Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

News Corp. Shuts Off Hulu Access To Cablevision

samzenpus posted about 4 years ago | from the no-fox-for-you dept.

Television 316

ideonexus writes "Normally when we advocate Net Neutrality, we are talking about preventing ISPs from discriminating against content providers, but in this case, the content provider is discriminating against the ISP. Is this a new dimension in the Net Neutrality fight? From the article: 'Cablevision internet customers lost access to Fox.com and Fox programming on Hulu for a time Saturday afternoon — the result of a misguided effort on News Corp.'s part to cut off online viewing as an alternative in its standoff with the cable operator over retrans fees. Fox stations in NYC, Philadelphia, and New Jersey went dark at midnight Friday when negotiations between the two broke down.'"

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Oblig. (5, Insightful)

negRo_slim (636783) | about 4 years ago | (#33924524)

And nothing of value was lost...

Re:Oblig. (4, Insightful)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | about 4 years ago | (#33924628)

Hey now, Fox has, in the past, had decent programming; Firefly comes to mind. Of course, Fox also has a habit of killing off cool series, though I guess withholding access to their entire network from millions of people is a new level entirely.

Re:Oblig. (3, Insightful)

hedwards (940851) | about 4 years ago | (#33924784)

Yes, and whenever they find themselves in the odd position of having genuinely engaging material, they cancel it as soon as they can. Or they put it in a bad time slot, like after sporting events or move it all over the schedule.

Quality programming for them is pretty much accidental and a failing on the part of the execs to properly kill it.

Re:Oblig. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33924810)

Agreed. Regardless of whether the content is shut off to the ISP, the 'programming' can always be found somewhere else online.

That's what both sides of the debate want to remember. Despite all the contracts, negotations, and programming they agree to, once the data is released in some form, it will be transformed into formats widely distributable. There is nothing they can do about that, except accept it as the new reality. And despite the millions, and probably billions at this point, spent on anti-'pirating' lobbyists and failed programming agreements, the content is still out there freely available. It doesn't take an economist to realise the net loss that is the anti-piracy fight.

What's amusing to all this, is to them it is bettper to lobby like crazy to get the government and ISP's to play cop, 3 strikes, fighting Net Neutrality, or backing it depending on the position, than to NOT spend that money and actually save a little face to the people they directly rely on their income stream for.

Re:Oblig. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33924910)

Wow, Fox is so consequent over whole the line, from their reasoning is on Intellectual Property, on smart online business Internet up to the outstanding quality of their programming like for example FoxNews ... they are so consequent through all their products that my choice is soo easy: Whatever comes from them, I know in advance that it is a waste of time, so I will not watch it neither buy it !

Re:Oblig. (1)

mpeskett (1221084) | about 4 years ago | (#33925016)

Hate to say "I don't think it means what you think it means", but ... consequent?

Re:Oblig. (1)

timeOday (582209) | about 4 years ago | (#33924930)

Other than the outrageous amount of commercials (which plague all pro sports in the US), Fox NFL broadcasts are really good.

It's the viewing of everything in life as a football game that's problematic.

Re:Oblig. (1)

kannibal_klown (531544) | about 4 years ago | (#33924974)

And nothing of value was lost...

Currently FOX has:
- Fringe - Decent SciFi replacement to the XFiles mechanic, only even better.
- House - One of the better medical dramas on today, though I have to admit it's gotten stale.
- Bones - A decent crime procedural drama following a forensic anthropologist. I still DVR it from time to time.

I couldn't care less about Simpsons / Family Guy / Cleveland Show. And a lot of their stuff is fluff.

But they have some decent primetime shows as well.

Re:Oblig. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33925094)

- House is long past its prime. It was briefly great last season when House was in the psych ward, and the first episode this season was worth watching for the sex scenes with Cuddy, but other than that it's not worth much. Conclusion: Not worth watching, but I still do anyway because it's the only show in its genre.

- Bones has always sucked, because the titular character has a monotone voice and zero empathy. The show would be 10x better without her. Conclusion: Not worth watching, ever. Suggestion: Watch reruns of Crossing Jordan or Diagnosis Murder instead.

- Fringe couldn't decide if it wanted to be science fiction or fantasy. As a result, it failed miserably at both and I turned that shit off. Conclusion: Not worth watching. Suggestion: Watch reruns of the Outer Limits instead.

Re:Oblig. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33925138)

Futurama?

Re:Oblig. (0, Offtopic)

symes (835608) | about 4 years ago | (#33925018)

Why is this modded funny??!!

