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).


RE: Then switch off.
By Misty Dingos on 5/9/2007 4:57:28 PM , Rating: 3
Sorry there dude. Violent crime rate in the US compared to that of the UK is approximately five times lower. The UK has a population of about 60 million the US has a population of about 300 million. Violent crimes reported last year in the UK 1.2 million. Violent crimes reported in the US 1.4 million. You are about five times safer in the good ole, gun slinging, wild west living, crazy drinking USA.

Oh I was really surprised by the stats too.


RE: Then switch off.
By hubajube on 5/9/2007 7:05:35 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Oh I was really surprised by the stats too.
Wow! That IS surprising!


RE: Then switch off.
By Davelo on 5/9/2007 7:13:18 PM , Rating: 2
The key word being "reported". Here in the USA it's uncool to report violent crime.


RE: Then switch off.
By Totemic on 5/9/2007 10:11:15 PM , Rating: 2
Don't be too surprised.
Each country counts different crimes as part of that "violent crime" statistic, without properly adjusting those numbers, the results are highly skewed.

For example, in Canada, simple assault (assault involving no weapons and no bodily harm) is counted towards the violent crime statistic. Whereas in the US, the only assault that's counted are aggravated assault.

According to the Bureau of Justice, the rate of violent crime between the US and other 1st world nations are roughly on par (some lower, some higher). But the one part where the US jumps WAY out infront of other nations is the homicide rates.


RE: Then switch off.
By Misty Dingos on 5/10/2007 8:07:24 AM , Rating: 2
Breaking hearts again.

The important things to learn from the social experiments in the US and UK is this. In the US you can defend yourself against a criminal. In the UK you can not. The innate human right of self defense (yes I said Innate Human Right) is so eroded in the UK as to be essentially meaningless. I don't believe there is a police force vigilant enough and honest enough to keep me safe 100% of the time. Apparently that is the same thing that criminals are thinking in the UK. As exemplified by the rising crime rate in the UK and the falling crime rate in the US.


RE: Then switch off.
By ergle on 5/10/2007 4:07:17 PM , Rating: 2
I think one important thing to learn is that before we start sitting in judgment, we need to understand the statistics -- are they comparable? In this case, they're not.

For example, in the UK a "violent crime" includes "harassment where no physical harm or damage is done".

Not true of the US numbers.

So, comparing the crime rates by category (rather than specific well defined criminal acts) is apples to oranges.

One category that is easily defined and thus more comparable, however, is homicide -- and you are significantly more likely to die from crime in the US -- it has a murder rate per 100,000 that is approximately FIVE times that of the UK.

http://www.crimestatistics.org.uk/output/page40.as...

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/tables/total...

Finally, the UK crime rate is also falling.

http://www.crimestatistics.org.uk/output/page6.asp


RE: Then switch off.
By SGWB on 5/11/2007 7:14:42 PM , Rating: 2
This depends on what state you live in.

In Ohio, I can get a permit to carry a concealed weapon, but there are a host of locations I can't go while carrying it. Schools, banks, bars, government buildings, etc. Likewise, any sort of business can post a notice on the door prohibiting concealed weapons inside, and that is another place I couldn't carry without breaking the law.

So, while I could earn the privilege to exercise my 2nd amendment rights and carry the means to protect my life, anybody has the right to revoke my privileges to exercise my rights.

Also, in Ohio victims of violent crimes are required to attempt to flee before they are allowed to fight back. Only when there is no avenue of escape can someone legally defend themselves. Also, the defender can not be the person who started the confrontation in the first place. So, even if someone breaks into my house, I can not confront them to protect my property, and I am required to flee the home or attempt to retreat to another part of the house. Only if the perpetrator pursues and corners me can I legally defend myself.


RE: Then switch off.
By P4blo on 5/10/2007 12:13:28 PM , Rating: 2
Most of the incidents that might have been classed as 'violent crime' in America probably end up as homicide (or whatever) when the angry person decides to get their bog ol' six shooter out !

Hence the huge homicide figures. Why punch someone out of anger when you can blow their head off? Much more satisfying I guess. If he hadn't shot himself you could have asked that guy from Virginia Tech why he didn't just run around with a baseball bat committing violent crime on his college 'buddies'.


RE: Then switch off.
By Davelo on 5/9/2007 7:10:32 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah in the UK they have socialism and big brother. Here in California we have socialism and total anarchistic lawlessness where everyone wants to be free to run red lights. Which is worse?


RE: Then switch off.
By psychobriggsy on 5/10/2007 11:47:32 AM , Rating: 2
The £130 TV license (about $260, but assume that it would include tax if it were a subscription fee) is *just* about worthwhile to get the advertisement-free television and radio stations from the BBC.

Dunno why that guy wrote $800. Student accomodation still only requires a single license even if there are 10 students in the house - although I think that they should be covered under their parents' license just to stop the hassle.

If you don't have the capability to receive the BBC signal, you don't pay the license.

Now as for the tax rates, some of that is usefully spent, but a lot goes to government waste and feckless dole scum. Hopefully the next government will do something about this waste. As for CCTV, it's mostly used for after-the-crime identification, rather than crime prevention. Glad I'm not in a country where people want the right to run red lights unidentified.

We're two countries divided by a common language. People need to realise that. On the other hand we also need to kick this government to stop it combining the ingredients for a big brother state into a full working big brother state.


RE: Then switch off.
By Davelo on 5/9/2007 7:03:40 PM , Rating: 2
alifbaa,

Awesome post. So true!


