Advice TV providers - how do you do it?

[Raven]

Wait, what?

 

[Tom]

Freeview with a plex pass server and a hdhomerun unit. Records to my NAS which then gets casted to dumb panels via chromecast / firetv depending on which room.

Fucking hell, does anyone remember when you turned the telly on, sat down and watched it?

 

[fettoken]

Fucking hell, does anyone remember when you turned the telly on, sat down and watched it?

I did that yesterday as a matter of fact. My parents came to visit and had previously complained that there where no regular channels. So ofc a phone call had to be made to the abominable providers which could be summed up as such: "TV-service-providers in working from the get-go shocker".
It went smooth, plugged in a cable and turned on the screen. Parents happy.

Not one interesting thing going though.

 

[Anastasia]

Genuinely interesting ten minutes. And if it's not a persuasive argument to never pay for telly again I don't know what is

Nearly stopped watching when it became obvious that it was just a sales pitch for his big data processing business, and to be honest didn't learn anything from the rest. Except that his analysis of the data regarding the "success" of the Cruz campaign has proved to be pretty spectacularly flawed.

How does the fact that your viewing choices are being monitored justify stealing content? Adverts are an unpleasant necessity of modern life. I use adblockers on webpages and the fast forward button on TV. I've never thought to myself "I hate adverts so I'm just going to steal this film / game / pair of shoes / bag of onions". Or were you talking about using Freeview instead of Virgin / Sky? Because last time I looked Freeview uses adverts as well.

 

[Scouse]

Groan

Nearly stopped watching when it became obvious that it was just a sales pitch for his big data processing business

Wasn't *just* a sales pitch. I thought it was interesting in it's own right.

Except that his analysis of the data regarding the "success" of the Cruz campaign has proved to be pretty spectacularly flawed.

Not if you think about Cruz going from nobody knowing who he was to second to Trump (beating all the other incumbents). That's pretty spectacular any way you cut it. It's an an attempt to influence - sucessfully demonstrated - it's not a definite "hire us and we'll guarantee a result".

Also, the fact that companies are taking this data, for free, and using it the way they're using it - succesfully and to the tune of billions - shows that big data works.

How does the fact that your viewing choices are being monitored justify stealing content?

It's not not that single fact alone. There are a multitude of reasons, not least the fact that they can't track you, and I CBA listing them in any attempt to justify myself. I care not one jot whether you think I'm justified or not. But I will say this - if I had to pay, I would stop watching TV completely. There's plenty of other things I can do and I wouldn't miss it much - I don't watch much as it is, and don't have a TV in the main room of the house.

But I will respond to this:

Adverts are an unpleasant necessity of modern life

Rubbish! They're necessary?

No. No they're not. They exist to get you to buy you shit you don't need. If you pay subscription services then you shouldn't have to see them. When sky launched you didn't.

And one of the many benefits of piracy is that I don't. Ever. Not in my house.

And that's great. It's fucking horid when I go to say, my sister's house and see an advert. I get her to turn the telly off. Not worth watching. Rather do something else.

You pay less for the beeb and get multiple channels, leading on-demand development, live radio par excellence, 24 hour news, all with no adverts and for a fraction of what you pay other service providers. So it can be done.

Adverts are just a way for already rich companies that you pay money to - that mine you for your data that they sell for profit - to increase their margins. And I wouldn't shed a single tear if they died. Not one. What limited money I have for visual entertainment goes to independant producers producing content that I would like to support. Direct to the people I'd see supported. And they don't get to data-mine me.

 

[old.user4556]

Rubbish! They're necessary?

No. No they're not. They exist to get you to buy you shit you don't need. If you pay subscription services then you shouldn't have to see them. When sky launched you didn't.

This with bells on. Who wants adverts when you pay close to £100 a month for the full Sky Package?? Some of the adverts on Sky are five minutes long. Their content is mostly pish, and they fill the gaps with adverts for pish you're already paying for. In addition, adverts have become more and more obnoxious - full page "click to close" on mobile phones, terrible clickbait, fake 'hijack' pages to get you to buy more shite you don't need.

Although @Scouse , small bit of Devil's Advocate, most of my Sky content is recorded / watched later, so I can simply fast forward through the five minute advert chunks.

 

[Raven]

Fucking hell, does anyone remember when you turned the telly on, sat down and watched it?

Yeah, dreadful wasn't it.

 

[Scouse]

Although @Scouse , small bit of Devil's Advocate, most of my Sky content is recorded / watched later, so I can simply fast forward through the five minute advert chunks.

