auto Hop does what it does. The technology itself may infringe upon patents or copyrights, whether or not the user experience does.


----------



## SayWhat?

Stuart Sweet said:


> you can't alter the programming and re-sell it.


You can run it through a video editing program and permanently delete commercials as long as it's for your own personal use later.

If Dish were actually deleting commercials as some here have suggested so that they were not available to the home viewer at all, there might be a case.


----------



## Herdfan

Stuart Sweet said:


> I think it will be decided by very minute factors of how Auto Hop does what it does. The technology itself may infringe upon patents or copyrights, whether or not the user experience does.


Just a guess, but my prediction is that whatever broadcast flag the DVR is using to activate AutoHop is not licensed for what Dish is using it for, and that will be the basis for the arguments.


----------



## phrelin

In this post by tampa8, a link was provided that refers us to Patent application title: METHODS AND APPARATUS FOR FILTERING CONTENT IN A VIDEO STREAM USING CLOSED CAPTIONING DATA. I think it's going to be difficult to legally argue over how that data is used by a DVR. But it is true it is not being used as intended.


----------



## inkahauts

"SayWhat?" said:


> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303296604577452332545810776.html?mod=ITP_marketplace_0


Is he saying he thinks this will make cost of retrains agreements go down? Am I reading that right?


----------



## inkahauts

"James Long" said:


> You have yet to prove that anything DISH has done is illegal.
> 
> Please cite the law that DISH is violating by allowing their customers to choose to automate a skip at the beginning of a commercial by giving them the choice at the beginning of the program instead of at each break. Show us the law.
> 
> When this gets to court the court will be looking at the law.


Dish does not have permission to alter the program that they are reselling. Stuart's post has a longer explanation of that fact.

You and everyone else don't see dish marking the program or choosing marks that are in it to their liking, and choosing what parts to skip as them altering the program that the consumer sees. I do. They are altering the viewing stream from the original format themselves, rather than letting the consumer actually do it. Moreover, I also assert that if they win this, any ruling would give dish rights to alter any part of the programing, not just skipping commercials. That's why I don't think dish can win.

The idea that the customer has to agree to it is what makes it ok is not logical. Thats like saying the the car dealer that is leasing me my car said I could break the speed limit to the cop that pulled me over for speeding. That's not how it works.


----------



## inkahauts

"SayWhat?" said:


> Says who? (Besides you)
> 
> Also, notice that only the line I'm responding to is quoted, not the entire post.


Retrans agreements and copyrights that where worked out eons ago. Stuart says it well in his post.

Now if they go change all those, then we have a totally different story.


----------



## SayWhat?

inkahauts said:


> Is he saying he thinks this will make cost of retrains agreements go down? Am I reading that right?


I read it as he's saying "We'll turn AutoHop off on channels that reduce the retrans fees".

Or something like that.


----------



## Stuart Sweet

Another way of looking at this... and I'm not saying I agree, but:

If Auto Hop is an exclusive feature of Hopper, and;
If Hopper carries a price premium, and;
If the program "as presented to the consumer" is substantively different (because it has no commercials);

then:

it's a copyright violation because DISH is, in effect, charging for altered programming.

I personally am not sure I see it that way but I am not an intellectual property attorney.


----------



## James Long

inkahauts said:


> Dish does not have permission to alter the program that they are reselling. Stuart's post has a longer explanation of that fact.


I like Stuart, but please do not confuse any opinion here with fact. No one has offered a link to the specific law.

You may also want to read his posts ... last I saw he believed that DISH would win and what DISH is doing is not illegal. Stuart believes that DISH will lose when it comes to renewing retransmission agreements - not that DISH is actually breaking some law.



> Moreover, I also assert that if they win this, any ruling would give dish rights to alter any part of the programing, not just skipping commercials. That's why I don't think dish can win.


You don't like what DISH is doing or could do with the technology. Fine. If you ever get a DISH receiver with that feature don't use it. If DirecTV releases the feature on their receivers (using the ReplayTV patent) don't use it.

Not liking something does not make it illegal.



> The idea that the customer has to agree to it is what makes it ok is not logical. Thats like saying the the car dealer that is leasing me my car said I could break the speed limit to the cop that pulled me over for speeding. That's not how it works.


That statement assumes the speed limit is the law. There is no law against a consumer skipping commercials. (At least not yet.)

If you want to slippery slope DISH's feature into something more than it is you must accept slippery slope arguments for a DISH loss. If DISH loses the ability for a customer to skip commercials is at risk.


----------



## inkahauts

"SayWhat?" said:


> I read it as he's saying "We'll turn AutoHop off on channels that reduce the retrans fees".
> 
> Or something like that.


That would make more sense, and I can see that as an end game, but he'd have to win in court, and how much money can he spend on the lawsuits before any gain he might think he can get won't be lost to the lawyers? (which I don't believe any network will ever go for anyway, they'll just drop dish because they will not be willing to lower their revenue for dish, it'd set a bad precedence)


----------



## inkahauts

"James Long" said:


> I like Stuart, but please do not confuse any opinion here with fact. No one has offered a link to the specific law.
> 
> You may also want to read his posts ... last I saw he believed that DISH would win and what DISH is doing is not illegal. Stuart believes that DISH will lose when it comes to renewing retransmission agreements - not that DISH is actually breaking some law.
> 
> You don't like what DISH is doing or could do with the technology. Fine. If you ever get a DISH receiver with that feature don't use it. If DirecTV releases the feature on their receivers (using the ReplayTV patent) don't use it.
> 
> Not liking something does not make it illegal.
> 
> That statement assumes the speed limit is the law. There is no law against a consumer skipping commercials. (At least not yet.)
> 
> If you want to slippery slope DISH's feature into something more than it is you must accept slippery slope arguments for a DISH loss. If DISH loses the ability for a customer to skip commercials is at risk.


So what, you hate me then??? 

