Cable Companies Despise PVRs 726
My position that I expressed in my speech and that was inaccurately portrayed: PVR functionality should be provisioned from the headend for the following reasons (which ultimately will benefit consumers):
-
VOD servers cost much less
- If video servers @ $350/stream (Soon Component cost declining 40%/year
- @ 10% simultaneous use, costs $35/sub.
- PVRs cost >10X more
- When simultaneous use = 50%, server costs will have declined >5X
- Disk noise wakes my wife
- Replay box hot enough to fry an egg -- Is that a feature?
- Disk size limitations mean obsolescence, esp. with HDTV
- Available on every set-top in house Average of 1.7 PVRs/PVR household
- No pro-activity/anticipation required
- Records multiple concurrent shows
- NW storage could always have max. res.
- Uses existing deployed base
- Moving parts break more often
- Box complexity means more crashes & customer support costs
My basic thesis is that PVRs + Satellite will eat cable's lunch, and since it's unambiguous that cable needs to get the copyright clearances to offer programming from the head-end, they should start now. It is the case that I suggested that if a Supreme Court case was brought on the legality of each feature of PVRs were brought, some would lose. I also suggested an alternative business model to make everybody happy to avoid the all-or-nothing result that has been occurring in the RIAA vs. Napster wars.
I suggested that consumers pay 1 cent per commercial skipped (which is about the same as what advertisers pay). That would be equivalent to $10/thousand commercials skipped. I think that's reasonable. I also suggested that targeted advertising could be a win-win for all involved by delivering ads in areas that are of greater interest to the viewer so that there would be less incentive to skip and fewer ads would have to be delivered due to the higher prices paid for the targeted group. I also predicted that this dynamic combined with competition between satellite and cable would ultimately make both services free."
bullshit (Score:4, Insightful)
They can't even get analogies right (Score:4, Insightful)
PVRs make the TV viewer happier, so that they WATCH MORE TV.
What do the cable companies and advertisers want you to do? WATCH MORE TV!
They need to get their heads out of their asses and realize just like how they were wrong about VCRs destroying the movie industry, they're wrong about this now.
It's amazing how these companies stay in business... One might think their monopolies had something to do with it.
Huh? (Score:4, Insightful)
Help! Cable companies are STEALING from me! (Score:5, Insightful)
They've been ripping me off for years, even before PVRs existed!
BASTARDS!
Hey, I'm only applying the same specious reasiong the media companies use to call me a pirate, a criminal and an ingrate!
Real reason for cable woes (Score:2, Insightful)
Instead of doing the obvious thing like actually try to provide a better product, they instead encourage frivolous lawsuits against the competition.
(A case of lack of improvement: the new downgrade of digital cable. Sorry, cable companies, I like to channel surf. And a machine that requires an extra remote and takes 6 seconds to switch between channels is a No Go!)
unbeliveable (Score:2, Insightful)
multiple funding sources (Score:4, Insightful)
But it's like buying the Sunday paper -- the ads subsidize the (fairly low) cover price. Cable TV would cost more (or very well could) if they didn't also get funding from ads. (And Premium channels that *do* run uninterrupted movies are one example
timothy
VCRs with Commercial Advance? (Score:4, Insightful)
The bottom line here is FairUse and the unfortunate news for them is once that signal enters your home (provided you haven't used any illegal methods for decoding it) its yours to do whatever you personally want to do with it (i.e. not rebroadcasting).
Re:bullshit (Score:5, Insightful)
The cable industry our friend (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't have a PVR, but I can't recall a time when the cable industry has ever been my friend. $45 for exteneded basic cable services, and what do you get? 70 channels of ads. I can't stand watching TV! Slowly but surely commercial length is increasing while show time is decreasing. 1/3 of a 30 minute segment is commercials. Sure the PVR would fix that but even before this article everyone knew that someone was going to cry foul. The cable industry is just like the rest of the content industries, as soon as the content control is in our hands they bring in the lawsuits because they don't want to change.
Screw it! I'm about to move and I've already decided that I'm not going to pay the money every month to have junk piped to my home.
Likewise, Charter. (Score:3, Insightful)
Ads.... AARRGGHH!!!! (Score:2, Insightful)
What's even worse than PAYING to be bombarded by that is that they SYNCRONIZE the ads on most of all channels so you can't even channel-flip between channels to escape the ads.
Re:bullshit (Score:5, Insightful)
Cable companies, on the other hand, have to deal with advertizers who are seeing their dollars, potentially, go to waste on PVR users.