But of course.... (5, Interesting)

cpux (970708) | about 4 years ago | (#33924554)

The Fox content at Hulu was restored when they realized they didn't have the capability to block only Cablevision customers in the area. All of the NY/Philly area was blacked out, when their beef is only with one ISP.

Re:But of course.... (3, Interesting)

pavon (30274) | about 4 years ago | (#33924648)

Did they really do that? Idiots. It isn't hard to get a list of IP blocks allocated an ISP.

To me this brings up another example of how the general idea of net neutrality is simple, while the details are not. Most of us would agree that this behavior is anti-competitive, but where do you draw the line? Many sites block entire countries, because they don't have the legal right to serve the same content in all regions. Many sites ban entire countries or IP blocks due to spamming and/or other malicious behavior that has come from those blocks. Is that acceptable? If so, given that you can find malicious behavior coming just about every IP block (botnets), does that mean that it could be used an excuse to ban whoever you wish?

Re:But of course.... (1)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | about 4 years ago | (#33924806)

Many sites block entire countries, because they don't have the legal right to serve the same content in all regions

Do they have some other operation in that country? Why should they care about foreign laws?

Re:But of course.... (2, Insightful)

Peeteriz (821290) | about 4 years ago | (#33924962)

They care about their local laws and business contracts.
Let's suppose I'm in USA and have an agreement with a company in USA that allows them to distribute my content only within countries A, B and C. If they I see them distributing it worldwide with no restrictions at all, then my lawyers start counting money already.

Re:But of course.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33924982)

It's not foreign laws they care about. It's the contract with the content owner they'd be violating they have to worry about.

Re:But of course.... (-1)

CarpetShark (865376) | about 4 years ago | (#33924866)

"Many sites ban entire countries or IP blocks due to spamming and/or other malicious behavior that has come from those blocks. Is that acceptable?"

No, it's not. In fact, it's very close to racism and is certainly discrimination, but some people will do it anyway until the law notices them and tells them they can't.

Re:But of course.... (1)

I'm just joshin (633449) | about 4 years ago | (#33924952)

Racism? Seriously?

-J

Re:But of course.... (1)

Artifakt (700173) | about 4 years ago | (#33925140)

I don't see why you're surprised at the claim. Are you picturing them carefully picking countries on the basis of how those places treat copyright law and how widespread piracy is in them? Choosing IP blocks because they belong to service providers that don't cooperate with take-down notices? If they were sticking pretty close to the known numbers there, it might be ethically acceptable, and whether it was or not, claims of racism wouldn't hold water. But historically, some major sites have made some terrible mistakes if that's all they are trying to do.
          When some site management discovers a DOS attack is coming from Belgum and does nothing for two days, then runs across a very odd unconfirmable rumor that the attack originates in an African nation and starts a blanket block of all of them within the next half hour, then hears another rumor the attack comes from a North Korean group and blocks NK, China, Hong Kong and Tibet (of all things), what more do you need to take a claim of racism seriously? No one's going to call themselves Klu Klux Internet and use little white conical cable modems with orange and yellow flickering activity lights in a cross shape.

Re:But of course.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33924960)

Uhm, no it's not racist in the least. If I have a business website and I conduct no business with the 7 worst countries in regards to spam and break-in attempts, then why should I allow any traffic from their IP addresses? Same with a personal website. You can't make me provide my content to you, and no law should either.

I have a suggestion: those countries and ISPs who service those countries should crack down on this behaviour, and then they wouldn't get blacklisted.

Re:But of course.... (5, Insightful)

Jeff DeMaagd (2015) | about 4 years ago | (#33925070)

Don't abuse the racism charge, lest it gets watered down and becomes worthless.

Hulu blocking other countries is a business decision. They don't have the distribution rights to transmit overseas, and they don't have an infrastructure to sell ads appropriate for overseas customers. There's no reason to show most US ads to non-US people.

To call this tantamount to racism is really twisted in my opinion. There's no reason to ask them to deliberately lose money to fulfill your sense of justice, especially over an entertainment medium.

Re:But of course.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33924922)

Not true.

They could determine which blocks were owned by CV via ARIN's whois service.

The problem is that they also block OOL customers who have Internet access ONLY, and don't pay for cable TV.

Honestly, I think Fox/Hulu had the potential to screw the pooch on this one. I thought they were making a play for cable companies to be hamstrung by lost revenue.
They could either agree to the cost increases and force more subs off of cable TV, or not agree and force more subs off of cable TV.
Either outcome, and there are more Hulu users, and cable providers are consigned to being dumb pipe providers who historically don't make much in the way of profit.

