Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 25th May 2012 07:39 UTC
Legal Dish' DVR has an 'auto-hop' feature, which automatically skips commercials on recorded TV. Fox is now suing Dish over this feature, because they claim it will destroy the business model of ad-driven television. "We were given no choice but to file suit against one of our largest distributors, Dish Network, because of their surprising move to market a product with the clear goal of violating copyrights and destroying the fundamental underpinnings of the broadcast television ecosystem," said Fox. This is the photographic film industry suing digital camera makers. It's so utterly absurd I can hardly believe it's for real.
Thread beginning with comment 519504
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
US vs the World
by deathshadow on Fri 25th May 2012 22:36 UTC
deathshadow
Member since:
2005-07-12

Something our friends from overseas may not grasp -- and we've seen it both in Thom's little rant and from a few posters here... is that broadcast TV is FREE in the US to consumers -- it is paid for ENTIRELY by advertising. Blocking advertising removes all broadcast channels income.

Just as broadcast radio is free here in the US -- paid by advertising, and why a newspaper still costs about half what it costs them to print them -- paid for by advertising. It's why our fish wrappers/community papers/"shoppers" are FREE, as they are cover to cover more advertising than content.

This is not even CLOSE to what Thom kneejerked into thinking it was from a US standpoint... and I'd not be surprised to see the other broadcast networks -- ABC, CBS, NBC and WB hop on this bandwagon to protect their affiliate broadcast stations from losses in revenue.

That's why broadcast TV has advertising... and why I never really understood "cable only" stations need for it given the noodle doodle prices ($100 and up these days) of most cable and satellite packages... except of course that even channels like USA or Spike make far, far more money from advertising than they do in 'carrying fees' from cable and satellite providers.

NOT that I'm one to talk anymore since I canceled cable and now just watch Netflix and Hulu, which for me are far more economic and reasonable choices.

Or that I now live in a valley where ever since the stupid malfing switch-over to digital broadcast only means there is ZERO broadcast TV reception any more. Thanks Congress for shoving a technology change nobody could afford down our throats, and destroying broadcast TV availability in the process... not that it was a big loss here since the only channel you could get before the switch-over without a 100 foot tower in the back yard was PBS.

OH, BTW, Dish is a total ripoff given their 2 year contract locking, thousand dollar fees for trying to discontinue service, auto-billing when you discontinue service without you EVER authorizing auto-billing to checking accounts, fraction of the channels of what we get in my area on cable at about $20/mo less in cost, and general sleazeball practices that make them one of the most disreputable companies in the nation. I've watched three of my neighbors deal with that ***, and it makes me really glad I was never DUMB ENOUGH to try and get satellite service.

These guys make Amway look legitimate... and the really sad part is, DirectTV (the only other major satellite provider here) makes Dish look GOOD.

Edited 2012-05-25 22:53 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE: US vs the World
by deathshadow on Fri 25th May 2012 23:00 in reply to "US vs the World"
deathshadow Member since:
2005-07-12

Oh, BTW, there's a REASON commercial free cable channels cost even more noodle-doodle money each! Top 200 is $15/mo more, while HBO, Showtime and Cinemax cost that EACH? Ring any bells?

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE: US vs the World
by ilovebeer on Sat 26th May 2012 00:39 in reply to "US vs the World"
ilovebeer Member since:
2011-08-08

Something our friends from overseas may not grasp -- and we've seen it both in Thom's little rant and from a few posters here... is that broadcast TV is FREE in the US to consumers -- it is paid for ENTIRELY by advertising. Blocking advertising removes all broadcast channels income.

I didn't bother reading any further than this because I didn't see the point. You are absolutely wrong when you say networks only revenue is generated by advertising. Perhaps you're confusing local affiliates with networks -- they are two completely different things. As is true for all the major networks, the lions share of money they make is from syndication.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE: US vs the World
by redshift on Sat 26th May 2012 01:29 in reply to "US vs the World"
redshift Member since:
2006-05-06

Something our friends from overseas may not grasp -- and we've seen it both in Thom's little rant and from a few posters here... is that broadcast TV is FREE in the US to consumers -- it is paid for ENTIRELY by advertising. Blocking advertising removes all broadcast channels income.


One of the things I hate about this model is that they have been encreasint the amount of advertising per program steadily over the years. You will find that old shows actually need to be edited and or time compressed to fit in the smaller space allotted for shows so that they can spend more time advertising. Even the number of episodes in a season seems to have dropped.

THey go so far as to alter the content of shows in reruns now....
http://articles.businessinsider.com/2011-07-09/tech/29984553_1_new-...

