Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

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!

ABC, CBS, and NBC Block Google TV

timothy posted more than 3 years ago | from the speaking-of-locked-down dept.

Google 227

markjhood2003 writes "The Wall Street Journal reports that 'ABC, CBS and NBC are blocking TV programming on their websites from being viewable on Google Inc.'s new Web-TV service. ... Spokespeople for the three networks confirmed that they are blocking the episodes on their websites from playing on Google TV, although both ABC and NBC allow promotional clips to work using the service.' Google has responded, 'Google TV enables access to all the Web content you already get today on your phone and PC, but it is ultimately the content owners' choice to restrict their fans from accessing their content on the platform.'"

cancel ×

227 comments

meh (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33994258)

google tv is a solution in search of a problem. A half-assed solution at that.

Re:meh (2, Interesting)

toastar (573882) | more than 3 years ago | (#33994270)

nah there is a general problem.... how can i get cable without a isp?

Re:meh (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33994396)

If you want "cable without a isp", just get cable without an isp.

Re:meh (1)

toastar (573882) | more than 3 years ago | (#33994416)

If you want "cable without a isp", just get cable without an isp.

Hunh? Is there some service I don't know about where I can watch HBO without a Cable, Satellite, or Telephone Provider?

not just HBO, But cable like content in general. I mean I know I can torrent it, But.... yeah....

Re:meh (5, Informative)

mr_mischief (456295) | more than 3 years ago | (#33994486)

There is one solution that's legal. You could get a dual C band dish or a C and K band, or a K and Ku band with a non-branded digital receiver and pay a satellite channel clearinghouse for channels rather than a satellite service with integrated packages of receiver and set station lists.

You'll pay more. It won't be as convenient. You'll have a positioning delay as your dish tracks to the different distribution satellites instead of a dedicated customer feed satellite like with Dish Network or Direct TV. You'll have to pay for installation and support on a consulting basis because you won't have the dedicated support staff of a subscriber-based company like Dish Network or Direct TV. You'll have increasingly uncommon equipment to keep maintained at your own expense.

On the bright side, you can get a few free satellite channels. You'll also be able to get free audio distribution channels for syndicated shows in extra audio channels of the video channels sometimes. You won't have to do business with someone also wanting to sell you Internet access. You'll just have a lot of cons to get the few pros.

Re: One solution that's legal (1)

RareButSeriousSideEf (968810) | more than 3 years ago | (#33994584)

Then there's the "root your Google TV box and change the user agent" option. *Maybe* a legal gray area at worst. Regardless, will probably be feasible for n00bs in 3... 2... 1... [blink]

Help- I Burned My Girlfriends Cooter (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33994668)

ok this is what happening,

my parents are out with family friends, and theyll be back any minute so i need your help

see, i volunteer on my sister's softball team (im 22 the girls are 15)

and whatever, i met this girl, her name is Alison, and were going out for a while. We have a lot in common, and sometimes i help her with homework. i helped her with her english essay and she still got a D... this is because her teacher is a prick... anywayz

so she came over like an hour ago, and i really want to lose my virginity, so i ask her to have sex

"no no i cant, its not right" she said, but i told her "dont worry, i know what im doing, ill be done in like 10 seconds, plus ill give you 2 n64 games if you say yes."

So then I gave her Diddy Kong Racing and Ken Griffy Jr. Baseball and we went up to my room. she is a bit confused and scared.

then i think to myself- yo i need lube, right? cuz i heard other people saying you need to lube up her clit otherwise it wont fit in properly.

ok so i have no lube, but i really want to lose my virginity, so i grab some butter from the fridge, but its cold and it wont melt, so i microwaved it for 8 minutes and i put it in a glass and poured it on her cooter, and now shes saying i burned it.

i dont know what to do, my parents are going to be back any minute and shes crying in the bathroom plz help you guys are really smart please help me.

any idea how to shut her up? should i give her another n64 game?

Re:Help- I Burned My Girlfriends Cooter (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#33994834)

Be careful, babby might be formed.

Re:meh (4, Interesting)

ArcherB (796902) | more than 3 years ago | (#33994304)

google tv is a solution in search of a problem. A half-assed solution at that.

Nope. A problem exists. My DVR's software is extremely clunky to the point of unusability. If you could replace that crap with a google interface that allows me to search for shows and times and allow me to use it to program the DVR, I would gladly pay for it. I understand that Dish Network is thinking about integrating it into their set top boxes. So, I might be gladly paying for it.

Add to that the fact that you can use the web on the dang thing is an absolute bonus.

Re:meh (5, Insightful)

Dahamma (304068) | more than 3 years ago | (#33994652)

Yeah, that's the *other* problem... the networks have so far treated Internet streaming of shows as an oddity that they need to get involved in to be relevant. But now that they think people may actually use it as their *primary* source of content, they are confused and terrified.

As for integrating into DVRs - that would be interesting. But the DVR industry is basically made up of 2 camps today - the innovative, struggling companies (Tivo, Moxi, etc) relying on govt regulations like CableCard to survive at all. And the big, bloated cable hardware suppliers (General Instruments aka Motorola, and Scientific Atlanta aka Cisco) that have no concept of user interface or quality control, but have enough influence to dominate the OEM cable box market.

In the end, though, content availability is all about the providers/owners feeling comfortable with the (revenue from the) distribution model. Can they make a profit with free online content with ads? Do they get enough share from an iTunes transaction? Will they get enough of a cut from a monthly fee in a subscription service? It's going to be an interesting battle...