You have to fast forward.

There's an artifical break in your programmes that disturbs you and the program enough that you have to physically move to express your displeasure with adverts every 15 minutes.

Great.

 

[Raven]

I have zero moral problem with watching downloads. I pay a sub, I don't wish to see adverts for shit I don't want too. The industry is modernising but brutally slowly. I would pay to watch a new release at home...but for some bizarre reason the only way I can legally do it is at a cinema, I hate cinemas.

 

[old.user4556]

You have to fast forward.

There's an artifical break in your programmes that disturbs you and the program enough that you have to physically move to express your displeasure with adverts every 15 minutes.

Great.

That 30 seconds of fast forward is when a) you hand the missus the remote b) go for a piss c) get a beer.

DO IT RIGHT.

 

[Scouse]

you hand the missus the remote

Give your missus the remote?

You fail at life m8.

 

[old.user4556]

Only for fast forwarding NOOB.

 

[Scouse]

Only for fast forwarding NOOB.

You give 'em an inch, they'll take a mile. Next she'll want to be changing the volume, or *gasp* the channel!

No. What you need is a system where programs can only be viewed whilst sailing rolling seas in the most blustery of conditions, where your shipmates have rickets and you've relegated your missus to the poop deck.

It'd still be better than Sky.

 

[Raven]

My wife is welcome to the remote, fuck all on anyway.

 

[Moriath]

Iwont watch american series with adverts in them. I dld them mostly.

I pay for sky, netflix and amazon so i dont have any guilt over it.

 

[Anastasia]

Necessity was a poor choice of word, reality would be closer to what I meant. I don't find adverts quite as unpalatable as you, in fact I quite enjoy some of them, especially the ones with dogs in them. But I'll fast forward whenever possible . And most movie channels these days have realised that a 3 minute ad break every 20 minutes can break the immersion a little. Except ITV, wake up you berks, if C4 can play a whole movie without ads, so can you. I too could live without TV. I'd need to be able to watch movies though, but 99% of the dross on broadcast I could live without.

Still not investing Cambridge Analytic or whatever they were called though. Making an unheard of politician a well known politician when he's one of the runners in the most important 4/5 horse race in 4 years is not exactly pulling a rabbit out of a hat. I didn't like the presenter I'm afraid, and I found his revelations to be not that revelatory. Media producers have been doing this sort of analysis (to the best of their ability, given the available tech) ever since TV / radio advertising was invented. It's moved on from asking a sample of viewers from different demographics a few questions, but the gist is the same

 

[Job]

I din't find TV adverts too bad..radio adverts on the other hand drive me to distraction.
I havent even bothered to plug the aerial into my new bluetooth car stereo.

 

[DaGaffer]

Groan


Wasn't *just* a sales pitch. I thought it was interesting in it's own right.


Not if you think about Cruz going from nobody knowing who he was to second to Trump (beating all the other incumbents). That's pretty spectacular any way you cut it. It's an an attempt to influence - sucessfully demonstrated - it's not a definite "hire us and we'll guarantee a result".

Also, the fact that companies are taking this data, for free, and using it the way they're using it - succesfully and to the tune of billions - shows that big data works.


It's not not that single fact alone. There are a multitude of reasons, not least the fact that they can't track you, and I CBA listing them in any attempt to justify myself. I care not one jot whether you think I'm justified or not. But I will say this - if I had to pay, I would stop watching TV completely. There's plenty of other things I can do and I wouldn't miss it much - I don't watch much as it is, and don't have a TV in the main room of the house.

But I will respond to this:

Rubbish! They're necessary?

No. No they're not. They exist to get you to buy you shit you don't need. If you pay subscription services then you shouldn't have to see them. When sky launched you didn't.

And one of the many benefits of piracy is that I don't. Ever. Not in my house.

And that's great. It's fucking horid when I go to say, my sister's house and see an advert. I get her to turn the telly off. Not worth watching. Rather do something else.

You pay less for the beeb and get multiple channels, leading on-demand development, live radio par excellence, 24 hour news, all with no adverts and for a fraction of what you pay other service providers. So it can be done.

Adverts are just a way for already rich companies that you pay money to - that mine you for your data that they sell for profit - to increase their margins. And I wouldn't shed a single tear if they died. Not one. What limited money I have for visual entertainment goes to independant producers producing content that I would like to support. Direct to the people I'd see supported. And they don't get to data-mine me.

