But he does want to change the way ads are delivered to us. Full article on cnet: http://news.cnet.com/8301-1001_3-57568789-92/dish-chairman-charlie-ergen-i-dont-want-to-kill-ads/
Charlie says he doesn't want to kill ads
- Thread starter CK SatGuy
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 11
- Views 2K
...and the article was posted on CNET.Kinda ironic, Dish made a commercial on TV about commercial-free TV.
The Verge was there too.
http://www.theverge.com/2013/2/11/3...harlie-ergen-challenges-broadcasters-carriers
http://www.theverge.com/2013/2/11/3...harlie-ergen-challenges-broadcasters-carriers
The problem is if you remove the ads, that means the ads are worth less money since less people will be seeing them that will eventually lead to higher programming costs.
Instead of Charlie trying to create his own boot leg vod service with the hopper, and get involved deeper in a lawsuit with the networks that he will eventually loose. Give us the option to pay to get rid of the commercials.
It's just not the big 4 networks, but lets get commercial free on other networks like the history channel, USA, Etc
Instead of Charlie trying to create his own boot leg vod service with the hopper, and get involved deeper in a lawsuit with the networks that he will eventually loose. Give us the option to pay to get rid of the commercials.
It's just not the big 4 networks, but lets get commercial free on other networks like the history channel, USA, Etc
...and the scene cuts, and the station ID bugs, and the pop-ups...
We already have that option...it's called iTunes, Amazon Instant Video, DVDs and BluRays.
And VentureBeat: http://venturebeat.com/2013/02/11/d...media-innovation-always-starts-in-litigation/ Man do I dislike this new revelation (and targeted ads). Once people have used autohop, why would they ever go back to ads?
I never saw the logic of re-transmission fees (or this business model) for that matter. Why isn't it the opposite? There's limited spectrum out there, just like there's limited shelf space in a supermarket. In order to make money, the networks need viewers, and they need cable and satellite companies to get those viewers. Why aren't the networks paying the satellite and cable companies to carry their programing? Maybe this is too simplistic? Maybe it's just a matter of which guy blinked first, and now it is a legacy?
Just as the cable channels should be low-ball bidding their subscription fees to get placed in a lower programming tier for more viewers. In a free market, this would be the case. But with oligopolic ownership of content and collusion and extortion from content providers, that'll never be the case.