Re:meh (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#33995092)

Here's the deal.
Anybody with a current video card probably has TV out, So basically anything you can squeeze down to 640 * 480 can be streamed to the TV. The trick is to click on the little buttons of each website's player to go full screen. So, a user using this method can port anything to the TV, but clicking that little full screen button is harder than it looks. There's different players, some may be in a browser, some may not, some may be on your hard drive, regardless, pushing that full screen button is the trick, of course being able to pause and rewind and all that is nice to have too.

I would buy a set top box if it can help mitigate these problems. Sounds like Google TV was on it's way in this regard, but abc, cbs, nbc who are dangerous cults don't care about logic, or the truth, so you can bet trying to bend your neck to look backwards and get the mouse to line up with the button is going to be around for awhile.

Re:meh (1)

zmollusc (763634) | more than 2 years ago | (#33995312)

Yeah, get an old laptop and throw it under the couch or somewhere close, string a couple of wires to the TV (tv-out to SCART here in uk, YTVMV) and plug a wireless keyboard and wireless optical mouse in.
Now you can lie on the couch and watch web content while filling the wireless keyboard with cheeto dust.

Re:meh (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 2 years ago | (#33995374)

Anybody with a current video card probably has TV out

Most PCs are sold without video cards. Onboard video typically has either only VGA out or only VGA and DVI out. Most non-geeks aren't aware that DVI is the same thing as HDMI, that their TVs take VGA signals, and that adapters are available [sewelldirect.com] to turn a VGA signal into an SDTV signal. And they would prefer not to carry the family PC back and forth between the desk and TV and fumble with cables every time they want to watch a show.

Re:meh (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33994698)

Indeed, saying there is no need for an accessible software platform for set-tops is like saying there's no need for one on smartphones. 6 years ago you might have had some credibility in saying that about phones -- today, with iOS & Android out, you'd just sound like an idiot.

The manufacturers of TV accessory equipment haven't progressed much more software-wise than did the old-era dumbphone lineups -- they even intentionally cripple devices in the same way. It's wonderful when the entire fucking industry engages in planned obsolescence.

Sickbeard & XBMC. (4, Informative)

0100010001010011 (652467) | more than 3 years ago | (#33994278)

Sickbeard [sickbeard.com] makes one hell of a DVR program. (When paired with sabnzbd [sabnzbd.org] or a torrent program).

$25 for a 180GB block from Astraweb has lasted me since August and I haven't even burned through 1/2 of it yet. (I used to have the $10/month unlimited until I realized how much I really didn't use it). Programs available within a few minutes of the show ending. 30 minute TV shows take 2-3 minutes. Hour long never take longer than 10. (Heck when I saturate my cable I can have a movie in 8 minutes).

XBMC [xbmc.org] makes one hell of a nice front end. I come home from school or work and just browse to the 'latest episodes' and watch something.

Re:Sickbeard & XBMC. (1)

inhuman_4 (1294516) | more than 3 years ago | (#33994408)

You just described my exact setup, minus the good bandwidth.

Re:Sickbeard & XBMC. (1)

Mordok-DestroyerOfWo (1000167) | more than 2 years ago | (#33994776)

I was thinking about going with Astraweb after my current plan runs out, their plans seem a heck of a lot more reasonable. Do they have some sort of affiliate program (I figure if I'm going to sign up, somebody ought to get something out of it).

Re:Sickbeard & XBMC. (4, Informative)

Chapter80 (926879) | more than 2 years ago | (#33995434)

Sickbeard [sickbeard.com] makes one hell of a DVR program. (When paired with sabnzbd [sabnzbd.org] or a torrent program).

$25 for a 180GB block from Astraweb ...

Since I never heard of Sickbeard, sabnzbd, or Astraweb, I figured I'd do a little research, and post my (Score: 5 Informative?) findings here. Please correct me if I made any mistakes....

Sickbeard is an open source, GPL licensed Python application (so runs on Windows and Linux and other platforms), that watches newsgroups, looking for announcements of TV shows whose torrents have been put on the web. In Sickbeard, the user can specify which shows he is interested in, and it keeps an eye out for those shows. Once it finds shows that the user has specified, it can queue up a retrieval program, but Sickbeard doesn't retrieve them itself.

Sickbeard will request the show from sabnzbd. Sabnzbd is also open source, Python. Its function is to go retrieve binaries from newsgroups. So it seems to me that the newsgroups have both the announcement of the availability of a TV program (like a torrent tracker), and the actual program. Sickbeard is watching the announcements, and Sabnzbd is grabbing the program.

Astraweb is a newsgroup website that apparently allows you to download newsgroup posts. This is a paid service, and the parent post signed up for a $25 service for 180GB of downloads. Based on my MythTV experience, I'm guessing this might be 180 half hours of TV (please correct this number if I am off!).

So for $25 plus 2 free open source programs, I can have almost 200 half-hour programs that I can watch anytime (starting a few minutes after they air). Interesting!

----

I'm looking for a "to go" solution for watching TV at a cottage (where we have no cable, and no internet). We've been getting by with taking Netflix with us each time we go to the cottage (combined with a small DVD collection), but this might be an interesting supplement! (Other suggestions welcome!!)

Re:Sickbeard & XBMC. (2, Insightful)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 2 years ago | (#33995488)

Interesting post

Is any of that legal?

Too bad my Verizon ISP stopped carrying Usenet newsgroups. I can understand the newsgroups used a lot of bandwidth/storage, but they could have dropped the *.binary groups and kept pure text forums like rec.arts.tv or rec.arts.startrek. (sigh) At least they haven't installed datacaps like my other ISP comcast did.

