Fox's latest attempt at DVR busting

[lsilvest]

Fox is trying out new technology to circumvent the FF and commercial skip features in DVRs.

Defeating the DVR to Promote Shows - TVWeek - News

I have another post in the forums about recent SmartSkip processing on "24" where the whole hour looked like a long commercial. At least on a local level I've seen more glitches on Fox broadcasts than any of the other majors. Locally they use grey pillarboxes when in SD mode and there are numerous times in virtually every show when it should be HD and the boxes will pop on for 10 or 15 seconds or more then go back to HD. Not sure if it's because of their playing around with their TIVO busters as they call it or just poor execution.

[Terminal]

It doesn't bother me. I quit using smartskip a few months after it became available. As far as I am concerned it's just a neat gimmick. I don't mind clicking my skip ahead button on my mouse 3 or 4 times and maybe a skip back once. If I have to watch 5 or 6 seconds of commercials I can live with that.

[LionRed]

It just makes me feel so good inside to skip commercials.
...I also use the skip a few 30 seconds ahead...then maybe a skip back

But skipping now...makes it so much more painful...when we visit the in-laws....my god there are just way toooooo many commercials.

When visiting..I just mute the volume, during commercials. If these buggers putting these commercials out would just lower the bloody volume....I would be more inclined to watch em.
I know...someone is going to say they do not raise the volume....well if I have to lower the volume (so I can hear myself think), then that Fracking commercial is too loud

Sorry..I think you hit a nerv

[TomXP411]

it would be nice if the average volume during commercials is somewhat closer to the average volume during tv shows... instead of normalizing it at 0dB, they could normalize at -6 or -9 dB...

but that would require actual thinking on the part of the audio production staff... something that seems to be in short supply.

[Nick Burns]

I like watching Fringe/Dollhouse, they specifically state: Fringe/Dollhouse will return in 60/90 seconds (and this is FOX no less!) Two/three skip forwards and Bam! You're back at the show.


Yes, you're right, someone was going to respond that commercials are not louder... TV shows are just quieter.

Some time back, Jamie Kellner, chairman of Turner Broadcasting, stated that skipping commercials, even going to the bathroom during commercial breaks was stealing TV. Looks like FOX is agreeing with him.

[TomXP411]

I love how these companies somehow think that their business model should be protected by law.

"Stealing" by not watching commercials... that's such a joke.

I once read a story about a guy who invented a machine that tells you the day you're going to die. He started selling his services, telling people the day and time of their deaths. The life insurance companies sued him, saying that people stopped buying life insurance, since they know they won't need it!

The judge said "A better innovation came around and broke your business model. People don't need your service any more. You lose."

How is this situation any different? 60 years ago, TV companies thought they could make money by shoving advertising down the consumers' throats. That worked because people were so enamored by TV that they'd watch even the ads.

Today, people have a choice. We have video tape, DVR's, BitTorrent (it's not legal, but it's still there), and sites like Hulu and TV.com. People are also used to paying for TV. We don't need the "free" service offered by commercials in TV networks any more.

It's time that the networks acknowledge that and find new ways to package their product.

I'd rather pay $2 per network to watch TV via the Internet than pay $60 a month for 400 channels I don't watch. Like many people, I watch maybe 5 or 6 channels on a regular basis, and I wouldn't even need the cable company if I could download my shows directly from iTunes or watch them on Hulu.

[Rich A]

Originally Posted by lsilvest

Fox is trying out new technology to circumvent the FF and commercial skip features in DVRs.

Defeating the DVR to Promote Shows - TVWeek - News

I have another post in the forums about recent SmartSkip processing on "24" where the whole hour looked like a long commercial. At least on a local level I've seen more glitches on Fox broadcasts than any of the other majors. Locally they use grey pillarboxes when in SD mode and there are numerous times in virtually every show when it should be HD and the boxes will pop on for 10 or 15 seconds or more then go back to HD. Not sure if it's because of their playing around with their TIVO busters as they call it or just poor execution.

I quickly browsed the supplied link (so I may have missed something) but from what I can see they are only talking about fast forwarding. It should have no effect on any system that examines the video post capture and marks the commercial spots for later skipping.

I've always had excellent results with the BTV commercial marking. Also have not had problems with Fox as others have noted. Occasionally there is a bad mark, but that is very rare for me. Curious ..

[lsilvest]

I understand where the OTA networks are coming from since that's their source of revenue. I do think they are making a bigger fuss than necessary over those of us that are skipping the commercials - more discerning individuals that they probably aren't reaching anyway. Considering the substance of their advertising, they are obviously relying on reaching the brain dead segment of society (the largest demographically). Consequently, their only reason for complaining is not being able to show sheer numbers to their advertisers instead of actual effectiveness (which would likely be the same with or without TIVO/DVR users).

I was stationed in Germany many many years ago and long before VCRs. At that time, the commercials were shown in 30 MINUTE BLOCKS, never during a presentation (both German TV and the BBC). We enjoyed them (as did the German people) because they were VERY INNOVATIVE AND ENTERTAINING (other than Big Bang and 2 1/2 Men, better than any comedy on now - which may be more than coincidental). Maybe the MadMen should get a clue from that concept.

Another thing many of you are too young to remember is that when cable first came out the big promotion was even though you had to pay a little, THERE WOULD BE NO COMMERCIALS. Now we have the worst of both worlds - paying outrageous prices for commercials.

Case in point: I do watch Milwaukee Best commercials.