I love the feature. I have no issue with what dish is doing from a technology standpoint. I just don't think they have the right to do it without permission from the broadcasters, which they do not have.

I read him as saying that people can't repackage a program and resale it in a different form. That is what dish is doing IMHO, without permission.

Breaking a contract or retransmission rules is illegal.


----------



## Nick

Nick said:


> Sorry, *inkahauts*, but as a former broadcaster, I must say that your assertion that commercials are part of a program is absolutely in error. Ad spots are definitely not a part of the program, but are inserted by the networks and/or local broadcasters.





inkahauts said:


> So when dish signs a deal to rebroadcast a local FOX station, they only have to air the actual main program, and can sell all their own ads? ...


Wrong again, *inkahauts*! I did not come anywhere close to saying that. It has become increasingly apparent that you just don't know what you are talking about. Your illogical post immediately above, in response to my earlier post which I have also shown above tells me that, at some point in your mental processing of the technicalities of AutoHop, your train of thought got derailed. I know you believe what you believe, but that does not necessarily make what you believe, right.

Either that, or you're (not your) right and everyone else is wrong. How can that be?


----------



## Nick

inkahauts said:


> ...Breaking a contract or retransmission rules is illegal.


Wrong again! Breaking a contract is called 'breach of contract' and as such, is not illegal, per se, but rather a civil matter between the parties to the contract.

Never try to outfox an old fox.


----------



## James Long

inkahauts said:


> Breaking a contract or retransmission rules is illegal.


Why would a ban on AutoHOP be in a contract written before AutoHOP was revealed? If you believe this violates retransmission rules, cite the rule violated.

In addition, explain what you glossed over a few posts back when you said that AutoHOP would be legal if the customer had to press skip every break (similar to the multi skip that many DVR users do at each break but a one button per break convenience) but is illegal if the customer does not have to press skip at each break (choosing AutoHOP at the beginning of playback). Where is that fine line defined in the law?


----------



## harsh

Stuart Sweet said:


> Several cases have ruled that recording a program, either in your home or in on a central server, is not in and of itself copyright infringement, and neither is manually manipulating the recording (such as fast forwarding.) However, you don't have an unlimited license to watch the program any way you want. You can't, for example, charge admission; you can't bring your DVR to a public place; you can't alter the programming and re-sell it.


You are confusing viewing with presentation.

We're not allowed to present the programming at all. We can most certainly view it at 3x speed (or backward) if the hardware supports it.


----------



## phrelin

OK. This seems bigger than I thought. While patting themselves on the back, The Hollywood Reporter reports (_*emphasis*_ added):


> The fight over which venue the dispute plays out holds significance. It not only will shape the offense and defense, but Dish likely wants to be in the same New York jurisdiction that in 2008 handed Cablevision a huge victory against content holders after introducing a remote-storage DVR service.
> 
> So on Friday, Fox hit back with a motion that opposes the injunction. The network faults Dish for relying too heavily on the THR story and not doing enough homework.
> 
> "Dish's complaint has all the hallmarks of a rush to the courthouse," says the memorandum. "Dish did not identify the proper defendants before filing suit, did not name the copyright holders in its complaint, and did not identify any of the contracts or provisions that it allegedly did not breach."
> 
> The memo adds that Dish has underplayed the scope of Fox's beef, saying, "Dish's complaint is narrowly directed at the Auto Hop feature only, and does not seek declaratory relief _*in connection with the unauthorized Primetime Anytime copying, or in connection with its distribution of Fox's signal over the Internet via Sling.*_"


Has anyone been able to find copies of any filings?

EDIT: Yeah, I caught the general discussion of Sling before, but PTAT with Sling seems to create a curious and confusing case regarding the Autohop feature.


----------



## SayWhat?

I figured Sling would have been challenged long ago.


----------



## Stuart Sweet

harsh said:


> You are confusing viewing with presentation.
> 
> We're not allowed to present the programming at all. We can most certainly view it at 3x speed (or backward) if the hardware supports it.


I confuse nothing with nothing, but thanks for the mention. My friend Mr. Long is right; I offer nothing but an opinion, a window onto the salient points of the case. To my knowledge none of us is truly qualified to argue the actual case, and if we were.. it is my _opinion_ that said person would be making a big mistake in presenting (or viewing)  legal arguments in a public forum.


----------



## Herdfan

"James Long" said:


> Why would a ban on AutoHOP be in a contract written before AutoHOP was revealed? If you believe this violates retransmission rules, cite the rule violated.


It may not be specifically in the contract. But many contracts contain blanket disclaimers against doing a variety of things. If the networks can prove AutoHop violates any of these provisions, then they could be in trouble.

And as was shown in the TiVo case, two very smart attorneys can see one set of facts and come to completely different conclusions. And since no one has access to these contracts, we are all just speculating.


----------



## Laxguy

Herdfan said:


> It may not be specifically in the contract. But many contracts contain blanket disclaimers against doing a variety of things. If the networks can prove AutoHop violates any of these provisions, then they could be in trouble.
> 
> And as was shown in the TiVo case, two very smart attorneys can see one set of facts and come to completely different conclusions. And since no one has access to these contracts, we are all just speculating.


You're right, of course, but it's hard to imagine wording that'd prevent AutoHop contractually. 
"Contractee shall not devise nor implement any new thingie that makes skipping of our $$commercials$$ easier or more convenient...." :nono2:


----------



## phrelin

Laxguy said:


> You're right, of course, but it's hard to imagine wording that'd prevent AutoHop contractually.
> "Contractee shall not devise nor implement any new thingie that makes skipping of our $$commercials$$ easier or more convenient...." :nono2:


IMHO you may not be far off.

Given that Fox has included Sling and PTAT, in addition to Autohop, in their suit, it seems more like "Without the express permission of Fox. Contractee shall not devise nor implement any new thingie that makes it more convenient for its viewers to watch television."

