Immutate and several other readers noted that Cablevision will be allowed to go ahead with deploying a remote-storage DVR system, when the US Supreme Court declined (without comment) to hear an appeal of a lower court ruling that went against movie studios and TV networks. (We discussed this case a few months back.) "Cable TV operators won a key legal battle against Hollywood studios and television networks on Monday as the Supreme Court declined to block a new digital video recording system that could make it even easier for viewers to bypass commercials. The justices declined to hear arguments on whether Cablevision Systems Corp.'s remote-storage DVR system would violate copyright laws. That allows the... company to proceed with plans to start deploying the technology this summer."
I don't understand why cable networks think that we need to pay for their content twice. I mean, I'm already paying for their content via the cable subscription fee so why should I even have ads? Either get rid of the licensing fees or get rid of the ads. This is like paying for a "premium" website only to get hit by pop ups on every page. I mean, I could even understand an ad or two at the start and after the end of the program, but why do they think they need to have 9 minutes of ads for every show when I'm already paying for their content?
If a significant number of people quit their service and gave the feedback "there's just too many ads for a pay service" then maybe something would get done about it. But they don't.
The problem with that is... cable bundling. Theres about 5 networks I watch regularly, and out of them about 2 have way too many ads that I would give up watching them if I could send feedback. However, if I cancel those networks, I end up canceling the 3 other networks that I do watch.
If you want the cable company to sell you cable a la carte then you need to cancel your cable subscription, and tell them why.
By paying for those channels, you are voting for paying for those channels.
Since people can clearly survive without television, I am not interested in your excuses. When you buy a product you don't want, you clearly are showing us that you want that product. You obviously want those channels, or you wouldn't pay for them.
If you're getting local cable so you can watch your local community college's educational station, then you have a valid complaint. Otherwise, you are the problem.
For someone who only has access to the free channels, I was really surprised when I realised this.
I don't get it, the networks expect people to pay them good money for access to their channels and then suffer through commercials? And these guys wonder how people have the morale to pirate their shit...
I just read the other day, but now I can only find this link, that there are studies suggesting that DVR's are actually good (or at least do no harm) to ads. Television Week: Study Says DVRs, Ads Can Co-Exist [mombu.com]
What are you talking about? Cable started out as CATV, which stood for Community Antenna TV back in 1948 when it started, to share one antenna for many sets, typically in a housing development or apartment complex, then it evolved into what we now know as cable TV. There was never a time when CATV or Cable TV were commercial-free, since it always carried broadcast TV stations which were commercial.
Actually TV and Internet costs aren't that different. I pay a monthly fee for the line that goes to my house for both TV and Internet. When I watch a TV show I see commercials, and when I go to most websites I see ads. The only difference is that TV ads are far more obstructive to the content.
Hmmm... that preview thing does its job. I was going to write: "There is quite a big difference in the costs. In the case of cable the revenue from the ads is going to the access provider - so you are paying the same person twice for the content. In the case of internet you are paying for access, and then you are paying the content provider."
But I'm sitting watching an ad-free channel on cable right now and I realise that I'm talking complete crap. The revenue goes to the channel, and they are often differe
I don't understand why cable networks think that we need to pay for their content twice. I mean, I'm already paying for their content via the cable subscription fee so why should I even have ads?
You're not paying twice for the same thing; you're paying for two different things. Cable companies do not pay networks to rebroadcast their signals, so your cable bill does not cover the cost of producing TV shows. What your cable bill pays for is the service they provide: installation and maintenance of the cables that go to your home, etc.
The exception to this rule is premium channels, where a portion of your fee does go to the network, which is why you don't see commercials on the movie channels, for
While the gist of what you are saying is correct, it is not accurate to say that "Cable companies do not pay networks to rebroadcast their signals." Cable providers pay a per-subscriber fee to the networks they carry, from a few cents to a few dollars.
Cable companies can and do pay for non-premium networks. The idea is fairly straight forward. If you need more viewers and your product is not so much in demand you might not charge for the product. More often then not these "less demanded" networks are packaged together with more appealing networks. Common sense comes into play here... if you can get someone to pay for your product then you will most likely elect to produce additional revenue where possible.