Re:Sickbeard & XBMC. (2, Interesting)

Chapter80 (926879) | more than 2 years ago | (#33995542)

My guess, and I'm no lawyer, is that you can download programs without violating the law (or violating somebody's copyright), but that uploading is where you may run into some trouble.

Look at how the RIAA has gone after music downloaders. I believe their legal cases have all hinged on the fact that the downloaders (that they went after) also shared the torrents. I think that leeching is safe - you aren't "republishing".

Of course, one may also question the ethics.

Since I can record shows myself, I don't personally have an ethical dilemma with downloading the same program. But everyone has their own ethics.

God damnit.... (4, Insightful)

Rivalz (1431453) | more than 3 years ago | (#33994280)

That is a lot of crappy television shows I have to boycott now.
I was just thinking that all the t.v. shows on right now suck because of the writers strike a while back.
It turns out the executives are just insane.

Re:God damnit.... (1)

Frosty Piss (770223) | more than 3 years ago | (#33994760)

It turns out the executives are just insane.

Why? Because Google ( a business in the business of making money ) wants to make boat loads of money on their product without paying for it? The "crappy" shows you were not watching anyway are a product. If Google wants to make money off of them, than perhaps they should pay the networks a cut of the take? It sounds like a reasonable idea to me...

Re:God damnit.... (2, Insightful)

ooshna (1654125) | more than 2 years ago | (#33994812)

Isn't that what the unfast-forwardable ads they show are for? I mean they already make money forcing me to watch those shitty Wheat Thins ads (I'm looking at you Daily Show). Why should they charge Google for something I can watch for free on someone's WebTV?

Re:God damnit.... (1)

mr100percent (57156) | more than 2 years ago | (#33994822)

Well the alternative is iTunes

Re:God damnit.... (3, Insightful)

Rivalz (1431453) | more than 2 years ago | (#33995066)

Well for one the tv studios didn't innovate when the technology was ripe. Now they missed out on the money train and are afraid of their revenue stream taking a hit. Now they are going to alienate themselves from portions of their audience. I don't follow TV statistics but I would bet that the number of TV viewers & subscriptions has leveled out and will start to decrease as tv over the internet takes hold.

Instead of embracing technology and taking their beating earlythey will wait a few more years and try and launch their own version which will suck.
Most companies have the mentality of avoiding investing in new tech that would cut into their revenue. Even though that new technology might insure or increase its market share.

Like it or not google seems to be pushing for innovation in almost all forms of communication / entertainment.

Let me know when google bank, google mobile, google car, google real estate come online.

Re:God damnit.... (2, Interesting)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 2 years ago | (#33995558)

>>>they will wait a few more years and try and launch their own version which will suck.

Or maybe not. The history of invention shows that being "first" is typically a bad idea. It's often a good tactic to let someone else waste millions on R&D, plus advertising, and then jump on the bandwagon after the technology is already proven. It also helps you avoid wasting cash on flops (like Digital Cassette* or CED Videorecords or Betamax).

*
* This: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compact_Cassette [wikipedia.org]

A cut of the take (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 2 years ago | (#33995202)

If Google wants to make money off of them, than perhaps they should pay the networks a cut of the take?

Then why don't the manufacturers of small form factor PCs pay the major networks a cut of the take? And why haven't the manufacturers of TV sets been paying the networks a cut of their take since the black-and-white days?

Re:God damnit.... (3, Informative)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 2 years ago | (#33995538)

>>>Because Google ( a business in the business of making money ) wants to make boat loads of money on their product without paying for it?

Ooops! ABC, CBS, and NBC are public broadcasters.
They don't charge to access their content.
You can watch it for free (via antenna or internet).

I can't think of any logical reason why these broadcasters would block Google or any other web device. Perhaps the FCC ought to revoke their licenses to public frequencies, and give channels 2 to 51 for cellphone/internet usage? Why? Because ABC, CBS, NBC are acting like turds. Not that I want that to lose free TV, but it would be a friendly reminder to the Big Three where they sit (their use of the People's airwaves is a *privilege* not a right).
.

>>>If Google wants to make money off of them, than perhaps they should pay the networks a cut of the take?

Why? CATV doesn't. DishTV doesn't. Neither do I (all of them I get free).

Re:God damnit.... (1)

tfountain (619557) | more than 2 years ago | (#33995574)

Why should Google pay the networks to show their shows to a larger audience? The shows are funded by advertising, the adverts are still in there when you watch them on your Google TV. All Google are trying to do is organise online content you can already watch on your PC.

This is classic old media all over again. They think it's better to lock down content so that almost nobody watches it, than monetise the enormous potential audience of the Internet.

Steve Job told you so Google but you didn't listen (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33994284)

I believe Steve Jobs eluded to these issues that would inevitably pop up as a precaution to Google before it entered the same market Apple coincidentally now dominates (digital television show distribution).

TV streaming neutrality (1)

cf18 (943501) | more than 3 years ago | (#33994306)

The next big tech debate?

Re:TV streaming neutrality (1)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 2 years ago | (#33995566)

Disagree. Just because you publish a website, doesn't mean you have to share it with all IP addresses..... similar to how you don't have to serve everyone at a business ("no shirt; no service"). Or how some .com/.us sites are not visible in embargoed countries like Cuba.

Net neutrality is about stopping the ISP from censoring the web (prevent them from blocking gop.org).
It's not about forcing website owners (us) to share things we don't want to share.

Report itself as a normal PC? (5, Interesting)

DelitaTheFridge (912659) | more than 3 years ago | (#33994312)

Seems like this would be easily worked around by changing some useragent strings. Not sure why Google wouldn't do that themselves, but I guess they probably care more about their relationship with media companies than I do.