RE: Then switch off.
By P4blo on 5/10/2007 12:06:56 PM , Rating: 2
Except it's not. Duh.


RE: Then switch off.
By crazydrummer4562 on 5/9/2007 7:31:41 PM , Rating: 2
That gets witty comment of the day. Well said.


RE: Then switch off.
By ergle on 5/10/2007 3:26:00 PM , Rating: 2
No. They have no right to enter your home.

They may ask to and most people will allow them out of ignorance of the law, but they can't actually enter.

Police with a warrant can enter, and customs and excise can enter -- but neither is involved in tv license enforcement.


RE: Then switch off.
By lindejos on 5/11/2007 7:48:53 PM , Rating: 2
They shouldn't even need to come into the house to see if you are watching cable. Unless you are looking at a completely optical system, the company should be able to see the load line terminations in most projection TVs.

Cable companies in the US used to be able to tell you that you were stealing cable and based on the capacitance of your TV make a good guess at what make and model you were stealing cable on.


RE: Then switch off.
By WizardMerlin on 5/9/2007 7:25:32 AM , Rating: 4
and they say educational standards aren't dropping? Since when was £135.50 = $800USD? Try more like $270.


RE: Then switch off.
By ergle on 5/10/2007 3:23:51 PM , Rating: 2
$800?

Er... no, it's not. I'm British and I DO pay it, and it's around $270-ish.


RE: Then switch off.
By Schadenfroh on 5/9/2007 9:24:00 AM , Rating: 2
I gave up TV for months, until I got a TiVo that has a 30 sec skip button, I NEVER watch commercials (fast forward) and the TiVo picks up the programs that I like (even if they come on at strange times), which there are many good shows on TV right now (like SuperNatural, Dexter, House (sometimes), The Dresden Files). If only HBO would bring back Carnivale, but nooo they give Big Love a new season instead. At least they us one last season of Rome.


RE: Then switch off.
By yacoub on 5/10/2007 3:14:34 PM , Rating: 2
You're not alone. Literally the only thing I've watched on TV since last Fall is '24' this Spring, and after how this season has gone downhill I will probably be completely free of all TV watching after this season ends in two weeks. That's one hour of TV a week, and that only during the season '24' airs.
I don't miss it. I especially don't miss the propaganda called news. I like to get my news without all the opinion thrown in, so the Internet news aggregators suffice for that.


TV Commercians are worthless
By BMFPitt on 5/9/2007 7:27:19 AM , Rating: 2
Has anyone ever seen a commercial for anything other than a movie or TV show and had it influence their buying decision?




RE: TV Commercians are worthless
By Mitch101 on 5/9/2007 9:15:01 AM , Rating: 1
Yes TIVO and REPLAY TV Commercials where I learned that those devices allowed me to skip commericals.

The problem is how crappy commercials are. 99% of them just dont entertain but bore or annoy you. Then they blame consumers for not wanting to watch them. There is a reason you dont fast forward over the Victoria Secret commercials or Budweiser commercials.

They also need to target the commercial with the program. If Im watching a suspense movie I dont think that is a good time for glade plug ins or the new pokemon movie. Comedy commericals with comedy TV.

However The best advertising I heard was to buy into the show itself. Where characters in the show would drink COKE instead of cans marked COLA which I find annoying. Apple computers could be on Queer Eye or Project Runway. And disposable douch commercials during Rush Limbah's show. Target the advertising with the show. But if any of them had a brain they would pay top dollar to be on animal planet. Everyone you know watches that channel even though its shark week some 50 weeks out of the year.


RE: TV Commercians are worthless
By edpsx on 5/9/2007 10:16:44 AM , Rating: 2
Anybody remember the Nissan Titan commercial they played during NFL games last year?(Iron Man song in the background) I swear if I have to see that commercial one more time! EVERY commercial break they played that thing, sometimes twice! Thank you Lord for DVR and fast forward.


RE: TV Commercians are worthless
By CKDragon on 5/9/2007 10:35:03 AM , Rating: 2
I'll see your annoying Nissan DVR guys and raise you a "THIIIIISSSS IIIIISSS OOOOOUUUUURRRR COOOOOUUUUUUUUUNNNNNTTRRRYYYYYY!!!"


RE: TV Commercians are worthless
By darkpaw on 5/9/2007 10:37:13 AM , Rating: 2
Damn I love Football, but its a commercial break every five minutes and the same damn commercials over and over.

If they are going to have commercials everytime there is even the slightest pause between plays they need to get a bigger variety of them.

And that commercial is friggen annoying.


RE: TV Commercians are worthless
By rklaver on 5/9/2007 11:22:40 AM , Rating: 2
I cannot watch football on TV, and no joke almost a commercial after every whistle blow pisses me off to the point I have to watch something else. I would much rather see them goofing off on the field, than watching a truck haul a bolder just because it can.


RE: TV Commercians are worthless
By Mitch101 on 5/9/2007 1:47:24 PM , Rating: 2
I think thats more CBS than FOX. I wrote a gripe a while back because of the same issue. CBS cut away to commercials so often and so much during the highlights of the games that I TIVO'd the rest of the game and watched it an hour later. I almost started not watching football games if they were on CBS.

If you want football at its best get a OTA sattelite feed and hit the local sat where the game is being broadcast from. You get the game entirely without commercial but on the down side you usually get it without the commentary from the announcers. On the plus side you get more Cheerleaders.


RE: TV Commercians are worthless
By lindejos on 5/11/2007 7:56:33 PM , Rating: 2
Remember this year during the Bowls when they cut away to Gerald Ford's stupid funeral?!?

The guy wasn't even really elected.