Sorry Scouse but you know nothing about the economics of media (not just TV either). Even successful subscription services (HBO being the obvious one) don't pay their way; HBO is internally subsidised by the rest of Time Warner, including, yes, advertising. And before you say "Netflix", it still isn't actually making a profit, and never has. Just because people are busily pirating everything and installing ad blockers doesn't take away the necessity of earning a crust to pay for that shit. This is why every newspaper is fucked, or will only exist in the hands of people who have the money to subsidise them and further their own agendas. Advertising allowed for an independent media, that route is pretty much dead.

You can hate advertising all you want, and I'd certainly have issues with some advertising (especially online) but content will always get subsidised by something, because people won't pay enough directly, advertising is a way of doing that without a sugar daddy.

 

[Scouse]

If Sky can't make a profit advertising free at £80 month then it can die tbh.

The money goes to shareholders and whackily obscene salaries to 'talent', or to subsidise £250K/week footballers' salaries.

I get it. You work in advertising. But it's a self-serving luxury rather than a necessity IMO. I don't need it, I don't attach any great importance to the industries that rely heavily on it.

Others do. Yep. But not me

 

[Moriath]

80 quid a month for that much content is peanuts really. pennies a dayper channel. Not including the online stuff.

If there wasnt ads there wouldnt be sky, the premiereship, any tv station or streamer of legit content. And its those who make the stuff we pirate.

So i dont mind paying them. Sky, netflix etc.

Because without them things like breaking bad, houseof cards etc wouldnt exist.

 

[Raven]

Actually, the problem is Sky and the FA have dug themselves a hole, an ever increasing cost of football meeting an ever decreasing revenue stream.

 

[DaGaffer]

If Sky can't make a profit advertising free at £80 month then it can die tbh.

The money goes to shareholders and whackily obscene salaries to 'talent', or to subsidise £250K/week footballers' salaries.

I get it. You work in advertising. But it's a self-serving luxury rather than a necessity IMO. I don't need it, I don't attach any great importance to the industries that rely heavily on it.

Others do. Yep. But not me

I don't work in advertising. I use advertising, but I don't work in it. I've worked for a lot of media companies over the years though, and as for whether Sky can make a profit at £80 a month, no they can't. But they don't go under, they cut. The reality is Sky Sports is the engine of subscribers and the rest is just filler to fund the sports rights. And the reason for that is as live content its a. more difficult to pirate (although streaming is starting to hit that model) and b. offers an ambient advertising model (the TVRs around football are by far the highest available on Sky, because fewer people skip the ads). Even with modern subscription services, TV is an advertising medium, always has been.

And like an awful lot of people you're deluded about the effect advertising has on you. Every time you step inside a supermarket, the products you're likely to buy are only on those shelves because of advertising; the pact between manufacturer and retailer is that products are supported by advertising, otherwise they won't get stocked. So even if you're all "ads have no impact on me, blah, blah", yes they do, because as an individual choices about the products you get are being made elsewhere on the basis of ad budgets.

 

[Anastasia]

Piracy is theft. That's not an opinion or a point of view. You can justify it to yourself all you want, it's breaking the law. You don't have to agree with the laws of the land but as a member of society you are expected to abide by them - you don't get to choose. Maybe that's not what you were implying with your comment about not paying for telly, but that's how I read it.

 

[Raven]

What if you pay for a sky sub and download sky programs? There is nothing in the Sky terms of service that say you have to watch adverts. So if you have paid to watch program X and instead download it, is that "theft"

 

[Anastasia]

No, because that's exactly what catch up tv is - I watched the superbowl last night in about 2 hours, bypassing the 2 hours punditry and adverts. Much better. Just like watching BBC content on your laptop requires you to have a TV license. If you've paid your dues you can't be stealing.

 

[Fweddy]

Piracy is theft.

Piracy is copyright infringement, not theft.

 

[sayward]

Give your missus the remote?

You fail at life m8.

We have 2 remotes!!!

 

[sayward]

Sky rang and unfortunately got hub. I always tell them to sod off. he fell for a 'great' deal on Sky Q ( they couldn't possibly reduce our normal stuff HD etc, I think we have everything). So looked into it and much of my aim is to copy stuff to VHS or DVD, I gather you cannot do that with Q and it has no greater storage so I'm afraid he had to ring them and tell them to get lost.

 

[Moriath]

Copy stuff to vhs in 2017?

 

[sayward]

Copy stuff to vhs in 2017?

Yeh sorry it's easier, I take them to France to play there. I could never quite cope with DVD copying. Internet is crap there, have tried to watch things on line but it's hopeless.