Re:Report itself as a normal PC? (4, Insightful)

Lobachevsky (465666) | more than 3 years ago | (#33994338)

ABC, NBC, et al. could claim Google is spoofing its useragent to circumvent the ban on Google TV. That means they could sue Google under the provisions of DMCA. Blame your legislators for passing idiotic laws that forbid gaining "unauthorized" access through spoofing.

Re:Report itself as a normal PC? (1)

JSBiff (87824) | more than 3 years ago | (#33994472)

I don't think there's any law that dictates what User Agent String a web browser returns. Web Sites can try to use the User Agent string to block content, but I hardly think the User Agent String constitutes a legal 'access control' for content. However, I suspect that there are other ways to suss out what browser is being used - perhaps something with JavaScript, or similar. Maybe a DirectX plugin or something which won't run on a Linux-based Google TV device.

Re:Report itself as a normal PC? (1)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 2 years ago | (#33995582)

>>>I don't think there's any law that dictates what User Agent String a web browser returns.

There is but it's never been enforced. For example Opera Browser let's you pretend to be Firefox or Internet Explorer, and access sites that might otherwise be blocked. According to the DMCA that's "hacking" and illegal, but nobody has ever bothered to file a lawsuit. However they could if they wanted to, and probably win.

Re:Report itself as a normal PC? (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33994482)

No they couldn't.

User agent strings don't count as "technological measures"; both the IETF and the W3C say that they're purely advisory, optional, not guaranteed to even exist let alone be correct (or to be useful when they are correct), and MUST not be relied upon.

Besides; what's to stop someone filtering the User Agent with a proxy? That's what I do.

CAPTCHA: baseless

Re:Report itself as a normal PC? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33994606)

Assuming that were true, then the smart thing to do would have been to only present the normal IE user-agent string, so it would be impossible to tell, and then emulate IE. Then ABC et al couldn't claim it was changed to work around a technical measure.

Re:Report itself as a normal PC? (1)

bjourne (1034822) | more than 2 years ago | (#33995284)

No, they would just setup hotlink protection and deny all requests originating from GoogleTV's website. The only reliable way to circumvent that would be for Google to download all the video streams and host them on their own hardware. But then they would be committing copyright infringement, which is illegal.

Re:Report itself as a normal PC? (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33994356)

Anything Google changes it to will be blocked, most likely. Unless it happened to be the exact UA of - say - IE6, and then these companies would probably start blocking based on other bits of availaible information(like flash version, browser accept string, platform etc).

If users change it themselves, different strings will be used and thus the problem will be avoided - You would end up blocking a lot of legit users to try to block all GoogleTVs.

Also, Google is trying to provide a platform, and most likely wants these companies to be able to tailor content to it - This little "issue" is most likely just one move in a game of chess between Google and these content producers.

Re:Report itself as a normal PC? (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33994592)

Situations like this are why I never liked the user agent string. It shouldn't have been included in http to begin with and every time I see some new protocol appear with a user agent string (like bittorrent) I start wondering how long it will take before someone has to spoof it (in the case of bittorrent, a few months ago torrent trackers I use started using whitelists and my client is obscure so I changed it to that of the most popular client at the time).
User agent strings are evil since it makes it easy for content providers to restrict what we can see and use that as leverage to try to make changes in our private life (like what browser to use, what set-top box, what media player, and so on) and that should be none of their business. Imagine what life would be like if we all had to declare our religion before filing a government procedure, or getting the restaurant bill, or paying the groceries, or applying for a mortgage...

Re:Report itself as a normal PC? (2, Insightful)

Geminii (954348) | more than 2 years ago | (#33995088)

Because if Google reacts like that, it would be saying that the media companies are right and Google is sneaking around being dastardly.

If Google simply sits there, patiently, eventually Big Media will, snarling all the way, cave. At which point Google has the upper hand in all dealings. And all it has to do in the meantime is keep its hand out with a delicious snackie and say soothing things like "We completely respect the right of the TV companies to make decisions they believe are in their best interests" and "Who's a good boy then?".

Yep you can change the user agent string (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#33995278)

so the networks' move doesn't matter at all. Linky [engadget.com] .

It baffles me (5, Interesting)

txoof (553270) | more than 3 years ago | (#33994340)

It baffles me that the networks' left and right hands don't know what the other are doing. With one hand they gleefully provide online versions of the shows and with the other, they smack down anyone (Boxee, Google) that tries to make the consumption of those products easier.

People that choose to watch the shows over the internet are actively choosing to not make regular network TV a part of their day. They aren't willing to sit down at 8 pm, 7 central to watch Chuck; they want to watch it at 6:00 am before work. 10 years ago, they would have been lost viewers. All that advertising revenue would have vanished with their choice. Today, the networks have an option to recapture some of that lost revenue via internet viewers. Granted, they don't show as many adverts, and that ad space (for the moment) is worth less than TV ad time, but they still get money.

Why are they getting upset when google/boxee/whoever drives MORE users to their product? Or are they just afraid that people will choose to eschew network TV in favor of internet TV? If that's the case, they've already lost the battle by offering shows on the internet. Some networks have come up with reasonable solutions though: Fox shows House a week late on the internet for example. Why not offer extra content on TV to encourage TV watching over internet watching. Or, resolve cliff-hangers on the air and make internet viewers sweat it out for an extra two weeks.

What other reasons can /. think of for the networks behavior? Why are they so afraid of internet content aggregators?