Besides SNL predicted every possible Gerald Ford death years earlier. "Gerald Ford: Dead today at the senseless age of 83."


RE: TV Commercians are worthless
By Asspollo on 5/9/2007 2:14:16 PM , Rating: 2
I've gotten used to watching football on Tivo, and now I can't stand watching it live either because of all the commercials and interruptions. I intentionally miss the first hour or two of a game so Tivo can build up a buffer. After skipping all the commercials, halftime, and sometimes fast forwarding between plays, I will have caught up with the live broadcast by the end of the game. I can watch a 3.5 hour game in less than 1 hour doing this.


RE: TV Commercians are worthless
By P4blo on 5/10/2007 12:43:05 PM , Rating: 2
You live in the land of the commercial people. Commercial breaks in the US are laughable. In the UK if we watch stuff like Voyager or whatever, we have these scene changes that were clearly designed for a drop to adverts, except we go straight back into a new scene. Whenever I see it I think, those poor bloody yanks! ROFL

Seriously, why do you put up with that crap? Does corporate America think you all have such short attention spans that you can only watch 7 minutes of a show before needing to have a break while people try to sell you another, house sized SUV?


RE: TV Commercians are worthless
By Torched on 5/10/2007 2:38:24 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
by BMFPitt on May 9, 2007 at 7:27 AM

Has anyone ever seen a commercial for anything other than a movie or TV show and had it influence their buying decision?


One question: What beer do you drink?


RE: TV Commercians are worthless
By zsouthboy on 5/10/2007 4:36:44 PM , Rating: 2
Of course commercials and, yes, all forms of advertising have no effect on people.

That's why companies spend millions of dollars a year on advertising. Because they don't work.

Right.

*everybody* thinks that advertising doesn't affect their buying decisions.

And we're wrong.


Can I get that job?
By Misty Dingos on 5/9/2007 7:51:15 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Ad-skipping is considered such a bane among broadcasters that even TiVo launched an entire division just for the sole purpose of ad research.


They added an entire division to their company to study this?! Now that is a great job. Sit around all day and keep telling the boss that you are still working on that whole skipping commercials thing. Send him some BS research each week. You know nice Power Point shows. God corporate America loves Power Point. Keep drawing a large paycheck and work on the resume, because this job is not going to last forever. These guys may put out a hit on me for this but here goes. Sorry about this Tivo Skipping Commercials Division guys and gals.

This isn’t rocket science. People watch TV because they want entertainment. Commercials are not entertaining thus they get skipped. Doesn’t anyone that makes commercials or TV programs even watch TV? Because unless you don’t or your brain is seriously miswired this is just not a hard problem, make the commercials entertaining and people will watch them. At least once.

If they try to force us to watch commercials in an age when zipping past them is the norm well all that will do is help kill TV as we know it. Which would not be a bad thing.

Oh one other thing. I live in America so this whole TV tax thing baffles me. Please one of you nice Brits please explain to me why you would let someone tax a TV? Do they tax your magazines and books too?




RE: Can I get that job?
By rtrski on 5/9/2007 9:28:17 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
People watch TV because they want entertainment. Commercials are not entertaining thus they get skipped. Doesn’t anyone that makes commercials or TV programs even watch TV? Because unless you don’t or your brain is seriously miswired this is just not a hard problem, make the commercials entertaining and people will watch them. At least once.


All of which is why they (advertisers) are also burying more and more 'product placement' into the shows themselves, to give you your 'entertainment' while at the same time advertising to you, subtly (they think). As much as I hate to think I'm being 'subliminally influenced' I'd rather put up with this than forced commercial breaks.

Of course this can go just as far if not further into overkill as commercials themselves (there was a scene in a recent movie, "The Last Mimzy", where they were doing an electron-microscope scan on a piece of future technology that ended up in the present, and zoomed in to see an "Intel" logo - ruined the entire movie right then and there for me despite being a fan of the source material short story). Anyone else notice how much radio DJs flog the 'product du jour' with 'real testimonials' ad nauseum, to the point where you can't take any of their 'banter' as just entertainment since it may as well be 100% scripted? Same thing. For months it was that "Body Solutions" weight loss crap, lately seems like its all flogging the biggest 'factory' Lasik provider in your major metropolitan area. TV is no different - at least 50% of the nightly local news is essentially advertising fluff anymore ("find out where the best deals are for your kid's school clothes...tonight at 9!!")

Personally I think it's going to get much worse before it gets better. TV entertainment has always been commercially sponsored - but the current generation of corporate mental evolution (by which I mean the evolution of the behavior of corporations as meta-organisms, not necessarily of the individuals therein) rewards those who squeeze more and more blood out of us turnips. When I consider what I pay simply for 'media/communication access' already (internet, cell phone, cable or satellite, the equipment costs for TV, occasional CDs or legal music downloads) it really pisses me off to be PAYING so damn much just to be "advertised at". But in all honesty while I'd pay a bit more (maybe as much as 25%) if I could kill the ads and get the entertainment I wanted more selectively (and have paid for certain shareware in that same vein, if useful) I'm probably not willing to pay for what it would really cost to get unsponsored entertainment, neither is everyone else.


RE: Can I get that job?
By BMFPitt on 5/9/2007 11:31:56 AM , Rating: 2
I just wish they were better at making it subtle. Sometimes it works well (i.e. energy drinks in Crank.) Sometimes it is scene-destroying (i.e. bottles of Pepsi taking up half the screen space in American Pie 2 at a party where everyone's drunk.)


