---

@LouisCyphre wrote:

Stephan76,

it’s not about the broadcasting fees.
It’s about the revenue that is generated when this forced advertising comes to Replay.
How do you think advertising clients finance the costs of this?
Correct through the selling prices of their scrap.
3+ wants money to broadcast advertising.
The advertising clients have to pay for it, but they lower the price because 3+ only reaches a few viewers.
Now there will be forced advertising, which means you can’t avoid it. This means that 3+ can argue that NOW we can reach more people, so advertising prices will go up.
And who do the clients then pass this on to?
3+ stuffs his pockets with an offer that no one wants and we, who are forced into it, have to pay for it too.
No.
If they just want to make better programs, then they are welcome to increase their advertising prices.

If I misunderstood @kaetho, I apologize. I assumed that the fee pot meant Billag/Serafe.

Regarding the topic of not tuning in to channels:

But refusing to connect can be difficult. I still remember how Joiz fought for the connection to the Cablecom network in federal court. UPC would have to connect Joiz analogue and in HD.

Because of the replay, one possibility I see would be the introduction of different replay modes.

Replay Light - Fast forwarding is not possible at all and is limited in time as per the subscription

Replay Plus - Fast forwarding is possible if you watch one or two commercials at the same time, the program is available for longer

Replay Premium - fast forwarding is possible without restrictions and is available for even longer

Light would then be available as a subscription including Plus and Premium, as before, and would then simply cost a monthly fee. This means that each subscriber can decide what replay is worth to him/her.

Of course it would be nice to say that station x doesn’t interest me and they don’t get any money from it. But I think that will be difficult to implement.

---

@LouisCyphre wrote:

snowmanch,
and the broadcasters then receive - depending on their market share - FROM this pot.
If I can’t receive these channels, their market share drops, so they get less…

---

@LouisCyphre

No, the market share is determined according to the Kantar method, i.e. according to the effective use of a particular channel and not according to whether you can receive a channel or not:

[https://www.bfs.admin.ch/bfs/de/home/statistics/culture-medien-informationsgesellschaft-sport/medien/medienangebot-nutz/ Fernsehenen/ Fernsehennutz-sender.html](https://www. bfs.admin.ch/bfs/de/home/statistics/culture-media-information-society-sport/media/media-offering-utilization/television/television-utilization-sender.html)

-> scroll down -> further information -> methodology

And the money from the pots is distributed based on these market shares. And the tariff for advertising (costs/advertising minute) is also derived from this.

---

@LouisCyphre wrote:

snowmanch,

One of my intentions is to make Swisscom aware beforehand that such a plan is undesirable by PAYING customers and they reject it.

---

You really don’t have to point this out to Swisscom. She is already aware of that. Internal conversations showed this when replay was discussed.

---

@LouisCyphre wrote:

hed,
but if I block the channel, then I never have the opportunity to use it.
Not even by accident.
By doing this I am deliberately keeping its market share down.
…

---

@LouisCyphre

Believe me, if you accidentally land on an unwanted channel, it will not affect the market share in any way -> please read the procedure for surveying the market shares, I sent the link in a previous post.

And if you still want to prevent yourself from accidentally landing on an unwanted channel, you can use your own channel list, as mentioned several times here.

And if you want to fundamentally change something, the best thing to do is to launch a popular initiative on the topic of “replay and advertising”. Your obsession with the recurring and sometimes false arguments is not productive.

An I person.

@kaetho

It’s not about the broadcasters wanting to siphon off more money, it’s just about compensating for the shortfall in income that overwinding brings with it.

@hed ultimately they want more money. And to enforce this with a means that 99% of the Swiss population does not like. Good luck making it happen

@kaetho

Nobody wants more money, but wants to compensate for the collapse in advertising prices “thanks” to replay in another way. This is even clear to the providers, because some type of compensation payments is also being discussed there.

Whether the population likes it or not, if there is a lack of money, that will be reflected in the offer. The result is even cheaper productions and certainly also broadcasters that have to close up shop.

If the population doesn’t like forced advertising, then they have to be prepared to dig deeper into their pockets if the issue comes to the ballot box. And I’m very confident about that. The No-Billag initiative also showed that the stingy-is-cool free option has no chance.

If things were really so bad for the purely advertising-financed channels in Switzerland, why do more and more keep popping up?