I don't worry about Sling because it carefully restricts viewing to one location. Yeah it's a bit more remote than using the second TV in the basement, but it's still me using the signal as received personally. Except that it is lumped together with Autohop and PTAT.

And PTAT is basically a new system of recording the same data streams off the satellite that we have been recording for years, only one can record four network affiliate channels simultaneously using one receiver.

So I'm curious. Is Rupert Murdoch/News Corp/Fox saying that they have the right to prior approval before any new technology is offered to the general public by a cable or satellite company?


----------



## BobaBird

phrelin said:


> Has anyone been able to find copies of any filings?


This earlier Hollywood Reporter article has links to the complaints:
http://tv.yahoo.com/news/fox-cbs-nbc-sue-dish-network-over-autohop-224625705.html


----------



## TallGuyXP

BobaBird said:


> This earlier Hollywood Reporter article has links to the complaints:
> http://tv.yahoo.com/news/fox-cbs-nbc-sue-dish-network-over-autohop-224625705.html


Reading the actual Fox complaint now... it's pretty comical. "Dish launched it's own bootleg broadcast video-on-demand service called PrimeTime Anytime"..."makes an unauthorized copy of the entiore primetime broadcast schedule". So, the suit isn't about restricting consumer choice, Fox just wants us to pay to watch their shows, individually, purchasing them through Amazon or iTunes. This is a pretty funny read :lol:


----------



## TallGuyXP

LOL... The very first item listed in the "DISH's Unlawful Conduct" section basically says it's unlawful to be an alternative to NetFlix :lol:


----------



## phrelin

BobaBird said:


> This earlier Hollywood Reporter article has links to the complaints:
> http://tv.yahoo.com/news/fox-cbs-nbc-sue-dish-network-over-autohop-224625705.html


Wow, thanks! Links to the Fox, CBS, and Dish filings!


----------



## SayWhat?

TallGuyXP said:


> "makes an unauthorized copy of the entiore primetime broadcast schedule".


And if I have 4 separate VCRs/DVRs?


----------



## Omahabrownie

Am I wrong, but doesn't everyone with a DVR who records shows to watch later, create there own VOD library. I always thought that was part of the reason to have one.
It Makes me think Fox would like to get ride of everyone's DVR.


----------



## domingos35

phrelin said:


> IMHO you may not be far off.
> 
> Given that Fox has included Sling and PTAT, in addition to Autohop, in their suit, it seems more like "Without the express permission of Fox. Contractee shall not devise nor implement any new thingie that makes it more convenient for its viewers to watch television."
> 
> I don't worry about Sling because it carefully restricts viewing to one location. Yeah it's a bit more remote than using the second TV in the basement, but it's still me using the signal as received personally. Except that it is lumped together with Autohop and PTAT.
> 
> And PTAT is basically a new system of recording the same data streams off the satellite that we have been recording for years, only one can record four network affiliate channels simultaneously using one receiver.
> 
> So I'm curious. Is Rupert Murdoch/News Corp/Fox saying that they have the right to prior approval before any new technology is offered to the general public by a cable or satellite company?


they included PTAT in the suit?why?
it only does what a DVR is beeing doing for years.
now it records 4 programs using 1 tuner. pathetic lawsuit
they don't have the right to prior approval before any technology is implemented. they wish they had.
greedy corporations .


----------



## James Long

Those filings demonstrate that the broadcasters want to take away more than just AutoHOP. I've noted before that if they had their way either DVRs would be banned (see suits against VCR companies when they were introduced) or we would be able to skip any portion of a program EXCEPT the commercials (see Hulu without an ad blocker).


----------



## Herdfan

"phrelin" said:


> So I'm curious. Is Rupert Murdoch/News Corp/Fox saying that they have the right to prior approval before any new technology is offered to the general public by a cable or satellite company?


No, but Dish may be using signals within the broadcast that Fox has not given them permission to use. For example they may have the right to rebroadcast Audio and Video signals, but not the right to use them for any other purpose. This would be other purpose.


----------



## phrelin

Herdfan said:


> No, but Dish may be using signals within the broadcast that Fox has not given them permission to use. For example they may have the right to rebroadcast Audio and Video signals, but not the right to use them for any other purpose. This would be other purpose.


I suppose there's truth to that.

I frequently find my recordings without the end of a program because the show doesn't end on the hour. PTAT might allow me to record the whole show plus be able to watch a show on another network that started on the hour.

That's obviously Dish repurposing the signal, in that the idea behind the show that stops at 9:02 is to prevent me from watching another network's show in its entirety.

I wonder if they will explain the purpose to viewers in their lawsuits?

I just don't understand why Dish would be so crass and corrupt as to make it possible for me, a viewer, to watch in their entirety shows I'm now paying for.


----------



## Nick

phrelin said:


> ...I just don't understand why Dish would be so crass and corrupt as to make it possible for me, a viewer, to watch in their entirety shows I'm now paying for.


The nerve of Charlie to do this! :ramblinon


----------



## jadebox

TallGuyXP said:


> Reading the actual Fox complaint now... it's pretty comical.


The first sections don't sound like they were written by a lawyer. They don't even seem like they were written by an adult.

And ... the complaint says that Dish receives a license from the networks to retransmit the programming. Don't they license the broadcasts from the individual stations, not the networks?

-- Roger


----------



## James Long

jadebox said:


> And ... the complaint says that Dish receives a license from the networks to retransmit the programming. Don't they license the broadcasts from the individual stations, not the networks?


I believe DISH and DirecTV rely on a license granted in law by the US Government. Local stations choose must carry or consent to carry under that law (requiring the satellite company to carry their signal at no cost or withholding permission for the satellite company to carry their signal except under negotiated terms). The networks don't provide the "license".


----------



## jadebox

James Long said:


> I believe DISH and DirecTV rely on a license granted in law by the US Government. Local stations choose must carry or consent to carry under that law (requiring the satellite company to carry their signal at no cost or withholding permission for the satellite company to carry their signal except under negotiated terms). The networks don't provide the "license".


