[mythtv-users] Congress to Make Commercial SkippingIllegal<- eff

Bill Chmura Bill at Explosivo.com
Tue Nov 16 19:41:19 UTC 2004


On Tuesday 16 November 2004 01:17 pm, PAUL WILLIAMSON wrote:
> I paid a premium for cable when it first came out too.
> I remember specifically some channels being totally commercial
> free on cable, and my dad still has the betamax tapes to prove
> it.  I can't remember what channels they were, but I am sure
> they have commercials now.  The money comes from me paying
> to get a large group of channels.  I look at commercials as icing on
> the cake.  For one local TV station, infomercials have completely
> taken over for almost the entire weekend programming schedule.
> I'm sure that pays for some of the costs of running a station.

I am not sure, but I think MTV was commercial free early on.   Other than that 
I don't really remember much more than getting 24 channels than only six that 
was available without cable.  The world is about profit now... squeeze every 
ounce out of anything you can.

> >I guess my point is this - I love commercial skip, and I think the
> >law is wrong.  But if you assume that the channels are all the
> >sudden not going to become philanthropists and give away
> >everything for free - the money has to come from somewhere.
>
> I'm not saying give away for free.  The cable and satellite
> companies will still pay for the programming.  And we'll pay
> whomever to get that programming conveniently.  Otherwise,
> I'd go negotiate with all the stations myself so that I could pay
> .12/mo for Nick, .15/mo for HGTV, etc. and pick it all up over my
> 12' dish in the back of my yard.

But then you are cutting into profits.  Do you really think they are going to 
let this happen?  Ala carte is great and I would love to see it, but they 
have no incentive to do this.  Lets say you get 60 channels right now for 
$40 / month.  But you only watch four of them.  Would you be willing to pay 
$10 / month for each of those instead.  If no, then they are loosing money on 
going ala-carte.  If it was a physical commodity or if they pay per 
subscriber, then selling them alone would be to their advantage.  But if they 
pay say $10000/mo for the disney channel - it does not help them if you don't 
want it.  

> >Why is "star trek" on tv?  Because Ruppert Murdock thinks Gene
> >Roddenbery had a vision and he wants to spend all his money on
> >sharing it with the world?  Nope, because people will watch it, and
> >if people are watching it then others will pay them to put
> advertisements in.  That is where the money comes from.
>
> Scary - as I have myth set up to record all Star Trek episodes.  Not
> that
> I'm a trekkie, I just like Star Trek.
>
> >Now, assuming that is correct (and I am not sure why it would not be),
> >
> >take a world where *everyone* has commercial skip and the majority of
> >
> >users take advantage of this feature:
>
> But if everyone had commercial skip, *someone* needs to be making
> money.
> The world isn't going to turn into a bunch of myth geeks overnight.  I
> don't
> see them being huge believers in Tivo or ReplayTV either.  So I see
> where this is going...

I don't think that everyone having commercial skip means anyone is making 
money off of it.  I have a VCR that I bought 3 or 4 years ago that can mark a 
tape after I watch it.  Did I pay more for it?  No, in fact I did not know it 
even had it.  Once one manufacturer starts building it into a tv then soon 
after everyone will have to follow suit.  Look at remote controls for 
example.  Are any manufacturers making money off of including remotes?  No, 
but in the beginning it was a great feature that you could charge slightly 
more for.

> This is what we have now.  It's just packaged into the "Advantage
> Packs"
> or "Use Packs".  I'm sure if enough people screamed, the providers
> would
> be more than happy to break out induhvidual channels and charge
> $1.00/each or something like that.

I doubt it... at least the be happy part.  If that was the case I would be 
paying my cable company $4 / mo for History channel, cartoon network, A&E and 
Disney (for my kid).  Somehow I don't see them being happy about my sending 
$41/mo less to them - while not depleting and of their resources any faster.  
Of course, once one global provider (like Dish or DirectTV instead of a local 
company) does it, everyone will have to follow suit to stay competetive.  But 
I would bet my left nut that I will not be able to pay $4/mo for my channels 
even if it does happen.  

> ....
> Speaking of that, the embedded advertisements are already in place
> for channels like Discovery and TLC.  At least they only advertise
> their own shows.  I have these stations removed from Myth because
> I've gotten so sick of seeing the ads disrupting the video.  It's bad
> enough
> stations are now overlaying their logo on a program during the entire
> airing of a show.  At least when this practice first started, it would
> only
> show up during the first 10 seconds after a commercial break, and then

Oh gawd - you mean those banners across the bottom that have people running 
around and take up %33 of the damn screen?  I hate those cursed things.  I 
don't mind the logo in the corner (if its not too obstrusive) but the ads on 
the bottom I abhore.  Maybe I can adjust my picture to display that part off 
screen :)


What were we talking about?  :)


-- 
=========================================================
Bill Chmura - www.fistfullofcode.com & www.explosivo.com
=========================================================


More information about the mythtv-users mailing list