|
|
Posted by J. Clarke on 10/06/85 11:45
Paul Heslop wrote:
> 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!
There was a lot of that in the US a year or two back, I haven't seen nearly
as much of it and what there is is far less obnoxious than it had been.
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|