P.S. I love my TiVo, I am watching a lot more TV than I ever did before, and a lot fewer ads.
Wrong! WATCH MORE ADS! (Score:4, Insightful)
Sorry guys, but that just has no value to me. Watching TV shows does have some value to me, such that I will pay for cable, and (maybe) watch ads. But the whole point of the broadcast system is to get people to buy stuff.
[important]
(Of course, the FCC grants licenses to broadcasters with the understanding that they will serve the public good. Hey, kind of like how copyright law gives someone a grant on a public domain with the view that it will serve the public good. And just like copyright, these companies have forgotten (or ignored) that they're being a special dispensation with the understanding that they will give something back in return.)
[/important]
Dear Cable Companies: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Ads.... AARRGGHH!!!! (Score:3, Insightful)
Erm, instead of worrying about adverts on TV, I suggest you go back to elementary school and learn some simply maths skills.
Clue - you are getting 36% ads and 64% program material. NOT the absurdly wrong figures you are trying to pretend.
No, just means actors will be paid less. (Score:5, Insightful)
VOD (Score:4, Insightful)
Once again, maybe cable companies should consider taking a look at improving their own products instead of trying to shut down technology they don't like. Other industries actually have to produce a better product to ensure they get customers' money. I hate that the entertainment industry is taking the approach that it is better to just shut down any technology that threatens their desired business model than to react to the market and improve their product. How anti-capitalist.
If you like progress... (Score:4, Insightful)
Because they derive their profits by gaming the system. Any change in the rules by which the system works is a threat to them - the fact that their sector, whatever it may be, might expand overall is irrelevant. They're on top now because they're perfectly situated to control things as they stand. Now that an oligopoly is in place, and everything is arranged to their liking, they don't want to rock the boat.
In IT you notice it particularly, but it is also true in energy, in agriculture, in real eastate and even in manufacturing.
My personal belief is that if this goes unchecked it will be the death of western civilization (assuming our contempt for our own environment doesn't get us first, except that is really part and parcel of the same phenomenon.)
What a time to be alive! (Score:3, Insightful)
I just don't understand (Score:2, Insightful)
I would think that cable companies would like this technology. For the longest time I wouldn't get satellite (I live too far out to get cable) because I would miss a lot of the shows I would get the satellite for in the first place. But I finally got a Tivo and now I don't mind paying the satellite fee since I don't miss the shows. Same thing with cable, if it was available in my area I wouldn't have got it until I could watch what I wanted.
PVRs spell the end of the ad-based rev model (Score:5, Insightful)
"There has grown in the minds of certain groups in this country the idea that just because a man or corporation has made a profit out of the public for a number of years, the government and the courts are charged with guaranteeing such profit in the future, even in the face of changing circumstances and contrary to public interest. This strange doctrine is supported by neither statue or common law. Neither corporations or individuals have the right to come into court and ask that the clock of history be stopped, or turned back."
Didn't. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:They can't even get analogies right (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem with a standalone PVR is that you've gotten features from someone else, and the cable company won't be able to get ahold of that money.
For example Cablevision's digital product includes video on demand. They've got a bunch of series available for that... and to get a certain channel's programming on demand, you pay an additional fee. If you have a PVR, you probably won't be buying their VOD entrees, since you'll just tell your PVR to grab them for you.
The bit about satellites is also telling. Cable companies can do VOD, because they've got a nice fast low-latency pipe between your house and their systems. CV does VOD by shipping the video over their cable-modem network. When you pause it, it stops coming at the other end. Naturally, that's not very feasible with a dish. They'd like to hype that as something that makes them better than a dish, but DirecTiVo is their worst nightmare, because it gives you the benefits of their VOD service, while giving you two tuners so you can record anything you like, instead of the selection of shows the cable company has available.
go ahead. (Score:3, Insightful)
Who ever said that in business, you are guaranteed to make money forever doing the same old shit? It takes innovation to keep alive, and those people who give the customer new, interesting things, without trying to extort them for every last cent, will be the ones to succeed.
So I say let him go on despising Tivo and all these technologies we like. It will only make better companies stand out more.
Offpeak pricing... video demand and video supply.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Why wouldn't it be very much more to their advantage to have "offpeak pricing" for customers with PVR's that were willing to record content at times convenient for the cable company? And have the PVR owner pay for the storage facility?
Seems to me that if video-on-demand takes off cable companies will be faced with either expensive infrastructure costs... OR ticked-off customers trying to explain to their kids why they can't watch "Lilo and Stitch" tonight.