Re:But of course.... (2, Informative)

Gerald (9696) | about 4 years ago | (#33924980)

I don't think this is as easy as [arin.net] you think [he.net] . Search for "Cablevision" and you're suddenly in a maze of twisty little /24s, all alike.

Re:But of course.... (1)

Jeff DeMaagd (2015) | about 4 years ago | (#33925090)

It should not take a server all of a microsecond to compare an IP against a very slowly changing list of IP blocks.

However, it's a really silly stunt, I would hope that Hulu had contractual requirements to justify doing this, which there might be.

Access Denied to Fox? (4, Insightful)

Torinir (870836) | about 4 years ago | (#33924556)

I don't know... I think that denying access to Fox's website and Hulu feed could be considered a public service, but that's just my opinion.

Re:Access Denied to Fox? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33924632)

NO, because only Fox News is bad. Fox's other shows are just as good as the other networks. House, Hell's Kitchen, Family Guy, Running Wilde, the list goes on. While I hate Fox News, I am watching quite a lot of Fox shows this season.

Re:Access Denied to Fox? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33924764)

Fox (network) != Fox News

Re:Access Denied to Fox? (3, Insightful)

hedwards (940851) | about 4 years ago | (#33924794)

You have a point, however, there is a bit of this which is definitely public service. It demonstrates to a couple significant markets and several ISPs that a lack of net neutrality can hurt them as well.

Who are the good guys? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33924566)

This is like two Mexican drug cartels attacking each other. Save the popcorn, one and a half stars.

Re:Who are the good guys? (3, Interesting)

WillDraven (760005) | about 4 years ago | (#33925074)

It's the same with all cartels, be they drugs, media, or internet service: the true bad guy is the government for failing to properly regulate the market.

Net Neutraility? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33924586)

Net Neutraility? What's neutral about using the government to force private businesses to do what you'd like? You can give it a fancy name, but it's like all other Progressive measures designed to use government to force individuals to do what you want. Nothing neutral about that.

Re:Net Neutraility? (4, Insightful)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | about 4 years ago | (#33924646)

using the government to force private businesses

use government to force individuals

How many times do we have to go over this? Look, I'll make it simple for you: businesses != individuals.

Re:Net Neutraility? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33924684)

Corporations are persons. If you don't believe me then ask the Supreme Court.

Re:Net Neutraility? (1)

mrsteveman1 (1010381) | about 4 years ago | (#33924716)

And yet, they're engaged in interstate commerce, unlike most individuals. Puts them in a bit of a different situation.

Re:Net Neutraility? (1)

JeffAtl (1737988) | about 4 years ago | (#33924954)

According to Supreme Court rulings, pretty much everything an individual does is considered interstate commerce. Products do not have to cross state lines or even be sold to the public to be considered "interstate commerce".

Re:Net Neutraility? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33924746)

Yup. Good for the parent that (s)he made the distinction and referred to individuals since it is an important one in matters of law.

Re:Net Neutraility? (0, Troll)

Brett Buck (811747) | about 4 years ago | (#33924714)

Oh, goody, a lecture this morning. I hate to break it to you, but businesses ARE run by individuals, invested in by individuals, and employ individuals. They are collections of individuals. You are making a nonsensical distinction that happens to fit your concept of politics.

Re:Net Neutraility? (1)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | about 4 years ago | (#33924768)

The government is also a collection of individuals, so why is OK to restrict what the government is allowed to do to other individuals in ways that individuals are not restricted? You know, like how I can refuse to allow people of a particular skin color or religion enter my home, yet the government cannot do the same with government buildings?

Re:Net Neutraility? (1)

Ironsides (739422) | about 4 years ago | (#33924958)

Because of equality under the law. Because of this thing called the 14th amendment. Because we, through our elected representatives, have had the government restrict itself to prevent tyranny by the government.

Re:Net Neutraility? (1)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | about 4 years ago | (#33924992)

Yes but the original point that I was replying to was that businesses should have the same rights as individuals, since they are collections of individuals. Since the government is a collection of individuals, why is it acceptable to restrict the government, when it is not acceptable to restrict businesses?

Personally, I think that the government should be restricted, and that businesses should also be restricted, and that individuals should enjoy more freedom than any government agency or business.

Re:Net Neutraility? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33925136)

Businesses are already in legal terms, persons.

They have more rights then people.

When a business murders someone, does it get the death penalty? No. Does it get life in prison, with ceasing of all former operations? No.

The bigger the business, the more super human it's rights become.

The people of the corporation are all replaceable.

Businesses used to have no human like rights. The owner or owners were the head. If the business did something horrible, you round up all the owners and you imprison them or execute them.