Yes. I think it's pretty clear that, if the networks have a problem with what's being done with their programming, they should take it up with the local stations, not Dish. 

That was said as a joke, of course, but I think there's a little bit of truth to it.

-- Roger


----------



## Herdfan

James Long said:


> I believe DISH and DirecTV rely on a license granted in law by the US Government. Local stations choose must carry or consent to carry under that law (requiring the satellite company to carry their signal at no cost or withholding permission for the satellite company to carry their signal except under negotiated terms). The networks don't provide the "license".


I think you are mixing apples and oranges here, but going with your argument, I would think all of the big 4 networks in every market are operating under the consent to carry provision. That is a contracted arrangement, so if the networks/affiliates think that contract is being violated by DISH using broadcast signals for unintended purposes, then they have a right to challenge DISH.


----------



## James Long

Herdfan said:


> I think you are mixing apples and oranges here, but going with your argument, I would think all of the big 4 networks in every market are operating under the consent to carry provision. That is a contracted arrangement, so if the networks/affiliates think that contract is being violated by DISH using broadcast signals for unintended purposes, then they have a right to challenge DISH.


The problem was with the networks claiming that THEY had licensed the content to DISH ... they do not (outside consent to carry on the Owned and Operated stations). That is why I got into the details of who actually grants a copyright license (the government, not the stations) and grants permission (the station, not the network) for carriage.

The "unintended purpose" argument has flaws. First, DISH's agreement with the stations (which I agree is more likely to be consent to carry for a major network station) says that DISH will provide that station's feed on their system and compensate the station as agreed. DISH is honoring that agreement. The stations themselves are being carried in their entirety and are available for their complete broadcast day via DISH's feeds.

There seems to be an underlying argument in this thread about DISH using secret signals embedded in the programming for an "unintended purpose". That would need to be proven. There seems to be a false assumption that DISH would need to use these secret signals to find commercial breaks ... instead of by observation. DISH has a patent application pending that suggests Closed Captioning could be used to determine breaks but that process would be more suited to syndicated programming where the station itself controls the length of the breaks ... not national network programming where all stations in a time zone are synchronized to a network clock.

The whole "unintended purpose" argument is as old as the ability to record TV at home for personal playback (VCR technology). The stations complained then ... "we broadcast this content to WATCH not to record". The consumer won.


----------



## phrelin

Dish and the local broadcast stations have retransmission agreements with Dish paying fees for each subscriber to the local affiliates which Dish then collects from subscribers.

The affiliates have contracts with the networks permitting them to broadcast programming, even allowing them to insert commercials, which contracts include the affiliates paying the networks.

The networks have no contractual arrangements with Dish regarding the broadcast signal from each local statin as far as I know.

That is why Fox demanded affiliates pay them from retransmission fees and why some affiliates refused and Fox unilaterally ended their contracts. Had Fox had contracts with the cable and satellite providers, that process would have been unnecessary.

If Fox actually had a contract or a clear licensing arrangement with Dish regarding programming provided to Dish from affiliates you wouldn't read all the BS in its initial filing about the license for the Fox's "video-on-demand" service.

In fact Fox attempts to build an entire case on that rather than licensing associated with the broadcast channel. Then they argue that the Autohop feature is not controlled by the consumer like traditional DVR's but does it's thing in a different way therefore "DISH actively controls and is involved in the operations of all aspects of the Primetime Anytime system" creating an on-demand system.

They then refer to a "Letter Agreement" of 2010 that they say restricts Dish from providing VOD. They then even throw in the Sling because the Letter Agreement, they assert, prohibits Dish from distributing Fox programming over the internet or similar technology.

Actually, they technically may have a stronger case about that last complaint except they are only trying to focus on the PTAT process.

On the other hand, CBS argues straightforwardly that Dish induces their customers to infringe CBS's copyrights.

Then they screw up their argument by explaining they are really dependent on advertising and something called "free" over-the-air broadcast stations "which makes news, information, and entertainment available to virtually all Americans without any need to pay subscription fees."

But that is simply a lie. I and millions of Americans who cannot get OTA signals can no longer pay a cable or satellite company just for the cost of being a stand-in for an antenna. Now we pay a retransmission fee that the cable or satellite company passes on to the broadcast station, part of which the station passes on to the network.

As far as I'm concerned, the moment any American had to pay a broadcast station for what was a "free" OTA signal (as established 50+ years ago by a federal license), then that American was free to avoid commercials in the most efficient way possible.

Sorry, but I have no inherent obligation to watch commercials. The networks know that, the broadcast stations know that, the satellite and cable companies know that, and the judges probably know that and don't watch them.

If the national broadcast networks were to change their model over to the cable channel model, dumping all the local affiliates and owned and operated local stations, then we could talk. But what they've done is cut off their noses to spite their faces.

They are trying to argue that an incremental change in the ease of using a DVR to skip commercials crosses some line. I, the viewer, say they and their affiliates crossed the line a while back by insisting on retransmission fees.


----------



## Laxguy

Amen, brother!


----------



## sregener

phrelin said:


> But that is simply a lie. I and millions of Americans who cannot get OTA signals can no longer pay a cable or satellite company just for the cost of being a stand-in for an antenna. Now we pay a retransmission fee that the cable or satellite company passes on to the broadcast station, part of which the station passes on to the network.


Most Americans can, in fact, get an OTA signal. It takes some know-how with antennas (picking the right one, placing it properly) but it's not as difficult as all that. Most people go to their local store and buy a cheap antenna, set it on top of their TV, get nothing and shrug and say, "Oh, well, I guess I need cable." When I moved, the realtor told me nobody could get OTA in my city and that I needed cable. Turns out, it's pathetically easy to get OTA with a simple rooftop installation.