I don't know how this stuff works in the US, but where I live, the cable operator just catches the TV programs off the air or via some cable or satellite (I don't work for a cable company so don't know for sure), converts it to analog and sends both analog and digital versions trough the cable to my home. There is no difference between a channel that I can get off the air and the same channel on cable (except the reception quality). The commercials are part of the original program, so if the cable company w
In the US there's 4 or 5 OTA channels (CBS, NBC, ABC, FOX, and maybe a PBS or WGN). Cable gives you dozens or hundreds of channels that aren't ever broadcast OTA. It's those channels that they're arguing should be commercial free.
In the US, a cable company cannot re-transmit at will.
It requires a re-transmission agreement or the broadcast originator files a "must carry" clause with the cable op.
Must carry is used in place when the cable company does not carry your broadcast signal and they do not want to negotiate rates.
A re-transmission agreement is simply a contract with whatever terms and length both parties can agree on. Top rated stations generally opt for cash and services from the cable company.
I don't know what does the cable company have to do to be able to retransmit channels, but they do it. I can see all (or almost all) OTA channels in my country and foreign channels (for example a lot of Russian ones, also Discovery, History, TV1000 etc).
Must Carry channels are local broadcasters who might be locked out of the cable system had not they gotten together and lobbied congress to force cable companies to carry them.
Without must carry rules, many subscribers in small markets would have to (and would probably gladly) forgo local programming.
In exchange for forcing their way onto the cable system, they must provide their signal free of charge to the cable providers.
I don't understand why magazine publishers think that we need to pay for their content twice. I mean, I'm already paying for their content via the magazine subscription fee so why should I even have ads? Either get rid of the subscription fees or get rid of the ads. This is like paying for a "premium" website only to get hit by pop ups on every page. I mean, I could even understand an ad or two at the start and after the end of an article, but why do they think they need to have pages of ads for every issue when I'm already paying for their content?
Nine minutes of ads would be great. That's what you got in 1969 on a one hour show. In 2009, you get 18 minutes of ads per hour. Yes, your "hour-long drama" is really 42 minutes. And your re-run of Star Trek TOS is missing 9 minutes of material, not including the "previously on" and "coming next week" spots that are also cut.
By 2039, the show will be 9 minutes long and you'll have 51 minutes of ads. And fast-forward will be illegal.
Nine minutes of ads would be great. That's what you got in 1969 on a one hour show.
My memory is a little fuzzy from the late 1960's and all of the 1970's, but nine minutes per hour in 1969 sounds a little bit high. I'm not looking for an argument or debate here, just if you know where to find this info, I would truly appreciate a link. Really!:-)
My fuzzy memory is only coming up with around seven minutes per hour, but again, I readily admit my fuzzy memory may be off base here.
To be honest, the only thing I truly remember from TV of 1969 with any clarity, is the Apollo 11 moon landing: Spr
Are you from the US? There's no such thing as free rebroadcasting here. You're not paying for "their" content; they don't have any content. (Okay, maybe the lame help I've never seen a remote control before channel and local public access stuff is theirs, but by and large the content is licensed to them by others.) The cable companies are paying for rebroadcast rights for other people's content and passing that cost on to you. Also, unlike over the air broadcasting, cable networks actually cost money to mai
I don't understand why cable networks think that we need to pay for their content twice. I mean, I'm already paying for their content via the cable subscription fee
No, you're not. You are paying for 40% of their content via the subscription fee.
so why should I even have ads?
To cover the remaining 60%.
(Numbers are examples only. Actual percentages may vary from network to network.)
Yikes you mean you can record a show off of tv and watch it at a different location? Wow what an innovation... oh, wait, I used to do that with Video Tape (VHS) all the time... time shifting shows too... location shifting them is no different...
Before you know it you brain cells will have to pay a fee for SEEING a show. Oh wait, that's known as a movie theater...
Before you know it you'll have to pay a fee every time you REMEMBER a show you saw on TV. Now that's scary.