Re:It baffles me (1)

thurman86 (1927242) | more than 3 years ago | (#33994410)

Exactly. Its pointless to offer web content if you are going to limit it to certain platforms. If they are so worried about piracy of their content then they should embrace things like google tv, as far as I know google tv boxes and the like are unable to run any torrent clients so piracy should be less of a concern for them seeing as it would just stream direct from their site with the money making ad's in tact. All they have done is give good reason for everyone who has already dropped $300+ on a google tv box reason to boycott/pirate the shows. For company's who act like they need money they sure know how to make less of it.

Re:It baffles me (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33994444)

As you said, they are terrified that people will stop watching regular TV. Not only do most networks get paid by cable companies per customer (rather than based on viewership numbers), they also get much higher advertising rates on regular TV.

They started putting content online for a variety of reasons:
1) Because some people have switched permanently and they can't afford to miss out on that revenue
2) Because they don't want to get left behind their competitors
3) Because if they can increase online viewership sufficiently and/or prove to advertisers through metrics that internet ads yield a similar or greater return than traditional tv, they can up their online advertising prices.

If ESPN3.com and similar sites succeed, expect all the major content providers to do the same thing. Charging an ISP per customer to let them have access to a website is what most TV companies (and even sites like NYTimes) want the most. Reliable baseline income + bonus from advertising is how these companies like to operate.

Re:It baffles me (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33994756)

I don't like the way ESPN3.com is doing it but damn it, but I'm a college football addict.

Re:It baffles me (1)

SeaFox (739806) | more than 2 years ago | (#33994840)

Not only do most networks get paid by cable companies per customer (rather than based on viewership numbers), they also get much higher advertising rates on regular TV.

Wait, wait. The networks mentioned here are ABC, CBS, and NBC. Those are broadcast networks. Until very recently, they didn't get paid at all by cable companies. Since the programming was available for free over-the-air cablecos didn't see any reason why they should have to pay to carry them as well. It's only within the last year or so that this has become an issue and cablecos have had to actually work out fees they pay the networks to carry their feeds. Many people here will redoubtably recall temporary blackouts of some network stations this past year, followed a few months later by an increase in their basic cable bill. That was the cablecos bickering with the networks about the fees and then passing them on to you after they reached an agreement with them.

Re:It baffles me (1)

Overzeetop (214511) | more than 2 years ago | (#33995528)

Exactly why this is happening. The broadcast networks found that they could double dip by charging the cable providers for their content, after it was already paid for by the advertisers. It seems entirely logical (to them) that they should get money from every service which delivers their content to the consumer, even if it happens to be their own website. They're looking to get $$$ from all these players.

Re:It baffles me (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#33995560)

"As you said, they are terrified that people will stop watching regular TV."

The only people I know still doing that are in retirement homes and hospitals.

Re:It baffles me (4, Insightful)

GiveBenADollar (1722738) | more than 3 years ago | (#33994446)

There is a reason why very few companies last over 100 years, the longer it exists the harder it is to change. Right now network execs are still thinking in terms of time slots, competing with the other guy, and other outmoded concepts. The internet does scare them, that's why many shows are unavailable until a few days after airing. If consumers stop watching when the show is on the air they might be watching something else! The silly thing about this is DVRs have made timeslots meaningless, and have also made commercials easy to skip through. If they really wanted to profit they would embrace the internet and start showing all their programing online with ads so that the viewer can decide what he or she wants to watch and when.

Re:It baffles me (1)

initialE (758110) | more than 3 years ago | (#33994454)

What product are you referring to? The only product I see is the one sitting behind the box, that apparently is defective - it needs to be made to jump through more hoops dammit, or it won't be docile when delivered to the customers.

Re:It baffles me (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33994470)

It amazes me how much they fail to realize the power of live or "live" simulcast tv. When you have a hit show, *no one* (who even kinda regularly watches it) is going to wait an hour, much less a day, just so they can watch the season finale or special episode without ads for fear that a friend might scoop them or an errant tweet ruins weeks of waiting. Maybe your commercial prices before that are a little lower, bit when you're doing dancing with the stars or Americas got talent and can pull up phone records to prove so many unique people paid such close attention that they paid to call/text/whatever, the rates you can charge for that time are huge. I can't even imagine what they charged for like the series finales of Seinfeld and friends.

also, I thought I'd read that fox could charge more for simpsons ad time on Hulu than on air. Was that real, or was I just having a messed up dream (cause who the he'll dreams about advertising rate reports? Really...)?

Re:It baffles me (4, Informative)

nametaken (610866) | more than 3 years ago | (#33994498)

If anyone cares...

CBS Feedback Form
http://www.cbs.com/info/user_services/fb_global_form.php [cbs.com]

NBC Feedback Form
http://nbc.researchresults.com/?s=3 [researchresults.com]

ABC Contact Form
http://abc.go.com/site/contact-us [go.com]

Re:It baffles me (1)

nospam007 (722110) | more than 2 years ago | (#33995570)

"If anyone cares...

CBS Feedback Form..."

CBS cares! /\

Re:It baffles me (5, Insightful)

arkhan_jg (618674) | more than 3 years ago | (#33994564)

That one's easy. They're terrified of losing control of your big TV with a remote in the living room. Ordinary viewers do not have a computer hooked up the TV, and a laptop is just too inconvenient to use for most.

The internet viewing streams are there to use hunched over your laptop or sat at your desk. It's not the 'premium' experience of the family sat on the sofa with an easy to use remote. The internet streams are based on that, and the revenue from that is relatively low.

