# Networks Seek To Remove Commercial Skipping Ability From TV Viewers



## thelucky1 (Feb 23, 2009)

Article link:

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/entertainmentnewsbuzz/2010/10/is-the-dvr-just-a-stop-gap.html


----------



## camattin (Feb 6, 2003)

Hogwash! Or at least I hope so.


----------



## Mike Bertelson (Jan 24, 2007)

DVR's may be a transitional device however recording what you want and listening to or watching it is not transitional.

When I was a kid reel to reel was the recording medium of choice. then came cassette and cd. You also had betamax, vhs, and recordable dvd's.

We have been recording what we want for our own personal use for 40 + years. We are not going to stop now.

Mike


----------



## Lee L (Aug 15, 2002)

I just don't see VOD working, due primarily to the greed of the networks. We already know that most of the nets are either participating very reluctantly or refusing to particpate in 99 cent show rentals on Apple TV because it "devalues their content". So, that means they beleive that one single show is worth well more than $22 a year based on the typical number of episodes. I assume they want something around double that, like $40 or more.

So, if they think we should pay $40 to watch one show all year, how on earth will anyone want to go to a model where all the shows are VOD? If you want to watch 5 shows regularly, you'd be paying $200 a month.

Then again, maybe they will slap a few commercials in there and magically make the VOD free. Hmm, I bet not.


----------



## bobnielsen (Jun 29, 2006)

Lee L said:


> I just don't see VOD working, due primarily to the greed of the networks. We already know that most of the nets are either participating very reluctantly or refusing to particpate in 99 cent show rentals on Apple TV because it "devalues their content". So, that means they beleive that one single show is worth well more than $22 a year based on the typical number of episodes. I assume they want something around double that, like $40 or more.
> 
> So, if they think we should pay $40 to watch one show all year, how on earth will anyone want to go to a model where all the shows are VOD? If you want to watch 5 shows regularly, you'd be paying $200 a month.
> 
> Then again, maybe they will slap a few commercials in there and magically make the VOD free. Hmm, I bet not.


Like they make it free to satellite and cable providers because there are commercials. If they could figure out a way to charge for OTA broadcasts, they would :lol:


----------



## Joe Diver (Oct 12, 2006)

If you force your advertising at me against my will, I will never, ever buy your product under any circumstance, and I will encourage everyone I know to do the same.


----------



## lose2win (Mar 2, 2010)

VOD is great...if you are on cable. Directv On Demand is nowhere near as good as Comcast in my area due to selection and buffer times. The content available always changes as well, ie. trying to catch up on a season of a show and all episodes not being available or completely disappearing when the show's season is just released on disc.


----------



## tonyd79 (Jul 24, 2006)

They are doing this all wrong. If they went to quick commercial breaks. Like 30 seconds (and more of them, like 4 to 5 a half hour show), no one would skip them or have time to go pee or get a sandwich or watch something else. They could guarantee high viewer rates of the ads and increase the per minute rate.


----------



## fluffybear (Jun 19, 2004)

Joe Diver said:


> If you force your advertising at me against my will, I will never, ever buy your product under any circumstance, and I will encourage everyone I know to do the same.


I'm with you!


----------



## pfp (Apr 28, 2009)

tonyd79 said:


> They are doing this all wrong. If they went to quick commercial breaks. Like 30 seconds (and more of them, like 4 to 5 a half hour show), no one would skip them or have time to go pee or get a sandwich or watch something else. They could guarantee high viewer rates of the ads and increase the per minute rate.


Four or five 30 second commercial breaks would be 2.5 minutes total. That's about the length of one commercial break now, and there are 3-4 of them.

If you wanted just 30 second commercial breaks they would need to occur about every 90 seconds.


----------



## MysteryMan (May 17, 2010)

MicroBeta said:


> DVR's may be a transitional device however recording what you want and listening to or watching it is not transitional.
> 
> When I was a kid reel to reel was the recording medium of choice. then came cassette and cd. You also had betamax, vhs, and recordable dvd's.
> 
> ...


+1


----------



## ThomasM (Jul 20, 2007)

The program providers control what and how you watch and how much you pay. If you have any doubt, did you ever think an edict from the movie studios would change PPV movies recorded on a DVR so they were only available for 24 hours and then get automatically erased?

A simple software change in TiVo's, DirecTV DVR's, and all the others could be made so that when you are watching a recording of a "no skipping" program, you'd just get the BONK sound if you tried it.

And it's coming.

As for VOD, I also predict that these internet providers are sitting there waiting for more customers to get used to internet radio, VOD, Netflix movie streaming, etc. And then will come usage-sensitive pricing. GOTCHA!!