In addition, compulsory advertising has very poor chances in today’s media diversity, because the vast majority of media consumers can easily switch to other channels in the meantime.

Instead of the linear TV channels simply continuing to unimaginatively saw the branch on which they are sitting anyway, they would do a much better job of working on a more customer-friendly presentation of their advertising vessels and on additional financing concepts.

However, if some TV providers are actually no longer able to finance themselves in the future, I see this as a normal market shakeout where there has been oversupply for a long time and demand is shrinking at the same time.

If the consolidation process is not artificially slowed down by lobbying measures (it cannot be stopped anyway), the stations with the lowest customer acceptance will simply fall out and the survivors will hopefully have become better at the same time due to the pressure of competition.

@hed

If no one wants more money, then what’s the problem? I also have a problem with the low euro. Can I come now and demand that the euro, which is now at 1.10, be compensated to 1.60? Even. If I can’t handle that, I’ll just have to move and see if I can handle the 1.10 on my own.

With your thumb it’s clear what’s missing. That will be around a fiver per month per TV-Box. But if I have to spend more money to skip the advertising (and I would be willing to do that), I would also like to be able to decide for myself which station gets money from me. This brings us back to the concern of @LouisCyphre with the exclusion of channels… (and no one should come and say that this is too time-consuming. Swisscom can already say exactly to the second who and when The information is all there, you just have to evaluate it).

I’m also confident that something like this would make it to the ballot box. Only: so far I haven’t read anywhere that rewinding advertising should remain possible in principle, as it is now, but should become more expensive. So far the only thing that has been discussed is that they want to stop this.

@kaetho

Apparently you didn’t follow the link regarding the survey of television usage in Switzerland, so I’ll copy it here. The Kantar process is used with a selected representative user group. This includes all providers and all reference channels (including TV-Air and Kosum from the media libraries of the broadcasters themselves). A survey purely about what you have subscribed to and what you haven’t is far too short-sighted here. According to your suggestion and that of @LouisCyphre, you could, for example, only subscribe to 2 channels, but consume them at a ratio of 9:1. Nevertheless, both broadcasters would each get 50% of your money. You haven’t really thought your suggestion through, have you?

---———————————————- ————————————————– ————————————-

Television usage in Switzerland is collected by Mediapulse AG:

Electronic measuring system Kantar Media (from 2013)
Survey: Since January 1, 2013, Mediapulse AG has been determining the usage of television programs using Kantar Media’s electronic measurement system, which has replaced the telecontrol system used since January 1, 1985. The newly implemented system is also based on an electronic measuring and storage device (Kantar Media PeopleMeter), which - in representatively selected panel households - is connected to the television sets. Time-shifted TV usage is now also recorded in television households, as well as TV usage on the computer using the Kantar Media VirtualMeter. The audio tracks of the television programs switched on in households are registered by the measuring device down to the second and compared with the referencing audio tracks recorded at different locations. The audio track comparison is used to determine which program was switched on in the household.
Basic population: All language-assimilated people, i.e. people who understand and can speak at least one of the four national languages, from the age of three in private television households.

Sample: Representative panel for the three Swiss language regions of Swiss households with television equipment (as of January 1, 2018: 1,069 households in German-speaking Switzerland, 655 in French-speaking Switzerland and 304 in Italian-speaking Switzerland). Households that watch television exclusively via computer are not taken into account in the measurement. Households are now recruited based on the Swiss Post’s complete address directory. This also reaches the approximately 20% of households without an entry in the telephone book.

---

@hed wrote:

@kaetho

According to your suggestion and that of @LouisCyphre, you could, for example, only subscribe to 2 channels, but consume them at a ratio of 9:1. Nevertheless, both broadcasters would each get 50% of your money. You haven’t really thought your suggestion through, have you?

---

No, why shouldn’t that work? You would have to change the recording system for IPTV. My consumption ratio of 9:1 is guaranteed to be already recorded somewhere in the depths of Swisscom’s TV system. You would then have to resort to this data.

But then you would have to collect the data from all providers and would still not have recorded the users who only watch TV via the Internet.

It is also questionable whether data protection allows such background recordings. At Kantar, the representative consumer group explicitly agrees to the monitoring of their media consumption.

And obviously the broadcasters, providers, advertising industry and consumers are mostly satisfied with the current, proven survey procedure.

If I had, would have and had to have stayed when the euro fell from over 1.50 to 1.20 within 2 years, “me” would no longer exist today