RE: Can I get that job?
By MrPickins on 5/9/2007 1:53:43 PM , Rating: 2
One example I really thought was effective, yet not intrusive is the HP logo on the back of the monitors on "The Office".


RE: Can I get that job?
By bolders on 5/9/2007 9:29:23 AM , Rating: 4
Hi Misty

In the UK we are required to have a TV licence if we have any device that can receive over the air broadcasts e.g. TV, video recorder or computer etc. The monies from this licence are used to fund the BBC (British Broadcasting Corporation). The BBC provides a couple of analogue transmissions, some digital transmissions and some radio stations.

The BBC produces some great documentaries (I personally love the nature progs by David Attenborough), world renowned news reporting, period dramas and some really crap soaps, etc etc.

Many people in the UK do complain about having to buy a TV licence, even more so if they do not watch/listen to any BBC transmissions.
I personally feel the BBC is a great institution which sadly may loose its funding via the TV licence in the next few years. Although this will mean the TV licence will be scraped it will also result in the BBC becoming just another channel and will have to fund itself in the same way as other channels - through the use of adverts ?.

This IMO is what is great about the BBC, some great programs (some real rubbish too if soaps and reality TV are NOT your thing) abut NO ADVERTISMENTS. I feel that this is worth paying for.
I pay for my other TV services but I still get adverts. I can just about accept this as there are more channels available through my cable, but what I find really annoying and completely unacceptable is that they increase the volume of the adverts and then reduce the volume when your program returns - and they wonder why people don’t want to watch adverts……in fact I get great satisfaction skipping past them with my HTPC :D
sorry for the long post (but it is my first lol)
/end rant


RE: Can I get that job?
By rtrski on 5/9/2007 9:56:19 AM , Rating: 2
Yeah, that volume thing is a huge annoyance, isn't it? I'd probably be much more stoic about advertisements if they didn't think they had to SHOVE THEM IN MY EAR CANAL BECAUSE YELLING MEANS THEY MUST BE TELLING ME SOMETHING REALLY F***ING GREAT!!!

I've noticed that has dropped way back on the digital broadcasts - for a while the discrepancy wasn't so much 'on purpose' just to make you listen as it was the difference between a comfortable volume level for Dolby surround (the shows) vs. plain old stereo (the commercials). But more and more commercials have their sound encoded to match the programs and are even in HD if broadcast during HD airtime (or the station are doing a better job of balancing). Watching any of the 'analog' stations though I still notice a huge volume imbalance...


RE: Can I get that job?
By P4blo on 5/10/2007 12:17:29 PM , Rating: 2
Bane of my life. I watch Sky HD through a 5.1 DD AV Amp and I have to turn the frigging sound down EVERY time the adverts come on if it's late at night.


RE: Can I get that job?
By Misty Dingos on 5/9/2007 9:57:14 AM , Rating: 2
Thanks for that info Bolders,

Well that would place the BBC in the same category as NPR and Public TV here in the States. They are funded through a combination of taxes, public fund drives and corporate sponsorship.

I think that David Attenborough should do a nature documentary on Richard Attenborough. Follow him around filming him in his natural settings. Making movie deals, studio work and of course film parties. It would be hilarious.

I love how the NPR and Public TV guys tell you in one breath how there aren't any commercials on their programs then proudly annouce the next program is sponsored by corporations X, Y, and Z.


RE: Can I get that job?
By psychobriggsy on 5/10/2007 12:06:50 PM , Rating: 2
It's not a tax.

It's a mandatory license for TV owners that funds the BBC, and in return we get advertisement free television and radio. The downside is that there is no time to go for a slash during a long show.

In that respect it's like a subscription, except when you pay a subscription for cable or satellite they still stick adverts on the channels.


who needs tv
By bubbacub616 on 5/9/2007 7:43:13 AM , Rating: 3
if you have torrents who needs tv - i get all my shows (granted 2-3 hours after they air) in hd with no adverts - and my rss feed thingy in utorrent works so well i don't even have to remember to start the torrent. seriously apart from its dubious legality torrents>tv




RE: who needs tv
By darkpaw on 5/9/2007 8:49:07 AM , Rating: 2
Some people do prefer to follow the law. Download shows = illeagal. Thankfully skipping commercials isn't illeagal yet, but I'm sure they'd make it that way if they could.


RE: who needs tv
By darkpaw on 5/9/2007 8:51:48 AM , Rating: 2
God I hate having to use IE at work. I really miss FF spell checking. Sorry for the crappy spelling.


RE: who needs tv
By Noya on 5/9/2007 12:54:22 PM , Rating: 2
Of course it's illegal to download music/movies/etc., but is it really illegal to download broadcast (free) TV shows?


RE: who needs tv
By AstroCreep on 5/9/2007 1:51:31 PM , Rating: 2
Apparently, yes it is, because it goes beyond the scope of 'fair-use' and it's not isn't something that the IP-holder has approved of.
:(


RE: who needs tv
By darkpaw on 5/9/2007 3:13:10 PM , Rating: 2
Yup it is illegal. Fair use lets you record/reuse a broadcast for your personal enjoyment. It does not allow it to be shared with 1,000,000 of your closest online friends.


RE: who needs tv
By fic2 on 5/9/2007 2:44:14 PM , Rating: 2
I have a few friends that just wait until the season is at netflix. That way they get to watch it commercial free and in a week or two. Saw somewhere that just buying the DVD at the end of the season still saves you money vs time even if you only make minimum wage. Average U.S. show has 15 minutes of commercials per hour. I don't know how many episodes per season now, but seems like 22. You save 5.5 hours by just buying the complete season. If it is a half hour show it still saves you 2.75 hours.