Remember, you are not the customer - the advertiser is the customer, you're the product, and the TV program is just there to get your eyeballs on the adverts. Google TV threatens to bring the internet streaming model to the comfy sofa TV viewing for the masses, and is a direct threat to their broadcast business model.

Apple TV is a little different, as they get paid directly per episode 'bought' through itunes, and I imagine the profit margin on that is considerably higher than the adverts on the web-streaming model. It may even be higher than the traditional broadcast-advert model, and it works as apple users are used to paying through the nose for a slick experience. Ordinary users with a google box (or boxee box) streaming off of hulu etc? Not so much.

Why no HTPC? (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 2 years ago | (#33995248)

Ordinary viewers do not have a computer hooked up the TV

From 1987 (VGA introduction) to 2006 (when HDTVs became affordable), PCs didn't have television output as a standard feature. SDTVs needed an obscure adapter [wikipedia.org] to turn the EDTV output from a PC's VGA port into a 480i signal that they can handle. But by fall of 2010, two-thirds of U.S. households have an HDTV [bizjournals.com] , and HDTVs accept the VGA and DVI signals from common PCs [pineight.com] . Why hasn't a PC in the living room taken off, and what can geeks to help make them more common among non-geeks?

Re:Why no HTPC? (1)

JackDW (904211) | more than 2 years ago | (#33995496)

Just spread the word. HTPCs sell themselves. It's just a matter of knowing what is possible.

I recommend HTPCs to people, and I point out that they don't need to buy new stuff. While it is nice to have DVI out and a video card that supports accelerated Flash, these are not required. Nor is the wireless keyboard/mouse or the special media centre software. You can just use an old machine. Windows XP and a web browser. It is easy.

Here in the UK, HTPCs have a second advantage beyond the convenience of on-demand viewing. If you only have a HTPC and no aerial connection, you don't have to pay your TV licence fee. You save at least £12/month - but you still get to watch most TV programmes, completely legally. And you save much more than that if having an HTPC means you can drop your satellite TV subscription.

Re:It baffles me (2, Insightful)

TheVelvetFlamebait (986083) | more than 3 years ago | (#33994608)

It baffles me that the networks' left and right hands don't know what the other are doing. With one hand they gleefully provide online versions of the shows and with the other, they smack down anyone (Boxee, Google) that tries to make the consumption of those products easier.

Put it this way: if they wanted to make the free versions of their shows as easy to access as possible, they would provide downloadable DRM-free copies to anyone that wanted them. The point is not to make access easy, it's to make access difficult and annoying. It's to make the free versions good advertising, but not good enough to replace the paid-for experience. You have to remember that, for a lot of people, just turning on their computer and watching on their small computer screen is turn-off enough, compared to watching on the television.

Re:It baffles me (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33994750)

just turning on their computer and watching on their small computer screen is turn-off enough, compared to watching on the television.

What is the source of this myth that "computer screens" and "televisions" are different things, having different sizes and used in different rooms?

Where did people start to get the idea that turning on a "computer" is different than turning on an enclosure with a CPU and RAM and HDMI-out which just happens to be labeled "cable box" or "DVD player" or "Wii" or "Roku"?

A box is a box and a screen is a screen. They're all just computers and monitors. I'm browsing on my 46" monitor right now.

Re:It baffles me (1)

TheVelvetFlamebait (986083) | more than 2 years ago | (#33994910)

What is the source of this myth that "computer screens" and "televisions" are different things, having different sizes and used in different rooms?

Real life. For every person I know who browses the internet on a screen equal to or larger in size than the screen on which they watch their television, I know about 50 people who do not, and at least 30 who wouldn't consider watching TV on their computer.

And no, I don't know too many computer geeks. How can you tell?

High definition was for text (2, Informative)

tepples (727027) | more than 2 years ago | (#33995294)

What is the source of this myth that "computer screens" and "televisions" are different things, having different sizes and used in different rooms?

Until 2006 or so, high definition was for text.

In the mid-1980s, home computers lost the ability to output standard-definition television as a standard feature. One needed a special monitor to display the EDTV signals (480p RGB component) from the new "VGA" video cards; TVs could handle only 480i or 576i depending on the local AC power frequency. PCs of the time were designed to show text, not video, and they added high-definition "XGA" modes to display more text on the screen. There were adapters called "scan converters" to turn 480p, 600p, and eventually 768p into 480i, but few people knew about them, and for this reason, even fewer applications were specifically designed for them. Instead, computer monitors surged toward higher resolutions to show even more text: 864p, 1024p, and 1200p.

The fundamental incompatibility between standard-definition TVs and high-definition computer monitors didn't change until the late 2000s when HDTV took off. By then, there had been two decades of tradition of separation of TVs from computer monitors. Only geeks have both the knowledge of how HDTV actually works and a culture of experimentation (as opposed to a presupposition that if one plugs two things together that aren't traditionally plugged together, it could fry one or both) to break this tradition.

Where did people start to get the idea that turning on a "computer" is different than turning on an enclosure with a CPU and RAM and HDMI-out which just happens to be labeled "cable box" or "DVD player" or "Wii" or "Roku"?

That's because nobody has come up with a national (in the United States) ad campaign for a nettop HTPC.

Re:It baffles me (2, Interesting)

Rudolf (43885) | more than 3 years ago | (#33994620)

People that choose to watch the shows over the internet are actively choosing to not make regular network TV a part of their day. They aren't willing to sit down at 8 pm, 7 central to watch Chuck; they want to watch it at 6:00 am before work. 10 years ago, they would have been lost viewers.
Why would those viewers be lost? Wouldn't those viewers have used a VCR 10 years ago? Or a TiVo?

