Technology to Warm Amicus's heart

[Colleen Thomas]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060420/ap_on_hi_te/anti_ad_skipper

 

[Belegon]

Thankfully I rarely watch commercial tv anyway...only for sports really, and I use those commercial breaks for other things

 

[BlackShanglan]

*laugh* Interesting technological solution.

I mostly watch cable. I am torn on the whole commercial television issue, really. I don't care to be forced to watch inane advertising, but at heart I do recognize that it's what supports the "free" stations. I do have at least a little concern for what will happen if that business model stops working. Of course I don't think that the world will suffer for the want of "Fear Factor" and "The Simple Life," but part of me is just a little hesitant over the idea of television becoming something that only people who can afford cable can watch. It's not so much the entertainment shows that concern me as the news; I recognize that our news media is rapidly becoming completely useless and even detrimental, but I feel a twinge at the thought of that information, however flawed, becoming available only to cable viewers.

Hmm. Then I consider the Internet news sources, and I feel a touch better. Viva la revolution.

Shanglan

 

[Colleen Thomas]

*laugh* Interesting technological solution.

I mostly watch cable. I am torn on the whole commercial television issue, really. I don't care to be forced to watch inane advertising, but at heart I do recognize that it's what supports the "free" stations. I do have at least a little concern for what will happen if that business model stops working. Of course I don't think that the world will suffer for the want of "Fear Factor" and "The Simple Life," but part of me is just a little hesitant over the idea of television becoming something that only people who can afford cable can watch. It's not so much the entertainment shows that concern me as the news; I recognize that our news media is rapidly becoming completely useless and even detrimental, but I feel a twinge at the thought of that information, however flawed, becoming available only to cable viewers.

Hmm. Then I consider the Internet news sources, and I feel a touch better. Viva la revolution.

Shanglan

I can't remember the last time I turned on the television and watched one of the networks. I have Sat YV and even with the smorgasboard of channels, i primarily watch History, History internation, TLC, Discover and the Military Chan.

It just seemed this really dovetails with Amicus's views. Now the unwashed massess, who have been mooching free shows and subverting the integrity of the system by cutting out the commercials, paid for by big bussiness, that support them will have to watch the commercials or they get no show.

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

I can't remember the last time I turned on the television and watched one of the networks. I have Sat YV and even with the smorgasboard of channels, i primarily watch History, History internation, TLC, Discover and the Military Chan.

It just seemed this really dovetails with Amicus's views. Now the unwashed massess, who have been mooching free shows and subverting the integrity of the system by cutting out the commercials, paid for by big bussiness, that support them will have to watch the commercials or they get no show.

Some will watch ads anyway, 'cause they are too lazy to change the channels. This idea is one that will only turn people against network TV. What few people still watch it. Mainly, American Idol will suffer.

It will backfire if it happens...which it will....and then it will be discarded, just like "New Coke".

 

[Stella_Omega]

Some will watch ads anyway, 'cause they are too lazy to change the channels. This idea is one that will only turn people against network TV. What few people still watch it. Mainly, American Idol will suffer.

It will backfire if it happens...which it will....and then it will be discarded, just like "New Coke".

Too lazy to find the remote? Probably, yes- it happens at my house
Actually, as the article points out, viewers will have the "choice" to not have commercials- by paying a fee upfront.
And that will not sit well with advertisers at all, because they would have the kind of records of viewing habits that any account guy dreads!
And we already have that option, via Cable- and we pay through the nose for it, too.
What I wonder is, will this technology work on dish satillite service?

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

Too lazy to find the remote? Probably, yes- it happens at my house
Actually, as the article points out, viewers will have the "choice" to not have commercials- by paying a fee upfront.
And that will not sit well with advertisers at all, because they would have the kind of records of viewing habits that any account guy dreads!
And we already have that option, via Cable- and we pay through the nose for it, too.
What I wonder is, will this technology work on dish satillite service?

Like I said, it will go the way of "New Coke".

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Too lazy to find the remote? Probably, yes- it happens at my house
Actually, as the article points out, viewers will have the "choice" to not have commercials- by paying a fee upfront.
And that will not sit well with advertisers at all, because they would have the kind of records of viewing habits that any account guy dreads!
And we already have that option, via Cable- and we pay through the nose for it, too.
What I wonder is, will this technology work on dish satillite service?

They said you coul dput it in Tvs. So i assume that means you can get to people via their televisions, reguarless of how they recieve service.

I don't really believe it will ever be pushed. Consumers are a hard lot to mobilize, but some things will set them off. sony, is sufering terribly because of something similar.

You may not know it, but Sony DVD players won't play homemade DVDs. It was a logical thing to do on their part, since they make DVDs. Problem is, lower end machines will, so people just started buying off brands when the word got out. And sony took a major league hit.