Or are the cable companies planning to build special you-don't-control-it-we-do PVR's? In which case you'd think they wouldn't want to make the PVR companies angry, unless the cable companies want to do all their own R&D...
Or are the cable companies just planless and clueless?
I tune out commercials (Score:4, Insightful)
If I see the commercial again I will remember it, but if not in the context of the commercial I do not even remember it. Does it influence me to buy the product? Absolutely not. In the grocery store or shopping mall I do compartive shopping and ask the store help. At that point I will make a decision. And if I like the product then I will buy it again.
I think the problem with the big cable companies is that advertising in the current model DOES NOT WORK anymore. People get so much advertising that they have taught themselves to tune out...
Re:bullshit (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:They can't even get analogies right (Score:1, Insightful)
Painting with a broad brush, aren't you? According to that logic, tape recorders and libraries are both "exactly like napster".
All it takes is the next version of the PVR software to add a P2P `sharing` facility and there you go.
Which will never happen. PVR companies have legal departments. They are not stupid. It's not cost effective for them to implement P2P because of all the litigation that would ensue.
Large companies are not homogeneous. (Score:3, Insightful)
Entertainment's demise? (Score:5, Insightful)
After reading this, one might walk away thinking that that Comcast invented TV entertainment. While nothing could be further from the truth, it's precisely this kind of arrogance that will lead to the demise of companies who, rather than seeking to understand what consumers value, work to shackle them with tight controls over how, when, and for how much various shows can be viewed.
Is it any mystery that consumers will attempt to minimize the level of harrassment by commercial entities attempting to sell them the latest and greatest of everything from the latest super-steam-powered convection oven to tampons? The reason that cable owners are concerned is that they assumed that they would be able burn the candle at both ends, charging for both content and ads, ad infinitum. PVRs enter the market, and now PVR owners, who maximize their enjoyment by skipping the cruft, are being branded criminals.
What can be learned here? For starters, there is no comparison between Napster users and PVR owners. Perhaps most important, though, is that there's a real honest-to-goodness clue here with respect to consumer interests. The issue is not that people are using PVRs, but whether or not the cable industry will have the foresight to adapt their business model, rather than force feed its 'content' - replete with all of the ad-gak - to its customers.
Re:Video On Demand? (Score:1, Insightful)
Here is what it's all about..
The Cable companies dream:
User sits down and turns on the TV. Nothing good to watch is on. A Spiderman promo is showing on the bottom of the screen. The user says "hey nothing's on, I'll pay $4.95 to watch Spiderman.". User's happy, cable company is happy.
The Cable companies nightmare:
TiVo user sits down, has 24 hours of FREE shows already waiting for him. (With TiVo, there is NEVER a moment when the user has nothing to watch). Cable company loses opportunity for a PPV sale, expensive PPV infrastructure goes unused.
Yes, I am a TiVo/DirecTV customer. I occasionally buy PPV's, but not nearly as many as I used to (before TiVo).
Getting back to 10 hours of Steven Spielberg's TAKEN (queue'd up on my TiVo..) on Sci-Fi channel..
Re:They can't even get analogies right (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:bullshit (Score:5, Insightful)
This may be discussed below, but I haven't seen it...
Here is what I don't understand. Let's say I tape all of my Monday night shows for 2 hours using my PVR. As far as my satellite company is concerned, I *watched* those shows and all of the accompanying ads. Chalk up another viewer with the other 10 million that watched the same thing. So where's the problem here? Just because my PVR recorded the show for me doesn't change the fact that the show was "watched". Unless the cable and satellite companies are reporting true viewers versus virtual viewers, in which case they're the dolts that are counting the viewship in a bizarre manner. Once the show has been aired, what do they care if I watch the commercials or not?
Another thing I notice is that the cable companies are the ones complaining. I don't see the major networks crying foul : NBC, CBS, ABC, Fox (here in the States, at least). Or are they raising a stink as well and I'm just not reading the right articles?
However you look at it, though, it just boils down to control. These execs are pissed that the public actually has a modicum of control over how and when they view their television, and the lack of their precise control is what they're truly pissed about.
Re:I tune out commercials (Score:3, Insightful)
Ads are effectively big business *paying for the TV you watch*! Maybe you should think about that before you moan about them. Even if you do 'tune out', don't tell everyone!!! These ads are vastly reducing your TV viewing costs!!!
NO! (Score:3, Insightful)
People who do not watch television engage in TERRA and WILL get a visit from Baron Jon von Ashcroft, Lord of the House of DOJ.
