 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 21 Jan 2009 09:17:32 +0100, scott wrote:
>>> Geez how much are you guys paying for TV?!?!
>>
>> $75/month, no premium channels either. It was $95/month.
>
> Oh wow that is a lot, in the UK you pay the standard TV license which is
> about 10 pounds a month, which gives you about 30 channels IIRC, 5-10 of
> them are pretty good the rest pants. You can subscribe to SkyTV via
> satellite which costs 15 pounds a month, but that's just for the basic
> channels. If you want all the premium channels and HD it's about 50
> pounds a month.
>
> I just have a big satellite dish that receives all the free SkyTV
> channels, so no monthly subscription at all, and I get the 5-10 pretty
> good channels, plus 990 crap ones :-)
Yeah, we get something like 150 channels currently, but we only watch
about 6-8 of them consistently. I would really like it if Comcast would
give us a "build your own package" option, where you pay per channel and
select only what you want. Or maybe the reverse of that, they bill you
only for the channels you watch programs on. Kinda like the idea hotels
have where you can start a movie for 10 minutes or so, and after that
they bill you for it.
Heck, they could charge per program and get rid of the advertisers. Now
that's something I'd back.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 21 Jan 2009 00:19:11 -0200, Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
> scott wrote:
>> Actually on BBC channels there are no adverts at all, apart from
>> trailers for other BBC programs and services. These usually come in
>> the form of 1-3 short trailers *between* each program, never during a
>> program.
>
> Whoa, I wish TV was like that here.
>
> The History Channel breaks every 10 minutes in the middle of the
> programs, sometimes advertising products but mostly advertising other
> programs in the same channel. And that's cable TV, paying for it. What
> the hell?
That's why we use our DVR and have programmed a button on it to skip 30
seconds. We hardly ever see commercials any more.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> That's why we use our DVR and have programmed a button on it to skip 30
> seconds. We hardly ever see commercials any more.
There's a program for Windows Media Center called "Lifextender" (note, one
"e") that automatically chops the commercials out of a program after it's
recorded. Very nice.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"Ouch ouch ouch!"
"What's wrong? Noodles too hot?"
"No, I have Chopstick Tunnel Syndrome."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 21 Jan 2009 10:36:26 -0800, Darren New wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> That's why we use our DVR and have programmed a button on it to skip 30
>> seconds. We hardly ever see commercials any more.
>
> There's a program for Windows Media Center called "Lifextender" (note,
> one "e") that automatically chops the commercials out of a program after
> it's recorded. Very nice.
Sounds cool, I've played around with a few tools on Linux that let you
clip segments out, but not for chopping commercials completely.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Heck, they could charge per program and get rid of the advertisers. Now
> that's something I'd back.
Nowadays I think the "flat rate" model makes more money, most people seem to
be happy to pay a premium to have the knowledge that they *could*
watch/surf/talk as much as they wanted.
I suspect the TV companies are doing what they feel will make most money, if
they switch to no adverts and charge the customers more then I suspect a lot
of people would be unwilling to pay and would prefer the adverts. What they
need is a two-tier system, where you can pay extra to have channels with no
adverts, but not sure how that might work. Those sort of systems can make
more money than having just one product.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 21 Jan 2009 10:36:26 -0800, Darren New <dne### [at] san rrcom> wrote:
>Jim Henderson wrote:
>> That's why we use our DVR and have programmed a button on it to skip 30
>> seconds. We hardly ever see commercials any more.
>
>There's a program for Windows Media Center called "Lifextender" (note, one
>"e") that automatically chops the commercials out of a program after it's
>recorded. Very nice.
I read recently that because of that there is a scheme being trailed (in the UK)
to place adverts in clear areas of the screen. Even more obtrusive to my mind.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 22 Jan 2009 09:09:34 +0100, scott wrote:
>> Heck, they could charge per program and get rid of the advertisers.
>> Now that's something I'd back.
>
> Nowadays I think the "flat rate" model makes more money, most people
> seem to be happy to pay a premium to have the knowledge that they
> *could* watch/surf/talk as much as they wanted.
>
> I suspect the TV companies are doing what they feel will make most
> money, if they switch to no adverts and charge the customers more then I
> suspect a lot of people would be unwilling to pay and would prefer the
> adverts. What they need is a two-tier system, where you can pay extra
> to have channels with no adverts, but not sure how that might work.
> Those sort of systems can make more money than having just one product.