However, if OTA truly isn't an option for you, there is something called "Lifeline" service, which is cost controlled by the FCC and mandated - cable companies must offer it. It generally runs $10-15/month in almost any area. That cost covers the cable company's infrastructure costs only. This is never an advertised service and you have to specifically ask for lifeline or "broadcast only" service. If you ask for basic cable, you get much, much more. Dish even has a package that is under $20/month that includes locals. That compares favorably with the $10/month in 1980 for cable service, once inflation is taken into account.

This does nothing to detract from the basic argument that we, the viewers, are under no obligation to watch commercials. I'm sure the broadcasters hated the invention of the remote control, as it made it easier for viewers to switch away from commercials. They hated the VCR. They hated the DVR. They hated the Internet. Basically, they hate any new technology.


----------



## Mike Bertelson

sregener said:


> Most Americans can, in fact, get an OTA signal. It takes some know-how with antennas (picking the right one, placing it properly) but it's not as difficult as all that. Most people go to their local store and buy a cheap antenna, set it on top of their TV, get nothing and shrug and say, "Oh, well, I guess I need cable." When I moved, the realtor told me nobody could get OTA in my city and that I needed cable. Turns out, it's pathetically easy to get OTA with a simple rooftop installation.


You've apparently never been to south east CT. We can't get OTA here...well a couple of fuzzy RI stations and PBS. I went 35' off the top of my roof with no success. A service provider is a must in SE CT. However, when I was a kid in NJ I could get ≈15 channels with rabbit ears. :grin:


sregener said:


> However, if OTA truly isn't an option for you, there is something called "Lifeline" service, which is cost controlled by the FCC and mandated - cable companies must offer it. It generally runs $10-15/month in almost any area. That cost covers the cable company's infrastructure costs only. This is never an advertised service and you have to specifically ask for lifeline or "broadcast only" service. If you ask for basic cable, you get much, much more. Dish even has a package that is under $20/month that includes locals. That compares favorably with the $10/month in 1980 for cable service, once inflation is taken into account.


The current FCC Lifeline program is about providing ≈$10/mo discounts on telephone service (land line and wireless) to low income families. It's about access to broadband for low income families, not TV service (Link). I don't think there is a mandated lifeline service for cable. :scratchin


sregener said:


> This does nothing to detract from the basic argument that we, the viewers, are under no obligation to watch commercials. I'm sure the broadcasters hated the invention of the remote control, as it made it easier for viewers to switch away from commercials. They hated the VCR. They hated the DVR. They hated the Internet. Basically, they hate any new technology.


Broadcasters and the recording industry do have a history of attacking these devices. My real problem with this is how it will affect the out of pocket cost for the subscribers if carriage fees go up due to "loss" of ad revenue.

Mike


----------



## scooper

#1 - "Lifeline" TV service is not controlled by the FCC - its the local franchising authority.

#2 - The stations are not against technology - just look at all the servers, etc. they are using to get and present that programming - they just don't want US (the viewer) to have access to the same kind of technology they use to time and space shift.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

On a slight tangent... It has always been curious to me how there are many people who dislike commercials and advertising during their TV... yet those same people happily buy products and clothing that serve as advertisements.

I always find it ironic to see a person wearing Nike-branded shoes and other branded apparel complaining about commercials. Why it is especially ironic is the "I pay for TV, so why should I also have to watch commercials" argument never seems to come up when Nike shoes cost more than a generic brand... but people will pay more for the Nike logo and wear them proudly and walk around town like a walking billboard for Nike... but will then sit at home where the reverse is true (Nike pays for ad space that results in your paying less for TV) and complain about that.

So... paying for the right to advertise a product you wear is acceptable, but having them pay for you to watch TV is intrusive.


----------



## MysteryMan

Stewart Vernon said:


> On a slight tangent... It has always been curious to me how there are many people who dislike commercials and advertising during their TV... yet those same people happily buy products and clothing that serve as advertisements.
> 
> I always find it ironic to see a person wearing Nike-branded shoes and other branded apparel complaining about commercials. Why it is especially ironic is the "I pay for TV, so why should I also have to watch commercials" argument never seems to come up when Nike shoes cost more than a generic brand... but people will pay more for the Nike logo and wear them proudly and walk around town like a walking billboard for Nike... but will then sit at home where the reverse is true (Nike pays for ad space that results in your paying less for TV) and complain about that.
> 
> So... paying for the right to advertise a product you wear is acceptable, but having them pay for you to watch TV is intrusive.


While I agree with your your "slaves of fashion" scenario there is a sizeable percentage of viewers who are not. For us commercial advertisements are a waste of time. I have never been motivated by TV commercials to try or purchase their product. People like me shop by trial and error, or use recommendations from friends and family, not from strangers advertising on TV. Advertising has become a plague. Just look at how it's increased on the internet the past couple of years. The same applies with television. I remember a guest host on Johnny Carson's "Tonight Show" being so annoyed by the commercial interruptions that after a commercial break he stated "we interrupt our regulary scheduled commercials so that we may bring you the following program". It's gotten a hell of a lot worse since then.


----------



## Herdfan

James Long said:


> There seems to be an underlying argument in this thread about DISH using secret signals embedded in the programming for an "unintended purpose". That would need to be proven. There seems to be a false assumption that DISH would need to use these secret signals to find commercial breaks ... instead of by observation. DISH has a patent application pending that suggests Closed Captioning could be used to determine breaks but that process would be more suited to syndicated programming where the station itself controls the length of the breaks ... not national network programming where all stations in a time zone are synchronized to a network clock.


I guess it is possible that DISH has 4 employees in a room, each watching the 1 channel of the primetime block and marking when commercials begin and end. This data is then transmitted to the Hopper which uses these stop and start times to enable AutoHop.

But if this is the case, it would seem the networks could defeat it by using multiple "clocks".

I still don't follow what the consent to carry/must carry law has to do with this. It would be irrelevant if DISH was a cableco doing the same thing.