CEOs and board members and every other construct have had all the fear and responsibility of being in their positions removed or mitigated. Now the business is a separate entity, and if it does wrong, the people at the top are 99% immune from criminal prosecution.

Re:Net Neutraility? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33925166)

Government can legally shoot somebody to force them to comply. That's why.

Re:Net Neutraility? (1)

Overzeetop (214511) | about 4 years ago | (#33924788)

So, you're in favor of powerful unions, then?

Re:Net Neutraility? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33925002)

zzzz

Re:Net Neutraility? (1)

Beelzebud (1361137) | about 4 years ago | (#33924894)

So when these individuals break laws, do they go to jail? When they kill people, are they sent to prison? When do these people get sick? When do they die?

Re:Net Neutraility? (1)

Derosian (943622) | about 4 years ago | (#33924896)

Also according to a judge's ruling a corporation has almost all the rights of an individual, oh AND they can't be sued for more than they are worth.

Re:Net Neutraility? (1)

Jeremy Erwin (2054) | about 4 years ago | (#33925050)

Governments are also collections of individuals.

Re:Net Neutraility? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33925184)

The government is a special case because it's allowed to use force and violence to enforce its mandates. Disobey the government, and sooner or later men with guns will come to your house and throw your ass in jail. Individuals don't get to do that, and neither do businesses.

The problem with net neutrality is that it would use the government's "monopoly on violence" to force one group of people to do what another group tells them to. It may seem like a good idea, but you're not on the receiving end, yet.

Re:Net Neutraility? (1)

Rorschach1 (174480) | about 4 years ago | (#33924860)

"Look, I'll make it simple for you: businesses != individuals."

I'm a sole proprietor, you insensitive clod!

Re:Net Neutraility? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33924964)

using the government to force private businesses

use government to force individuals

How many times do we have to go over this? Look, I'll make it simple for you: businesses != individuals.

Are you insane? Do you realize that one man corporations are extremely common? Nothing is ever black and white...

Re:Net Neutraility? (3, Interesting)

Aquitaine (102097) | about 4 years ago | (#33925010)

My business is just me (technically) plus a few contractors. At what point are we and our interests no longer individuals? When I hire my first full-time employee? My tenth? My twentieth?

As a disregarded entity (the technical term for 'I pay personal income tax on everything rather than corporate taxes') there is a lot of co-mingling between my personal funds and my business, mostly because I can wave my hand and decide to pay myself whenever I want, since I have to pay income tax on all of it anyway. Should I be restricted from spending some or all of that money on political contributions or PACs?

Obviously, the larger my business gets, the more likely its interests will start diverging (or at least running parallel as a separate entity) to my personal interests, but that's perfectly normal. I still have to earn money, and once I've earned that money, why should anyone other than me decide what causes I can support with it?

Re:Net Neutraility? (1)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | about 4 years ago | (#33925108)

All it really boils down to is whether or not a particular activity was done in the course of running your business. In theory, a political contribution is your activity as an individual, not as a business (if you were a larger corporation, and the money was coming out of your corporate funds, things would be different). There are some edge cases; in theory, we have a system of courts and judges that can help decide what the intent of the law was in cases where it might not be clear (e.g. if you run a business out of your home).

Now, if you are running a chartered corporation, I think things are a little more clear: you were chartered by the state to do something, presumably for the benefit of the people, and you enjoy certain benefits (limited liability, for example) that you would not otherwise enjoy. Corporations should be held to an entirely different standard than individuals, with an entirely different set of rights -- presumably fewer rights than individuals.

Re:Net Neutraility? (2, Insightful)

IICV (652597) | about 4 years ago | (#33924682)

Yeah! How dare we force businesses to serve both white and black people! You can give it a fancy name, but it's like all other Progressive measures designed to use government to force individuals to do what you want.

Or maybe, when you run a business, it's okay for the rules to be different?

Re:Net Neutraility? (2, Insightful)

hedwards (940851) | about 4 years ago | (#33924816)

When you run a business that uses public property to operate you agree to give up some control. If they don't like it, you could always stop using the public right of way and stop operating across state lines. That would keep the intrusions mostly out.

Of course for an ISP to only be able to service a single block and be unable to provide anything beyond that, it would be significantly less useful than the BBSes of old.

Re:Net Neutraility? (1)

JeffAtl (1737988) | about 4 years ago | (#33925072)

When you run a business that uses public property to operate you agree to give up some control. If they don't like it, you could always stop using the public right of way and stop operating across state lines. That would keep the intrusions mostly out.

