FCC did something right ...yaay

[Balt]

Has anyone actually experienced ear damage because of excessively loud commercials?

What's your point? I never experienced hearing damage from telemarketing calls either, but I sure found them annoying before the no-call list was created.

 

[Craig234]

Those analogies aren't good either. Your fast food analogy has my friends and I denying the use of the business to other people so I am actively preventing them from making money from paying customers. My skipping commercials does nothing of the sort.

Yes, that's a difference in the analogy but again an irrelevant one.

The only issue with getting rid of the irrelevant differences is finding other similar business models for industries that rely on some reasonable implied good faith action by customers.

There really aren't that many. It doesn't change the issue here. That's not discussing the issue to just say 'I found an irrelevant difference and that proves something'.

One that's a little bit close is advertising-based radio. On the one hand, it's easy to push a button to avoid commercials - if you're listening to the radio for hours, you could do that.

Some amount of that is built in to the business model; but the fact is people tend not to be extreme about it and really avoid all commercials. Enough listen to pay for the station.

Now, if someone sold a car radio that automatically got rid of all ads - whether changing the station for you, silencing the radio during ads, playing a CD - and everyone used that device - it'd be the same issue, you would not be doing your part in the good faith arrangement and the industry would no longer offer commercial based radio. It'd be the same options - subscription based, in-music ads, etc. But there is no DVR for radio for that.

The closest thing might be your own music - CD's, etc. - which indeed you pay for (I hope).

That would be the equivelent of buying DVD's instead of watching ad-funded channels.

If you can think of another industry like tv in these areas, great, we'll use that.

If not, then the current points make the point.

Sorry man, there's simply no agreement between the TV companies and myself, explicit or implicit, that says I am going to 'pay' them for their programming by watching their commercials. I have a chance - no requirement - to watch those ads. There's just no way around that. I don't owe them any more than I owe a street performer who comes up and puts on a show.

That's not a very good analogy. If you stand there for hours enjoying his show and don't donate anything, that's more similar. If no one donates, the show won't continue.

Now if the street performer switched to an internet show you could sign up for where a local business paid him, and in exchange he gave you a promotional code at the end of the show to use at the business, and everyone just turned off the site when the ad came on, that's be similar, and the business would see paying for the show was useless advertising and cancel it. The nature of that show could build in most people choosing not to spend at the business - just as perhaps 99%+ of viewers don't' buy a coke because of a TV ad - but the people watching the ad gives them that fraction of 1% who do that pay for it. DVR's prevent that and make the advertising worthless, and people are paying NOTHING for what others spend millions or billions to give to them.

 

[fskimospy]

You still haven't shown any agreement either explicit or implicit for me to watch commercials. It's not my fault they have an outdated business model, if it doesn't work anymore they should change it or go out of business. Someone else will fill the void because there is a market for good entertainment.

The TV networks have made a conscious decision to freely broadcast their product to whoever wants to watch it with absolutely zero strings attached. I don't owe them a blessed thing, and they don't owe me anything. If they find they can't make money this way anymore, they should stop doing it. A reliance on charity commercial watching isn't going to get them very far anyway.

 

[Craig234]

You still haven't shown any agreement either explicit or implicit for me to watch commercials. It's not my fault they have an outdated business model, if it doesn't work anymore they should change it or go out of business. Someone else will fill the void because there is a market for good entertainment.

The TV networks have made a conscious decision to freely broadcast their product to whoever wants to watch it with absolutely zero strings attached. I don't owe them a blessed thing, and they don't owe me anything. If they find they can't make money this way anymore, they should stop doing it. A reliance on charity commercial watching isn't going to get them very far anyway.

I have shown one, but you aren't seeing it. You are repeating the same thing abut blaming the business model that I addressed, so we're going in circles now.

 

[fskimospy]

I have shown one, but you aren't seeing it. You are repeating the same thing abut blaming the business model that I addressed, so we're going in circles now.

You really haven't. My difference wasn't in any way irrelevant. (denial of use by paying customers is a vastly different imposition on a business) There is no good faith arrangement. None. There never will be. If things have progressed to where their commercial time is no longer effective they will have to change or die. I don't really watch much TV so I don't care either way, but the idea that we should dutifully watch commercials as some sort of payment is the height of absurdity. I have never offered such a service to them and they have never asked.

 

[Craig234]

You really haven't. My difference wasn't in any way irrelevant. (denial of use by paying customers is a vastly different imposition on a business) There is no good faith arrangement. None. There never will be. If things have progressed to where their commercial time is no longer effective they will have to change or die. I don't really watch much TV so I don't care either way, but the idea that we should dutifully watch commercials as some sort of payment is the height of absurdity. I have never offered such a service to them and they have never asked.