----------



## Joe C (Mar 3, 2005)

ThomasM said:


> The program providers control what and how you watch and how much you pay. If you have any doubt, did you ever think an edict from the movie studios would change PPV movies recorded on a DVR so they were only available for 24 hours and then get automatically erased?
> 
> A simple software change in TiVo's, DirecTV DVR's, and all the others could be made so that when you are watching a recording of a "no skipping" program, you'd just get the BONK sound if you tried it.
> 
> ...


Exactly why I don't order PPV, the 24 hr rule is ridiculous. As a consumer I voice my displeasure with a company with my wallet. No more PPV for me EVER. When the networks start disabling FFor RR ability of shows, I will stop watching that show and/or network, plain and simple. How many of you would do that ?


----------



## BubblePuppy (Nov 3, 2006)

Joe C said:


> Exactly why I don't order PPV, the 24 hr rule is ridiculous. As a consumer I voice my displeasure with a company with my wallet. No more PPV for me EVER. When the networks start disabling FFor RR ability of shows, I will stop watching that show and/or network, plain and simple. How many of you would do that ?


I would be doing more than voting with my wallet, "they" won't know I'm doing that, I would be sending out emails, posting on FB and forums, making phone calls.


----------



## Mike Bertelson (Jan 24, 2007)

I wonder how they'll deal with FTA. It's not like they can stop sending out the signal. :shrug:

Mike


----------



## JosephB (Nov 14, 2005)

This is what you get when the consumer of a product is not the producer of the product's customer.

Regardless, as long as BitTorrent exists this jerkwad can pound sand. All he's ensuring is that people will only pay for subscription TV for sports and live events and will steal his dramas and comedies on the internet.


----------



## RACJ2 (Aug 2, 2008)

When I was out of town for 3 weeks on business, all I had access to was TW cable. This concept is exactly what they use for their "Start Over" feature. For many of the local channels, if the show is in progress, you can press "Start Over". That starts the show from the beginning, but you can't FF at all. You can rewind to review something you missed, but then can't even FF back to where you were. I like the feature of starting over, but no FF was annoying.


----------



## MysteryMan (May 17, 2010)

As I stated elsewhere I have never been motivated to purchase a product or service after viewing a commerical. A total waste of broadcast time and advertiser money. Screw the networks!


----------



## kevinwmsn (Aug 19, 2006)

If they cripple DVRs, that would be enough to make me do all my local recordings on a Mythbox and hook a up a hd reciever to it via the hauppage external box for all others. The networks definitely need to do something with commercials, seems like there is a Viagra, Celios, or some other enhancement every commercial break.


----------



## BubblePuppy (Nov 3, 2006)

The answer is simple....more product placements. Of course I can't see a gecko showing up in "The Event".


----------



## matt (Jan 12, 2010)

This would be simple to get around. Use your own recording device, duh!


----------



## Mike Bertelson (Jan 24, 2007)

matt1124 said:


> This would be simple to get around. Use your own recording device, duh!


How do you record on demand?

Mike


----------



## matt (Jan 12, 2010)

MicroBeta said:


> How do you record on demand?
> 
> Mike


I would switch to a professional beta deck if I had to. I can't stand watching all the commercials, I don't watch live TV anymore, unless I "have to". The new Burger King commercials are at the top of my list.

I would order it, record it to tape, do something else for an hour, then come back and watch it.


----------



## Mike Bertelson (Jan 24, 2007)

matt1124 said:


> I would switch to a professional beta deck if I had to. I can't stand watching all the commercials, I don't watch live TV anymore, unless I "have to". The new Burger King commercials are at the top of my list.
> 
> I would order it, record it to tape, do something else for an hour, then come back and watch it.


I kinda got the impression it would be like the current PC based episodes where you get the segment, then you get the commercial, then then next segment, and so on. I think his point what that we'd have to watch...or at least sit throug, the commercials.

I honestly don't know how you get the service providers to buy into something like that but who knows what they'll try. :shrug:

Mike


----------



## DodgerKing (Apr 28, 2008)

tonyd79 said:


> They are doing this all wrong. If they went to quick commercial breaks. Like 30 seconds (and more of them, like 4 to 5 a half hour show), no one would skip them or have time to go pee or get a sandwich or watch something else. They could guarantee high viewer rates of the ads and increase the per minute rate.


Or put a commercial overlay that only appears when you are fast forwarding.


----------



## CTJon (Feb 5, 2007)

someone (TIVO or ?) will figure a way to record the VOD and then allow you to skip the commercials. They better figure out a new way to make money because many people like me, other than news or sports, watch nothing live. Even if I record it and start watching 30 minutes later it is recorded and I skip commercials. Political ads and network promos are worse than commercials.

Actually, I'd pay money to automatically skip political ads.


