backtop


Print E-mail del.icio.us 112 comment(s) - last by Toebot.. on May 12 at 10:31 PM

Analysts say other cable providers may follow suit

ABC and ESPN signed a deal with Cox Communications to offer video-on-demand broadcasts of hit TV series such as Grey's Anatomy, Desperate Housewives and sports events. However, Cox customers that subscribe to the new on-demand service will have their fast forward features disabled on PVRs.

The goal with the new program is to increase ad revenue, which broadcasters have been crying foul over since the dawn of PVRs like TiVo. ABC, ESPN and parent company Walt Disney Co. handed Cox the rules to abide by if Cox wanted to have access to hit programs. But Cox isn't showing any concern, and in fact welcomes the restriction. "We are excited about collaborating with Disney and using their great ABC and ESPN content to provide our customers with 'anywhere, anytime' access to content they value," said Cox president Pat Esser.

Reports say that Cox and Disney are still ironing out the details on what kind of ads will play, for how long and how often during a program. None of the above companies mentioned whether or not users will still be able to switch channels when a commercial pops up.

"This project is another example of how our digital strategy integrates into our overall business strategy," said Disney co-chair Anne Sweeney. "It provides consumers with more access to our hit programming while showcasing our continued dedication to working with our distribution and advertising partners to develop and grow viable multiplatform business opportunities."

DailyTech previously reported that Philips was hard at work on technology that would prevent TV viewers from skipping commercials entirely -- even from changing the channel. The technology would be embedded into mainstream PVRs and allow broadcasters and cable operators to lock a viewer into watching a commercial. Causing an uproar with consumers, Philips issued a response and indicated that the technology could be turned off by users -- somewhat beating the whole point of having anti-skip technology to begin with.

Ad-skipping is considered such a bane among broadcasters that even TiVo launched an entire division just for the sole purpose of ad research. TiVo said it wants to find out what commercials viewers are skipping, when, how often and why. The PVR pioneer hopes that advertisers will look to it when the time comes to develop new commercials.

If the deal between Cox, ABC and ESPN is fully realized, analysts say it would open the playing field for other content providers to demand the same restrictions on cable providers.

On the other hand, Microsoft is lobbying its own advertisement system and proposes that advertisers think differently about the changes in the IT world. The software giant says ads should be stored locally on a viewer's PVR rather than be embedded into a program. This way, broadcasters can pick and choose ads accordingly.


Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Then switch off.
By danskmacabre on 5/9/2007 6:42:52 AM , Rating: 5
An easy way around this problem, just switch off your TVs or just get rid of them.

I haven't watched TV for months now (got rid of it) and I'm happy for it.
TV programmes are mostly garbage anyway, just more and more reality programmes etc..




RE: Then switch off.
By AnnihilatorX on 5/9/2007 7:00:35 AM , Rating: 2
I am from UK.
I have not own a TV in our student accomodation.
We don't even have to pay for the TV liscensing fee which is US%800 a year

Funny thing is, the TV liscensing authority keep sending us mails like no one can live without TVs.


RE: Then switch off.
By AnnihilatorX on 5/9/07, Rating: 0
RE: Then switch off.
By danskmacabre on 5/9/2007 7:25:23 AM , Rating: 2
I'm also from the UK and yes, I still get threatening letters about not paying the license.
I keep on ringing them to tell them I don't wacth TV and they keep sending letters, the idiots.

Apparently at some stage they will send an inspector who will come around to verify it's true.

I guess they just can't possibly imagine poeple can live without TV, although about 2% of people in the UK do not watch TV and don't want to, which altough is a small % it is still significant.


RE: Then switch off.
By alifbaa on 5/9/2007 12:47:05 PM , Rating: 4
So if you don't have a TV, the government has the right to just come into your home and snoop around? It's laws like that that made us start shooting at you.


RE: Then switch off.
By jarman on 5/9/2007 1:02:35 PM , Rating: 2
No, I think that the UK government will only come into your house if you do not have a license for your TV and they believe that you are watching TV regardless. At least that was my understanding of it when I lived in North Yorkshire a couple of years ago...


RE: Then switch off.
By alifbaa on 5/9/2007 1:24:27 PM , Rating: 3
Right, so if your government decides that you must be lying, they have the right to search your home for the purpose of discovering a rogue TV and fining the resident. Aside from being a complete waste of government resources, it sounds a lot to me like an unreasonable search and seizure and an invasion of privacy.

In the US, if we had a similar system, the government would write us and ask us to confirm we did not have a TV. Once we say no, unless we authorize the search, they would have to obtain a warrant from a judge to search our home as part of a criminal investigation before they could come in.

I guess we just have different notions of the extent to which our governments can interfere in our private lives. I love my country and I have nothing to hide. Heck, I even work for the government, but that doesn't mean I want someone to come waltzing into my home uninvited to have a look around.


RE: Then switch off.
By mpc7488 on 5/9/2007 6:20:06 PM , Rating: 2
Actually, they don't enter your home at all. They have detection vans that drive up *outside* your house and use an omnidirectional antenna to try and pick up the local oscillator in the TV. Weird, huh? But they're not barging in to random homes in the UK.

The site's down at the moment, but the link is http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/information/tvdetecto...


RE: Then switch off.
By danskmacabre on 5/10/2007 3:32:34 AM , Rating: 2
They don't barge into people's homes, but if you want to be taken of teh register and stop getting threatening letters etc, you have to allow a TV liciensing inspector to come around your house and check it out to see if you have an aerial or whatever tv channel receiving equiment plugged in .