No it wouldn't. Name one business that is immune from federal regulations. Through broad Supreme Court decisions it is almost impossible for any type of business to avoid using a public right of way. It is also almost impossible to engage in any sort of transaction that does not fall under the category of "Interstate Commerce"

Re:Net Neutraility? (5, Insightful)

Beelzebud (1361137) | about 4 years ago | (#33924882)

Being a private business does not give you a blank check to ignore laws and regulations set by the government.

Don't like it? GTFO.

Not exactly... (5, Insightful)

DeadDecoy (877617) | about 4 years ago | (#33924590)

In this case, the owner of the content are deciding where/how they want it hosted versus net neutrality where ISPs can potentially act as the gate keepers to content and charge a toll for those accessing and those supplying content. The difference is that the latter prevents a neutral ground for competing or simply posting information up.

Not a new dimension (3, Insightful)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | about 4 years ago | (#33924594)

ESPN already does this, and we have already criticized them for it.

Re:Not a new dimension (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33924678)

ESPN already does this, and we have already criticized them for it.

ESPN does this because they charge specific fees per online customer to ISPs for their online content - much like they do for their channels. Hulu is/was supposed to be free to all.

Re:Not a new dimension (5, Insightful)

mrsteveman1 (1010381) | about 4 years ago | (#33924726)

Web sites aren't "channels". If we let them get away with turning the internet into another fucking channel lineup of large websites, all of humanity is fucked.

Re:Not a new dimension (-1, Redundant)

mrsteveman1 (1010381) | about 4 years ago | (#33924748)

P.S.

Fuck.

In response to declining Buggy Whip demand (0)

kimvette (919543) | about 4 years ago | (#33924598)

In response to declining Buggy Whip demand, one of the major buggy whip distributors have announced they are withholding shipments of buggy whips, instead of adapting to the market.

"Those who do not learn history are doomed to repeat it."

Ah, not quite... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33924610)

Philadelphia is on Comcast, not Cablevision. And as far as I know, Fox is still on. Bummer.

Re:Ah, not quite... (1)

hedwards (940851) | about 4 years ago | (#33924842)

I'm guessing what happened there was that the Fox broadcast stations there went dark to prevent people in neighboring areas covered by cablevision from seeing the programming live. But the article didn't make it clear which fox stations they were.

We'll know nine months later what the effect was (5, Funny)

PatPending (953482) | about 4 years ago | (#33924624)

No TV? No Internet? What are we gonna do?

The effect of this will be manifested about nine months later...

Re:We'll know nine months later what the effect wa (2, Interesting)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | about 4 years ago | (#33924658)

I thought the whole "more babies are born 9 months after a blackout" theory was debunked...

Re:We'll know nine months later what the effect wa (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33924812)

It's true, that claim is bunkers...However, on average, more vampires are born after a blackout.

Re:We'll know nine months later what the effect wa (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33924886)

I thought the whole "more babies are born 9 months after a blackout" theory was debunked...

No, what the researchers actually said was "We'll be in our bunks".

Re:We'll know nine months later what the effect wa (2, Funny)

precariousgray (1663153) | about 4 years ago | (#33924850)

You mean the porn stored on my hard drive can get pregnant? Oh shi--

Re:We'll know nine months later what the effect wa (2, Funny)

Missing.Matter (1845576) | about 4 years ago | (#33925014)

Right, because the only reason we're not having sex is because we're on the internet too much.

Intercourse News Corp. (-1, Troll)

tomanoncow (984688) | about 4 years ago | (#33924656)

Rupert Murdoch owned News Corp. is a fascist, totalitarian gangster group. Flock them all and their mentally retarded agenda. http://carloz.newsvine.com/_news/2010/10/01/5213354-news-corp-parent-company-of-fox-and-wall-st-journal-makes-second-1-million-donation-to-pro-gop-group?pc=25&sp=25 [newsvine.com]

Re:Intercourse News Corp. (0, Redundant)

tomanoncow (984688) | about 4 years ago | (#33924706)

Score zero...Troll. Fuck you, robot.

Re:Intercourse News Corp. (1, Flamebait)

tomanoncow (984688) | about 4 years ago | (#33924858)

You nerds wish you had a handle on the truth. Sadly, you are sometimes just brainwashed little Republican numbskulls...because you want to be like your parents.

Torrents (3, Insightful)

dark42 (1085797) | about 4 years ago | (#33924664)

I think this is a really stupid move on the part of News Corp, now they're just gonna deprive themselves of the advertising revenue that Cablevision customers brought to Hulu. Meanwhile, torrents still exist, and the downloaded shows tend to have the ads cut out...