I have. You're not seeing it. I'm not seeing the promise of restating it changing that.

It's not as if there's a minor point, you are ignoring the main arguments.

Against my better judgement, let's try one more analogy, though you just ignored the last one of radio with advertising.

Take newspapers historically (put aside the market changes, not relevant), where they made most of their money from advertising charging a token price to the reader.

I used to call it 'one of the best bargains in the country', for 25 cents getting a large publication made for that day with all kinds of content that costs a lot to publish.

How was it paid for? As I said, mostly from the advertising. As you flipped the pages to get the 'good stuff', the articles designed to be appealing to you, you had no explicit agreement to read any of the ads. But the model worked, because enough people saw enough ads that made them buy enoiugh products for it to be profitable. The expectation was not that you had such an agreement to read them, but that you would have enough exposure to them that there was that small chance you would, paying for the costs.

Now, what if someone found a way to totally block the ads? It's technically difficult to find that with a paper newspaper, but let's call it 'magic ad-blocking glasses'. Or someone re-publishes just the articles without the ads (a violation of copyright, but otherwise it fits). Or an electronic version of the newspaper where the ads were removed by an add-on.

Now, there is NO revenue from the advertising, and the funding for the newspaper disappears almost entirely.

Now, why is that 'right' for you to avoid that minimal ad exposure, where you are free to turn the pages and not look at ads, but that's not good enough - to block them all?

You have now broken your part of the good faith arrangement that does not explicityly require you to read ads, but people read them enough to pay for the costs of the paper.

When you have the ads, you have a fair exchange, the paper's content for some exposure to the advertising. When you block the ads, you get the paper they pay for for ~nothing.

(Nothing in the case of the DVR, a small fraction of the cost for the paper).

I have no reason to think this analogy will work better than the last - you're not getting the point more than this would seem likely to help with. As I said, we're going in circles.

You seem hung up on details like 'but if someone wanted to buy the newspaper just to use for something like bird cage lining and not even read it, there's nothing stopping them, and they don't read the ads'. That's correct; and the paper relies on the number of copies sold used like that being low, or they'd go out of business. That's part of the convenience of the system where most people will read the ads - it's hardly practical to somehow enforce that each person does. That's the 'good faith' that most will, there's room for some others.

Of course, the person who buys the paper for that, while not breaking any rules, might be taking advantage, if the paper costs more than they're paying; just as DVR users are leeching off the customers who watch the advertising, to get the millions of dollars spent to entertain them for nothing in return, relying on the adoption of DVR's not being high.

 

[fskimospy]

The rub here is that you think there is a good faith agreement where none exists. You have signed no contract and in the case of TV channels freely broadcast over the air you haven't even engaged in any transaction. Can you show me where you are getting this idea that the two parties have entered into an agreement by turning on the television?

I am unaware of any definition of a good faith agreement that is attached to a relationship where literally no agreement has ever taken place. This is once again akin to being obligated to pay a street performer for running up to you and doing a dance. You owe him nothing and that is understood from the get-go. No viewer of any television show is under any obligation, legal, moral, or otherwise to do anything.

If the TV networks would like to create such an obligation they are free to do so.

 

[Craig234]

What part of "good faith", a qualifier EXPLICITLY STATED TO CONTRAST WITH SIGNED CONTRACTS, not being a signed contract is unclear?

It's like I'm saying there's a verbal contract and you keep saying "no there isn't, it's not in writing!"

And the 'denial of service' argument is not relevant, either.

Business one spends $1 million on tv shows to give you on the expectation you watch the ads resulting in him getting the $1 million back.

Business two spends $1 million on a nice drive through for you on the expectation you will use it to consider buying food.

In either case, there's no law against everyone using the services - the shows or the drive through - outside the intended use and putting them out of business.

The two are similar *for the issues under discussion*. The 'denial of service' issue is simply a difference that happens to be the case for one and not the other, but it has no bearing on the issues under discussion about businesses spending money to deliver something and the morality and effect when people find ways to circumvent the expected payment for the service, despite that payment not being an explicit agreement.

I'd rather not keep going in circles. If you want to just say you don't agree, you can have the last word.

 

[fskimospy]

What part of "good faith", a qualifier EXPLICITLY STATED TO CONTRAST WITH SIGNED CONTRACTS, not being a signed contract is unclear?

It's like I'm saying there's a verbal contract and you keep saying "no there isn't, it's not in writing!"

And the 'denial of service' argument is not relevant, either.

Business one spends $1 million on tv shows to give you on the expectation you watch the ads resulting in him getting the $1 million back.

