# ABC wants "fast-forward" disabled



## frederic1943 (Dec 2, 2006)

While not on DirecTV yet this gives a glimpse of what the networks are trying to push through. They want all HD recording devices to recognize broadcast flags that disable the fast forward function.

Disney-ABC Television Group announced today a ground-breaking arrangement between ABC and its Affiliate Association which greatly expands the network's ability to make content available on an on-demand basis through cable, DBS and Telco distributors. The agreement allows local affiliates to participate in the "fast-forwarding disabled" VOD offering through local advertising sales opportunities.

The full press release is here:
http://www.thefutoncritic.com/news.aspx?id=20080225abc01


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

VOD and DVR live broadcasts are two very different things.

VOD via the internet, is almost 100% entire subsidized via internet advertisement.


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

I'm not quite sure where to put this but from here:


> ABC will provide programming to satellite, telco and land-line operators who agree to disable the "fast-forwarding" capability.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

At first I thought this was on the normal network broadcast, but this is for Video on Demand. I have mixed feelings here .. Personally I'd rather pay a nominal fee OR be unable to FF through the commercials. I'd likely pay as much as $1.99 for an episode of some shows.

The good news is that most everything I watch I would already have recorded, so even if I did have to watch a VOD show with commercials it would not be that bad. It will be troubling if I cannot FF through commercials on normal recordings. That might be enough to make me either stop watching TV or go back to a VCR .. I guess for me commercial skipping trumps HD .


----------



## JLucPicard (Apr 27, 2004)

I've gone to CBS.com to view some episodes of "Jericho" and other shows, and they all had advertisements that you could do nothing to avoid - not FF or anything.

As long as they don't mess with my DVR, I can't be upset about it.


----------



## Pink Fairy (Dec 28, 2006)

I had to watch the last episode of Kid Nation at the website for that particular station - and OMG, the commercials were SOOOO annoying!


----------



## jhollan2 (Aug 31, 2006)

Just the FF ability??? Does that mean I cant rewind if I miss something or speed through what I already saw? Come on, ABC, thats just annoying. 

Perhaps its time we start moving back into product placement as advertising rather than forcing viewers to give up a convenience that is widely loved.


----------



## Mark Holtz (Mar 23, 2002)

If they implement this, then Darth Maus has essentially _Lost_ anoither viewer. As I see things, I watch only _Lost_ on ABC. I'm sure that I watch a few more programs on ABC-owned cable networks (but I don't watch E$PN).

Don't the networks realize that the more they alienate the viewer, the more the viewer will go elsewhere for the content? Gee, why should I watch an entire season of a show now over several months when I can easily watch the DVD set over several evenings?


----------



## apexmi (Jul 8, 2006)

phrelin said:


> I'm not quite sure where to put this but from here:


they can keep it then....:lol:


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

The link indicates that this is for Video on Demand .. There is no mention of this being required/requested for your prime time shows.


----------



## Drew2k (Aug 16, 2006)

To me, the price of not fast-forwarding some commercials in some On Demand content is worth it if it makes available dozens of old series that I would otherwise never see again.


----------



## frederic1943 (Dec 2, 2006)

Right now it's only on VOD but all the networks are trying to get it for all HD broadcasts with Broadcast Flags.

A broadcast flag is a set of status bits (or a "flag") sent in the data stream of a digital television program that indicates whether or not the data stream can be recorded, or if there are any restrictions on recorded content. Restrictions include the inability to save an unencrypted digital program to a hard disk or other non-volatile storage, inability to make secondary copies of recorded content (in order to share or archive), forceful reduction of quality when recording (such as reducing high-definition video to the resolution of standard TVs), and inability to skip over commercials.

In the United States, new television receivers using the ATSC standard were supposed to incorporate this functionality by July 1, 2005, but a federal court struck down the Federal Communications Commission's rule to this effect on May 6, 2005. The stated intention of the broadcast flag was to prevent copyright infringement, but many have asserted that broadcast flags interfere with the fair use rights of the viewing public.