So the content providers sue the cable company for remote caching of shows.
They really won this. Now, if the show is on a server somewhere, things like ad skip can't be disabled. There's no web page of hacks and work arounds for the "cable box". While the cable company was looking at this as two million remote boxes in homes versus a server farm, the content providers, stuck in 1965 where they played and you watched when they said to, freaked.
They will figure out they won this as soon as they charge 5 cents per delayed broadcast...all passed on to the viewer, of course.
Oh yes, that "dvr" fee is not going away, even if the DVR does.
From the article... Movie studios, TV networks and cable TV channels had argued that the service is more akin to video-on-demand, for which they negotiate licensing fees with cable providers.
Isn't this exactly what video-on-demand is? Downloading a movie locally that is held at the cable company's location? (DirecTV acts that way with their DVR. You have to download it). If so, the ruling may mean license fees are unneeded.
In the VOD situation, the operator is making a preemptive copy, and then rebroadcasting that copy when the customer requests it. The operator decides what is to be recorded and made available.
In the PVR situation, the end customer decides what is recorded, and what is played back and stored.
The question becomes, since the customer already has the right to make a time-shifted copy of a TV show (Sony v. Universal), the question hinges on whether or not the net
MythTV works for me. It already eats the commercials from the recorded shows, and with simple scripts, I can encode old Star Trek shows onto my iPhone.
If you haven't used it recently, I suggest taking a look. MythTV [mythtv.org].
Commercials, Reality TV, Soaps and other shit like this is the reason that I threw out my cable years ago. When I wanna watch something now I download it. I simply refuse to let them cram their crap down my throat.
If you record it with MythTV and play it back when you want and it automagically skips all the commercials you get to see what you want, when you want. That is unlike services like hulu that force you to watch it only on certain browsers and force you to watch commercials.
On the one hand I'm hoping that with a central office based DVR solution we won't be limited by tuners to how many shows we can record - three programs on at the same time? No problem! Set a recording from one cable box and want to watch it in another room? No problem!
However, if the new central DVR service is run through their existing Pay Per View software then the user interface (at least on Comcast) is just awful. Based on how laggy the remote is with PPV I think this is also the death of channel sk
This is not quite the experience I've had with similar services. The cable box's interface is complete ass, but I was surprised at how responsive fast forward and rewind actually was.
I originally believed it was caching to my cable pvr unit.
Then I found out about the unencrypted channels and individuals reporting they were watching the forward and rewind of users.
More predictions. The cable companies are going to end up recording one of everything so "recording" something on the DVR is just a matter of keeping a pointer, so the next big fight is going to happen when a cable company allows you to "record" a show after it has already ended and the content producers cry foul.
And more control will be exercised as to how long you can keep a recording. Those Battlestar Galactica episodes you've been keeping on your DVR for 6 months? Um, no.
The cable companies are going to end up recording one of everything so "recording" something on the DVR is just a matter of keeping a pointer
That's just compression. They're actually recording 100 separate copies for their customers, but since they're all identical they compress *really* well... You make pointers sound like it's a bad thing;)
No matter which party prevailed in this case, the average citizen wouldn't win. Both parties are only interested in making money, and as much of it as they can get away with.
If I'm evil for trying to turn a buck, then the US is in a shameful state for sure.
I guess you are right. Let's move to China where... wait... umm, they like the Benjamins as well. Russia? Ohh wait, that was almost 20 years ago. How about the moon? Yeah!
In the 1980's there was a case pf a video rental store providing a home theater room for renters to play their rented tapes. A court ruled that this crossed the line into the territory of public exhibition of copyrighted material, and it was disallowed.
It is interesting that this case does not cross the line into the territory of retransmission.