----------



## DodgerKing (Apr 28, 2008)

BubblePuppy said:


> The answer is simple....more product placements. Of course I can't see a gecko showing up in "The Event".


Yep...Just like they used to do when TV first came out, or similar to what you say on "The Truman Show". Instead of commercial breaks, just include the product in the show itself


----------



## pfp (Apr 28, 2009)

CTJon said:


> Actually, I'd pay money to automatically skip political ads.


NO!!!!!!!!

Than congress would make skipping commercials illegal.


----------



## ATARI (May 10, 2007)

pfp said:


> NO!!!!!!!!
> 
> Than congress would make skipping commercials illegal.


Sad, but true.

I, for one, would drop D* in a flash if I could no longer FF past commercials.


----------



## tonyd79 (Jul 24, 2006)

DodgerKing said:


> Yep...Just like they used to do when TV first came out, or similar to what you say on "The Truman Show". Instead of commercial breaks, just include the product in the show itself


"What's that you have got there, Gracie?"

"Well, George, I am making this wonder new recipe for Blanche who is coming over. It is strawberry shortcake using nothing but the whippable milk, Carnation's Concentrated Milk."

"That's nice, Gracie. I understand Blanche and you went shopping today..."


----------



## RACJ2 (Aug 2, 2008)

MicroBeta said:


> I kinda got the impression it would be like the current PC based episodes where you get the segment, then you get the commercial, then then next segment, and so on. I think his point what that we'd have to watch...or at least sit throug, the commercials.
> 
> I honestly don't know how you get the service providers to buy into something like that but who knows what they'll try. :shrug:
> 
> Mike


I use a work-around to skip commercials on the PC based episodes with commercials. I have my lap top plugged into the HDMI input of my TV. When the commercial comes on, I change inputs to my DIRECTV receiver and watch something else. Using my laptop as a monitor, when the commercial ends, I swap input back to my laptop and continue watching the pc based program.


----------



## TBoneit (Jul 27, 2006)

tonyd79 said:


> "What's that you have got there, Gracie?"
> 
> "Well, George, I am making this wonder new recipe for Blanche who is coming over. It is strawberry shortcake using nothing but the whippable milk, Carnation's Concentrated Milk."
> 
> "That's nice, Gracie. I understand Blanche and you went shopping today..."


True, however they were well done and did not really detract from the show.


----------



## Steveknj (Nov 14, 2006)

As much as I hate commercials and as much as some of you swear you'd find other means to watch TV, the VAST majority, 99% of us would grin and bare it. We might not like it at first, but we'd get used to it. The problem is, when these devices came on the market (TiVo and so forth), the advertisers and networks were left flat footed. This got us all spoiled. Now it's hard to put the genie back in the bottle. But here's what I see happening. Our TV providers, cable and satellite will start giving away, as their normal receiver a DVR that has FF disabled. This will be the standard box. Even those who normally wouldn't get a DVR will have one now. And that's STILL 2/3 of the viewers in this country. Now those people will not know what it's like to have the feature enabled. This will be just the way it is. For everyone else, you want 30 second skip or FF enabled? You'll pay extra for the privileged. THAT money will go to compensate content providers for the lost revenue that skipped commercials cause. And by extra, I'm thinking $15 a month more. There will still be a VERY small community of folks who will say screw it, I'll bit torrent or record on the PC or whatever. That is probably less than 1% of viewers and won't be significant enough to make a dent in what they want to do.


----------



## JeffBowser (Dec 21, 2006)

Hmm. Much angst over mindless entertainment. Personally, when it hits my tolerance limit for cost and interruption, I will cease watching. My TV viewing is already half what it once was, and I don't really miss it. Younger generations up here might not realize how awful current programming is. Grow up eating crap, and crap tastes delicious.


----------



## tonyd79 (Jul 24, 2006)

TBoneit said:


> True, however they were well done and did not really detract from the show.


Agreed. That was the example I was giving. And, in that case, because it was old, I enjoyed watching it from a cutural standpoint.


----------



## RACJ2 (Aug 2, 2008)

Steveknj said:


> As much as I hate commercials and as much as some of you swear you'd find other means to watch TV, the VAST majority, 99% of us would grin and bare it. We might not like it at first, but we'd get used to it. The problem is, when these devices came on the market (TiVo and so forth), the advertisers and networks were left flat footed. This got us all spoiled. Now it's hard to put the genie back in the bottle.
> 
> But here's what I see happening. Our TV providers, cable and satellite will start giving away, as their normal receiver a DVR that has FF disabled. This will be the standard box. Even those who normally wouldn't get a DVR will have one now. And that's STILL 2/3 of the viewers in this country. Now those people will not know what it's like to have the feature enabled. This will be just the way it is.
> 
> For everyone else, you want 30 second skip or FF enabled? You'll pay extra for the privileged. THAT money will go to compensate content providers for the lost revenue that skipped commercials cause. And by extra, I'm thinking $15 a month more. There will still be a VERY small community of folks who will say screw it, I'll bit torrent or record on the PC or whatever. That is probably less than 1% of viewers and won't be significant enough to make a dent in what they want to do.