RE: who needs tv
By darkpaw on 5/9/2007 3:10:57 PM , Rating: 2
I do this with series like SG-1. I'd rather just rent/buy the DVD's then sit through them, even if I have to wait a year to see them.


RE: who needs tv
By Zagor on 5/9/2007 10:04:02 AM , Rating: 2
I cound't agree more. At times like this I am so glad that I am a geek. I personally use newsgroups instead of torrents but you have got to love the ability to download already edited shows. At times you can even download shows that have yet to air locally. For example, I recently downloaded the entire second half of the season for both Stargate SG-1 and Atlantis. Not only have these shows not aired yet here in the US but they are only available from the Sci-fi channels in SD (which looks like crap). Instead I got captures that were taken for the High-Def showing from SKY in the UK so not only are the commercial edited out but the shows are in High-DEf and look so much better. Got to love the internet.


Email the Cable Companies
By CKDragon on 5/9/2007 8:10:01 AM , Rating: 5
I just sent Cox an email letting them know that I'll take my $190/month cable/internet bill to DirecTV/Verizon if they implement this "feature".

I highly suggest others do the same, even if you're not with Cox. I'm sure Comcast/DirecTV/Dish won't be far behind.




RE: Email the Cable Companies
By Chadder007 on 5/9/2007 8:35:33 AM , Rating: 5
Customers to Introduce Cox-Skipping technology.
Yeah, I like that....


RE: Email the Cable Companies
By Proteusza on 5/9/2007 9:47:07 AM , Rating: 2
New from Cox: (is that plural?)

Customer Anti Enjoyment Technology

Our researchers at the Cardboard Box Advanced Technology Division (CBATD) have discovered that most people are more willing to buy useless junk, err that is more susceptible to advertising when they are unhappy. Thus we have removed all shows from our channel, and replaced them with commercials, in the hopes that constantly having to watch commercials will wear down consumers enough to buy your junk.

This is all part of our Less Is More initiative, in which we give more to our shareholders and less to our consumers.

Serious question: Which are the real clients of the TV networks? The advertisers or the viewers? Who do they make more money from?


RE: Email the Cable Companies
By zsdersw on 5/9/2007 9:17:35 AM , Rating: 2
Yes, that is probably the only thing that can (and should) be done. Consumers should vote with their wallets, not demand laws from the government. The interesting thing is that voting with your wallet is more effective, because big companies can lobby Congress to prevent the passing of a law that's favorable to consumers, but they can't lobby Congress to prevent consumers from spending their money where they see fit.


sad tale
By Proteusza on 5/9/2007 6:24:51 AM , Rating: 4
More consumer liberties down the drain as companies wonder why their poor advertising campaigns dont work.

Instead of spending the money on better products and better ads, we get invasive advertising and a restriction of our choices, even though we still pay for the services offered.

BOHICA consumers!




RE: sad tale
By Runiteshark on 5/9/2007 6:59:33 AM , Rating: 2
I think its kinda funny actually. Cox sucks, ISP wise, and cable wise. Now I do know a few people who are perfectly happy with it, all blistering however-many channels they have that play the same crap over and over again.

But you know, its just great that they can advertise again, you know? Its just like, taking a step backwards. In fact, they should just refund every-bodies money who bought a PVR and just stop offering it.

Haha like thats going to happen.


RE: sad tale
By aebiv on 5/9/2007 7:03:19 AM , Rating: 2
True, that is why I use DVR for my shows with Dish... I hate having to watch commercials anymore.

There use to be some good ones out there, now most of them are craptacular.

Suggestion for the AD companies, make better commercials and don't play them all the time so we get sick of them. Maybe then we won't want to skip them all the time.


RE: sad tale
By AlexWade on 5/9/2007 8:38:18 AM , Rating: 2
I foresee a lawsuit if they really do implement this. My cable co. was Cox, past tense. They gave me lots of trouble. They refused to activate the FireWire as required by the FCC until I had a lawyer send them a not so nice letter. Happily, Cox sold their interests in NC to a smaller company. Now my FireWire works just fine.

Cox and Time Warner and DirecTV and Dish all screw us, really. Only Dish had the guts to fight Viacom's price increases and forced selling of packages. I know that because from time to time, ads appear on Viacom owned stations say "Get out of Dish!" Time Warner fights against the NFL Network's blackmail. But, other than that, they all screw us. In an ideal world, if Congre$$ would get off their bribed rears, we would only buy the channels we want. Viacom and their cronies know they would lose a ton of money if that happened because sorry channels would disappear. So they fight tooth-and-nail, and we are all screwed.


O Lord...
By Rotkiv on 5/9/2007 7:48:19 AM , Rating: 2
I pray they don't bring that technology to South Africa...




RE: O Lord...
By Proteusza on 5/9/2007 8:43:37 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I pray they don't bring that technology to South Africa...


he he... First Telkom would have to make their ADSL offering faster than dial up, then you might have the bandwidth to watch streaming video.

SA is so far behind in that stuff you wont need to worry for years. Enjoy overpriced DSTV, its the best you'll have for years, but at least you can skip ads.

quote:
Has anyone ever seen a commercial for anything other than a movie or TV show and had it influence their buying decision?


Yeah I was wondering about that, it never influences me, even when I do watch TV (which I havent for more than 3 months). But maybe we who debate the ethics of new laws are far removed from those people who will buy Paris Hilton's latest CD. I dont mean this in an elitest fashion, just that we prefer to get our information from different sources and are less trusting of commercials (having been burned a few times). The question is, how many trusting people are there? If I was a company, I would do a survey on how effective advertising is, and find the best way to reach your target market. implementing anti skipping tech in Cox might really really backfire depending on the audience (I hope it does anyway).