----------



## RasputinAXP

sregener said:


> Most Americans can, in fact, get an OTA signal. It takes some know-how with antennas (picking the right one, placing it properly) but it's not as difficult as all that.


In my area, you'd need at least two antennas, including one large VHF-Lo antenna, to pick up all 4 major networks. I live near Philadelphia. The digital switchover has been a ridiculous failure here. I hate WPVI for clinging to their old wavelength. I hate WHYY less for clinging to their old wavelength because at least that's VHF-Hi.


----------



## Wilf

sregener said:


> Dish even has a package that is under $20/month that includes locals. That compares favorably with the $10/month in 1980 for cable service, once inflation is taken into account.


Not anymore. The $15 welcome pack has been replaced with a $25 Family pack. Fortunately I am grandfathered in with the former.


----------



## phrelin

Wilf said:


> Not anymore. The $15 welcome pack has been replaced with a $25 Family pack. Fortunately I am grandfathered in with the former.


Odd. Dish still advertises it on the web site.








It does list a different phone number than indicated at the upper left.


----------



## Wilf

phrelin said:


> Odd. Dish still advertises it on the web site.
> It does list a different phone number than indicated at the upper left.


I based my comment on the options that appear online for my account.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

MysteryMan said:


> While I agree with your your "slaves of fashion" scenario there is a sizeable percentage of viewers who are not.


I'm sure there are exceptions... Although at the risk of poking the bear... I should probably add that many people on this thread who think commercials are evil and that they shouldn't be forced to watch them... many of those people have forum avatars that are essentially advertising... and in some cases are advertising products that they would be offended to see a commercial 



MysteryMan said:


> For us commercial advertisements are a waste of time. I have never been motivated by TV commercials to try or purchase their product.


Well, I agree with you there. I've long argued that most advertising dollars are dollars thrown into a black hole. I've argued that products with high-recognizability and longevity shouldn't need to spend near as much. Pepsi, Coke, and many popular beers come to mind. I don't drink alcohol (never have, never will) and yet I am personally familiar with a bunch of different brands through commercials.

I have to think anyone partaking of these beverages know about the product and where to get them without needing multiple commercials daily! Pepsi, Coke, and the beer companies could save their marketing dollars and pocket that as profit...

Arguably, a company like these should only need to advertise when they introduce a new product or a limited time offer. Then the money spent on advertising makes sense... but beating people over the head with "Pepsi exists" seems to be a diminishing returns scenario where most of the advertising is not adding to their product sales line.

Advertising works best for a new company or a new product... And while I still agree that commercials don't convince me to want something... the first iPhone commercial let me know that there was in fact an iPhone and that prompted me to research further. I don't need a Pepsi commercial to know I can go buy Pepsi at pretty much any store in town.

BUT...

All that said... I still say, if the companies want to waste that money on advertising so that I can pay less for some TV programs... I'm happy to let them operate under that illusion and not continue to point out to them that their commercials are doing no good.


----------



## Herdfan

Stewart Vernon said:


> I've argued that products with high-recognizability and longevity shouldn't need to spend near as much. Pepsi, Coke, and many popular beers come to mind.
> 
> I have to think anyone partaking of these beverages know about the product and where to get them without needing multiple commercials daily! Pepsi, Coke, and the beer companies could save their marketing dollars and pocket that as profit...... but beating people over the head with "Pepsi exists" seems to be a diminishing returns scenario where most of the advertising is not adding to their product sales line.


They are not targeting you or me, but instead teens who have the attention span of a gnat. Pepsi and Coke both need to convince teens that drinking their product is "cool" so that the teen will choose one or the other and then in theory be a customer for life.

Same with beer. Targeting older teens that drinking a Bud Light at the bar will make women like you is the goal. I know what most beers taste like and I now choose the ones I like, but there was a time when I did choose the "cool" one.


----------



## TBoneit

Stewart Vernon said:


> Why it is especially ironic is the "I pay for TV, so why should I also have to watch commercials" argument never seems to come up when Nike shoes cost more than a generic brand... but people will pay more for the Nike logo and wear them proudly and walk around town like a walking billboard for Nike... but will then sit at home where the reverse is true (Nike pays for ad space that results in your paying less for TV) and complain about that.
> 
> So... paying for the right to advertise a product you wear is acceptable, but having them pay for you to watch TV is intrusive.


Every time You climb into your car you are advertising the maker and the model you chose.

Unless you are very careful and insist that they dealer not put their name on the car you are also advertising the dealer. Right there those that complain about paying for advertising are being somewhat disingenuous.


----------



## Inkosaurus

Wilf said:


> I based my comment on the options that appear online for my account.


If I remember correctly you can only add the Welcome Pack through a CSR.


----------



## Wilf

Inkosaurus said:


> If I remember correctly you can only add the Welcome Pack through a CSR.


That could well be correct. Over the past year or so I downgraded from America's 200, HBO, GoogleTV integration, and two DVR's to just the Welcome Pack and only one DVR. As I remember, I dropped the HBO online, the rest had to be done by talking to a CSR.


----------



## phrelin

The Morning Bridge this morning says ABC has filed a suit against the AutoHop completing the big 4 broadcast networks plus the following:


> Speaking of the Ad-Hopper, a new internet survey says 41% of consumers would record and watch more TV shows on DVR playback if their STB automatically skipped commercials like DISH's Ad-Hopper. Conducted by the TV rumors website TVPredictions.com, the survey showed that 70% of respondents would like to see their pay-TV provider offer something like the Ad-Hopper, and 79% wouldn't miss the commercials. While skipping ads seems rather popular, the site says 80% of respondents are not willing to pay for the service.


----------



## Marlin Guy

MysteryMan said:


> For us commercial advertisements are a waste of time. I have never been motivated by TV commercials to try or purchase their product.


I first heard about the Hopper while watching DirecTV. That ad sparked curiosity and I came here to learn more. So glad I saw that ad!