Just matter of time till news corp gets sued (1)

tnerb123 (609955) | about 4 years ago | (#33924708)

What happen to freedom of speech? Now they want to remove hulu from people who want to watch other peoples views? I see news corp getting sued by cablevisions customers for this in the near future.

Re:Just matter of time till news corp gets sued (2, Insightful)

siride (974284) | about 4 years ago | (#33924916)

What does freedom of speech have to do with this?

Not *network* neutrality (5, Insightful)

klapaucjusz (1167407) | about 4 years ago | (#33924710)

Network neutrality is about the network being neutral w.r.t. the content it carries.

This is about content providers being neutral, not about network neutrality. Please do not try to confuse the network neutrality discussion by mixing it up with other, unrelated debates.

Just put ads into HD torrents before show time (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33924820)

If they would just put the ads into high quality HD torrents that go online before show time, it would solve the problem.

when the rats start jumping overboard... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33924836)

the surface is near.

Dennis Potter had it right (2, Interesting)

A beautiful mind (821714) | about 4 years ago | (#33924852)

I call my cancer, the main one, the pancreas one, I call it Rupert, so I can get close to it, because the man Murdoch is the one who, if I had the time - in fact I've got too much writing to do and I haven't got the energy - but I would shoot the bugger if I could.

-- Dennis Potter (source [youtube.com] )

News Corp/Fox is out of control (5, Informative)

Brad1138 (590148) | about 4 years ago | (#33924864)

I work in the satellite dish industry. We are dealing with and fairly informed on the News Corp/Dish Network dispute. On the CableVision side, News Corp is trying to raise their rates from $70 mil to $150 mil, over a 100% increase. With Dish Network, they are trying to force Dish to include the Fox Sports regional networks into the lowest package, which would raise that package $5/month ($40 to $45). News Corp is trying to tell Dish how to run their business. There are plenty of people that don't care about sports and don't want to pay the extra money for it. The reason News Corp wants their Sports channels in the lowest package is to increase (the perceived) viewership numbers so they can raise their advertising rates.

A lot of the Dish Net/Cablevision customer won't see beyond "my channels are gone" and switch to a different provider. That is exactly the wrong thing to do. Dish Net/Cablevision are fighting to keep our rates down, but they can't do it if everybody jumps ship. Dish won the recent battle against Fisher Communications, they were trying to raise their rates 78% for over the air, tax payer subsidized "free" channels. Fisher Communications was already the highest paid among their piers, and wanted to nearly double their rates.

Re:News Corp/Fox is out of control (4, Interesting)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | about 4 years ago | (#33924912)

Ironically, videos delivered over the Internet should be rescuing us from this sort of behavior -- we should not have to worry about two large corporations that we really have no say in the conduct of getting into a spat and suddenly making videos inaccessible to us. Of course, we are, once again, relying on large corporations (Youtube, Hulu) whose conduct we have no say over to provide us with our videos...

Re:News Corp/Fox is out of control (2, Informative)

MicroRoller (1923300) | about 4 years ago | (#33925110)

Ironically, videos delivered over the Internet should be rescuing us from this sort of behaviorOf course, we are, once again, relying on large corporations (Youtube, Hulu) whose conduct we have no say over to provide us with our videos...

What's ironic is that the Fox shows that cablevision dropped and are available via hulu are passing through people's bodies for free right now. A $40 antenna should pick up Fox in most markets. The HD picture is actually seems better over the air compared to cable. The only time I use my set top box now is for the DVR and for some channels that are only available through the STB. I'm planning on building a mythtv box to fix that. Unfortunately there's one channel I can only get through a cable/sat/fios provider that I need.

Re:News Corp/Fox is out of control (0, Troll)

tomanoncow (984688) | about 4 years ago | (#33924946)

Your credibility is quite gone when you say "piers" instead of "peers". Sorry, spell check is not your friend. You need to proofread.

Re:News Corp/Fox is out of control (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33925114)

Not really, a lot of people are lousy spellers, and I've encountered lots of spell checkers that almost always chose the wrong word in context, and often are missing the correct one in the first place.
Whether you like it or not, this alphabet we are forced to use is utterly moronic in it's design, and the spelling 'rules' used with all their exceptions, and exceptions to the exceptions and special cases is just an exercise in proving the stupidity of it's designers. Yes there are better alphabets out there, I was taught one of those when I was a child and the first couple of years of school used it exclusively, even in notes sent home to the parents. In my experience, converting from an intelligent, rational, and logical format to this pile of excrement is a hardship that nobody should have to endure. In that, you are lucky that you have no idea just how bad your situation is.