Actually, when I had TW cable, I had a contact at the regional corporate office I would correspond with. He had mentioned that they were going to offer a DVR at a reduced monthly rate that you couldn't FF through commercials. I haven't heard that they have ever implemented this, but from the sound of that article, it may happen soon.

Just a suggestion, to make your posts easier to read, you might want to make a few paragraphs as I did above. Some readers will skip a post if it looks too long.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

Hmmm .. I suspect if folks are forced to watch commercials .. well, let's just say the Netflix model would become much more attractive. Just wait a few months and watch it commercial free.

Or, worse (for the content providers) folks will simply move on to some other form of Entertainment. People that don't want to be captive .. won't be captive.


----------



## Mike Bertelson (Jan 24, 2007)

Doug Brott said:


> Hmmm .. I suspect if folks are forced to watch commercials .. well, let's just say the Netflix model would become much more attractive. Just wait a few months and watch it commercial free.
> 
> Or, worse (for the content providers) folks will simply move on to some other form of Entertainment. People that don't want to be captive .. won't be captive.


I've trying to envision a model where we are forced to watch commercials and I can't come up with one that has a chance of success.

First any on demand system that becomes the first run showing can't really happen without the service providers playing along. Not to mention those that still rely on OTA. Who would those people be forced to watch commercials.

I can't believe an on demand model can possibly work. Even if it's tried I'm sure there would be some service or device that will be the "next transition" in recording what we watch that will allow us to bypass commercials.

I do find myself wondering what will become of TV if ad revenues drop because we're all skipping commercials.

Mike


----------



## bidger (Nov 19, 2005)

I purchased my first DVR in Oct. 2000, a 14 hr. TiVo, so I've been doing this for a decade now. The idea of having this functionality, which I've had to pay a premium for btw, taken away from me is sickening. And to hear some network yokel call it a "transitional" technology...please. VOD has never been a big deal to me. If a company starts limiting my choices, then they limit the chances I stay with them.


----------



## Mike Bertelson (Jan 24, 2007)

In my case, with 6Mb/sec DSL, on demand is not my preferred way to watch anything. I use it very rarely because I usually can’t start watching in real time. I have to record on demand to the DVR. How would that network nitwit keep me from skipping his commercials then?

Mike


----------



## HerntDawg (Oct 6, 2008)

If I am watching live TV I usually watch 2 or 3 shows at once and switch between them during commercials.


----------



## Gloria_Chavez (Aug 11, 2008)

The DVR has enabled networks to charge a HUGE premium for time-sensitive programs, mainly sports but also water-cooler programs like Dancing w/ Stars. With DVR in about 38% of US households, the network airing the SuperBowl will continue to ask for and receive significant increases for a 30-second spot, year after year.


----------



## DawgLink (Nov 5, 2006)

As others have said, I have been steering away from TV more and more the last few years. Don't get me wrong, I still love me some sports and some TV shows on my DVR....but it is significantly less than I used to.

Over the years, I have found the absurd amount of commercials to just become an annoyance than anything....I feel at times that I am watching half show and half commercials in an hour show tonight....which just blows my mind that we can be forced near half the time to be watching commercials. 

I do not have an issue with commercials on the whole....but the thought of them taking control away from the consumer with commercials is really a bit scary. I would not be shocked one bit to then see us watching MORE commercials then show if these forced ads are seen....and I am sure it wont be at first as the networks would know that there would be a big backlash at first....but eventually


----------



## Packersrule (Sep 10, 2007)

I don't watch any commercials and never will. I don't like TV enough to watch anything with commercials. I also have Sirius so I don't hear radio commercials. My wife gives me a hard but it's better then commercials. 

I have stopped buying DVD because they won't let skip the commercials. 

I will not watch commercials - not ever - I also block all ads on websites. 

It's funny because people say did you see that commercial - and I have no idea what they are talking about. I have found that you can't tell if it live or 2 hours delayed.


----------



## Groundhog45 (Nov 10, 2005)

Don't you just love the line "give the consumer the ability to watch shows any way they want to and to do so in a way that is much more advertiser-friendly." Especially the phrase "advertiser-friendly." They may as well say "consumer-unfriendly." This would really suck if they find a way to force the providers to screw us this way.


----------



## Aridon (Mar 13, 2007)

All this would do is push people to pc based systems with ir and no such limitation. Perhaps even torrents and ditch their provider all together. Component video is just as good as hdmi. Hdmi has also been cracked so either way they lose.