RE: O Lord...
By Scrogneugneu on 5/9/2007 10:51:41 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
those people who will buy Paris Hilton's latest CD


Wait... you mean she's actually a singer?

I'm dead serious. I though she was just rich because of her father and stupid by nature?


RE: O Lord...
By Proteusza on 5/10/2007 3:57:27 AM , Rating: 2
"Singer" might be too strong a word. Vocalist? yeah sure. she released an album, which local mystery celeb banksy parodied, look for a video on the net. Those banksy ripoffs should be collectors items.

Anyone else hopes she goes to the slammer?


Honestly
By FITCamaro on 5/9/2007 7:15:32 AM , Rating: 1
I have a DVR and I still sit through the commercials. Mostly because I'm not just sitting there watching TV. I'm doing other things and don't bother to fast forward through them every time. Now thats not to say I never do. Just a lot of the time my DVR is used so I don't miss a show, not so I don't have to watch the commercials.




RE: Honestly
By PrinceGaz on 5/9/2007 7:44:18 AM , Rating: 2
I too often let the commercials play even when I can skip them. They provide a good reason to get out of your seat for two or three minutes every so often and take a short break, maybe getting a snack or a drink, or going to the toilet. Sitting in front of the TV for hours at a time can't be good for anyone so the commercials are a good thing imo.

I've a feeling that the advertisers would rather people didn't use them as an excuse to get up and do something else, though :)


RE: Honestly
By marvdmartian on 5/9/2007 10:06:35 AM , Rating: 2
Agreed. I usually just use my tv for background noise nowadays, but back when it was there for entertainment, the commercial breaks were also known as bathroom/kitchen/smoke breaks! Not a huge deal if you have to put up with the commercials, but I'm of the opinion that they'd get more people interested in the products if the commercials weren't forced on them.

Why not offer people a 5% break on their cable bill if they watch the commercials? Nah, that'd be too much like a good thing, and from what I've heard, Cox is pretty much the "evil empire" of the cable companies, so it would totally go against their business practises. Besides, their brilliant but evil engineers wouldn't be able to figure out how to do something that would actually help people! ;)

Of course, I predict that if Cox (or anyone else) starts doing this sort of thing, it will take <30 days for some brilliant college kid to come up with a simple method to circumvent it! LOL


RE: Honestly
By Rugar on 5/9/2007 10:21:45 AM , Rating: 2
I'm willing to bet it would be circumvented before Cox even had the new hardware / firmware updates in place.


Moving backward
By djc208 on 5/9/2007 7:05:51 AM , Rating: 2
Leave it to the media industry to push technology backward. Half the reason I use my DVR is so I don't have to sit through the commercials.
Makes me think VCR sales may go back up if this happens, not as convenient as a DVR but they can't force you to watch a commercial either.




RE: Moving backward
By wolrah on 5/9/07, Rating: 0
RE: Moving backward
By bhieb on 5/9/2007 9:54:47 AM , Rating: 2
Why not step forward a bit and add some tasteful in program ads. I don't know how many people watch Iron Chef America, but they do it quite nicely. I am not saying revert back to the 50's, but if it is done tastefully ads/product placemnet can be incorporated without disturbing the plot of the show. I find that more effective as well, if Jerry Seinfeld is randomly drinking a Coke in every episode I start to think hey that may be pretty good I should try it. It is just a much more subtle way of placing ads.


RE: Moving backward
By Hawkido on 5/9/2007 3:39:14 PM , Rating: 2
uh, dude, Tampon commercials?

Elaine: Before we go Jerry, I have to protect myself from bloody leaks with my Tampax Tampon.

(Props ankle on Jerry's sholder so the camera can get a good view of product "Placement")

I can see this not working for new type products that are very intangible as well. I think this needs to fall under the Laffer Curve just like taxes. Increase the rate causes a decrease in revenue after a certain point. Too many comercials will alienate or annoy the customer and make them associate your product with a bad feeling and thus avoid it.

Too few commercials and the ad spots for the shows will become prohibitively expensive for smaller companies.

There has to be a good number. The super bowls charges what for a 30 second spot during the game? Well, there they have a captive audiance. But during primetime if the ad spot if too long and the viewer switches channels and gets "Hooked" by a different show, then what? They just lost a viewer. I say 1.5 - 2.0 minutes of commercials every 15 minutes. I can use one of the Ad breaks for a potty break, and maybe get a soda refill from the kitchen. and watch the rest of the commercials while I am comfortable.


PCs
By Gul Westfale on 5/9/2007 8:06:06 AM , Rating: 2
you can always get a TV tuner card for your PC. free program guides, and you can skip commercials all you want. plus, unlimited hard drive space (or almost, since they're quite cheap now) and the ability to record your shows to DVD for later viewing are two more advantages the PC has.

not everyone has a PC (or knows how to use one), but fr those of us that do it might be a worthwhile alternative. personally i don't even own a separate TV anymore, and i can't say that i miss it.




RE: PCs
By darkpaw on 5/9/2007 8:50:52 AM , Rating: 2
Problem with that is you're limited to only OTA and basic cable signals. Thanks to the cable companies preventing a true cable card solution from coming out.

Its nice, but still limited.


RE: PCs
By clemedia on 5/9/2007 12:36:08 PM , Rating: 2
yup, FCC required them to have a standard cablecard so the cable cos just made it impossible to plug the card into anything.


