|
|
Posted by Paul Heslop on 10/06/68 11:45
Dick Sidbury wrote:
>
> In article <124fsdj2kl8jbe4@corp.supernews.com>, "Alpha" <x@x.net>
> wrote:
>
> > http://apnews.excite.com/article/20060420/D8H3EIF83.html
>
> excerpt:
>
> Philips acknowledged, however, that the anti-channel changing technology
> might not sit well with consumers and suggested in its patent filing
> that consumers be allowed to avoid the feature if they paid broadcasters
> a fee.
>
> -----
> So dish network or direct tv decides to disable it on their
> transmissions (for free) and puts commercials on that emphasize that
> fact which people with cable must watch. The next day everyone switches
> to satellite. So in an effort to get their customers back, cable
> decides to follow suit. So the remaining question is do those who get
> over-the-air transmission feel it is worth the cost to buy cable or
> satellite in order to have control of what they watch.
>
> dick
> -- or as my daughter suggests, everyone bittorrents the shows without
> commercials the next day.
Sky are already screwing around with our choices of what we see during
programs, sliding banners over the picture and having areas of screen
dedicated to permanent or moving notices. More and more it seems these
companies couldn;t give a crap. Let's face it, we already pay Sky for
the channels, THEN we have adverts between and during the programs
THEN we have them while the programs are on screen!
--
Paul (Take my hand, I'm standing right here)
-------------------------------------------------------
Stop and Look
http://www.geocities.com/dreamst8me/
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|