----------



## shadyridr (Jan 25, 2007)

> Poltrack said the DVR will be supplanted by streaming and VOD that will "*give the consumer the ability to watch shows any way they want to *and to do so in a way that is much more advertiser-friendly."


Isnt that what the DVR does?


----------



## zimm7778 (Nov 11, 2007)

If this happens and DVR's become obsolete, or wont allow fast forwarding through commercials I'll just go back to a standard box and stop watching nearly every program I currently watch on network TV. Then in the instances I would have watched the show as it aired because nothing else was on they will lose me seeing the commercials at all.


----------



## jaywdetroit (Sep 21, 2006)

Joe Diver said:


> If you force your advertising at me against my will, I will never, ever buy your product under any circumstance, and I will encourage everyone I know to do the same.


+1

I stopped watching TV in 1990. I missed the whole Seinfeld era. I didn't start watching TV again until I had a TIVO around 2001 or 2002.

My children are not permitted to watch commercials. They lose TV privileges if I catch them doing so.

If I am "forced" to watch commercials. My Tivo, and my Cable service will be flushed down the toilet. I've done it before, and I will do it again. There is absolutely nothing on that box I can't live (happily) without....

The networks are suffering from delusions of grandeur. I think they are over-estimating their power in the new IP world. I'm not saying they are powerless, they still have it. But it certainly is no longer absolute.


----------



## Mike Bertelson (Jan 24, 2007)

shadyridr said:


> Isnt that what the DVR does?


Except for the "more advertiser-friendly" part, sure. 

Mike


----------



## jpl (Jul 9, 2006)

Not to throw cold water on all this, but the article is speculative. These guys are looking at where things are going. They have no ability to force cable companies from stopping people from having DVRs. That's just silly. Yeah, they COULD eventually push cable/dbs providers from being able to skip commercials on stuff that's recorded, but there are independent DVR brands out there. How do they push something like that with TiVo, e.g.? I don't see how you could. You can do it with a cable company because the content providers pen carriage deals with these cable/dbs companies, and such a restriction could be put in as part of such a contract.

What the article is really talking about is stuff happening from the consumer end... that consumers will, over time, use VOD more and more, and DVR less and less. I think there's SOME validity to that. Verizon offers up their network shows for free on demand. As a result, I don't record many of the ones I watch - I just catch them on demand. Yeah, there's the issue of shows turning over, but that's more of a restriction coming from the content providers than anything. For example, Showtime requires that all episodes from the current season be carried all season long on demand. So I could, at the end of the season, go back and watch every episode of Dexter if I wanted. Other providers turn over things much more quickly... and some NEVER turn things over.

This article, like I said, is talking about what is seen as a trend that's pulled from consumers... not pushed by content providers. As for the commercial skipping... that's disabled today, on demand, with many shows. ABC and NBC do that now. It doesn't bother me too much mainly because the breaks are short - 30 seconds each. The shows on demand don't last the full hour - they only last about 45 minutes as a result. So not being able to skip over them really isn't a big deal. It will be if they extend those commercial breaks. It would be nice, though, if they allowed me to rewind on those feeds, which I can't do either.

Other providers, btw, don't prevent skipping of commercials on these shows mainly because they charge you to watch the episode. Verizon doesn't, so to make up for it, they don't let you skip the commercials.

BTW, if the content continues to expand on demand, I have to agree with the article... I can easily see why someone would just give up a DVR altogether. They do need to make some functional enhancements, though. I would love for them to provide a 'series manager' of sorts for VOD. One reason I still record some shows is because... I don't know when a new episode has aired. If you could give me functionality that puts a VOD show on my 'newly aired list' - like a recorded list on your DVR - then I would gladly get rid of just about all my series, and use my DVR for special one-off recordings. The idea of spending less on the hardware every month would be a nice to have... especially since VOD is available from every STB in the house... and I don't have to worry about setting up a recording.


----------



## tonyd79 (Jul 24, 2006)

"jpl" said:


> As for the commercial skipping... that's disabled today, on demand, with many shows. ABC and NBC do that now. It doesn't bother me too much mainly because the breaks are short - 30 seconds each.


That is why I mentioned the 30 second commercials rather than the big commercial block. I didn't invent it. I got it from abc.com, hulu and on demand.


----------



## Lee L (Aug 15, 2002)

jpl said:


> Not to throw cold water on all this, but the article is speculative. These guys are looking at where things are going. .