Re:It baffles me (1)

julesh (229690) | more than 2 years ago | (#33995168)

Why would those viewers be lost? Wouldn't those viewers have used a VCR 10 years ago? Or a TiVo?

Yes. But the networks count them as lost. The ratings provided by Nielsen et al only count live viewers. Why? Because the people who aren't watching live are less likely to see the commercials, and that's all they really care about.

Re:It baffles me (4, Insightful)

bazorg (911295) | more than 2 years ago | (#33994806)

I believe I understand their reasons. If you switch the TV on on a channel or go to the website of the TV channel, you are still using and reinforcing the usefulness of the brand of that channel. If you fire up your computer, do some search for specific TV shows and watch them from within a google user interface, then the channel becomes less important, therefore less valuable for advertisers.

It might be a losing battle, but I understand why companies would fight it for as long as possible. It certainly seems better to be a good TV channel than to be one of the random websites where people land if they want to watch a TV show that has significant brand recognition and for that reason cost a lot of money for the channel to have the right to broadcast it.

Re:It baffles me (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#33994832)

http://news.slashdot.org/story/09/06/26/2236210/The-Simpsons-Worth-More-Per-Viewer-On-Hulu-Than-On-Fox?from=rss

Actually, some shows are worth more online than via nielsen rating driven advertising. Many shows have approached, or surpassed broadcast advertising income per viewer, and the number of shows are growing every day. The logic behind this is simple. People are more likely to actually watch/listen to the ads via Hulu than they are via broadcast. With only a single commercial during breaks, the majority of us will just sit through it.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=atKGiQOMco.Y

This is a battle of control, who gets the income, and how the prices are structured.

Re:It baffles me (1)

bjourne (1034822) | more than 2 years ago | (#33995302)

Google isn't doing anything out of the goodness of their heart. They want to become the middleman between the viewer and the networks so that they can get a slice of the advertising pie. The networks have their own streaming sites, or are in the process of implementing them. They don't want or need Google as their middleman because it costs them money.

And this sums it all up... (0)

bmo (77928) | more than 3 years ago | (#33994354)

"Some TV executives said they were worried their shows would be lost in the larger Internet."

As if the Internet is going to go away.

There's a turn of phrase my dad calls something like that.

"Shoveling shit against the tide"

--
BMO

This is a battle we WON'T win... (4, Insightful)

hackel (10452) | more than 3 years ago | (#33994392)

The traditional TV networks, recording companies, movie producers, etc. are *never* going to give up their business model. EVER. They are dinosaurs and simply will not change. It's futile to think that they will. The only option is for them to go out of business. They will, of course, but it's going to be a long wait, unfortunately. They will continue to fight us at every turn, but eventually, they will be gone. Until then, our job is to hang in there, continue to support independent projects, use torrents so that they lose advertising revenue, and teach as many people as we know to do the same.

Re:This is a battle we WON'T win... (1)

TheVelvetFlamebait (986083) | more than 3 years ago | (#33994642)

The traditional TV networks, recording companies, movie producers, etc. are *never* going to give up their business model. EVER.

But they have already modified their business model. They provide free streamed versions of many of their high-rating shows. It's perfect for those who want to "try before they buy". Oh wait, you weren't wanting a change in business model, you just wanted them to change to the business model you wanted. Doing anything else makes them a dinosaur.

hey will continue to fight us at every turn, but eventually, they will be gone. Until then, our job is to hang in there, continue to support independent projects, use torrents so that they lose advertising revenue, and teach as many people as we know to do the same.

They lose just as much advertising revenue if you don't watch the shows. Using torrents is about the worst thing you could do (yes, much worse than paying the cable companies). It allows them to erode our liberties, and it makes the process of change immeasurably longer and more painful. The government is never going to allow them to fail while we keep showing significant demand for their products.

Boo hoo, this battle are the so difficults D: (1)

jesset77 (759149) | more than 2 years ago | (#33994790)

But they have already modified their business model. They provide free streamed versions of many of their high-rating shows. It's perfect for those who want to "try before they buy". Oh wait, you weren't wanting a change in business model, you just wanted them to change to the business model you wanted. Doing anything else makes them a dinosaur.

I'm sorry, resisting what hackel wants is not what makes them dinosaurs. Resisting what the market wants is what makes them dinosaurs. The market is waning for broadcast, timeslotted, shut-up-and-eat-your-spam programming now that new technology allows time shifting and format shifting. That's what people want, what they'll spend their time on and what they'll pay to have. Why do we need a "try before you buy" of something we don't want to buy? Oh wait, it's not about what we want. It's about what you want. You still want us (eg, everyone else) to bleed in order to finance your pork barrel programming. I remember this conversation! We're still weeping for the impending demise of the $300 million blockbuster. :D

They lose just as much advertising revenue if you don't watch the shows. Using torrents is about the worst thing you could do (yes, much worse than paying the cable companies). It allows them to erode our liberties, and it makes the process of change immeasurably longer and more painful. The government is never going to allow them to fail while we keep showing significant demand for their products.

Wasn't the point recently discussed that the shows are not products, our eyeballs are? We don't show demand, the advertisers do? We're not being sold cheese it's just baiting the mousetrap. How is sneaking the cheese off the mousetrap the "worst thing that we can do, yes worse than walking into the trap" when most every natural food source was paved over long ago by the powers that be?