Business two spends $1 million on a nice drive through for you on the expectation you will use it to consider buying food.

In either case, there's no law against everyone using the services - the shows or the drive through - outside the intended use and putting them out of business.

The two are similar *for the issues under discussion*. The 'denial of service' issue is simply a difference that happens to be the case for one and not the other, but it has no bearing on the issues under discussion about businesses spending money to deliver something and the morality and effect when people find ways to circumvent the expected payment for the service, despite that payment not being an explicit agreement.

I'd rather not keep going in circles. If you want to just say you don't agree, you can have the last word.

They aren't the same at all. The TV network does not engage in a transaction with you in any way, they engage in a transaction with advertisers. There is no expected payment from you to the TV station in any way, shape, or form.

When you block a drive through you are not only not patronizing that business, you are preventing others from doing so. My choice not to watch commercials in no way affects anyone else's ability to do that unless they are in the living room with me. They are simply not analogous as one is far more injurious to the business than the other.

 

[Craig234]

Your argument is that tv advertisers have no expectation ads will be watched. OK then.

I don't care to go in circles more as I've said repeatedly.

 

[fskimospy]

Your argument is that tv advertisers have no expectation ads will be watched. OK then.

I don't care to go in circles more as I've said repeatedly.

They do have an expectation that they will be watched, but it is up to them and the TV station to put a price on how much they will be watched and the value that it represents. The transaction is between the advertisers and the TV station, not between the TV station and its viewers.

 

[lothar]

Those other things are not theft; they're normal, expected behaviors that are built in to the business model, which does not rely on you watching every ad.

But watching NO ads with a DVR giving the advertisers NO return on their spending money for the shows you watch is another matter, and is morally theft IMO.

What magical source of paying the costs do you think the money comes from for shows?

Do you consider using pop-up blockers to be a form of theft?
What about using ad blockers?
What about using flash blockers?

 

[HamburgerBoy]

What's your point? I never experienced hearing damage from telemarketing calls either, but I sure found them annoying before the no-call list was created.

I don't see much comparison between the two. A phone call invades ones home and for a telemarketer to continue calling after asking them to cease directly effects your ability to receive calls from other individuals, sleep during the day, etc. A loud television advertizement is only suffered when one consents to watch television, and unless there are commercials out there that are literally tens of decibels louder than the programming, the only damage is slight annoyance. This is where you would say "But we don't have a choice, media telecom oligopoly!", which I don't understand. Are you guys saying that a world with many competing telecom companies would reduce the loudness of the commercials they display because consumers would choose the channels with quieter commercials?

 

[lothar]

Dominion, you're just losing me here with the injection of ideological dogma like trying to fit the word 'natural' in to dominate your position.

So, I don't see much room to respond. I laid out my position - there's a simple bargain where people spend money to create and air entertainment for viewers; to pay for that entertainment, viewers watch a reasonable amount of advertising that pays for the costs of the entertainment, and if so inclined, buy some advertised products. Generally the advertising has sold enough product for this to work.

To take the entertainment and bypass the advertising is to take something the producers and transmitters paid for under this business model and not pay anything (and I'm not talking about direct money which they don't ask for, but the advertising viewing that is part of the business model). I'm talking morally, not legally.

Now, you might say you don't want to watch advertising; I'd ask you how you pay for the costs. If everyone did what you're doing, there would be no tv.

That's ok, if you decide not to watch the shows. But to get the entertainment and not pay has a problem.

Again, this is one area I don't do as much as I say people should since I skip ads - despite partial mitigation by making a point to watch some.

When you try to separate a "dick move" from what's "moral" - we're probably at some definition debate about moral I doubt will be useful.

I'll make points about bad things about tv at all (e.g., reduces 'community', harming our democracy in away, etc.), about some shows, quite a bit about some advertising, and more, and also some good points about it (it enhances our democracy in ways, for example exposing some wrongs on shows like Jon Stewarts', Frontline, etc.)

Bottom line here though is that there is an inequity between entertainment provided in a 'free with advertising' model, and then not 'paying' the price - sort of like buying the less expensive Amazon Kindle subsidized by ads and then hacking it to remove the ads. Maybe we need to move to an 'advertising in programs' model or a 'subscription only' model where you don't get ads and pay money for shows, given that technology has allowed breaking the advertising way of funding entertainment.

The moral issue is in taking the product offered in a fair exchange and not 'paying' for it.

I'll defend the starving person who steals bread to eat from those who have more in a society lacking social justice - this is not that sort of 'stealing'.