No, they did not allow it. Nor did they disallow it. They declined to hear the case. In all but a few situations, the Supreme Court has discretionary jurisdiction, and can decline to hear a case for a variety of reasons. Sometimes they want to wait until multiple circuits have considered an issue. Sometimes they think the time is ripe for the Court to settle an issue, but the particular case up for review is not a good vehicle for that review, and so waits for a better case. Sometimes they just don't think
Cable companies will have DVR farms, one for each channel, sucking up every show, every day, and making, say, the last 24-48 hours of shows available for free, in case you miss a show, but after hearing about it at work/school, you want to watch it. In addition to the default 24-48 hour retention, subscribers will also be able to submit requests for certain shows, and those requested shows will be retained until there is no more interest. The cable company could also update the commercials in their "slots"
Indeed, I wonder if this will end up biting cable companies in the ass in the long term. In-home DVRs and slingbox-type devices are getting cheaper and cheaper. Will they go a-suing a customer for "excessive use of services" just to be overturned by their own case law?
I don't get... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I don't get... (Score:5, Insightful)
Because they can.
If a significant number of people quit their service and gave the feedback "there's just too many ads for a pay service" then maybe something would get done about it. But they don't.
Parent
Re:I don't get... (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:I don't get... (Score:4, Interesting)
The problem with that is... cable bundling.
The problem with that is... YOU.
If you want the cable company to sell you cable a la carte then you need to cancel your cable subscription, and tell them why.
By paying for those channels, you are voting for paying for those channels.
Since people can clearly survive without television, I am not interested in your excuses. When you buy a product you don't want, you clearly are showing us that you want that product. You obviously want those channels, or you wouldn't pay for them.
If you're getting local cable so you can watch your local community college's educational station, then you have a valid complaint. Otherwise, you are the problem.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
For someone who only has access to the free channels, I was really surprised when I realised this. I don't get it, the networks expect people to pay them good money for access to their channels and then suffer through commercials?
And these guys wonder how people have the morale to pirate their shit...
I just read the other day, but now I can only find this link, that there are studies suggesting that DVR's are actually good (or at least do no harm) to ads. Television Week: Study Says DVRs, Ads Can Co-Exist [mombu.com]
Re:I don't get... (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That's how the Web started out - free of commercials. People got greedy though.
:-)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:I don't get... (Score:4, Funny)
That's how the universe started out -- free of commercials. But God wanted to watch the thighmaster commercial, and we've been screwed ever since.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What are you talking about? Cable started out as CATV, which stood for Community Antenna TV back in 1948 when it started, to share one antenna for many sets, typically in a housing development or apartment complex, then it evolved into what we now know as cable TV. There was never a time when CATV or Cable TV were commercial-free, since it always carried broadcast TV stations which were commercial.
Re:I don't get... (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Get this, http://www.mvps.org/winhelp2002/hosts.htm [mvps.org] don't forget to go Start->Run->services.msc -> shut off dns client.
The only ads you'll see are the ones served from the site you're on. Helps protect against phishing sites too.
Re: (Score:2)
Hmmm... that preview thing does its job. I was going to write: "There is quite a big difference in the costs. In the case of cable the revenue from the ads is going to the access provider - so you are paying the same person twice for the content. In the case of internet you are paying for access, and then you are paying the content provider."
But I'm sitting watching an ad-free channel on cable right now and I realise that I'm talking complete crap. The revenue goes to the channel, and they are often differe
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
I don't understand why cable networks think that we need to pay for their content twice. I mean, I'm already paying for their content via the cable subscription fee so why should I even have ads?
You're not paying twice for the same thing; you're paying for two different things. Cable companies do not pay networks to rebroadcast their signals, so your cable bill does not cover the cost of producing TV shows. What your cable bill pays for is the service they provide: installation and maintenance of the cables that go to your home, etc.
The exception to this rule is premium channels, where a portion of your fee does go to the network, which is why you don't see commercials on the movie channels, for
Re:I don't get... (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Actually,
Cable companies can and do pay for non-premium networks. The idea is fairly straight forward. If you need more viewers and your product is not so much in demand you might not charge for the product. More often then not these "less demanded" networks are packaged together with more appealing networks. Common sense comes into play here... if you can get someone to pay for your product then you will most likely elect to produce additional revenue where possible.