I am so sick of advertisements layered into every aspect of our lives. Most of them for crap I would never buy anyway.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE: US vs the World
by Alfman on Sat 26th May 2012 02:34 in reply to "US vs the World"
Alfman Member since:
2011-01-28

deathshadow,

"Something our friends from overseas may not grasp -- and we've seen it both in Thom's little rant and from a few posters here... is that broadcast TV is FREE in the US to consumers -- it is paid for ENTIRELY by advertising. Blocking advertising removes all broadcast channels income."

I think this needs more elaboration, since it's not accurate for US cable subscribers. It's only truly free for broadcast viewers. However the majority of US viewers are actually cable. They either don't want to fiddle with an antenna every time they change the channel, or they are in a rural/suburban region that has insufficient coverage.

http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2008/12/03/updated-where-did-the-p...


Cable tv viewers DO pay for broadcast TV programming, even though they are generally included with the basic bundle rather than value added options. They may pay less than premium channels however the fees are multiplied over every single subscriber, even those who don't watch those networks. Another thing to consider is that cable internet users have to pay for basic cable channels even if they're using a dish network for TV. All the businesses here who have cable internet are paying for basic tv even when they don't have a TV. Some of those proceeds go to Fox and other ad supported networks.

http://kimberly-shumway.suite101.com/tv-business-model-explained-a1...

"These cable/satellite providers pay cable networks a monthly fee for each subscriber. According to Broadcasting & Cable, providers pay an average of $.26 for each channel that they offer to customers ('Business model unraveling for TV networks,' 29 December 2009). Some channels cost more, like ESPN which goes for almost $4; others cost less, like MTV2, which goes for a few cents."

"Fox is an illustrative example; for the quarter ended September 2009, its broadcast network reported a 54% drop in operating income while its cable networks reported a 41% increase. NBC's Jeff Zucker has told investors 'the cable model is just superior to the broadcast model'"


Our local cable monopoly apparently pays Fox $70M/year, and fox had threatened to pull it's network if it didn't get $150M. Anyone who watched TV on cablevision during these past few years will probably remember the scrolling banners that networks injected onto their cablevision feeds, telling cable subscribers to call up the cable company and demand they not discontinue the network's programming. Fox is still there, but we lost other basic channels over failed negotiations. All are ad supported channels.


http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/14/business/media/14fox.html

I think this link is a good read for anyone who wants to understand the fighting over fees that goes on behind the scenes (and sometimes spills over as a scrolling banner on top of the programs people are trying to watch).

Hopefully the link is not behind a paywall for anyone.

Edited 2012-05-26 02:47 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[2]: US vs the World
by deathshadow on Sat 26th May 2012 03:44 in reply to "RE: US vs the World"
deathshadow Member since:
2005-07-12

Cable tv viewers DO pay for broadcast TV programming, even though they are generally included with the basic bundle rather than value added options.
an amount that really only covers transmission charges -- case in point:

According to Broadcasting & Cable, providers pay an average of $.26 for each channel that they offer to customers


Let's take... the Commiewealth of Taxachusetts, southern NH and Rhode Island as an example... and use WFXT 25, the local fox affiliate -- which totals by US Census and FCC numbers somewhere around 3.6 million homes; let's highball and say all those homes are paying that 26 cents to have WFXT carried via satellite or cable.

3.6 million * 0.26 = 936 million dollars a month sounds impressive...

But compare to say... the dozen or so prime-time advertising slots averaging $100k/pop PER SHOWING? They make that billion or so in a DAY of advertising. I mean sure, you can run a 30 minute informercial for $5 a pop at 3AM -- daytime and primetime broadcasts? $50k is the low end and how many of those can they run EVERY DAY? Admittedly nailing down rates is tough since cost is DIRECTLY tied to Neilsen ratings and/or expected viewership (see the 2.4 million dollars every 30 seconds superbowl price), you add up the advertising costs over a month, and it makes the fees from cable and satellite providers look like chump change; certainly not enough to operate on without advertisements.

... and it's NOT a difference between networks and their affiliates; two thirds of every minute of advertising is devoted to national ads, the remaining third for local. Even without the broadcast model, the local affiliate is still an essential part of the infrastructure when it comes to news, regional broadcasts, and tailoring of content delivery to the community.

... and that's just talking ONE channel; if we're talking every Fox broadcasting channel -- FX, Faux News, Fox Sports, etc, etc... that's a significant multiplier that makes those fees seem even more pathetic.

Also, I would question that 26 cents given the top 200 over basic plans is typically 15 to 30 bucks more -- I very much doubt they're paying 52 dollars per household for that. A little common sense and reverse engineering can really lay waste to that type of information.

Reply Parent Score: 1