If you are using cable TV like most Americans are, you already paid for the programming through your cable bill monthly contract.
Where does the "theft" and "immoral" issue come into play for them since they already paid for the product?

People who don't have the luxury of Cable/Satellite TV that are watching regular TV OTA(over the air) local channels that don't watch commercials are committing theft and are therefore immoral?

 

[Craig234]

Do you consider using pop-up blockers to be a form of theft?
What about using ad blockers?
What about using flash blockers?

That's a good question. Because of the excesses of some sites, to the point some of these blockups can cause problems, it introduces a new issue.

My position has basically been that sites providing you content you want based on advertising do create some obligation for you to view some advertising in return.

(If that's a problem, no one makes you use the site).

I've felt total blockers block legitimate ads, while 'popup blockers' have more justification.

It's not reasonable to expect people to have their browser and PC session messed up by those excesses. That's not a reasonable 'good faith' exchange like normal ads.

By the way on another note, I regularly change stations when obnoxious ads come on - for similar reasons, we're entitled to do that and they can 'go too far' in ads.

For example, the 'free credit report' ads can be quite annoying; and typically get a 'click'. Yes, they paid for the show - this is where the viewer's right to set limits comes into play.

 

[Craig234]

If you are using cable TV like most Americans are, you already paid for the programming through your cable bill monthly contract.
Where does the "theft" and "immoral" issue come into play for them since they already paid for the product?

People who don't have the luxury of Cable/Satellite TV that are watching regular TV OTA(over the air) local channels that don't watch commercials are committing theft and are therefore immoral?

As I said before, my assumption is that the fees to the cable company to carry advertising-sponsored channeld do NOT pay for the channels.

It's kind of like going to a hotel and stealing the towels. Hey, I paid for the hotel, so I'm entitled right?

If that assumption is not correct, it raises questions about why the channels need the advertising if they're being paid - the free market competition not working in that case.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

If you are using cable TV like most Americans are, you already paid for the programming through your cable bill monthly contract.
Where does the "theft" and "immoral" issue come into play for them since they already paid for the product?

People who don't have the luxury of Cable/Satellite TV that are watching regular TV OTA(over the air) local channels that don't watch commercials are committing theft and are therefore immoral?

That's not how it works. One paying for an internet connection does not entitle one to download copyrighted material without paying for it. Same applies to TV. Ever wonder why public programming doesn't have commercials?

 

[lothar]

That's not how it works. One paying for an internet connection does not entitle one to download copyrighted material without paying for it. Same applies to TV. Ever wonder why public programming doesn't have commercials?

Who brought up the issue of downloading copyrighted material?

 

[HamburgerBoy]

Who brought up the issue of downloading copyrighted material?

The present argument is about the obligation of an individual to watch a television program while skipping commercials, right? The two are pretty clearly related.

 

[lothar]

As I said before, my assumption is that the fees to the cable company to carry advertising-sponsored channeld do NOT pay for the channels.

It's kind of like going to a hotel and stealing the towels. Hey, I paid for the hotel, so I'm entitled right?

If that assumption is not correct, it raises questions about why the channels need the advertising if they're being paid - the free market competition not working in that case.

Feel free to look at the SEC filings of cable companies Comcast, Dish Network, DirecTV and tell me they're broke.
Feel free to look at the SEC filings of channel owners Fox, Time Warner, Disney, Viacom, GE and tell me they're broke.

Choosing "not to take something" that is being offered is NOT theft.
Your analogy of stealing towels in a hotel doesn't make any sense in that regard because in that scenario, you are taking something.

The proper analogy would be this, and I also want you to answer it:
I went to a wedding and stayed at a Sheraton hotel in October. There was a 12oz bottle of water on the table.
We left the bottle exactly where it was for the 4 nights we were there and laughed at it each time. Did we commit theft by choosing "not" to drink the bottle and paying $2.50 extra upon checkout?

Why does Sheraton need to sell a 12oz bottled water sitting in room temperature for $2.50? Clearly free market competition isn't working in that case and therefore requires government intervention? Is this your line of reasoning?

 

[fskimospy]

The present argument is about the obligation of an individual to watch a television program while skipping commercials, right? The two are pretty clearly related.

They really aren't. Downloading copyrighted material is a crime, not watching the commercials isn't. One involves using the material in an unauthorized and illegal fashion, the other is using it exactly as intended.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

They really aren't. Downloading copyrighted material is a crime, not watching the commercials isn't. One involves using the material in an unauthorized and illegal fashion, the other is using it exactly as intended.