Actually, it sounds more like it is their pipe dream they wish would happen. The thing is VOD has been advertised as "coming soon" since I was a little kid in the 70s. The entertainment companies would love to have you pay to watch every single thing and VOD would enable that. The problem is, some people came up with the idea for the DVR right about the time that VOD could have really been technically possible and it messed up Hollywood's grand plans to rape us all by taking all the early adopters who were the initial target audience for VOD. Now they are just trying to steer us back.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

Force-feeding commercials is a sure way to reduce the audience size. Smart Marketers have simply made brands a part of the actual show rather than a side-attraction. Product placement stinks in a way, but a good example of it's use is on Bones where Toyota is prominent. The Sequoia usually gets some good shots during each episode (about 3-5 seconds long) and occasionally they say something like "Hey, I like you're new Camry."

Those types of placements fit right inline with the story and really seems like the long-term way to go.


----------



## RACJ2 (Aug 2, 2008)

HerntDawg said:


> If I am watching live TV I usually watch 2 or 3 shows at once and switch between them during commercials.


I do that too and its a good way to skip commercials for live TV. If they change the DVR's so you can't FF through recorded content, that concept doesn't work. I guess you could switch to an OTA feed or second receiver feed during commercials. Then switch back to your DVR when the commercial ends.


----------



## Herdfan (Mar 18, 2006)

This is going to be a little like putting the Genie back in the bottle. Per the figure that 40% now have DVR's, that number will surely increase before anything can be done. And once you have a DVR, you don't want to go back to the old way. So the networks will be trying to swim upstream and pissing of their customers.

Won't help the providers either. People still blame DirecTV for the 24-hour rule even though the content owners require it. (Granted, DirecTV could stand up for their customers and tell the content owners to go pound sand). So how mad do you think customers will be if one day the DirecTV DVR won't FF through commercials. Hate to be a CSR that day.


----------



## HerntDawg (Oct 6, 2008)

Packersrule said:


> I don't watch any commercials and never will. I don't like TV enough to watch anything with commercials. I also have Sirius so I don't hear radio commercials. My wife gives me a hard but it's better then commercials.
> 
> I have stopped buying DVD because they won't let skip the commercials.
> 
> ...


I like that I have some clue about some commercials, but like that I can skip most of them.


----------



## Barmat (Aug 27, 2006)

jpl said:


> Yeah, they COULD eventually push cable/dbs providers from being able to skip commercials on stuff that's recorded, but there are independent DVR brands out there. How do they push something like that with TiVo, e.g.? I don't see how you could. You can do it with a cable company because the content providers pen carriage deals with these cable/dbs companies, and such a restriction could be put in as part of such a contract.


The FCC could care less about the consumer that's how. I'm sure they could mandate some rule that bans skipping commercials making any one that does it a pirate and liable to heavy fines.


----------



## Mike Bertelson (Jan 24, 2007)

Barmat said:


> The FCC could care less about the consumer that's how. I'm sure they could mandate some rule that bans skipping commercials making any one that does it a pirate and liable to heavy fines.


That makes littles sense to me. The Supreme Court already ruled that recording programs for later viewing is "fair use" of copyrighted content. Are you trying to say the FCC has the authority to ban FW/RW buttons on a DVR? I seriously doubt that; not to mention that any such regulation would be completely unenforceable.

Mike


----------



## tonyd79 (Jul 24, 2006)

Barmat said:


> The FCC could care less about the consumer that's how. I'm sure they could mandate some rule that bans skipping commercials making any one that does it a pirate and liable to heavy fines.


Really? I guess that is why the FCC said that Comcast had to offer CSN Philly to satellite providers. Because they are so anti-consumer. Or why they mandated cable card access for Tivos and other devices.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

MicroBeta said:


> DVR's...a transitional device...really?


Transitional until they move to a delivery model that allows them to enforce their commercials.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

tonyd79 said:


> I guess that is why the FCC said that Comcast had to offer CSN Philly to satellite providers.


And how did that turn out?


> Or why they mandated cable card access for Tivos and other devices.


Hasn't CableCard as we know it essentially been forsaken?

Making nice with the fat cats in Congress is all well and good, but if it doesn't yield a functional long-term solution that everyone buys into, are they really operating in the public interest?

To be widely adopted, whatever they come up with will have to apply to all carriers including satellite (DBS and otherwise) and IPTV.


----------



## jpl (Jul 9, 2006)

Lee L said:


> Actually, it sounds more like it is their pipe dream they wish would happen. The thing is VOD has been advertised as "coming soon" since I was a little kid in the 70s. The entertainment companies would love to have you pay to watch every single thing and VOD would enable that. The problem is, some people came up with the idea for the DVR right about the time that VOD could have really been technically possible and it messed up Hollywood's grand plans to rape us all by taking all the early adopters who were the initial target audience for VOD. Now they are just trying to steer us back.