It is possible that a higher court may overturn this ruling, or the United States Congress may grant such authority to the FCC. Some of the major U.S. television networks have stated in the past that they will stop broadcasting high-definition content if the rule does not go into effect.


----------



## SteveHas (Feb 7, 2007)

this will be me out then.
If they start controling my equipment, I will pull the plug on any DBS service, and go with an antenna.
Watch movies on BR.
I won't pay monthly to have someone control me like that.


----------



## Drew2k (Aug 16, 2006)

frederic1943 said:


> Some of the major U.S. television networks have stated in the past that they will stop broadcasting high-definition content if the rule does not go into effect.


Source please? I would be interested in reading more about this.


----------



## Drew2k (Aug 16, 2006)

SteveHas said:


> this will be me out then.
> If they start controling my equipment, I will pull the plug on any DBS service, and go with an antenna.
> Watch movies on BR.
> I won't pay monthly to have someone control me like that.


The article in the first thread is only about *ABC's On-Demand offerings*, through which the commercials would serve as income for ABC letting them offer the content for free. (The thread title should really be renamed to mention this, because everything else is just FUD.)


----------



## bicker1 (Oct 21, 2007)

In the end, something has to give. They're not providing us programming for fun. They're doing so for profit. I hate how this would affect my television viewing, but how the heck are they supposed to pay the cost of the shows, much less make a healthy profit on them, if folks don't watch the commercials? 

Personally, I'd prefer to see every show available, commercial free, via Netflix, the week the show is first broadcast. Let's pay for our television directly, by the hour, instead of by watching commercials.


----------



## Drew2k (Aug 16, 2006)

From another article (MSNBC, bold emphasis mine):



> Under the deal, local affiliates will be able to sell one 30-second ad on the content, while ABC will sell from four to nine other commercials to national advertisers.
> 
> That amounts to *two to five minutes of commercials for an hourlong program*, compared with 17 minutes or more for a show on regular TV, Hobson said.


To me, five minutes of commercials for an hour of free On-Demand that I can watch on my TV is acceptable.


----------



## bicker1 (Oct 21, 2007)

Me too. That's really good news, assuming it sticks. Expect it NOT to... expect that the 2-5 minutes will quickly come to mean 5 minutes, and that will slowly increase over the years.

I also expect the 5 minutes to be front-loaded, with practically no commercials in the second-half of the program and none at the end.


----------



## Lee L (Aug 15, 2002)

Drew2k said:


> Source please? I would be interested in reading more about this.


Check over at AVSForum from a few years (4 maybe?)back. The network was CBS, but they backed down pretty quickly and continued broadcasting HD with no changes.


----------



## tcusta00 (Dec 31, 2007)

We can't have our cake and eat it too! I'd gladly accept a few minutes of commercials for this option. I think some folks don't understand that TV isn't free to make and you need to pay the piper somehow.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

Lee L said:


> Check over at AVSForum from a few years (4 maybe?)back. The network was CBS, but they backed down pretty quickly and continued broadcasting HD with no changes.


But was this for Video on Demand or was this for regular network programming?


----------



## Nick (Apr 23, 2002)

JLucPicard said:


> As long as they don't mess with my DVR, I can't be upset about it.


That is such a typical _'don't rock the boat'_ response -- like those short-sighted Amercans
who would willingly give up their privacy and freedoms to the government in exchange for
the false illusion of greater security.

Don't you realize that by blocking our ability to control online video and VOD/DOD it's
just the _first_ step in taking away our freedoms and ability to control your own tv viewing?
If we don't stand up today and aggressively fight this greedy corporate attempt to
encroach on our viewing pregogatives, eventually we will be forced back to the 1970s
and 1980s, where we watched only live tv without any ability to FF, REW or Pause.

Is that really what you want?


----------



## bills (Nov 7, 2002)

the networks don't like it that people skip there advertisements,the want to force you to watch.