Re:PVR Backlash (Score:1, Insightful)
"IS BIG BROTHER WATCHING YOUR TIVO" or
"IS IT EZ-PASS or EZ-SPY WHEN YOU PAY TOLLS".
The Orwellian buzz words are coming up more and more often but no one cares, there is some truth to these things but with the media's sensationalistic reporting people will dismiss it all including the stories about the Total Information Awareness program. Good luck trying to convince them otherwise.
They should take thier lead from Netflix... (Score:4, Insightful)
Oh. Please... what kind of LOGIC is this? (Score:4, Insightful)
Ok. Someone's going to have to explain to me how the TRANSMISSION MEDIUM of a television signal affects who buys a VOD program and who doesn't.
If I want to want to pay $4 to watch a VOD program, why am I more likely to do it if the signal comes over the air vs. comes over a wire?
What a bunch a freakin' morons.
What the REALLY don't like about PVR's is that they can't control what you watch. The idea of a 'lineup' (putting an average show behind a great show in hopes that you're to fuckin' lazy to change the damn channel) disappears, and they don't like that...
Combine that with the ability to fast-forward through commercials (just like a VCR), and they lose all marketing pull.
What those of us w/ a PVR know is that suddently, TV is on MY terms. When I want to watch TV, it's almost guarenteed that there is something good to watch.
As usual, these monolithic, monopolistic companies/organizations (MPAA, CABLE, RIAA) complain about a paradigm shift in their business, rather than try to capitalize on it.
Re:Cable Companies have rights too... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:VCR v. PVR (Score:4, Insightful)
I know it doesn't sound like much of a difference, but the difference is like a magazine vs. a Sunday newspaper. In the newspaper, you can pull out all the ad sections and read the rest of the newspaper with minimal in-line ad interruption. With a magazine, it seems like every other page is yet another full color ad designed to draw your attention away from what you are reading. With the newspaper it's easy to 'skip' the ads, with the magazine you have to 'fast forward' around them. Not a really good analogy (Ok, actually it sucked) but I'm tired...
Re:bullshit (Score:3, Insightful)
I remember when this law was being discussed, as it was important to RCA/Thompson (a local company that builds DirecTV receivers) that consumers actually be able to install these things when so many housing covenants disallowed satellite dishes. This of course was back when satellite dishes were still 8' or larger and ugly.
Although it did turn out to be to our benefit, I'm sure that RCA wasn't worried about us when they lobbied the FCC, just their own bottom line.
You *ARE* getting paid to watch advertisements. (Score:4, Insightful)
If we ever get to the point where everyone watches TV on a PVR and takes out the commercials, broadcast TV will go bankrupt and the only TV you'll be able to get you'll have to pay for (or will be CSPAN or some other public access channel.)
Re:Video On Demand? (Score:2, Insightful)
With DVD I get:
480P excellent picture quality
Widescreen (or whatever the OAR is)
Superb sound quality with DD or DTS
Extra features about the making of the movie, etc.
With VOD from my cable company:
480i CRAPPY picture quality
Pan-and-Scan (MAR)
Ultra-crap sounding pro-logic
no extra features
hmmmm.... which do you think is more appealing to me? In fact I am pretty much fed up with my cable in general. I get horrible sound and picture quality and all the movies are in a modified aspect ratio!
Re:bullshit (Score:2, Insightful)
Although it did turn out to be to our benefit, I'm sure that RCA wasn't worried about us when they lobbied the FCC, just their own bottom line.
I wish that more corporations would realize that "their own bottom line" and the customers' interests are tied together, not conflicting. Then stories like this Cable-Company-hating-the-PVR wouldn't be nearly as common.
Re:We should be getting paid to watch advertisemen (Score:2, Insightful)
Contrary to common belief, you are not paying for content. You are paying for content on the premimum channels (HBO, Showtime, etc) and the ability to view channels you would not normally get (TNN, SciFi, Comedy Central, Discovery, etc). For example, SciFi channel doesn't get any of your cable bill fees. In fact, they have to pay cablevision for the priviledge of showing up in the channel list. So, in order for SciFi to earn money, they have to get advertisers to purchase ad time. Otherwise they couldn't afford to bring you quality programming such as "Tremors: The Series".