This applies to both network and broadca
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't know how this stuff works in the US, but where I live, the cable operator just catches the TV programs off the air or via some cable or satellite (I don't work for a cable company so don't know for sure), converts it to analog and sends both analog and digital versions trough the cable to my home. There is no difference between a channel that I can get off the air and the same channel on cable (except the reception quality). The commercials are part of the original program, so if the cable company w
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
In the US there's 4 or 5 OTA channels (CBS, NBC, ABC, FOX, and maybe a PBS or WGN). Cable gives you dozens or hundreds of channels that aren't ever broadcast OTA. It's those channels that they're arguing should be commercial free.
Re:I don't get... (Score:4, Informative)
In the US, a cable company cannot re-transmit at will.
It requires a re-transmission agreement or the broadcast originator files a "must carry" clause with the cable op.
Must carry is used in place when the cable company does not carry your broadcast signal and they do not want to negotiate rates.
A re-transmission agreement is simply a contract with whatever terms and length both parties can agree on. Top rated stations generally opt for cash and services from the cable company.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know what does the cable company have to do to be able to retransmit channels, but they do it. I can see all (or almost all) OTA channels in my country and foreign channels (for example a lot of Russian ones, also Discovery, History, TV1000 etc).
Re: (Score:2)
Not exactly.
Must Carry channels are local broadcasters who might be locked out of the cable system had not they gotten together and lobbied congress to force cable companies to carry them.
Without must carry rules, many subscribers in small markets would have to (and would probably gladly) forgo local programming.
In exchange for forcing their way onto the cable system, they must provide their signal free of charge to the cable providers.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't understand why magazine publishers think that we need to pay for their content twice. I mean, I'm already paying for their content via the magazine subscription fee so why should I even have ads? Either get rid of the subscription fees or get rid of the ads. This is like paying for a "premium" website only to get hit by pop ups on every page. I mean, I could even understand an ad or two at the start and after the end of an article, but why do they think they need to have pages of ads for every issue when I'm already paying for their content?
Re: (Score:2)
The channels without adds usually cost $10 to $20 a month. Your monthly fee for 46 or more channels of nothing worth watching isn't near that high.
think about that. 40 channels at $10 per month, $400 for nothing you haven't seen already or that doesn't make you tired and want to puke.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
By 2039, the show will be 9 minutes long and you'll have 51 minutes of ads. And fast-forward will be illegal.
You harshed my mellow, man! (Score:2)
Nine minutes of ads would be great. That's what you got in 1969 on a one hour show.
My memory is a little fuzzy from the late 1960's and all of the 1970's, but nine minutes per hour in 1969 sounds a little bit high. :-)
I'm not looking for an argument or debate here, just if you know where to find this info, I would truly appreciate a link. Really!
My fuzzy memory is only coming up with around seven minutes per hour, but again, I readily admit my fuzzy memory may be off base here.
To be honest, the only thing I truly remember from TV of 1969 with any clarity, is the Apollo 11 moon landing:
Spr
Re: (Score:2)
Are you from the US? There's no such thing as free rebroadcasting here. You're not paying for "their" content; they don't have any content. (Okay, maybe the lame help I've never seen a remote control before channel and local public access stuff is theirs, but by and large the content is licensed to them by others.) The cable companies are paying for rebroadcast rights for other people's content and passing that cost on to you. Also, unlike over the air broadcasting, cable networks actually cost money to mai
Re: (Score:2)
I don't understand why cable networks think that we need to pay for their content twice. I mean, I'm already paying for their content via the cable subscription fee
No, you're not. You are paying for 40% of their content via the subscription fee.
so why should I even have ads?
To cover the remaining 60%.
(Numbers are examples only. Actual percentages may vary from network to network.)
Heaven forbid you record a show off of tv! (Score:3, Insightful)
Yikes you mean you can record a show off of tv and watch it at a different location? Wow what an innovation... oh, wait, I used to do that with Video Tape (VHS) all the time... time shifting shows too... location shifting them is no different...
Before you know it you brain cells will have to pay a fee for SEEING a show. Oh wait, that's known as a movie theater...
Before you know it you'll have to pay a fee every time you REMEMBER a show you saw on TV. Now that's scary.
The content providers won but don't know it (Score:3, Insightful)
Not that I disagree with the ruling, but... (Score:2)
From the article...