So back to your statement that someone has no credibility because of an incorrectly used heterograph that may be due to an incomplete or overly aggressive spell checker is rather short sighted of you, especially when the subject he is claiming expertise in happens to be one in which spelling has no special significance what-so-ever. (You might as well say someone that can't swim isn't qualified to be a NASCAR racer.)

Re:News Corp/Fox is out of control (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33925024)

I have for the longest time thought a la carte [wikipedia.org] is the way to go, but with proper pricing. Take all of the content in a standard package and break it down into individual pricing for common groups. A 5-10% increase seems fair, but beyond that is price gouging and defeats the purpose.

Local OTA (over the air) content should be free and not even considered (as cable operators are required to carry them), so for many households their cable bill costs would drop in half, and they'd be paying for what they actually watch.

Give me the educational channels, and I'm done.

Dish charging customers in the process. (2)

AnonymousClown (1788472) | about 4 years ago | (#33925046)

I heard on the radio the other day on the Clark Howard show that Dish is still charging their customers full price for the News Corp channels that people paid for ( I guess you have to get a premium package or something to get them) even though they aren't receiving them, The caller stated that he paid for them and isn't getting them and when he asked the customer service rep for a refund or discount, the DIsh rep said too bad.

It doesn't sound like Dish is the good guys here either.

As far as I'm concerned, paying for TV is a rip-off - there are no decent providers.

Re:News Corp/Fox is out of control (4, Insightful)

nametaken (610866) | about 4 years ago | (#33925200)

...and switch to a different provider. That is exactly the wrong thing to do. Dish Net/Cablevision are fighting to keep our rates down, but they can't do it if everybody jumps ship.

No doubt most of the people here understand what you're saying and agree entirely. Unfortunately, I'd guess News Corp knows that any strategy that depends on regular people being informed or showing some kind of conviction is a lost cause. That sucks. :(

Yawn (0)

z-j-y (1056250) | about 4 years ago | (#33924874)

So Fox is obligated to provide service to anybody, no matter how much the compensation is?

How about slashdot runs my ads for free? Please don't discriminate me just because I don't want to pay your price.

Re:Yawn (1)

amaiman (103647) | about 4 years ago | (#33925030)

Part of the issue is that Fox programming can be received over-the-air with an antenna for free. Sure, they should obviously be allowed to charge the cable companies (whatever price the market will bear) for non OTA channels (Fox News, Fox Sports, etc.), but they shouldn't be cutting off what are known as "broadcast basic channels" - those channels are already freely broadcast and funded by advertising. The only cost to the cable companies to carry OTA channels should be whatever it costs Fox to provide them a clean feed of the signal.

Re:Yawn (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33925190)

In exchange for access to OUR airwaves (which they lease, not own), then yes, cable companies and others should be able to re-broadcast the signal. It benefits both sides (FOX gets a bigger audience, cable company gets a channel), and it benefits the public. They can fight over additional channels however they want, but the broadcast channel is different.

Hulu is balkanizing the net (1)

countertrolling (1585477) | about 4 years ago | (#33924970)

Yet another type (aside of being cut off completely) of damage we are supposed to be able to circumvent.

Solution (4, Insightful)

amaiman (103647) | about 4 years ago | (#33924996)

My solution:

1) Cancel my Cablevision TV service (their rates are way too high anyway). I've been thinking about it for a while, and I think this latest dispute is the last straw.
2) Connect antenna to TV.
3) Watch FOX.
4) No profit for either of them.

I can buy all of the shows that I want to watch from iTunes or Amazon and still come out way cheaper than my current cable TV bill. And that's ignoring the "torrent" option that many people will choice to use instead...

Re:Solution (1)

NJRoadfan (1254248) | about 4 years ago | (#33925142)

Hopefully you can get DTV reception. For the most part, it sucks without an attic or rooftop antenna. One perk, better quality, it isn't re-compressed like the CATV feeds.

Re:Solution (1)

amaiman (103647) | about 4 years ago | (#33925208)

Yeah, that's the main reason why I didn't ditch cable a long time ago (that and a little bit of laziness, the other alternatives are far less convenient than just turning on my DVR and watching TV). I can't get all of the over-the-air channels with an antenna where I live. I do get Fox in HD over-the-air, though.

I'll most likely be doing a combination of either Linux or Windows 7 Media Center recording the over-the-air channels that I can receive with my antenna and getting the rest from Hulu (with proxying around a Cablevision block if necessary), Netflix, Amazon VOD, and iTunes.