----------



## tcusta00 (Dec 31, 2007)

Nick said:


> That is such a typical _'don't rock the boat'_ response -- like those short-sighted Amercans
> who would willingly give up their privacy and freedoms to the government in exchange for
> the false illusion of greater security.
> 
> ...


So you think that these companies don't deserve to make money and you should use their product for free? That's a little shortsighted, too.


----------



## Lee L (Aug 15, 2002)

Doug Brott said:


> But was this for Video on Demand or was this for regular network programming?


For everything. Essentially, CBS threatened to stop doing all HDTV unless the broadcast flag was implemented IIRC. I think for OTA, it would have allowed one copy to be made and I do not remember anything to do with restricting FF, but I think it would have kept the programming from being moved or recorded on a PC and possibly limited teh time it could be kept.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

Please, let's not politicize this discussion.


----------



## Sirshagg (Dec 30, 2006)

bills said:


> the networks don't like it that people skip there advertisements,the want to force you to watch.


So are they going to chain me to the couch and force my eyes open and pointing towards the TV during commercials. I seem to remember in the old days before DVR's we would frequently leave the room during commercials.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

Lee L said:


> For everything. Essentially, CBS threatened to stop doing all HDTV unless the broadcast flag was implemented IIRC. I think for OTA, it would have allowed one copy to be made and I do not remember anything to do with restricting FF, but I think it would have kept the programming from being moved or recorded on a PC and possibly limited teh time it could be kept.


ABC is only talking about Video on Demand, so it's not quite the same thing as what CBS was attempting to do.


----------



## Nick (Apr 23, 2002)

Lee L said:


> For everything. Essentially, CBS threatened to stop doing all HDTV unless the broadcast flag was implemented...


IMO, CBS is quickly become irrelevant in the network HD programming arena.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

Nick said:


> IMO, CBS is quickly become irrelevant in the network HD programming arena.


Hey, there's always Survivor .. oh wait .. there not in HD .. Grrrr.


----------



## Lee L (Aug 15, 2002)

Doug Brott said:


> ABC is only talking about Video on Demand, so it's not quite the same thing as what CBS was attempting to do.


I agree, but I was merely trying to clarify another user's post. I even looked around in the AVS archives, but could not find anything. The best I could do was find a joke post from the end of January 2003 lampooning CBS over the threat. It is possible that Ken deleted all the threads about it once they rescinded their "request". Maybe since you are a mod, you can shoot Ken a PM over there and he can tell you about it.


----------



## frederic1943 (Dec 2, 2006)

Drew2k said:


> Source please? I would be interested in reading more about this.


Most of what I posted was copied from the Wikipedia article on "Broadcast Flags". Check out the References and External Links at the bottom of the page.

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

And here's a good discussion of FAQs:

http://bpdg.blogs.eff.org/archives/000148.html

.


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

I think the point here is:


> ABC already has a deal in place with Cox Cable to offer prime-time content on VOD in some markets with fast-forward disabled.


This is "the camel's nose under the tent" or whatever metaphor your prefer that involves "a situation where permitting some small undesirable situation will allow gradual and inexorable worsening." (from _Wikipedia_)

The convenient DVR's of our time have a built-in solution to one of the things that made the old video tape recorder inconvenient. In order to easily schedule recordings, it is tied to the signal carrier, be it cable or satellite, and tied in a number of other ways to the program provider. In other words, it really isn't yours. So to get the HD content on a hard drive, you have to let the real owner of your recorder control how you use it.

I can imagine the desirable alternative - a nice _*receiver independent*_ dedicated computer (with a hard drive) designed to record HD MPEG files received from two or more sets of component/optical cables and plus some HDMI plugs, which also has software to allow you to set up a schedule that somehow interfaces with your Zap2it listings guide. While there are recorders, so far they seem to be missing one or more features.

So we will have to settle or build our own....