I should clarify that I'm talking about using DVR to download television programming while automatically having commercials removed. FWIW I personally engage in both behaviors to an extent (not DVR as I don't watch television, but I use AdBlock with only a handful of exceptions) but legality aside both concern the ethics of using intellectual property (the concept of which BoberFett IIRC does not believe in) without financially supporting the creation of it.

 

[Craig234]

Who brought up the issue of downloading copyrighted material?

Man, are some people having a hard time with some basic points.

I'll try to put this simply. The topic for this point is the argument, "I pay for cable, therefore I paid the full cost for everything cable brings me."

Now, let's say you own a tv channel. You pay the producers of the entertainment to pay for their costs, to get the right to air their shows. How do you pay for that?

The money cable pays you is some part of that, but typically doesn't come close to paying your costs. So what other options do you have?

One is to carry cheaper programming. That might mean low budget shows; it might mean shows whose costs are lowered by putting ads in the shows.

Another is to charge a subscription from viewers, so that they are paying you in money for less ads, instead of by watching ads to pay less.

Either way, a customer who says his payment to the cable company covers the full price of the content you provide is wrong. If you pay $5 for a unit of content and the consumer's payment to his cable company gives you $0.25, that leaves you with a $4.25 balance to cover costs (numbers are made up, I haven't found actual numbers).

One channel covers that $4.75 by selling $6 in advertising; another covers that $4.75 by charging you a $6 fee.

Now, if you find a way to watch HBO without paying on the theory your basic cable paid for HBO, you are underpaying HBO. They'll go out of business if everyone does it.

But if you find a way to watch a channel with advertising without watching the ads on the theory that your basic cable paid the full cost, you are denying that channel revenue.

They'll go out of business also if everyone does that.

Now, when I say either of those will go out of business, I mean if nothing changes - if they find a way to, say, use in-show ads to cover the $4.75, they won't go out of business.

But in the period you are just avoiding the HBO fee or the advertising, you are taking the $5 in entertainment and not paying the channel any more than the cable channel cost.

(And if you find a way to steal cable like spltting a neighbor's signal, you're not paying that either but that's not the topic).

Briefly, here's a comment from Wiki:

Most basic cable TV networks also include advertising to supplement the fees, since their programming costs typically are not covered by per-subscriber fees alone.

So Hamburgerboy made a useful analogy with paying your internet provider but that not including the right to everything on the internet.

Sometimes that's an explicit agreement, paying a subsctiption to The New York Times for content; other times it's a 'good faith' exchange, when advertising pays the bill instead.

Not paying the contract, and having all the ads removed, have the same effect - denying the provider any compensation for the service they provide you. They're different legally - the advertising model relies on consumers not to use commercial skipping without requiring it contractually - but the effect is no different, leaving you taking the $5 content and not paying for it by fees or watching ads.

And that's all that I'm claiming - not that they are the same legally, but that the underlying issue of a fair exchange between provider and customer is violated.

That it's an unsustainable behavior, which does force the provider to go out of business or otherwise change how the costs are paid.

Go out of business, product placement, subscriber fees - I'm just saying that the behavior of the elimination of ads forces something like that by denying the current payment.

As a practical matter, it seems likely that this is just a discussion of the issue including the morality of taking the entertainment and not paying, because consumers are not about to voluntarily give up ad skipping if they can do it. One option for advertisers is to 'make the ads more targeted and appealing so conumers want to watch', but I don't know anyone who suggests that can begin to totally replace the old advertising revenue. So one of those changes will happen.

So what's the point? That consumers are not being fair to the providers by eliminating ads. They have the option to just not watch the entertainment or the ads.

As an analogy, when costco offered basically unlimited return, that was a 'nice policy' that worked - if customers acted in 'good faith'. Customers with more legitimate reasons to want a refund long after the purchase could be afforded, becuase they were fewer in number. But when many customers abused the policy, returning products just out of greed to get money to buy upgrades and similar, while not violating any contract, they made the policy unaffordable, and it was replaced by a more limited refund policy.

Those customers, like ad eliminators, could try to say what they did was just fine, but what they were actually doing was taking the seller's product and denying them a fair deal.

So it wasn't 'ok' because that also was unsustainable, unfair behavior, even if it didn't violate an agreement (for the sake of argument, let's say it didn't).

Many consumers will do that given the option. And it causes a problem. You lost the legitimate chance to return your product far later because others abused the policy.

And you are going to lose the current advertising-based TV as it is because many consumers choose not to watch a reasonable amount of advertising.

They're not providing the payment for the entertainment needed for advertising to pay the bill. If they want that - to force a change to a different product and pricing - ok.

While they're just 'leeching' - consuming entertainment that costs more to give to them than what they pay, letting others pay by watching ads - that's not a fair deal.