Next Up
By othercents on 5/9/2007 3:25:31 PM , Rating: 3
What will they make next? A new chair that straps you in during the commercials so you can't go to the bathroom?

Other




RE: Next Up
By EODetroit on 5/9/2007 4:14:26 PM , Rating: 2
Hahaha, I was about to post the same thing but fortunately read the entire thread first.

Not letting me change channels is laughable. I'd fire their ass (cancel service) so fast The Donald would hire me.


Bad Move
By RandallMoore on 5/9/2007 1:26:22 PM , Rating: 2
Im sorry but I dont think anyone will be willing to pay for a service to have it crippled. A good example is how bad the satellite internet companies are doing. I looked into getting Sat. internet a while back because dialup is my only option, and I changed my mind VERY quickly when I found out about the "capped downloads" and "thresholds". Why would someone pay about 600$ to install a satellite with an 80$ a month bill behind that just to download at dialup speeds when you have reached your (typically) 1 or 2 Gigabyte limit for that month. They have lost their mind. Anyone who agrees to pay for a service like that, or the type that Cox is about to implement, is insane. If I was a subscriber, I would absolutely refuse to continue to do my business with Cox cable.




RE: Bad Move
By Scrogneugneu on 5/9/2007 10:55:32 PM , Rating: 2
The problem is not with Cox. The problem is with every other companies.

What if they ALL decide to do that? Then your service isn't crippled anymore, it's now standard.

And no, voting with your wallet won't help. They can just do it anyway, and in the end you'll be screwed and forced to choose one or not get TV at all. That's how ads went from "a little, from time to time" to "almost half the time".


why i need to pay to watch Ads?
By Evangels on 5/9/2007 8:22:54 PM , Rating: 2
If it's off air and free, i don't care.
But since i am already paying about $100 to Time Warner every month, it's my freedom to switch channel when ever i like. i am not going to pay a company who is going to force me to watch the Ads. Period.......

Who's the winner? i bet cable company is the winner. they make their money from both sides anyway.




RE: why i need to pay to watch Ads?
By Schrag4 on 5/10/2007 11:19:01 AM , Rating: 2
I said this in another post above:

"Do you really think that paying for Cox cable service should provide you On-Demand contect without advertisements? Cox != ABC/NBC/etc. Once you write the check out to ABC you should expect to get your LOST episodes without advertisements, not a day sooner."

If you're watching On-Demand content, why do you have a DVR? Just record the program and it's not an issue. My guess is that ABC ultimately decides whether or not your show is available On-Demand, and since they need ad revenue, they have the right to "force you" to watch ads if you watch on-demand content. Like I also said in my post above, this is no different than if you went to ABC.com and watched your show.

They could just remove all On-Demand content. Would that make you happier? I'm sure there's something in the Constitution about the right to see Lost without having to see ads. Somewhere I'm sure...

Use your DVR. Skip the commercials.


Read the linked article
By Brovane on 5/9/2007 10:14:47 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
ESPN and the ABC Television Group will supply college-football contests and a quartet of series to Cox Communications for an on-demand trial that will prevent the cable operator's subscribers from fast-forwarding over ads.


Alright this article was taken out of context. Cox is not disabling the fast forward feature on there DVR's for certain shows. What Cox is doing is disabling the fast forward feature for there on-demand product for certain shows. So for example

quote:
Scheduled to begin this fall on the MSO's system in Orange County, Calif., the trial will give Cox digital-cable customers there access to ABC's Grey's Anatomy, Lost, Desperate Housewives and Ugly Betty the day after their broadcast premieres on the alphabet network.


If you go to the On-Demand service and want to watch one of these shows you cannot fast forward through the commmercials. However if you had recorded the show onto your DVR hard drive you can fast forward just fine. THis is only for the On-Demand service which is streaming the show to your TV from the central servers. If you record the show when it is broadcased live on TV to your DVR your ability to fast foward is not affected. This is a classic example of somebody taking a article and not reading it correctly and then taking it out of context.




RE: Read the linked article
By Schrag4 on 5/10/2007 11:11:53 AM , Rating: 2
Agreed.

Read the article people. This is no different than if you were viewing the show via ABC.com. It's only for On-Demand content.

Do you really think that paying for Cox cable service should provide you On-Demand contect without advertisements? Cox != ABC/NBC/etc. Once you write the check out to ABC you should expect to get your LOST episodes without advertisements, not a day sooner.


more than 3/4 of the time
By scrapsma54 on 5/10/2007 8:16:23 PM , Rating: 2
Not many people give a damn about those commercials, for instance, that one starbursts commercial with berries and cream, Its so annoying and it makes the customer hate it. Its for these reasons many customers switch to TiVo or just not even get basic line up. Point is, many advertisement agencies don't realize that the customer absolutely loathes many of their commercials because A. they are ridiculously dumb, or B. just interrupting the programming. Why don't these stinkin' companies spend money on technologies monitor what parts of the commercials the customer swapped channels.




RE: more than 3/4 of the time
By viperpa on 5/11/2007 10:52:02 AM , Rating: 2
One commercial you hear a person crunching on Grape Nuts cereal (how annoying). Another commercial you hear a person swishing mouthwash in there mouth. (double annoying). Then you have commercials where you can become a millionare overnight. This doesn't include the diet, Enzyte and Extenze commercials.

If they prevent a person from switching channels during a commercial, your going to hear the outcry begin. They don't care about the so called value they provide to there customers, they just want to subject there customers to garbage.