My point is that this is something that really can't be 'pushed'. They can try, but there will be push back. The article is making a statement (as I read it) that over time users will PULL in this direction. As VOD offerings become greater, and as the technology improves, users will move, voluntarily, away from DVRs and more toward VOD. I think there is some validity to this. I would love it if all my shows were available on demand. Imagine not having to worry about whether your show will actually record... that you even remember to set it up to record. That you don't need a DVR on a TV to access a 'recording'.

I do dispute your history, though. I don't think it was hollywood that drove all this. Comcast in particular, and other cable companies in general, saw a great future in VOD. They pushed very heavily for it - even before DVRs became ubiquitous. It was DirecTV that almost single-handidly made the DVR ubiquitous. I know that seems like a stretch, but I don't believe it is. DirecTV countered Comcast's VOD with the TiVo enabled DirecTV DVR. Consumers ate it up - at the time Comcast's technology wasn't really there for VOD. Now it is. Not only that, content providers are starting to line up with offering VOD (not only was hollywood not the driver with VOD, I would argue that they were late to the game - they only jumped on the bandwagon after it had taken off).

If they can expand the offerings on demand, I think there really will be a push in that direction. Cable companies see it - Verizon is currently rolling out a s/w release that will allow them to seriously scale up their VOD offerings. They're talking about offering titles numbering in the 6 and even 7 digit range.

One last last point on this. If I scroll through my on demand menu I see something interesting - a whole bunch of 'channels' that have no linear equivalents. Why would that be? Because it's dirt cheap to offer up a VOD only channel - certainly a hell of alot cheaper than offering up a linear channel. It also allows for expansion of offerings beyond the issue of bandwidth - if you don't have to carry a channel linearly, there's no issue with the channel taking up bandwidth.


----------



## jpl (Jul 9, 2006)

tonyd79 said:


> That is why I mentioned the 30 second commercials rather than the big commercial block. I didn't invent it. I got it from abc.com, hulu and on demand.


Yep... that's right. The biggest annoyance with those commercials isn't the fact that you can't ffwd through them. It's that the commercials are so damn repetitive. In one broadcast they'll run the same damn commercial (actually 'commercial' isn't right - for the most part they use the space for promos of other shows... not commercials) over and over and over again. I end up just muting the tv during those commercials. Oh, and the fact that I can't rewind is particularly annoying too.


----------



## tonyd79 (Jul 24, 2006)

harsh said:


> And how did that turn out?


Comcast is still challenging it. It isn't over yet. But how does the fact that the FCC has to go through the legal process have anything to do with their INTENT to be customer friendly in the CSN/satellite dispute.

And it turned out thus far the same way that the Fox RSNs turned out on YOUR provider of choice.



harsh said:


> Hasn't CableCard as we know it essentially been forsaken?


Again, what does that have to do with an attempt to do something for the consumer, which was the point of my post. I know a lot of people (myself included) who got YEARS of use out of cable cards that the cable companies didn't want to offer but had to because of the FCC.


----------



## jpl (Jul 9, 2006)

tonyd79 said:


> Comcast is still challenging it. It isn't over yet. But how does the fact that the FCC has to go through the legal process have anything to do with their INTENT to be customer friendly in the CSN/satellite dispute.
> 
> And it turned out thus far the same way that the Fox RSNs turned out on YOUR provider of choice.
> 
> Again, what does that have to do with an attempt to do something for the consumer, which was the point of my post. I know a lot of people (myself included) who got YEARS of use out of cable cards that the cable companies didn't want to offer but had to because of the FCC.


Not to nitpick, but Comcast isn't appealing the decision... but CableVision is. Your point still holds, though. The FCC gives a period of time to appeal decisions made by its board. That doesn't mean that they didn't push for said changes. They're just giving parties affected the ability to appeal the decision. I do think the appeal has gone on alot longer than it should have - or maybe that period is over, and the FCC is just dragging its feet on implementation of the closing of the loophole. I'm not sure which.


----------



## markrubi (Oct 12, 2006)

Why not just make a 24 hr commercial channel? Directv could go to advertisers with this and make $$$$. We will show your commercial XX time within 24 hrs for 2 pennies per sub we have.


----------



## digitalfreak (Nov 30, 2006)

MicroBeta said:


> I do find myself wondering what will become of TV if ad revenues drop because we're all skipping commercials.
> 
> Mike


Honestly, I could care less. If TV disappears because of commercial skipping, I'll find something else to occupy my free time.


----------



## tonyd79 (Jul 24, 2006)

jpl said:


> Not to nitpick, but Comcast isn't appealing the decision... but CableVision is. Your point still holds, though. The FCC gives a period of time to appeal decisions made by its board. That doesn't mean that they didn't push for said changes. They're just giving parties affected the ability to appeal the decision. I do think the appeal has gone on alot longer than it should have - or maybe that period is over, and the FCC is just dragging its feet on implementation of the closing of the loophole. I'm not sure which.


Ah, thanks for the correction.


----------



## tonyd79 (Jul 24, 2006)

markrubi said:


> Why not just make a 24 hr commercial channel? Directv could go to advertisers with this and make $$$$. We will show your commercial XX time within 24 hrs for 2 pennies per sub we have.


You'd be surprised how much viewing it would get.

Americans aren't anti commercial. We talk about them all the time. What ones are good, what are bad. We watch the Super Bowl FOR the commercials.

We just want to detemine when we watch them and when we do not.


----------



## Mike Bertelson (Jan 24, 2007)

markrubi said:


> Why not just make a 24 hr commercial channel? Directv could go to advertisers with this and make $$$$. We will show your commercial XX time within 24 hrs for 2 pennies per sub we have.


Since then network is the one producing the show that they're selling ad time to pay for that production, that wouldn't really work.

Mike


----------



## tonyd79 (Jul 24, 2006)

harsh said:


> Hasn't CableCard as we know it essentially been forsaken?


Are you ever right?

http://www.engadget.com/2010/10/14/the-fcc-changes-the-cablecard-rules-but-not-dramatically/


----------



## DodgerKing (Apr 28, 2008)

tonyd79 said:


> Are you ever right?
> 
> http://www.engadget.com/2010/10/14/the-fcc-changes-the-cablecard-rules-but-not-dramatically/


Seldom. On the other site he, a Dish sub, posted in the Direct forum that we are not getting a free preview of LP even though others, whom have Direct, said we are and I posted screen captures proving it.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

tonyd79 said:


> Are you ever right?


Often.

You'll note that I said "as we know it".

You may also recall that more than a few big-name carriers don't fully support all of their offerings using CableCARD alone and have been working with hardware manufacturers on outboard SDV solutions, Tru2Way, DCAS and other "next generation" technologies.

The FCC's October order changes how existing CableCARD deployment is handled by the carriers by allowing them to use STBs that don't have CableCARDs themselves (reversing a 2007 order intended to spur things on), allowing customers greater ability to self-install and transfer their CableCARDs and mandating more transparent pricing for the CableCARDs themselves. Even at that, the October order stopped sort of applying to programming that isn't "pre-scheduled" (on demand). These are not bold moves.

From the Wikipedia CableCARD page, we see that out of the 14,000,000 CableCARDs deployed by June 2009, only 437,800 were installed in consumer's equipment.


----------



## BennyGregg (Jul 17, 2009)

HerntDawg said:


> If I am watching live TV I usually watch 2 or 3 shows at once and switch between them during commercials.


This would be easy for them to fix... just make it impossible to change channels during a commercial!


----------



## tonyd79 (Jul 24, 2006)

harsh said:


> Often.


Gee, wrong again.


harsh said:


> You'll note that I said "as we know it".
> 
> You may also recall that more than a few big-name carriers don't fully support all of their offerings using CableCARD alone and have been working with hardware manufacturers on outboard SDV solutions, Tru2Way, DCAS and other "next generation" technologies.
> 
> The FCC's October order changes how existing CableCARD deployment is handled by the carriers by allowing them to use STBs that don't have CableCARDs themselves (reversing a 2007 order intended to spur things on), allowing customers greater ability to self-install and transfer their CableCARDs and mandating more transparent pricing for the CableCARDs themselves. Even at that, the October order stopped sort of applying to programming that isn't "pre-scheduled" (on demand). These are not bold moves.





harsh said:


> From the Wikipedia CableCARD page, we see that out of the 14,000,000 CableCARDs deployed by June 2009, only 437,800 were installed in consumer's equipment.


Woooo. A wikipedia quote. And what does THAT have to do with the FCC standing by cablecards and by the consumer? Besides, I don't believe it. How do you deploy a cablecard that does not get used? What the heck does deploy mean?


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

tonyd79 said:


> A wikipedia quote. And what does THAT have to do with the FCC standing by cablecards and by the consumer?


It has to do with how committed the FCC is to seeing that the promise of CableCARD is fully realized.


> Besides, I don't believe it. How do you deploy a cablecard that does not get used? What the heck does deploy mean?


It means that subscribers are using CableCARDs installed in their cable company provided STBs at a ratio of almost 32:1 over those using them directly in their TVs, personal computers or late models TiVos as was originally intended.


----------



## Xsabresx (Oct 8, 2007)

Arent you getting the commercial info subliminally anyway? When you FF through a commercial you are still seeing it so you know what the product is.

I also agree that I have never bought a product based on a commercial, with one exception. Cars. Even then it was more the idea of "hey I need to check those out" and then of course do my own independent research.


----------