Predicted Path (4, Insightful)

Bob9113 (14996) | about 4 years ago | (#33925092)

This is what I have believed is the path this matter will take, and I (and probably many others) have been arguing exactly this. The following is the rational path:

Big ISP threatens big content. Big content counter-threatens big ISP. Big ISP and big content reach an agreement to shut out small competition. General public does not know about or care about small competition. Small competition dies, oligarchs win.

Oligarchy or net neutrality. Those are the only two outcomes. Net neutrality depends on an altruistic and long-term focused government. While it has happened before (telcos went through exactly this way back in the day, resulted in common carrier), I do not believe our current government or lackluster activism are capable of making it happen again. In short; oligarchy will win.

I've been trying to think of solutions, not much so far, a few thoughts:

1. Diaspora (or similar) farms that are big enough to buy a seat at the table.
2. Oligarchs sufficiently overstep to incite popular revolution. (unlikely, they're not that stupid -- they know how bread and circuses works -- it is a cookbook to them)
3. Diaspora (or similar) running over surreptitious channels.
4. Indie mesh networks similar to ham operations.
5. Geek revolt (ie: we realize we have all the power here, decide that our paychecks are not worth the price, and shut down the oligarchs before they gain unstoppable power)

None of these seem particularly likely to succeed, to me. One thing seems obvious: The further we get down the road, the more extreme the solution will have to be. Well, make that two things: The short term gains to the oligarchs will be enormously outweighed by the friction, and hence loss, to our GDP growth rate -- punishing us all, including them, in the long run.

Companies create their own competition. . . (1)

JSBiff (87824) | about 4 years ago | (#33925206)

I'm not against net neutrality, but at the same time, in the end, when companies don't do the right thing for their customers, they do create an opportunity for someone else to start competition - basically, any company which enacts policies and procedures which alienate their customer base, they create a big opening in the market for a new competitor to step in and take business away from them. No monopoly or oligarchy can last forever with unhappy customers.

In the case of Hulu, nobody has to watch Hulu. I used to be a pretty big user of Hulu, but they've changed a lot in the last year, for the worse. I've decided I really am not all that interested in their content or their service anymore. Case in point - I was flirting with the idea of subscribing to their Hulu Plus service (to get access to back-catalogue material mostly), but I recently went back to Hulu.com after not using the site for months, just to catch a couple episodes from the new season of Stargate Universe. Well, they've apparently decided that on the 'free' Hulu, they won't give you access to any higher than 360p resolution. I can see not offering 720p or 1080 resolution on the free service, but 360 just looks like absolute crap. That's their right, but I've decided it's my right not to do business with them. I'm not interested in subscribing now, because of the way they they decided to run their business.

The fault in the Hulu Business Model (3, Insightful)

mbone (558574) | about 4 years ago | (#33925096)

This has been the fault line in the Hulu business model since Day 1 - there is no way Hulu wanted to do this (block Internet users based on who they are affiliated with?), but they are a creature of their owners, who basically don't want Internet TV to succeed. It is a little surprising to see Rupert Murdoch do this so nakedly over such a comparatively trivial dispute.

If you think you are going to "Cut the Cord" with Hulu, think again.

Get use to it. (1)

mikeiver1 (1630021) | about 4 years ago | (#33925144)

As the content of cable and satellite providers becomes more and more laden with commercials and narrowed down content more people are going to flee them for alternate feeds of content and news. They are in a panic to re-secure the advertising revenue streams as well as open up new ones. They control both the content and in some cases the delivery making for the inevitable happening. Control of the content that transits their networks "for the good of the customers". In our area, upstate New York, they provide a small pipe to the internet to limit bandwidth. We pay for 10Mbps and get on average 2Mbps. Stand by, it's gonna get worse. This is not just about Fox, this is happening on a whole lot of fronts and will continue to be played out again and again until the media corporations find a model that provides them with total control of our viewing experience and a large, ongoing revenue stream. Remember that a captive viewer is an appealing thing to an advertiser and will further the financial goals of the media corporations. The cost of even basic basic cable is getting out of hand. Cable and satellite providers are not even giving you all the locals in the area now that ATSC digital terrestrial is in place. For that we were paying $10.00 a month on top of the $30 we pay for their poor internet service. We now pull the locals via an antenna and get far better quality and more channels for free. Add in the internet based sources and we have a well rounded source of entertainment for the cost of the internet. The $10.00 we save a month goes to Netflix and further expands the content we have at our fingers. We use HD homerun dual tuner from SiliconDust and a media player and we record all the programs we want to watch and just skip past the commercials. Personally I don't mind one or two commercials but when I am literally stepping through 5 minutes of them to watch 6-7 minutes of content, I start to look for alternatives. They can try and narrow those but there are always ways around their road blocks.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?