











Source: New York Times

Comments     Threshold


This is one of those instances
By Mathos on 5/25/2012 9:58:17 AM , Rating: 2
Where the federal government needs to step in and protect consumers rights. Essentially all advertisers and these TV broadcast networks are trying to double or triple dip. They already charge the service providers a licensing fee to be able to offer their content as part of their channel line up. Then, they also are paid by the advertising company, to show ads in "commercial breaks" during the sitcom/event. I tend to refer to those as drink, sammich, or restroom breaks. Now also add on to this, that these broadcast companies are also paid for product placement inside of the sitcom/show they are making or showing. Snapple and Sienfeld for example. Or clever placement of a coca cola can or sign in some other shows, etc.

Notice these are also the same groups that want to make it so you can't receive over the air broadcasting for free. This is one of those situations where the government needs to step in and say hey ppl have a right to not have advertising shoved down their throat 24/7 and should be allowed to skip ads, and no you can't pass the cost on to consumers.

RE: This is one of those instances
By GatoRat on 5/25/2012 9:57:07 AM , Rating: 2
TV isn't a right nor a necessity. I cancelled my satellite TV and now use Hulu and Netflix. I may start using Amazon. There are a few shows I haven't been able to watch and I don't particularly care.

Dish has the right to add an ad-skipping feature to their product and the networks have a right to not let Dish broadcast their content.

Your last point makes no sense. The government should force companies to provide a service for free? Who's going to pay for it? Taxes? Again, people are NOT having advertising shoved down their throats, they are willingly accepting advertising in exchange for entertainment.