My roomate's brother sold his sony DVD player on Ebay, bought a zenith or something, and still pockleted some cash in the transaction, plus he can watch his pirated DVD collection now. He swears he'll never buy anything Sony again and I tend to believe he means it. My Brother is the same way, though he kept his sony player, he got another one as well and dosen't buy sony products, up to and including DVD's from Sony home video.

Being sneaky coercive is one thing, in you rface Fuck you's delivered to the massess are still a bad idea though. Last I head, sony was "correcting" the problem with their DVD players.

 

[Typo Fu Master]

*laugh* Interesting technological solution.

I mostly watch cable. I am torn on the whole commercial television issue, really. I don't care to be forced to watch inane advertising, but at heart I do recognize that it's what supports the "free" stations. I do have at least a little concern for what will happen if that business model stops working. Of course I don't think that the world will suffer for the want of "Fear Factor" and "The Simple Life," but part of me is just a little hesitant over the idea of television becoming something that only people who can afford cable can watch. It's not so much the entertainment shows that concern me as the news; I recognize that our news media is rapidly becoming completely useless and even detrimental, but I feel a twinge at the thought of that information, however flawed, becoming available only to cable viewers.

Hmm. Then I consider the Internet news sources, and I feel a touch better. Viva la revolution.

Shanglan

Newspapers are still cheaper than cable if they're that desperate for information. Possibly they'll miss a few things, but it's not like anyone is going to be totally deprived of what's going on in the world.

I don't think anyone is being 'forced' to watch them. I think the majority of people use that time to go to the bathroom, get a snack, etc.

It's just increasing the amount of time it'll take to watch a program. Personally, I don't watch much TV so something like this wouldn't affect me too much. Now if, on the other hand, they decide to interrupt my webpage viewing with a full screen over ad that I can't click out of ...

Free TV/radio has to pay for itself somehow. Charging a fee to skip the commercials is basically subscribing to the 'premium' service.

 

[Liar]

Scary innovation that. Ok, maybe not scary, but potentionally annoying. And in the interrest of free competition, probably impossible to enforce. Imaging network A suing network B because it doesn't allow it's viewers to zap over. And Network A could even be more sinister, scheduling their no zapping time just when their competitios' popular shows start. Imagine the riots. Ok, maybe not riots, but at least some ruckus. Hoards of people missing the fist ten minutes of Desperate Housewives. Perish the thought.

What they could be legally able to do though, is log if you zapped during the commersial or not. And if you did, not let you watch the show when it begins again.

But why would I care? I download all my shows illegaly anyway.

 

[zeb1094]

I believe that would be an infrigment of my civil rights and therefore a violation by any broadcaster who employed the device. Taking control of my property, in my home would place the broadcaster in a position to be sued via a class action.

I bought the television to watch what I want to watch, when I want to watch it, not what they want me to watch.

 

[R. Richard]

I work as a computer programmer. I have spent a lot of time breaking "impossible to break" security systems. If someone wants to spend time making it "impossible" to bypass commercials, someone else will find a way to do the impossible.

 

[Liar]

I believe that would be an infrigment of my civil rights and therefore a violation by any broadcaster who employed the device. Taking control of my property, in my home would place the broadcaster in a position to be sued via a class action.

I bought the television to watch what I want to watch, when I want to watch it, not what they want me to watch.

That's why I think it wouldn't work. But my option 2 would. Because then they are just denying you the right to watch their content (which they have the right to do, unless they're public service), not other companies' content, like that device would do.

 

[zeb1094]

That's why I think it wouldn't work. But my option 2 would. Because then they are just denying you the right to watch their content (which they have the right to do, unless they're public service), not other companies' content, like that device would do.

That could still be actionable as I pay for my service, so stopping me from watching while taking my money would be a breech of contract!

 

[Liar]

That could still be actionable as I pay for my service, so stopping me from watching while taking my money would be a breech of contract!

Depends on what the contract says.

I'd imagine that they would incuse a clause saying "we withold the right to scramble your feed for the same amount of time that you change channel during a commersial break". For new contracts, of course. Yours would be valid as long as it's specified duration. If you then don't like the new terms to continue as a customer, you're free to watch C-Span.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

That could still be actionable as I pay for my service, so stopping me from watching while taking my money would be a breech of contract!

that's the catch. when you pay for a service, you as consumer, have a certain set of rights. But network TV? You don't pay for that. The companies that put advertising bucks in pay for for it. You get it free gratis and if they choose to place strings on providing it free gratis, i think you would have a difficult time convincing a court you have some kind of inalienable right to free tv.

Also, if television makers were sufficently bribed, they could include it on all their sets. then what do you do? Your arguments fail, if you wittingly purchase a television that has the technology in it. The broadcasters can say, legitimately you choose to purchase a TV with this feature and could argue fairly convincingly in doing so, you waived any right to hold them liable for the technology in the sets. The makers, could argue persuaviively that you have the option to disable it by paying a broadcast fee.