Movie studios, TV networks and cable TV channels had argued that the service is more akin to video-on-demand, for which they negotiate licensing fees with cable providers.
Isn't this exactly what video-on-demand is? Downloading a movie locally that is held at the cable company's location? (DirecTV acts that way with their DVR. You have to download it). If so, the ruling may mean license fees are unneeded.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
There is a difference between the two situations.
In the VOD situation, the operator is making a preemptive copy, and then rebroadcasting that copy when the customer requests it. The operator decides what is to be recorded and made available.
In the PVR situation, the end customer decides what is recorded, and what is played back and stored.
The question becomes, since the customer already has the right to make a time-shifted copy of a TV show (Sony v. Universal), the question hinges on whether or not the net
MythTV is awesome (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Commercials, Reality TV, Soaps and other shit like this is the reason that I threw out my cable years ago.
When I wanna watch something now I download it.
I simply refuse to let them cram their crap down my throat.
Re:MythTV is awesome (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Thoughts from the consumer side. (Score:2)
On the one hand I'm hoping that with a central office based DVR solution we won't be limited by tuners to how many shows we can record - three programs on at the same time? No problem! Set a recording from one cable box and want to watch it in another room? No problem!
However, if the new central DVR service is run through their existing Pay Per View software then the user interface (at least on Comcast) is just awful. Based on how laggy the remote is with PPV I think this is also the death of channel sk
Re: (Score:2)
This is not quite the experience I've had with similar services. The cable box's interface is complete ass, but I was surprised at how responsive fast forward and rewind actually was.
I originally believed it was caching to my cable pvr unit.
Then I found out about the unencrypted channels and individuals reporting they were watching the forward and rewind of users.
Re: (Score:2)
I would think FF and Rew would work off of local cache. hence they could be locally responsive.
Re:Thoughts from the consumer side. (Score:4, Interesting)
More predictions. The cable companies are going to end up recording one of everything so "recording" something on the DVR is just a matter of keeping a pointer, so the next big fight is going to happen when a cable company allows you to "record" a show after it has already ended and the content producers cry foul.
And more control will be exercised as to how long you can keep a recording. Those Battlestar Galactica episodes you've been keeping on your DVR for 6 months? Um, no.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
The cable companies are going to end up recording one of everything so "recording" something on the DVR is just a matter of keeping a pointer
That's just compression. They're actually recording 100 separate copies for their customers, but since they're all identical they compress *really* well... You make pointers sound like it's a bad thing ;)
Fair Use! (Score:2)
This is a very good example of fair use.
No win for the consumer (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Since when is capitalism so unpopular?
If I'm evil for trying to turn a buck, then the US is in a shameful state for sure.
I guess you are right. Let's move to China where... wait... umm, they like the Benjamins as well. Russia? Ohh wait, that was almost 20 years ago. How about the moon? Yeah!
Exhibition (Score:2)
It is interesting that this case does not cross the line into the territory of retransmission.
No, they did not allow it (Score:2, Informative)
No, they did not allow it. Nor did they disallow it. They declined to hear the case. In all but a few situations, the Supreme Court has discretionary jurisdiction, and can decline to hear a case for a variety of reasons. Sometimes they want to wait until multiple circuits have considered an issue. Sometimes they think the time is ripe for the Court to settle an issue, but the particular case up for review is not a good vehicle for that review, and so waits for a better case. Sometimes they just don't think
I can see it now (Score:2)
Cable companies will have DVR farms, one for each channel, sucking up every show, every day, and making, say, the last 24-48 hours of shows available for free, in case you miss a show, but after hearing about it at work/school, you want to watch it. In addition to the default 24-48 hour retention, subscribers will also be able to submit requests for certain shows, and those requested shows will be retained until there is no more interest. The cable company could also update the commercials in their "slots"
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed, I wonder if this will end up biting cable companies in the ass in the long term. In-home DVRs and slingbox-type devices are getting cheaper and cheaper. Will they go a-suing a customer for "excessive use of services" just to be overturned by their own case law?