I skip ALL commercials
By Domicinator on 5/9/2007 10:27:20 PM , Rating: 1
My wife fought me all the way when I wanted DVR a couple of years ago, because she didn't want to pay the extra $7 a month. But it quickly got to the point where neither of us even bother watching our shows unless they're prerecorded so that we can fast forward the commercials. People ask me all the time, "Did you see that commercial when the guy did the thing with the thing........." and I can never identify because I literally almost never see one commercial.

If this technology ever came to fruition, I would be very upset. Tivo/DVR is our only weapon against the ads that we're constantly bombarded with.




RE: I skip ALL commercials
By Proteusza on 5/10/2007 11:32:21 AM , Rating: 2
If you think about it, DVR lets you get far more TV for your money!

In an average hour, you might spend 15-20 minutes watching ads. You can watch 3 "hour" long episodes in the time it would normally take you to watch 2!


By Shining Arcanine on 5/9/2007 8:52:40 AM , Rating: 2
How about during the commercials?




Hilarious!
By zsouthboy on 5/9/2007 10:29:46 AM , Rating: 2
Technology is moving away from "push" content - you know, radio, television - to consumers choosing when and where and what they want to watch.

This is just the turd swirling around in the bowl.

Come and get me, you bastards! Vy for my attention!

...by doing the opposite.




Creativity, People!
By shecknoscopy on 5/10/2007 11:46:02 AM , Rating: 2
Grumble.

Well, this does smack strongly of the debate that's been raging ever since the first digital downloading venues came online. Heck, it sounds a lot like the debates that were raging when the first photocopiers came online. Namely:

"How will we make money, now that our current system has been rendered moot by the advances of technology!?"

(A) Develop new and creative ways of capturing our capital - by, say, (Oh, I dunno), providing the public with a service or product they want, or

(B) Force 'em to do stuff the old fashioned way, so that we don't have to develop anything new.

Survey says... Pick (B)! Pick (B)!

=================

What saddens me the most about this is that I've noticed a trend lately in producing commercials that are generally more creative, more captivating, and - well, just hipper than what we'd been subjected to before the TiVo era. It's a lot of a change, but this does kinda' smacked of a type (A) solution: sure, we've fast-forwarding through commercials in droves, but if they were to make commercials that were able to grab our attention, we'll stop to watch them. I was hoping that we'd just see more of this, rather than, say, have to continue slogging it out through the unending tide of "I'm loving it!"**

In truth, I think moves like this could spell the dawn of the pervasive home-brew PVR. Yeah, cablecards are expensive, and proprietary, but at the moment they're not penetrating the market, either. Once the demand for alternate solutions becomes high enough, they'll present themselves.

...And then congress will try and have it outlawed.

Grumble.

**-Please don't sue me.




Moneymaking opportunity
By INeedCache on 5/11/2007 9:26:52 PM , Rating: 2
I can envision Cox, and then the rest after they all implement this technology, simply charging a premium to allow you to skip the commercials. Say a $20 per month surcharge to allow you to skip the commercials on playback. What a racket.




By Kaleid on 5/12/2007 7:02:16 AM , Rating: 2
And send sublimal commercial all the time.

It's bound to happen:
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/07/20/10268989...

(No I do not want an implant)




By gradoman on 5/12/2007 11:54:41 AM , Rating: 2
Headon, applied directly to the forehead, Headon, applied directly..Headon, applied directly to the forehead, Headon, applied directly..Headon, applied directly to the forehead, Headon, applied directly..

No wonder I hate cable tv, radio and a lot of websites. They give me a massive headache -- 1/3 content 2/3 commercial!! Maybe I should buy some Headon, eh..?




Fees
By Screwballl on 5/12/2007 2:42:09 PM , Rating: 2
This is bogus. Force people to watch commercials? Remove the ability to change channels during commercials? Write to Cox or your cable company and protest this move. Its not like theres a shortage of advertising. Professional games have ads all over the stadium/field/whatever. This is like a cop standing over your shoulder when you read a magazine to force you to read the ads inbetween/during stories. People don't pay for stuff that forces them to change their habits. As soon as Cox implements this, 95% of people that use the PVR will either call and complain or change to a service that does allow for them to skip the commercials (TiVo or other service).

In response to above replies...
In the US, we pay for what we use. If we only have a basic cable package like I do, I pay $25/month. Other people use premium HD content and pay $200 monthly. I watch maybe 30 minutes of TV per day and the rest of the time it sits there turned off or unplugged. Most of the taxes in the US are on a per-use basis rather than a per-ownership basis. We don't pay a $500 yearly tax simply because we have a gas powered lawn mower that may or may not be used. We don't pay the yearly tax on a vehicle if the engine is dead for a long period of time because it is not using the roads.
The only real taxation most of the US has is for schools. All people that own or rent property pay for the school tax whether or not they ever use them (and seems too many have not). The general public pays for the schooling of everyones kids, even if they are at a private school or are homeschooled, you still pay that tax.




So what's in a name?
By Toebot on 5/12/2007 10:31:07 PM , Rating: 2
Everything.




Im just gonna ...
By chick0n on 5/10/07, Rating: -1
RE: Im just gonna ...
By Davelo on 5/10/2007 7:57:05 PM , Rating: 2
So I got to pay $50 a month for basic cable plus I have to watch all those commercials? I guess it is time to switch to torrents


"I f***ing cannot play Halo 2 multiplayer. I cannot do it." -- Bungie Technical Lead Chris Butcher

DailyTech Poll
Which web browser do you use on your primary personal machine? 






44 Comments









botimage
Copyright 2009 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki