Fox's Attempt To Block Ad-skipping TV Recorder Autohop Fails 142
another random user writes that Fox's preliminary attempt to stop Dish Network's Autohop feature has failed in court. "A bid to block a TV service that allows viewers to automatically skip adverts on recorded shows has been rejected.
Fox had called for a preliminary injunction on Dish Network's Autohop ahead of a copyright ruling.
Broadcasters Fox, Comcast, NBC and CBS have each sued Dish Networks, saying the show recordings are unauthorized.
Fox said it would appeal against the ruling. It says Autohop is 'destroying the fundamental underpinnings of the broadcast television ecosystem.'
But Dish called the decision not to grant a preliminary injunction a 'victory for common sense.'
Its Hopper digital video recorder can record and store prime-time content from the four major networks for up to eight days.
And the Autohop feature lets viewers skip advertisements completely — rather than fast-forwarding through them — at the press of a button."
There's this website (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
You have to go to a website? How quaint. I just have SickBeard [sickbeard.com] sit and watch RSS feeds and grab stuff the second it's available.
It's pretty much a DVR minus the commercials.
Autohop (Score:1)
And the Autohop feature lets viewers skip advertisements completely — rather than fast-forwarding through them — at the press of a button.
I would prefer if this feature worked without having to press a button.
In fact, I thought that's what the name implied: "autohop", automatically-hop-commercials.
Does anyone know? I don't have Dish Network.
Re:Autohop (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
The last time I used Myth (within a few months I believe), the commercial detection worked flawlessly for the few shows I recorded. My Myth box unfortunately does not handle HD well and doesn't get much use anymore, but it seems to have improved since the box was under the TV a few years ago. If the Myth guys can get it that good, I think there's hope for Dish. (Though if the AC is correct and it's all done by people, it doesn't really matter what I say)
I'm sure someone will post that Myth sucks and neve
TiVo (Score:2)
I wish TiVo had this again...even if you have to press a button.
Re: (Score:2)
Thats why you should have bought a replay tv. IT had all the features you wanted on a Tivo back in the day, 480p, ethernet, internet show transfer, automatic commerical skipping etc.
I remember when... (Score:5, Insightful)
I remember when the cable co (now Time-Warner) came to my town back in the 80's. They said the subscription model would eliminate the need for ads.
AAahahahahahahahahahaha........
It reminds me of the insurance companies back then, all led by good God-fearing Republicans.
"If you pass seatbelt laws, the premiums can go down. If you pass Daytime-running lights the rates may go down. If you have airbags the rates will go *way* down."
I'm still waiting for the rates to go down.
,
.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:I remember when... (Score:4, Insightful)
Rates will go down when the number of things causing accidents does. Texting/distracted driving has gone WAY up,
Texting may have gone way up, but distracted driving hasn't. Just that the distraction itself is changing.
Texting while driving is really dumb, but so is putting on makeup, reading a paper, eating a salad. But dumb people do dumb things
and not much has changed overall.
Re: (Score:3)
But dumb people do dumb things and not much has changed overall.
people haven't changed, but cars sure have. Since I started driving they got rid of metal dashes, added seat belts, air bags, antilock brakes, and replaced the old drum brakes with the far more effective disk brakes.
So the idiot driver is still going to wreck her car, but it will be harder to do and she's more likely to survive the crash.
Re:I remember when... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
I am reminded of the line from Rick Cook's The Wizardry Compiled:
"Applications programming is a race between software engineers, who strive to produce idiot-proof programs, and the universe, which strives to produce bigger idiots. So far the Universe is winning."
Re: (Score:2)
I think engineers can get ahead of the "idiot improvement" curve if they just add 4" spikes to the steering wheel hub and change all dashboard surfaces to reinforced tempered steel.
-- Samuel Johnson... [samueljohnson.com] almost.
people drive more riskily (Score:2)
There is a fair bit of evidence that people will drive at a certain amount of perceived risk. So if you add a bunch of safety features then people will feel safer and thus tend to drive faster given the same conditions.
Around here there are always reports of people in 4wd vehicles getting into trouble when it snows--they've got more traction than a 2wd for getting up to speed, but the same amount of braking force.
Re:I remember when... (Score:4, Insightful)
And those risks 'just happened' to come into existence right as the insurers were about to honor their promise that those new mandates would slash rates across the board. WHAT A SHOCKING COINCIDENCE! Who could EVER have guessed that? Billions to one and yet it happens every single time.
Or perhaps they might just be liars.
Re:I remember when... (Score:5, Funny)
Not to mention that most people, when given a method of reducing base risk, will alter their behavior to bring risk back to previous levels. If you give somebody a way to be safer in a car crash, they'll use that "risk capital" to drive faster.
The crotchety old father of a friend of mine has a suggestion to reduce accident rates: installation of an eight inch metal spike in the center of the steering wheel, pointed at the driver's chest. And no seat belts. Bet you'll drive a bit safer in that configuration.
Re: (Score:2)
This was modded funny but is entirely true. Some parts of Europe have experimented with removing road markings completely and found that people drive much more cautiously. I seem to recall that when a road in the US was temporarily without any speed limit accidents went down too.
Re:I remember when... (Score:4, Interesting)
Wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong WRONG.
The cost of anything will never go down because the market has already worked out how much you're willing to pay. If the cost of the service to the vendor ever goes down then that's PROFIT. Prices will never go down even if the cost of providing the services reaches zero.
If the cost reaches zero then the only way to realize that cost reduction is by reimplementing the whole system at reduced cost again...cloning. Of course we have IP law to make sure this doesn't happen and we can keep prices artificially high.
Re: (Score:2)
The cost of things goes down all the time. Look no further than the computer you are typing on.
If you adjust for inflation, you have to work to find examples of things that have increased in price.
If the cost goes down, supply at the previous price goes up (increase profits!). The increase in supply will cause the supply and demand curves to shift, and then you have a lower price.
Of course, this never works for insurance because humans are programmed for risk. So if you make the car safer, you make the huma
Re: (Score:2)
The cost of things goes down all the time.... If you adjust for inflation, you have to work to find examples of things that have increased in price.
Yes, some things have become spectacularly cheap but they tend to be things, especially high tech things, that can be manufactured by slaves^H^H^H^H^H^H workers in China or India in exchange for a handful of rice. How the hell else does anybody make a keyboard for under 5 GBP [Ref Amazon for examples]?
:- Any basic materials such as timber, paint and metal; low tech components such
But there are plenty of things that have risen spectacularly in real terms in the UK anyway. Examples are obvious here
Re:I remember when... (Score:4, Insightful)
Once upon a time, a film crew took over a neighbour's house (with their permission, of course) to film a TV program.
I could watch the activity out of my bedroom window.
This took several days' time to file just on half hour program.
There were, of course the large number of trucks parked at the scene. Food trucks. Dressing room trucks. Lighting trucks (at least four or five of these and some of them were these giant semis). Even shower trucks. And *many* people.
What **ASTOUNDED** me was the sheer number of people who looked like they were standing around doing nothing.
I went downstairs and outside and started asking questions to other neighbours who were watching what was going on. She said that this is usual. Union rules require that each person have a very specific job. An electrician can only connect/disconnect lights. They cannot move anything.
She also said that it take an average of two or three hours to film just a few seconds of what you see on screen.
And *all* of the people I saw were paid union wages. Those wages bump up to 2x for each minute over 8 hours per day.
Folks. That experience taught me that TV shows are not cheap by any means!
Re: (Score:2)
The film team of about 30 people arrived at about 11am. They spent about an hour flaffing around setting things up. Or some of them did while the others watched. Then at midday they opened a van that had been closed until then and out came camp chairs, tables, and a dozen hampers of the most luxurious picnic he had ever seen - white table cloths, silver cutlery, bottles of wine and what looked like salads with sm
Re: (Score:2)
Ah cable when it came out. It sure was nice with no ads and little shorts to fill in while you wait for a show or movie to start. Then the zipper went down and ....censored
Re: (Score:2)
"If you pass seatbelt laws, the premiums can go down. If you pass Daytime-running lights the rates may go down. If you have airbags the rates will go *way* down."
Legislators were persuaded of the need; passed the laws, and then the laws did not have the intended effect of fewer deaths/injuries due to vehicle accidents.
Anti cell-phone laws won't either. The idiot factor cannot be overcome by passing new laws.
The idiots have seatbelts now, so they survive to get into more accidents, and people tend t
Re: (Score:2)
My rates are pretty low. Two cars, two drivers, full comprehensive and theft, $500 deductible, 2007 and 2011. $1150 / year. That's after each have had one no fault accident a few years back.
Re: (Score:2)
Legislators were persuaded of the need; passed the laws, and then the laws did not have the intended effect of fewer deaths/injuries due to vehicle accidents.
Incorrect. [usatoday.com]
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Oh, I'm over it all right. $25 a month was an exhorbitant amount back then. Nowdays its well north of $100. Of course its still not enough - the point is that it never will be. If any given company can take *all* of your income, they would. Meanwhile they shouldn't even bother to *imply* anything. As in, don't insult my intelligence.
Re: (Score:2)
Here in my state, it was the Democrats who passed the seat belt laws, but otherwise correct. Unfortunately, there are nanny state leaders on both sides.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm still waiting for the rates to go down.
Several possibilities:
1) they did, you're just not counting for inflation
2) improved safety means fewer fatalities and more hospitalization bills
3) false premise. I'm in NH - no seatbelt laws, very low insurance rates. Mandatory insurance means the insurers can collude to set an artificial pricing floor.
Re: (Score:2)
If you dont get credits or discounts for having seatbelts or running lights or other safety features...maybe you should do the capitalist thing....and get a better insurance company.
or you can do the typical /.'er thing and bitch about it while still handing over your money.
oh and dont forget to blame the republicans for everything, even when its false.
Fox...turning on the Free Market. (Score:2)
What a surprise.
I knew there love affair wasn't going to last very long.
They don't like autohop? (Score:5, Insightful)
Well i wonder how pissed they are that i don't even watch network tv anymore.. BECAUSE THEY ARE CHOCK FULL OF FUCKING ADS! I really can't stand it anymore. It's gotten so bad over the last decade. Any given show is now at least 40% ads. Maybe even more now with product placement and other scumbag ideas.
The world has too many ads. Period. And i'm not gonna join in anymore. Actually i even tend to avoid any products or stores that advertise often. Or annoyingly.
Advertisers ruin every thing they have ever touched. TV, Radio, Internet, Phone, Magazines, Even the real world driving down the road you are blasted with ads every 50 feet.
You make the world a worse place. I despise you all.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
It's substantial, but it's not 40%.
Re: (Score:3)
It used to be generally 22/8 for a half hour slot (27%), in Canada at least. There was a comedy show with 22 minutes in the name, related to that.
It always seemed to me that American channels had more advertising, but maybe it was just more unbearable that it felt longer. Goddamn lawyer ads, loans, no credit this and that, factory outlet, and so on.
I seem to think tv-rips were/are still 20(40)+ minutes, and they fit in half (full)hour slots...
Re: (Score:2)
What really pisses me off is not only the ads but when the station has those annoying ads pop up on the bottom of the screen during the show. Especially when the ad is 1/3 the size of the screen.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
1-hour shows in the US are generally ~44 minutes when the ad-blocks are removed.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Why are you on /.? /. has ads too even in their stories! :P
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
Top gear, etc (Score:1)
For stuff made in the N America, when you buy the DVD or whatever you usually get either 20 or 40 minutes per episodes (essentially what was on TV in a 30-min/hour slot, minus the commercials)
My co-workers like some British-origin shows like "Top Gear." They noticed that the versions here have commercials, but in the UK there are none and the episodes are still an hour long. That means not only are you getting about 25-30% ads (15-20 minutes), but you're LOSING 25-30% of the actual programming so that the a
Re: (Score:2)
Not watching TV is theft, and you should be ashamed of yourself. You wouldn't not drive a car, would you?
You will get what you pay for... (Score:5, Interesting)
I rarely watch live broadcast TV, and the other day I saw a show that had crap all over the screen - network bug in one corner, what I guess is a "twitter hashtag" in another corner - random "tweets" popping up... if not that then a crawl on the screen advertising when some OTHER show will come on, etc. etc. Let alone the full-on commercials.
As everyone uses a recorder and skips ads, the networks will have no choice but to embed ads into the content even deeper, if that is possible.
Even for "free" I don't want it. I, like others, am "this close" to canceling the tv portion of my cable bill altogether.
Re:You will get what you pay for... (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not free when you have to pay to receive the 'broadcast'. If they want me to watch the ads, first they'll have to cover my subscription costs, and then they'll have to make the ads worth viewing. And also, the Betamax ruling says we are allowed to record shows for later viewing.
Re:You will get what you pay for... (Score:5, Insightful)
And also, the Betamax ruling says we are allowed to record shows for later viewing.
That was before DRM, the DMCA, Macrovision technology, and the broadcast flag.
Content providers can prevent recording and manipulation of their content, by encrypting it, and leveraging contractual relationships with cable and sat companies to require content by delivered DRM protected to certain hardware that meets certain security requirements such as HDCP and doesn't have specific capabilities (such as analog content export, and commercial skip).
Re: (Score:1)
At this point, I really don't care what all they demand. Its already off my radar.
If they want to ship me whatever it is that they demand I have in order to see their transmissions, fine - if its small enough and isn't too much of a hassle, I might even connect it instead of throwing it in the trash can along with all the other unsolicited crap I get in the mail.
I believe the networks have a completely different problem than they think they have. I believe the real problem is how to get peopl
Re: (Score:3)
Soon they will have the TV split into a nine part grid, with the show in the centre, and ads running constantly on the other 8 equal sized portions of the screen.
And they'll still have ads on the 'show' portion of the screen half the time.
Then you'll need to get a projector to get the show back to the size it is now.
More and more... whenever I see the internet bareback, or watch TV, or hear commercial radio broadcasts... I'm shocked by how excessive and incessant the advertising is. I don't remember it bein
Re: (Score:2)
Soon they will have the TV split into a nine part grid, with the show in the centre, and ads running constantly on the other 8 equal sized portions of the screen.
And they'll still have ads on the 'show' portion of the screen half the time.
That's what the TV shown in Idiocracy looked like as I recall...
It was ten years ago that I decided to "opt out" of TV, and I've never regretted it.
Screw 'em all. (Score:4)
It boggles my mind why everyone on a geek website buys products like this rather than just get an old PC, a TV tuner card and install Linux+mythTV on it.
I get to record and keep whatever I like for as long as I like and it auto-skips commercials too. Plus I can pipe tv all over the house over my home network. Best of all I own the box, can install what the hell I like on it, and the software is free.
Re:Screw 'em all. (Score:5, Interesting)
It boggles my mind why everyone on a geek website buys products like this rather than just get an old PC, a TV tuner card and install Linux+mythTV on it.
Linux+MythTV won't be a viable PVR option for many users until CableCard is cracked (or unless the FCC actually forces the cable companies to be platform agnostic, which seems very unlikely). OTA TV isn't good enough unless you want to be very limited in the shows you can watch.
Re:Screw 'em all. (Score:5, Interesting)
Oh and also integration with both Netflix and XBMC, I really want to like MythTV. It does a lot of things well but it can't do everything I need it to.
Re: (Score:2)
Assuming you mean Schedules Direct, the TV listings cost a measly $25 per year.
Also, you can get several cable card tuners that work with MythTV, such as HDHomerun.
I save way more than that (and feel better too) by avoiding buying Microsoft products in the first place.
FCC requires IEEE-1394 unencrypted feed (Score:5, Interesting)
:>)
Reference: 1394 interface as defined in the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) mandate for a functional 1394 interface in the STB [1394ta.org]
1394 Trade Association sez : http://www.1394ta.org/press/TAPress/2010_0622.html [1394ta.org]
Re: (Score:3)
Sure, technically that's a requirement. But any programming flagged Copy Never can't be sent over it, and as for everything else, what are you going to feed it to? There isn't any readily available software that can take advantage of that feature, so it goes unused even by geeks.
Re: (Score:2)
Call up your provider and tell them to give you a box with IEEE-1394 access to an unencrypted feed.
You think that will seriously work? The tier 1 and 2 reps aren't in a position to do anything about this. Most know nothing about the government mandates that apply to the company they work for. They only know what their supervisors tell them. And between the government and the people who sign their paychecks, who do you think they're going to listen to?
A law is only a law if someone enforces it.
Until someone actually takes he cablecos to court for this, they will continue to not offer these boxes.