----------



## sigma1914

Marlin Guy said:


> I first heard about the Hopper while watching DirecTV. That ad sparked curiosity and I came here to learn more. So glad I saw that ad!


You've been an active member here for 3 years, where talk of the Hopper has predated any commercial for it, but you first heard of it on tv?


----------



## Marlin Guy

sigma1914 said:


> You've been an active member here for 3 years, where talk of the Hopper has predated any commercial for it, but you first heard of it on tv?


Yeah.


----------



## RasputinAXP

He was on the other side of the fence at the time.


----------



## sigma1914

RasputinAXP said:


> He was on the other side of the fence at the time.


You still have a hard time missing front page news here and tech site news... especially with such a badass game changing piece of equipment.


----------



## Marlin Guy

RasputinAXP said:


> He was on the other side of the fence at the time.


I sure hope you mean that I was with DirecTV. :lol:


----------



## RasputinAXP

Well yeah...where's any other fences around here?


----------



## James Long

RasputinAXP said:


> Well yeah...where's any other fences around here?


Well, it is more like a line of bollards. People can swing both ways across the line. It usually isn't a problem as long as they are polite whichever side they are posting on. And they remember the topic of the thread.


----------



## SayWhat?

James Long said:


> Well, it is more like a line of bollards. People can swing both ways across the line.


More like one of these. Clickety-clacking back and forth without really getting anywhere.


----------



## phrelin

You have to admire Charlie's ability to reach out and embrace wider social issues. From The Hollywood Reporter:


> At a congressional hearing Wednesday, Dish Network chairman Charlie Ergen offered up a new reason why the ad-skipping AutoHop should be permissible. "Allowing your kids to watch TV doesn't have to mean they have no choice but to see commercials for junk food and alcohol," he said.
> 
> ...Ergen defended the service as "nothing more than improving upon existing, legally-accepted, and widely available technologies that give consumers the ability to record their television shows for playback at a more convenient time."
> 
> The comments came at a "future of video" hearing before the House Energy and Commerce subcommittee.


EDIT: The LA Times article explains more about what the hearing was about but also has this gem:


> Ergen did take some heat for the AutoHop from Rep. John Dingell (D-Mich.), who expressed concern that the feature would harm political advertising.
> 
> "I hope you understand my skepticism about Dish's latest offering and its effect on the future of video," Dingell said.
> 
> Ergen replied: "I'm not a politician. I certainly understand consumers."


----------



## Marlin Guy

> Ergen replied: "I'm not a politician. I certainly understand consumers.


I love this man!


----------



## phrelin

Marlin Guy said:


> I love this man!


Me too. He loves to fight for truth, justice and the American way. Here's more about his exchange with Dingell:


> But Rep. John Dingell (D-Mich.), a longtime advocate of local broadcasting, took the opposite view.
> 
> "The Hopper potentially limits the ability of every member of this subcommittee ... to reach constituents with ads to help them make up their minds," Dingell said.
> 
> Dingell cut off Ergen when he tried to defend his company's video service, and the senior Democrat called for order when Ergen tried to talk over him.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

Isn't cutting someone off when they are talking a live-version of AutoHop?


----------



## inkahauts

"Stewart Vernon" said:


> Isn't cutting someone off when they are talking a live-version of AutoHop?


!rolling


----------



## phrelin

Just in case this conversation might die, the LA Times Company Town - The Business Behind The Show column/blog brought it up again with a rehash more oriented to the big media company view and this reminder:


> On Monday, a New York Court is expected to determine whether the case between Dish and ABC, CBS and Fox will be heard in New York or Los Angeles.


----------



## Darcaine

phrelin said:


> Just in case this conversation might die, the LA Times Company Town - The Business Behind The Show column/blog brought it up again with a rehash more oriented to the big media company view and this reminder:


It was ruled that the neworks lawsuit could proceed in California.

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/dish-ad-skipping-lawsuit-judge-346574


----------



## phrelin

Darcaine said:


> It was ruled that the neworks lawsuit could proceed in California.
> 
> http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/dish-ad-skipping-lawsuit-judge-346574


Yeah, I just saw that. The full ruling is here. Interesting reading.

The THR article summarizing the situation says:


> A federal judge in New York has ruled that Fox, NBC, and CBS should be allowed to pursue their high-profile legal dispute over Dish Network's controversial ad-skipping device in California.
> 
> ...The judge is dismissing without prejudice Dish's complaint as it pertains to Fox's copyright and contract claims as well as CBS/NBC's copyright claims. Dish's lawsuit against CBS and NBC over contract issues will continue in New York as those issues weren't asserted in California. Additionally, Dish's is being given the go-ahead to pursue declaratory action against ABC that it hasn't breached copyright or violated a contract. ABC was the only major network not to bring a lawsuit, though it has signaled that it intends to file counterclaims.
> 
> ...Dish had the following statement about today's development:
> 
> "Regardless of the venue, we look forward to proceeding with this case,recognizing that it has been 28 years since the Supreme Court's "Betamax" decision held that a viewer, in the privacy of their home, could record a television show to watch later. The Court ruled that 'time-shifting' constituted a fair use of copyrighted television programming. Those Betamax users could permissibly fast-forward through commercials on recorded shows - just as DVR users do today. DISH will stand behind consumers and their right to skip commercials, something they have been doing since the invention of the remote control."​


----------



## James Long

Oh joy. So there will be active cases on both coasts deciding the different parts of the issue?


----------



## James Long

There have been some recent software updates on the Hopper that should be noted.

As before, PTAT is not enabled when a new Hopper is installed.
When the user activates PTAT they choose the channels (one or all four) of the major network channels they want to record.
When the user activates PTAT they choose the days of the week (one or all seven) they wish to record programs.
When the user activates PTAT they choose how long to keep the programs ... choices range from 2 to 8 days.

It is more than just an on-off switch.

As for AutoHOP, I have noticed that the default is now "no". When playing back an AutoHOP enabled program the "use AutoHOP" was default ... now "no" is default.