Re:VCR v. PVR (Score:3, Insightful)
I think you're dead wrong about DVDRW replacing PVR. With current technology, you can only record 2-4 hours onto a DVD. Even with DivX/MPEG4 adoption or dual layer discs, its still only 3-5x or so more. Current PVR's (with up to 240+ GB's HD space), record up to hundreds of hours of TV, and file management is tons easier than optical media (i.e. why CDRW usage is outnumbered 1000:1 by CDR's). Modern PVR's are even network aware, so that you can stream video's across TCP/IP networks, or automate backup of your favorite shows to your PC in full MPEG2 quality.
If anything, they will merge into specialty products for people who want to make DVD's and have the PVR (it makes sense, since PVR's all use MPEG2 to start with), but as it stands, DVDRW technology is highly inferior to PVR in terms of PVR capability. DVDRW will certainly become a mainstay in home theatre devices, just not in the PVR space (because they suck bawls for that)
Re:That doesn't help the cable companies... (Score:2, Insightful)
VERY not true. Ad revenue isn't just based on viewership.. its also based on returns. If I buy a spot on Comedy Central and it doesn't sell anything for me, its not likely I'm going to buy more time there. If I don't buy time there, then Comedy Central loses that income.
Why doesn't anyone see this?
Re:The cable companies have never been your friend (Score:3, Insightful)
I saw that ad the other day too. I thought it was funny considering one of the (many) reasons I switched to DirecTV from AT&T Broadband was that the cable went out so much. In six months I've only seen problems with the dish ONE time, and the show was still watchable, the video was just degraded a little.
Of course with five kids and a dependance on television I think they have bigger problems than sattelite outages. They haven't figured out how to raise children or use condoms yet.
Pay to skip commercials? (Score:3, Insightful)
This is just another of the continuing business model problems in the commercial world today. If your business model relies on forcing consumers to do something they don't want to do and aren't compelled to do, you're going to have problems. You may succeed in ramming it down their throats (credit card arbitration agreements, for example), but to be blunt, persuading your customers that you're a collection of greedy, controlling asses is not a good business plan in the long term. It leaves a big opening for someone to come along, fill the need, NOT be a greedy, controlling ass, and eat your lunch.
Now if you're being honest and you genuinely believe you offer a superior service, fine. Speeches about it are not necessary. Let the best product win in the marketplace.
But I don't want any ads (Score:3, Insightful)
Waitress: Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
Wife: I don't want ANY spam!
Wife: Could you do the egg bacon spam and sausage without the spam then?
Waitress: Shut up! (Vikings stop) Bloody Vikings! You can't have egg bacon spam and sausage without the spam.
I don't wan't ANY ads! I didn't sign any contract obligating me to watch ads. I don't care if they're targeted, this doesn't make me more likely to want to watch them.
An advertiser pays on the basis of the statistical number of eyeballs likely to view a given commercial, thus, Super Bowl commercials are insanely expensive, late night TV spots are much cheaper. However, if any given consumer, or even a small minority of consumers (which is the current base of PVR users) skips the commercials, the statistics are not affected, due to the large sample size. How is this use of PVR's so much worse than what the average consumer does, i.e., hit the channel up/down button as soon as an ad comes on during your program? This behavior is much more likely to reduce the number of individuals seeing a given ad.
In any event, it boils down to Heinlein's idea of not going to the courts to defend an outdated business model. Why should the cable company, who is admittedly scared of the satellite/PVR model, get to dictate who may and and may not time shift, record on whatever device they choose, and skip commercials, any more than the satellite company may dictate the same thing. The advertisers pay on a statistical, not individual basis. If those statistics change, due to technology, then the pricing models should follow it in a supply & demand economy.
So many false assumptions! (Score:4, Insightful)
Many of his points are a comparison of VOD vs. PVR. The main problem here is that these are two different things. A PVR will let you control everything you watch, while I'm sure VOD will only be used for movies and events. Arguing that you should do one instead of the other is silly, since the consumer would do best to have both.
Lauder comments on PVR noise. My friend recently got a new Dish 508 PVR. When he turned it on, I heard absolutely nothing. Zero. The hard drive was running, and it was dead silent. Credit new hard drive technology.
The 508 also has a fan, but I never heard it running (after it was on for a good while). Just because one box (the Replay he mentions) isn't well-designed for heat output, doesn't mean they all are like that. Again, this is an issue fixed by technology.
Lauder also says "Disk size limitations mean obsolescence, esp. with HDTV". Is there ANY device that's going to handle the transition to HDTV gracefully? The size issue is not really an issue if the disk is "big enough" to begin with. I think that at 40-80GB, we're at "big enough" for most people. In any case, the obsolescence argument applies to VOD servers just as well.