Well, it's important to know that at least in the US, television isn't
really about entertainment, it's about being an advertising vehicle. The
entertainment tends to be a loss leader; the channels make their money
from advertising, generally speaking.
That model is breaking down now with the advent of DVRs. The industry
hasn't really known what to do about it, either - there have been some
attempts to do Truman Show-style product placement (ineffective = Eureka;
effective-ish = Damages), but there have been efforts as well to prevent
people from skipping commercials (which is why I had to program my remote
for a 30-second skip forward rather than Comcast providing a remote that
could do that already). The problem is that until they make it
impossible for people to leave the room their TV is in, people will skip
commercials, one way or the other.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 22 Jan 2009 14:32:22 +0000, Stephen wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Jan 2009 10:36:26 -0800, Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>
>>Jim Henderson wrote:
>>> That's why we use our DVR and have programmed a button on it to skip
>>> 30 seconds. We hardly ever see commercials any more.
>>
>>There's a program for Windows Media Center called "Lifextender" (note,
>>one "e") that automatically chops the commercials out of a program after
>>it's recorded. Very nice.
>
> I read recently that because of that there is a scheme being trailed (in
> the UK) to place adverts in clear areas of the screen. Even more
> obtrusive to my mind.
Interesting....I had read a paper online about technology to
realistically embed images in pre-recorded video (or in still photos) -
the demo was quite impressive, replacing a picture with a video, for
example. It tracked camera movement as well, which was really impressive.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
And lo On Thu, 22 Jan 2009 16:25:34 -0000, Jim Henderson
<nos### [at] nospamcom> did spake thusly:
> On Thu, 22 Jan 2009 09:09:34 +0100, scott wrote:
>
>>> Heck, they could charge per program and get rid of the advertisers.
>>> Now that's something I'd back.
>>
>> Nowadays I think the "flat rate" model makes more money, most people
>> seem to be happy to pay a premium to have the knowledge that they
>> *could* watch/surf/talk as much as they wanted.
>>
>> I suspect the TV companies are doing what they feel will make most
>> money, if they switch to no adverts and charge the customers more then I
>> suspect a lot of people would be unwilling to pay and would prefer the
>> adverts. What they need is a two-tier system, where you can pay extra
>> to have channels with no adverts, but not sure how that might work.
>> Those sort of systems can make more money than having just one product.
Unless the costs for starting and running it are too high; you'd need two
concurrent signals because the scheduled would be completely different and
you'd need extra shows to fill the gaps - take an hour show, remove the
ads which makes it 45 minutes and afer 24 hours you'd need 8 more
programmes to fill the slots. If you commision only hour-long programmes
they won't be shown on the ad-channel or they will be but the two channels
will drift out of sync. In a couple of months time the ad-free will be
watching season 4 while the ad-channel will still be on season 2.
> Well, it's important to know that at least in the US, television isn't
> really about entertainment, it's about being an advertising vehicle. The
> entertainment tends to be a loss leader; the channels make their money
> from advertising, generally speaking.
>
> That model is breaking down now with the advent of DVRs.
The model starting breaking down with VCRs. Although the loudest noise was
about people taping and rewatching shows, i.e. not buying the released
videos, some noise was made about people being able to fast-forward
through the adverts
> The industry
> hasn't really known what to do about it, either - there have been some
> attempts to do Truman Show-style product placement (ineffective = Eureka;
> effective-ish = Damages), but there have been efforts as well to prevent
> people from skipping commercials (which is why I had to program my remote
> for a 30-second skip forward rather than Comcast providing a remote that
> could do that already).
I'm surprised the broadcasters haven't tried to sue the DVR manufacturers
for loss of earnings by including a skip function.
> The problem is that until they make it
> impossible for people to leave the room their TV is in, people will skip
> commercials, one way or the other.
They could try broadcasting in our dreams, or fitting us with in-retina
screens. Damn combine that with the smart editing programme and you can
have one channel edit out your competitors brand completely (or replace it
with something horrible) "Welcome to the Coca Cola channel" "[screams]
what's that? It's hideous!" "That's a bottle of Pepsi sir" "Take it away!
Take it away... oo is that Summer Glau holding that bottle of Coke?"
--
Phil Cook
--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Stephen wrote:
> I read recently that because of that there is a scheme being trailed (in the UK)
> to place adverts in clear areas of the screen. Even more obtrusive to my mind.
That and "product placement."
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"Ouch ouch ouch!"
"What's wrong? Noodles too hot?"
"No, I have Chopstick Tunnel Syndrome."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