[Nick Burns]

Just to clarify, Bit Torrent in and of itself is not illegal, just uploading copyright information to it is. Downloading is not illegal. The RIAA has not sued anyone for downloading (regardless what the press says), only those who shared/provided the material.

[TomXP411]

Technically, you're correct, but using BitTorrent also makes you a sharer: The whole point of the protocol is that it goes both ways.

The last time a friend of mine used BT, he actually got a warning letter from Cox telling him that he'd been identified as sharing out copyrighted material - they had the name of the movie, date, time, and IP address in the letter.

And while downloaders aren't getting sued, it is illegal under the Copyright act to make a copy that you're not authorized to make. If you don't own the original, you don't have the right to make a copy, hence even downloading is illegal. The only reason the RIAA and MPAA aren't suing individuals who only download is that it's not worth the bother. To date, they've only gone after people with thousands of shared files.

(Although the fact that my buddy got notified for just one file implies that they may be serving DMCA notices a little more liberally.)

[alphadog00]

Originally Posted by TomXP411

I love how these companies somehow think that their business model should be protected by law.

"Stealing" by not watching commercials... that's such a joke.

I once read a story about a guy who invented a machine that tells you the day you're going to die. He started selling his services, telling people the day and time of their deaths. The life insurance companies sued him, saying that people stopped buying life insurance, since they know they won't need it!

The judge said "A better innovation came around and broke your business model. People don't need your service any more. You lose."

How is this situation any different? 60 years ago, TV companies thought they could make money by shoving advertising down the consumers' throats. That worked because people were so enamored by TV that they'd watch even the ads.

Today, people have a choice. We have video tape, DVR's, BitTorrent (it's not legal, but it's still there), and sites like Hulu and TV.com. People are also used to paying for TV. We don't need the "free" service offered by commercials in TV networks any more.

It's time that the networks acknowledge that and find new ways to package their product.

I'd rather pay $2 per network to watch TV via the Internet than pay $60 a month for 400 channels I don't watch. Like many people, I watch maybe 5 or 6 channels on a regular basis, and I wouldn't even need the cable company if I could download my shows directly from iTunes or watch them on Hulu.

I do agree that not watching commercials is not stealing, but today's TV is still supported the way it was in the past. Unless we start paying by the show, every show is ad sponsored when it is on TV and the Internet.

How do you think the networks and the Internet sites like Hulu are able to produce and/or transmit these shows? Advertisers.

If, at some point, enough people start skipping commercials, one of 3 things will happen:

1. Crazy amounts of product placements in shows
2. Pay per view of every show
3. Cease production

Not all ads are bad. I like seeing some of the new cars, new shows, local ads, etc. and I get plenty of that when i watch live tv. When I use my DVR I hit the skip button and pass 30 seconds at a time. Showsqueeze is not reliable enough for me.

If it comes to paying $2 per network, I would rather have advertising. It could never be that cheap anyway if you eliminated advertising.

[TomXP411]

Originally Posted by alphadog00

If it comes to paying $2 per network, I would rather have advertising. It could never be that cheap anyway if you eliminated advertising.

First off: How much do you pay for cable TV now, compared to how much you watch? I currently watch 7 channels, and yet we pay about $60 a month for cable (not counting Internet). That's about $8.50 a channel right now. (If you're watching free OTA, then that's a different story.)

Second: HBO and ShowTime both manage to buy movie rights and produce critically acclaimed series, all for around $5 a month or so. (I don't know exactly what cable companies pay premium providers for channel access, but it's assuredly less than what you pay the cable company.) In fact, HBO is even considering a plan to let people subscribe directly to their programming without going through a cable TV provider. They would offer on-line on-demand access to their content. Advertising doesn't even enter in to the equation: HBO is entirely viewer supported.

I'm not saying that TV can't still offer an ad-supported framework, but the old model of over the air broadcasting is dying. Even now, my 5 year old daughter doesn't understand why I can't just pull a show out of thin air for her to watch. On-demand and on-line is the way of the future, and when we explain broadcast TV to our granchildren, they'll just laugh. Needless to say, the DVR will be obsoleted before long. Quite frankly, I'm perfectly happy with that, since its replacement will be "any media, anywhere."

[alphadog00]

I don't know if I would call HBO and Showtime ad free. I remember HBO 25 years ago and they only showed their logo between shows. It is quite a bit different these days - many ads for their own shows.

I pay $32 for cable - got rid of the digital and watch quite a few of my channels.

I don't think OTA will ever die, but i agree the medium will change. At some point the producers will just host it all online with ads they control just like Hulu or do like you mention and make it pay per view, but there will always be that part of the population that just want to turn something on in the background.

I'm not arguing, but I do think that there will always be a segment that wants it free and will watch ads to keep it that way.

I, personally, can't understand why anyone pays for shows via iTunes when I can watch and or record them for free OTA - I would rather have commercials then pay $1.99 (or whatever it is) to watch 30 Rock via iTunes when it aired for free. If it was pay to start with, then I may think differently.

[TomXP411]

The iTunes thing makes sense in certain circumstances.

When Eli Stone came on the air, for example, I didn't catch it until the 6'th episode. I wanted to see the first 5, so I gladly threw down the $10 to catch up on the series. I'd also buy show on iTunes if I couldn't get the channel, but really wanted to see the show.

But I doubt I'd do it on a regular basis; If I wanted to watch whole seasons, I'd NetFlix them instead.