Re: (Score:2)
The FCC also requires every cable provider to give you a set-top box (STB) that gives unencrypted access via a firewire (IEEE 1394) port. Look it up. Write down the requirement number. Call up your provider and tell them to give you a box with IEEE-1394 access to an unencrypted feed.
:>)
Reference: 1394 interface as defined in the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) mandate for a functional 1394 interface in the STB [1394ta.org]
1394 Trade Association sez : http://www.1394ta.org/press/TAPress/2010_0622.html [1394ta.org]
Yes, but cable shows can be flagged to not be sent unencrypted across the firewire port. The only requirement they have is to pass through the OTA shows via that port. Which means you haven't solved anything.
Re: (Score:2)
And here's some more background [theamericanconsumer.org]. Basically the FCC stopped requiring STBs to have a IEEE-1394 port, because it was expensive for providers and the market wanted HDMI instead. If you really want one, your provider is still required to give you one, but it will take some serious effort from you part to make them.
Re: (Score:2)
my ota myth setup gets PBS and maybe 2 other stations that -sometimes- have watchable content.
when pbs is good, its great. when its bad, its just boring, but not crass.
can't stand the other channels. stopped getting sat tv over 5 years ago. cable stopped long before that.
if tv sucks, then I end up watching less tv! that's really a good side-effect. it is! spend the balance online, where its at least active and not passive (tv really is too passive).
Re: (Score:2)
Not everyone can get OTA too because of their locations. My parents' home is blocked by a giant hill/mountain. :(
Re: (Score:2)
It seems several people here mistakenly think MythTV can only do OTA, which is not true.
I use mine exclusively with cable. My TV card is a Hauppauge WinTV-HVR-2200, (it can record 2 channels concurrently, supports both analog and digital). I go straight off the cable (both the card and MythTV support QAM) but there are also many ways you can get MythTV to control and take an input from a cable box too. MythTV also supports several cable card tuners.
Re: (Score:2)
HDFury + HD-PVR.
It won't go beyond 1080i, but MythTV/VDPAU deinterlacing turns 1080i into something perfectly watchable while keeping disk usage low.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
>> IIRC this product only works on broadcast TV stations,
Nope totally wrong. I use mine with cable, dont even own an antenna.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's quite the opposite, actually. Basic cable has very, very few original shows that are anything more than reality-TV filler. The overwhelming majority of what they broadcast is syndicated shows that originally aired on the broadcast networks. And the few original shows on basic cable... are usually available for free on Hulu.
And with the transition to digital, the channel count has EXPLODED. NBC broadcasting Unive
Long time reader firsttime slashvertisement whiner (Score:2)
"Its Hopper digital video recorder can record and store prime-time content from the four major networks for up to eight days. And the Autohop feature lets viewers skip advertisements completely — rather than fast-forwarding through them — at the press of a button."
Okay, half of that is relevant, the other half (hell, the whole thing) feels like it's pulled straight from the ads for it.
Ironic, no?
Re: (Score:2)
Okay, half of that is relevant
And the part that describes the exact feature that has caused this all to end up in court isn't?
They charge Dish Network to carry them, right? (Score:4, Interesting)
This is the thing that has bothered me since the (1996?) law was changed, allowing "free" broadcast channels to charge cable and satellite operators to carry them. If they had to rely on OTA viewers, their ratings (and thusly, their advertising revenue) would go to shit. Cable and satellite providers boost these ratings, making their commercial revenue much greater... but they get to double dip?
The way I see it, when they charge for access to their programming, commercials are no longer a relevant part of the "ecosystem" - they are no different from HBO or Showtime, since they collect fees for every viewer on that system. In that respect, skipping commercials are fair game.
Seems fairly simple.... (Score:2)
All they need to do is figure out how Autohop works, and then redesign their advertisements so that they defeat feature. Some are based on volume detection... all the network would need to do to defeat that is have the commercials at the same volume level as the programming (which would have the upshot from the network's point of view that the commercials would be less annoying, and people might be less reluctant to sit through them).
Also, they would be smart to make commercials of various durations....
Re: (Score:2)
-I'm just sayin
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
The only problem with that is that the likes of MythTV are in the same arms race. As soon as any open source project figures out how to deal with the the new scheme, EVERYONE will ( including Dish).