RE: Then switch off.
By Scrogneugneu on 5/9/2007 10:22:19 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Right, so if your government decides that you must be lying, they have the right to search your home for the purpose of discovering a rogue TV and fining the resident. Aside from being a complete waste of government resources, it sounds a lot to me like an unreasonable search and seizure and an invasion of privacy.


Totally.

He's suspected of having a TV. Going around privacy laws to enter the house of anybody on the sole base that he might hide a TV is utterly ridiculous. Can you believe it? They can just say "oh, we though you HAD a TV... sorry" afterwards, and everything is fine. Their government has the possibility to do whatever they want with their citizen's privacy! Their liberties aren't protected! How atrocious!

Aren't you glad that you live in the United States? It's SO totally different there! Your liberties are all protected... as long as the government doesn't decide to say you might be a terrorist.


RE: Then switch off.
By ergle on 5/10/2007 3:28:43 PM , Rating: 3
... except none of that can be done because they have no legal right to enter.

They can REQUEST entry, and you can, perfectly legally, refuse entry. Many won't refuse because they're ignorant of the law, but that's the same for the police -- they can request entry, but they can't demand it unless they have a warrant or a UK equivalent of "probable cause".


RE: Then switch off.
By ChristopherO on 5/9/2007 1:30:40 PM , Rating: 3
No offence to the Brits on this one, but that post was appropriately dry humor and quite funny.

I really admire England as a country and loved my visits, but however you slice it, they live in a big-brother society compared to the States. Everything is taxed through the wazoo, an $800 license to watch TV... Give me a break. What about people who watch DVDs exclusively? This is on top of their steep tax brackets, VAT, car license / congestion fees, etc, etc. It's amazing anyone has take-home pay once the British government is done with them.

Also, there was a recent study released and their society has become so full of cameras that there are something like 1 police camera for every 2 citizens -- granted that might have been just London proper... I was completely stunned by the article and can't quite recall all the facts.

I'm just happy I'm in a country that any attempt to do such a thing would be shot-down by congress or the courts at the very least. Heck, here in California the state revolted and moved to severely limit red-light cameras after people became incensed.

And to top it off, our violent crime statistics are generally lower than theirs, so I'm not sure what exactly their government is trying to accomplish by putting everyone on candid camera. It's a little bizarre... It makes me wonder if the average English citizen will ever look back and wonder "how the heck did this happen?"


RE: Then switch off.
By ChristopherO on 5/9/2007 1:35:26 PM , Rating: 2
To reply to myself... Someone else said the TV fee was a lot less than $800. Still, that's absurd. The cable concept works a whole lot better.

And another thing I remembered. I went to the T-Mobile UK site the other day (out of curiosity) and their cell rates are at least 2.5 times the cost of ours. Not to mention PlayStations are almost double... Crikey, I can't imagine how large a salary I'd need to have in order to live by the same standards I enjoy here in the States.


RE: Then switch off.
By Proteusza on 5/9/2007 1:38:04 PM , Rating: 2
The price of video games is a complete mystery to me and a real disappointment - you would think a first world country wouldnt have trade barriers etc.

I would like to know why games are double the price here, its really absurd.


RE: Then switch off.
By primerump on 5/9/2007 2:31:32 PM , Rating: 2
you wouldn't get that salary and nor would you live the same standards.... which is why I live in the states too.. :)


RE: Then switch off.
By Axbattler on 5/9/2007 5:24:15 PM , Rating: 2
The price is about £135, about $270. That's not even the highest in Europe. I have no idea where the $800 came from.
[Doesn't concern me since I do not have a TV either]

To be honest, I think that the UK mobile phone industry is relatively not that bad (at least compared to the video game industry which is a blatent rip off). There are a couple of differences between the US and UK: for a start, 24 months contract are unheard of here. The networks have been trying to push for 18 months contract in the recent years, but 12 months contracts are still common. The second thing is, exclusives aside (e.g. iPhone), the phones available over here do surprisingly tend be newer than the ones available in the States - and fairly heavily subsidised (except for Smartphones). The third thing is, you can get very aggressive rebates from retailers in the form of cashback. That sometime means 12 months worth of cashback.. in a 12 months contract and a free phone. That has got to be hard to beat even in the States. And once you've been with the network for 12 months, you can usually negotiate much better deal than those you see listed online (i.e. £8.50 a month with an 'average' phone with £90 cashback; which works to about £1 a month for quite a lot of off-peak minutes). I am not sure if it makes it cheaper than in the US, but I do highly suspect that it is not the most overpriced market in the UK (I may go as far as say to say that it's well priced).

There is one thing that the UK has over the US in terms of buying hardware. The 12 months warranty is standard. It definitely does *not* make up for the extra cost, but it is better than not having it (without paying extra - which you can of course if you want even longer warranty).

The strong £ is also advantageous when traveling (I am guessing that the weakening dollar is not doing American travelers a favour).

Not that this is not a UK > US or vice versa type of post. Countries are ran differently, and I do not doubt that the UK is far expensive than most countries on average.


RE: Then switch off.
By Proteusza on 5/9/2007 1:36:53 PM , Rating: 2
Violent crime statistics? Thought America was one of the worst in that regard.

We do get over taxed here in the UK though, the government wants a piece of everything.


RE: Then switch off.
By Totemic on 5/9/2007 3:34:56 PM , Rating: 2
I think the overall violent crime rate in the US is on par or slightly below other 1st world nations.

However, if you only compare the homicide rate, US is significantly higher (like 3 to 5 times higher).