The assumption that it can't be done is a dangerous one. As is the assumption the courts would strike a blow at it. If anything prevents it, it will be the dfear on the part of broadcasters and advertisers alike that an audience forced to watch your commercial will conciously refuse to buy the product it endorses.

 

[zeb1094]

that's the catch. when you pay for a service, you as consumer, have a certain set of rights. But network TV? You don't pay for that. The companies that put advertising bucks in pay for for it. You get it free gratis and if they choose to place strings on providing it free gratis, i think you would have a difficult time convincing a court you have some kind of inalienable right to free tv.

Also, if television makers were sufficently bribed, they could include it on all their sets. then what do you do? Your arguments fail, if you wittingly purchase a television that has the technology in it. The broadcasters can say, legitimately you choose to purchase a TV with this feature and could argue fairly convincingly in doing so, you waived any right to hold them liable for the technology in the sets. The makers, could argue persuaviively that you have the option to disable it by paying a broadcast fee.

The assumption that it can't be done is a dangerous one. As is the assumption the courts would strike a blow at it. If anything prevents it, it will be the dfear on the part of broadcasters and advertisers alike that an audience forced to watch your commercial will conciously refuse to buy the product it endorses.

I pay for network TV, it's included in my cable bill. The Networks get some amount of my payment to allow the cable companies to broadcast there programming. So if they keep me from changing to another channel or don't allow me to see their programming for any reason then I have an actionable case.

 

[Svenskaflicka]

When I read the title of this thread, I thought someone had invented some kind of whattyacallit that forced pregnant women to carry the baby to term and prevented abortions.

You owe me a new pair of underwear, Colly.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

When I read the title of this thread, I thought someone had invented some kind of whattyacallit that forced pregnant women to carry the baby to term and prevented abortions.

You owe me a new pair of underwear, Colly.

I'm fairly poor, but buying lingerie for beautiful women has always been a weakness

 

[Colleen Thomas]

I pay for network TV, it's included in my cable bill. The Networks get some amount of my payment to allow the cable companies to broadcast there programming. So if they keep me from changing to another channel or don't allow me to see their programming for any reason then I have an actionable case.

No. You pay for cable TV. Whatever arrangements your cable provider has made with the networks it's immaterial to your position, because you chose to pay for a service. I do not believe you can take your cable bill in and break it down and convince a judge that you somehow have gained control over programing on network TV by paying a cable service. He's probably going to say, quite legitimately , that if you're unhappy with the deal your cable service has brokered with the networks, you have the option of canceling your cable service and picking up the networks with an antenna.

 

[rgraham666]

I've been getting along fine for about three years with no TV; network, cable or satellite. I don't miss it.

 

[LadyJeanne]

No. You pay for cable TV. Whatever arrangements your cable provider has made with the networks it's immaterial to your position, because you chose to pay for a service. I do not believe you can take your cable bill in and break it down and convince a judge that you somehow have gained control over programing on network TV by paying a cable service. He's probably going to say, quite legitimately , that if you're unhappy with the deal your cable service has brokered with the networks, you have the option of canceling your cable service and picking up the networks with an antenna.

The thing with cable is we pay for it, and even so there are commercials on most of the channels, with exceptions for the movie channels which are only offered at an additional price. THAT pisses me off.

 

[BlackShanglan]

The thing with cable is we pay for it, and even so there are commercials on most of the channels, with exceptions for the movie channels which are only offered at an additional price. THAT pisses me off.

Yes, that is annoying. But then, most of the channels have smaller and more specific audiences, so I imagine that they would have to do both to make a profit. It's like buying magazines for which you pay a fee, but which still contain advertisements.

On an almost completely unrelated note, has anyone located an uncut image of what South Park was attempting to show as their image of the prophet Muhammed? What aired looked totally innocent, but of course for all I know they could have had the prophet himself dressed as a giant pig.

Shanglan

 

[Colleen Thomas]

The thing with cable is we pay for it, and even so there are commercials on most of the channels, with exceptions for the movie channels which are only offered at an additional price. THAT pisses me off.

Granted, but you choose to pay for it. As with any service, unless you have a long term contract for that service, where in certain things are promised, you have very little in the way of legal ground to demand changes to that service.

As long as you have the option of canceling the service, and no fees or other damages are at issue, you really have very little in the way of grounds.

 

[LadyJeanne]

Granted, but you choose to pay for it. As with any service, unless you have a long term contract for that service, where in certain things are promised, you have very little in the way of legal ground to demand changes to that service.

As long as you have the option of canceling the service, and no fees or other damages are at issue, you really have very little in the way of grounds.

Of course you and Shang are right.

I still reserve the right to get pissed off!