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

If disallowing commercial FF's creeps into normal TV viewing I'll watch much fewer shows .. I suspect that will be true of most other folks as well. As a result a money grab may not work out so well and the studios have to be aware of this fact.

Ultimately the best choice is probably to have direct product placements and perhaps even directed commercial insertions .. something that we might even enjoy watching .. vs being force-fed silly commercials.

I'd hope that the content distributor (DIRECTV) would see this and at least provide some fight for it's customers.


----------



## tcusta00 (Dec 31, 2007)

But at the same time if we stop watching then their ad revenue drops and the quality of the programs suffers. Which end is going to give, the consumer or the provider? I think the delivery medium (DBS, Cable, FIOS) is in a tough spot since they're beholden to their customers and shareholders (not necessarily in that order) but they also want to be on good terms with the providers too - maybe not the major networks since they're "free" but at least the expanded channels.


----------



## Drew2k (Aug 16, 2006)

phrelin said:


> I think the point here is:
> 
> This is "the camel's nose under the tent" or whatever metaphor your prefer that involves "a situation where permitting some small undesirable situation will allow gradual and inexorable worsening." (from _Wikipedia_)


AKA the "Slippery Slope". And I hate those discussions.


----------



## bicker1 (Oct 21, 2007)

Nick said:


> Don't you realize that by blocking our ability to control online video and VOD/DOD it's just the _first_ step in taking away our freedoms and ability to control your own tv viewing?


Oh brother.



Nick said:


> If we don't stand up today and aggressively fight this greedy corporate attempt to encroach on our viewing pregogatives, eventually we will be forced back to the 1970s and 1980s, where we watched only live tv without any ability to FF, REW or Pause. Is that really what you want?


What I want is less meaningful that what is right, and what is right, in a capitalist society like the United States, is for for-profit companies to do what is in the best financial interests of their owners.


----------



## bicker1 (Oct 21, 2007)

tcusta00 said:


> So you think that these companies don't deserve to make money and you should use their product for free? That's a little shortsighted, too.


And un-American.


----------



## bicker1 (Oct 21, 2007)

Doug Brott said:


> Please, let's not politicize this discussion.


Please remove all the political comments, going back to Nick's initial one.


----------



## Drew2k (Aug 16, 2006)

Doug Brott said:


> Please, let's not politicize this discussion.


Good idea, Doug.


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

Well, politics aside, I'm still going to try to build my own HD DVR that does everything I want. I'll finish it just in time for it to be useless because everything will require an HDMI 2.2 handshake designed by Sony media folks and incorporated in all new BluRay equipment licensed by Sony Consumer Products Group and adopted by all media producers to protect their digital rights.:lol:


----------



## Guest (Feb 27, 2008)

bicker1 said:


> What I want is less meaningful that what is right, and what is right, in a capitalist society like the United States, is for for-profit companies to do what is in the best financial interests of their owners.


What is right is federal regulation of these media giants to prevent them from trampling on the rights of individuals.


----------



## jhollan2 (Aug 31, 2006)

I have no problem with corporations making money. I also have no problem with advertising. What I DO have a problem with is placing conditions on a service that I am already paying for. On demand is not free - I pay directv monthly service fees, equipment fees etc. I would love to be able to watch a whole season of shows at once but NOT at the cost of having the networks control how I watch it.

Commercials have been the complaint of the television viewing public for as long as I've been alive. Instead of trying to force people to watch it, how about coming up with a new idea at advertising? I mean, come on, when is the last time one of those "sexy" car commercials convinced you to buy that car rather than another? Or how about the coke/pepsi wars? I like coke better than pepsi, a commercial isnt going to change my mind.


----------



## tcusta00 (Dec 31, 2007)

jhollan2 said:


> when is the last time one of those "sexy" car commercials convinced you to buy that car rather than another?


Last week, actually.


----------



## Drew2k (Aug 16, 2006)

Please see post #26 from a moderator.


----------



## bicker1 (Oct 21, 2007)

rcoleman111 said:


> What is right is federal regulation of these media giants to prevent them from trampling on the rights of individuals.


The rights of individuals is already well-protected. What we're discussing here has nothing to do with that. Believe it or don't, there is no "right to fast forward over commercials".


----------



## bicker1 (Oct 21, 2007)

jhollan2 said:


> I have no problem with corporations making money. I also have no problem with advertising. What I DO have a problem with is placing conditions on a service that I am already paying for.


First, you haven't paid for next month's service yet (or at least you haven't paid for the month after that, yet). You can get off the merry-go-round any time you'd like. Second, there is no promise, expressed or implied, that service offerings will not change. Indeed, there is a promise that service offerings WILL change over time.

There are no sacred cows. With the service specification in effect in most areas, you are never owed anything based what you've received before. You are only ever owed what you are explicitly promised, in regard to the things this thread is about.



jhollan2 said:


> Commercials have been the complaint of the television viewing public for as long as I've been alive.


Commercials are also the only reason why we get any high-quality entertainment whatsoever on broadcast television. Besides, complaints don't make something right or wrong. Talk is cheap. If people were really sincere about what they complain about, they'd cancel their subscriptions. Rather, people simply wish they could dictate BOTH sides of the commercial transaction. That, however, would be un-American.



jhollan2 said:


> Instead of trying to force people to watch it, how about coming up with a new idea at advertising?


Be careful what you wish for, because that is coming as well. You're going to see more and more advertising DURING the programs themselves, first as pop-ups, under, and then perhaps surrounding the action, and then also integrated into the action itself. The recent Knight Rider back-door pilot was an unabashed two-hour advert for Ford. There will be more of that. The more we try to avoid commercials, the more that prompts the folks who produce and distribute programming to have their creative choices driven by what will better sell products and services, because that is how they make their money.


----------



## Guest (Feb 27, 2008)

bicker1 said:


> The rights of individuals is already well-protected. What we're discussing here has nothing to do with that. Believe it or don't, there is no "right to fast forward over commercials".


And what fantasy world are you living in that you think the rights of individuals are "well-protected"? You probably believe the Digital Millenium Copyright Act was passed by popular demand, not because corporations have the money and political influence to buy whatever legislation protects their broken business model. Give me a break.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

Apparently I wasn't heard .. Please leave politics out of the discussion or this thread will be closed.


----------



## frederic1943 (Dec 2, 2006)

bicker1 said:


> The rights of individuals is already well-protected. What we're discussing here has nothing to do with that. Believe it or don't, there is no "right to fast forward over commercials".


Wasn't that in the Declaration Of Independence "All men shall be entitled to their right to use the remote as they see fit, free from wifely interference.":lol:


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

From Advertising Age:


> "Once you give consumers the toys, you really shouldn't take them away," said Jen Soch, vice president-activation director, advanced TV, at Publicis Groupe's MediaVest. "I'm afraid I wouldn't want to be the one that aggravates a consumer when they are used to TiVo and are using that to fast forward."


If I knew what ads they were responsible for, I'd watch them.


----------



## bicker1 (Oct 21, 2007)

rcoleman111 said:


> And what fantasy world are you living in that you think the rights of individuals are "well-protected"?


Not a fantasy world. The real world.



rcoleman111 said:


> Give me a break.


No, you give me a break. You're dissatisfied with reality. I'm sorry about that/for you. However, I won't apologize for our society, for our economic system, etc. I surely won't allow you to attack our way of life unrebutted.


----------



## bicker1 (Oct 21, 2007)

Doug Brott said:


> Apparently I wasn't heard .. Please leave politics out of the discussion or this thread will be closed.


I suspect that unless you remove the political statements or close the thread, people will continue to attack our way of life, and there is no way that I will allow that to happen without responding. You shouldn't allow such attacks on our way of life to remain unrebutted either.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

Sorry guys .. Thread closed.


----------