Lauder's only arguments that have any bite are:
- Moving parts break more often
- Box complexity means more crashes & customer support costs
The crashing issue is more a reflection on poor software engineering (and probably that due to poor scheduling) than anything else, however. PVR software could be made bulletproof, in time.
Customer support is always going to be an issue wherever you add new features. So this argument will apply to ANY new features added, not just PVR.
Lauder's "basic thesis
His comment that "if a Supreme Court case was brought on the legality of each feature of PVRs were brought, some would lose" is just a swipe. There's very little that a PVR does that a VCR doesn't let you do already. The only difference is the spontaneity and the time you have to wait before you can watch. The only questionable features are those added by the newest Replay box (trading programs over the net), which are not core PVR features. If lobbyists make politicians make VCRs illegal, then perhaps there may be a case.
Lauder's final comment regarded commercials. It should be pointed out that even with a PVR, you cannot skip commercials while watching live TV. Doing so requires planning head to watch delayed TV. If you're going to sit down and flip channels, you're still limited to watching live TV.
Lauder thinks consumers should pay for commercials skipped. If that makes sense, then what about paying consumers for commercials watched repeatedly? That makes sense too, right?
PVR/VOD from the headend.... (Score:4, Insightful)
> that was inaccurately portrayed: PVR functionality
> should be provisioned from the headend for the
> following reasons (which ultimately will benefit
> consumers):
Yeah, ok... and when you're not in the major metropolitan area that has actual competition (more than one cable company in a market - aka Boston areas) like, oh, say Maine or West Nowheresville, KS or Hotashell, NV you have to wait for the cable company to get around to supplying you with this ability. Just like cable modems, people won't wait.
Sure, if you want to provision VOD or PVR from the headend, get off your lazy-cable-monopoly-butt and DO IT! PROVE US WRONG! Make it work and prove us nay-sayers wrong. Don't just say 'this is bad - you should do it our way instead' - then not have your way available outside a lab or a tiny test market area.
Face it cable companies, you're behind the times on this one and you've lost the edge you could have had.
Wow,, that's a rant, but what do you expect from someone who owns a domain like Adelphia Sucks.com [adelphiasucks.com]
Re:bullshit (Score:2, Insightful)
I dunno, would you pay 15-20 cents for a commercial-free half-hour show, on demand? That sounds pretty reasonable to me, since I don't even have to lift a finger to do the commercial skip I would with a TiVo.
VOD at the headend! Feh! (Score:3, Insightful)
Basically, the cable companies are going to have to give the service away for free before I give it serious thought when PVRs fit my preferences more anyway.
Re:bullshit (Score:3, Insightful)
More like: Ad revenues fall, shows cannot pay actors stupid amounts of money.
Re:bullshit (Score:4, Insightful)
Now that I have TiVo, I am actually paying a lot more attention to ads than I used to.
Before, when commercials would come up, my finger would go reflexively to the "mute" button, and I'd start chatting w/ my fellow viewers, or similarly divert my attention to some other activity. My brain was practiced enough for me to almost always know, almost subconsciously, when the program was coming back on, simply from the timing.
Now, with TiVo, that timing is out the window, because the commercials scan by so quickly. At the same time, I am also paying a lot more attention to what I see, because I'm watching for the program to start again. Sometimes I see a rather interesting or bizzare image, and I wonder "what was *that*??" -- so I stop the ffwd, and acutally *watch the commercial*.
If I've seen that commercial before, I don't bother stopping to look at it, but of course that means that *it's already in my head*, and the ad's mission has been a success!
I actually prefer TiVo's standard ffwd style to the 30-second-skip, because I do enjoy watching some commercials -- they can be quite entertaining . Also, I've seen a friend using the 30-sec-skip style, and it's annoying because they always have to hit the 8-sec-back button something like 5 times after overshooting the beginning of the proram.
So, in summary, now that I have a PVR, I actually *see* a lot more commercials than I used to (as opposed to them merely displaying on my tv), and yet I'm not wasting my time on them!
Analyze *that*, all you marketing dum*#@!&&s!
Re:Ra Ra Retards (Score:2, Insightful)
That's cable companies' problem. Why digital satellite STB cost less than $100, including dish? Something rotten in cable technology? Or in marketing? ;)
And satellite receivers with integrated PVR cost less than $300. (and they include two tuners)
Conditional access
What the problem? Just have two different boxes. If customer rents it - it is not customer's problem. If customer owns it - customer have to sell it and buy a new one. That's why we have eBay ;)