Although we may be quickly reaching the point where it just doesn't matter anymore.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Then they would start putting black frames in the content, causing you to miss most of the content, causing the devices to stop using that method.
Re: (Score:3)
All they need to do is figure out how Autohop works, and then redesign their advertisements so that they defeat feature. Some are based on volume detection... all the network would need to do to defeat that is have the commercials at the same volume level as the programming
There is another option..... attempt to trick Autohop into thinking parts of the programming are commercials, so that they wind up skipping highly noticeable chunks of actual programming.
People will be less inclined to use the feat
Re: (Score:2)
Commericals are generically detected through:
switch from stereo to mono
black frames
cue tones
Re: (Score:2)
1) Detecting a switch from stereo to mono is bypassed by broadcasting commercials in the same audio format as the program.
2)This can result in false positives by having black frames between scenes in the programming.
3)What if they didn't utilize any cue tones?
There's no theoretical reason that a commercial could not be made completely indistinguishable from the broadcasted program by an automated appliance without developing an AI that is about as intelligent as a human being.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
There's absolutely no theoretical reason you could not make commercials indistinguishable from the programming to anything other than a living human being.
Re: (Score:1)
do you really think any network would reduce the loudness of their ads just to stop some percentage of viewers blocking them for recordings? if you are recording, then you are still counted as a viewer and the ads can
Re: (Score:2)
It also makes it very easy to automate a technological process that skips them entirely, thereby failing to gather any attention at all from people who might be watching a recording..
Re: (Score:1)
proof is in the pudding... fox would rather risk the legal route than implement any of your simple technical recommendations
Re: (Score:2)
1) Detecting a switch from stereo to mono is bypassed by broadcasting commercials in the same audio format as the program.
2)This can result in false positives by having black frames between scenes in the programming.
3)What if they didn't utilize any cue tones?
There's no theoretical reason that a commercial could not be made completely indistinguishable from the broadcasted program by an automated appliance without developing an AI that is about as intelligent as a human being.
1. All these approaches require changing the current systems at the content providers. Some how it is always easier to spend money on lawyers than on R&D.
2. The content providers actually need the add queues to provide regional and interactive advertising. Certainly these can be removed when the ads are inserted, but again this will require changing the current systems.
3. All these countermeasures can be circumvented by fingerprinting the ads. Yes, couple of ads can slip the first time they are aired
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, fingerprinting would be the worst way to deal with it from the broadcaster's perspective as it leaves a way to automate detecting the difference between a commercial and a program, enabling them to be easily autoskipped.
The ideal, from the broadcaster's perspective, would be that there is no technological method that could be used to distinguish a commercial from the regular program short of having an AI that is just as sophisticated as a living human being, and so the ads could not readily be
Re: (Score:2)
Good. That just means I'll remember not to buy that product. If I remember your advertising you get no sale from me.
Ah The Beauty... (Score:4, Funny)
Great! (Score:1)
'destroying the fundamental underpinnings of the broadcast television ecosystem.'
Hooray!
No.
Yay!!!
No.
SQUEEEEEEE!!!!!!
Yessss!!!
Simple Fix: Make Ads Fun to Watch (Score:2)
Like the Allstate Mayhem commercials. In my long-ago youth I remember ads being much more entertaining and unobtrusive. I was never annoyed by the Dolly Madison commercials during the Peanuts holiday season specials--it actually seems like something is missing when I watch the Peanuts specials on DVD without them. How about Wendy's "Where's the Beef?" Just a few years back the K9 Advantix "Hello Father Hello Mother" puppy commercial was great.
These days it's the same old sterile erectile-dysfunction ad play
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, advertising is objectionable no matter how entertaining it is. I will not have my purchasing decisions manipulated by marketers.
youtube ads (Score:1)
No. It's a feature. (Score:1)
And the Autohop feature lets viewers skip advertisements completely — rather than fast-forwarding through them — at the press of a button.
So... It can now do what my MythTV system could do since ... forever?
think of the (Score:2)
Except... (Score:2)
This isn't broadcast tv, it's satellite, which means people PAY to watch your programming and Dish pays you transmission fees. So if you want to provide your content for free, you may have an argument, until then, you don't.
Re: (Score:2)