----------



## Mojo Jojo

From http://paidcontent.org/2012/07/26/dishs-latest-hopper-tweak-reeks-of-legal-positioning/

Dish's latest Hopper tweak reeks of legal positioning

By Daniel Frankel

Jul. 26, 2012, 1:56pm

Facing a legal showdown with the broadcast networks over commercial-skipping features in its digital video recorders, Dish Network has quietly made several operating-system tweaks designed to put the ad-circumvention process more in the hands of the user.

This could be crucial in the satellite's legal battle with broadcasters over these features, given that subscribers now have more control of how they're used.

(Please visit the link for more...)


----------



## strikes2k

IANAL so can't really comment on the legal ramifications of these changes, but I find them very useful and don't see why DISH wouldn't have implemented them anyways.


----------



## RasputinAXP

Paid content.org is just a glorified blog with more Google weighting.


----------



## jdskycaster

Is it just me or has the autohop delay also increased. I find that my system plays most of the first commercial at each break and am now regularly hitting the forward skip to engage autohop. Not a huge deal but each time I am having to advance to the point where it autohops. Zero putton pushes have now become at least one button push for each commercial break.


----------



## RasputinAXP

Yes it has; it was introduced in the latest firmware update.


----------



## SayWhat?

strikes2k said:


> IANAL so can't ...


Unless you need a Proctologist, what are you talking about?


----------



## James Long

SayWhat? said:


> strikes2k said:
> 
> 
> 
> IANAL so can't ...
> 
> 
> 
> Unless you need a Proctologist, what are you talking about?
Click to expand...

IANAL = *I a*m *n*ot *a l*awyer.


----------



## mnassour

Interesting article from one of the industry bibles today, TVNewscheck....


> Jessell at Large
> Take Your Cue From Moonves: Skip Dish
> All broadcasters should follow the lead of CBS's Leslie Moonves and threaten to use their retrans clout to come down hard on Dish Network and the Auto Hop commercial-skipping feature of its Hopper DVR. Allowing subscribers to skip all spots in recorded programs at the touch of a button is a broadcasting killer.


Entire article: http://www.tvnewscheck.com/article/...ell:+Take+Your+Cue+From+Moonves+And+Skip+Dish

(or)

http://tinyurl.com/9t9mrh8

CBS appears to be ready to drop Dish as a distributor come contract time and is urging the three others to do the same.

(If this has already been started, please point me there, thanks!)


----------



## Stewart Vernon

CBS is in a weird place... in that they could only really threaten to pull local stations that they own and operate.

On a related note.

I'm surprised (and maybe they already have) the networks wouldn't make a big deal out of AutoHop ONLY working for the "big 4" ABC, CBS, NBC, FOX....

If you read Dish's reasoning that they believe people should be able to watch TV however they want... then why didn't Dish make AutoHop work for ALL commercial channels?

The fact that they are singling out the "big 4" shows that Dish isn't really on the customer's side in this... they are just leveraging against the traditional OTA channels.

That is bound to come up in the courts if this thing goes very long.


----------



## jdskycaster

This is much ado about nothing. I rarely find myself with an opportunity to use autohop anyway. When I do the current additional delay that has been inserted by Dish almost always means an additional button press anyway. 

The most Autohop has saved me is a few button presses on the rare occasion that I find a show that I actually care about on a channel that is supposed to be free but yet I have to pay a monthly fee for. The networks execs can stick their lawsuit where the sun does not shine!


----------



## James Long

I have noticed that Auto-Hop is becoming available earlier in the evening. I have Auto-Hopped programs recorded at 8pm or 9pm before 11pm. This places more value on the function ... and likely ticks off OTA broadcasters more.


----------



## scooper

James Long said:


> I have noticed that Auto-Hop is becoming available earlier in the evening. I have Auto-Hopped programs recorded at 8pm or 9pm before 11pm. This places more value on the function ... and likely ticks off OTA broadcasters more.


Let them get ticked - if they weren't shoving nearly 1/3 of the programming time with ads, it wouldn't be an issue.
IMO, anyway...


----------



## Jaspear

scooper said:


> Let them get ticked - if they weren't shoving nearly 1/3 of the programming time with ads, it wouldn't be an issue.
> IMO, anyway...


Yep, and they keep pushing the envelope. What was 45 minutes (or more) of programming is now 42 minutes (or less), obnoxious and distracting lower third graphics, over the top product placement with obvious, inane scripting, and on and on. The auto-hop feature ought to be instantaneous and expanded to more channels. The networks started it, not Dish.


----------



## djlong

45 minutes? Heck, when I startd watching it was *51* minutes per hour (confirmed when I saw the running times of Star Trek episodes on VHS) and I distinctly remember there being a discussion from time to time of "how much is too much" with regards to commercials.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

Bottom line, though... without those sold commercial spots, most of the TV shows people like wouldn't be produced... UNLESS we all paid $10-$15 per channel like for commercial-free networks like HBO...

Going back to the earliest days of TV, it was corporate sponsors that made broadcast TV possible.


----------



## Michael P

> Also, ESPN has done something kind of cool that I wish other networks and shows would try... If you watch Around the Horn or Pardon the Interruption... during their commercial breaks they throw in some behind the scenes clips and things that happen between takes... and if you skip commercials you miss those. I thought it was ingenious to throw in those things because I want to watch them, so I don't skip the commercials during those shows.


That explains what I saw during the RNC & DNC on FNC. When commercials were shown there was a PIP window with the live action at the podium. At the time I thought what's up with that? After reading this thread I now understand why that PIP window was used. (if someone else commented earlier I apologize - I skipped ahead 28 pages, this is the first day I paid attention to this thread).


----------



## Stewart Vernon

_New thread and press release for a ruling in FOX vs Dish AutoHop... Closing this thread, please resume discussion in the new ongoing thread:_

http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?t=210205


----------