When you find independant programming that you like, rejoice! Involve yourself in the communities. Buy the merchandise. Support the cause! But to this date, there's not a lot of independant material to choose from. In any event, "not watching" material just because it's commercial and someone is hoping to extort you is precisely as disingenuous as deciding you must plug your ears when walking past a street musician you have no intention of tipping. You'd better close your eyes too, or you might see an expensively produced billboard advertisement for a product you don't intend to purchase. You can't keep "showing demand" for things you don't like, or you'll be waist deep in street musicians! Except .. oh yeah. You can't quantify non-transactional demand for creative work. The Media industry completely fabricates their piracy loss figures already (amount of $ we wish we made minus amount we made = ....), those numbers won't go down if you cross your heart and close your eyes to their content. So if we're already freely painted as pirates, even if you have payed for christ sakes, then why urge us to decline the spoils?

Except, sorry, I keep forgetting that VFB isn't here to negotiate an intellectual accord. His very nickname belies his preoccupation with discord, and his sig clarifies his belief that any argument can be won with persistence and repetitive use of a "NO, U!" image macro. ;3

Re:Boo hoo, this battle are the so difficults D: (3, Informative)

TheVelvetFlamebait (986083) | more than 2 years ago | (#33995056)

I'm sorry, resisting what hackel wants is not what makes them dinosaurs. Resisting what the market wants is what makes them dinosaurs.

If I, personally, was given the choice between being called a dinosaur by morons and working thanklessly for them for free, I would rather be called a dinosaur. I'm not sure I could afford anything different.

The market is waning for broadcast, timeslotted, shut-up-and-eat-your-spam programming now that new technology allows time shifting and format shifting.

Cable companies are now supplying DVRs, and, like I said, providing free versions of their shows online. I can't think of a format shifting example, but then again, I can't think of anyone who expects to be able to format-shift their TV. Bitch all you want, but cable companies are adapting, and you whiny pirates are revealing yourselves to be the greedy, inflexible ones in all of this. Whodathunkit?

Oh wait, it's not about what we want. It's about what you want. You still want us (eg, everyone else) to bleed in order to finance your pork barrel programming.

Citation needed. Why on earth would I want anything like that?

What I do want is sustainable practices when it comes to art. I don't mind if we do away with copyright, only if we have a working, implemented, and already used system that replaces all of copyrights functions. I'm sceptical that we can find one that embraces the self-justifying pirate's sense of self-entitlement and abject greed, but like any good sceptic, I'm open to the possibilities.

I remember this conversation! We're still weeping for the impending demise of the $300 million blockbuster. :D

Have you spouted this same crap before to me? I'm sorry if I don't remember you; you sound just like all the other self-entitled pricks I've argued with: rhetorically empty, with arguments pasted together purely out of insults.

As for the $300mil blockbuster, I think the market should decide. Nobody is forcing you, or anyone else, to see them.

Wasn't the point recently discussed that the shows are not products, our eyeballs are? We don't show demand, the advertisers do? We're not being sold cheese it's just baiting the mousetrap. How is sneaking the cheese off the mousetrap the "worst thing that we can do, yes worse than walking into the trap" when most every natural food source was paved over long ago by the powers that be?

Let's get this straight. You took a half-truth like "eyeballs are the product" (advertising is only a portion of their revenue), you used that to create a laughably bad analogy, and then concluded something from it about something that was only tangentially related to thing you created the analogy about? That is seriously the worst argument I have heard in at least a month or three.

When you find independant programming that you like, rejoice! Involve yourself in the communities. Buy the merchandise. Support the cause! But to this date, there's not a lot of independant material to choose from.

I certainly agree with that. Supporting alternatives is what will get us off our dependence on Big Media. Not just downloading more from them.

In any event, "not watching" material just because it's commercial and someone is hoping to extort you is precisely as disingenuous as deciding you must plug your ears when walking past a street musician you have no intention of tipping. You'd better close your eyes too, or you might see an expensively produced billboard advertisement for a product you don't intend to purchase.

Let's get this straight. Choosing to search for and illegally download from a torrent is not the same as walking down the street, hearing buskers and seeing billboards. To claim otherwise is utterly dishonest.

Except .. oh yeah. You can't quantify non-transactional demand for creative work. The Media industry completely fabricates their piracy loss figures already (amount of $ we wish we made minus amount we made = ....), those numbers won't go down if you cross your heart and close your eyes to their content.

Uh, yes you can. I'm not going to tell you how, because you haven't asked, and you would clearly prefer to close your eyes, block your ears, and tell everyone who'll listen that it's impossible for some reason.

So if we're already freely painted as pirates, even if you have payed for christ sakes, then why urge us to decline the spoils?

Tell me, how could anyone plausibly claim that piracy is rampant if nobody shared in the spoils? That is, if it was impossible to find anybody sharing copyrighted works on P2P networks? It would be extremely easy to prove that you're not a pirate then. But yes, thank you for pointing out a way that your own selfish behaviour detriments the rest of us.

Except, sorry, I keep forgetting that VFB isn't here to negotiate an intellectual accord. His very nickname belies his preoccupation with discord, and his sig clarifies his belief that any argument can be won with persistence and repetitive use of a "NO, U!" image macro. ;3

My sig was a reaction to someone else beside me who was dealing with constant accusations of being a shill. It points out just how irrational the fear of shills is, and how people will resort to ad hominem arguments just to avoid countering some valid points. Actually, that sounds oddly applicable here somehow...

Actually, that's basically the origin of my nickname. I was young and naive back then, and I wanted to prove to myself that people were not stupid, and would judge a well-reasoned argument on its merits, no matter where it came from. And so far, it's been largely a success. A vast majority of opponents in discussions have risen above it, and delivered cogent, well-reasoned responses to my arguments. Sometimes they insult me, sometimes I insult them, but in the end, I certainly gain some respect for them and their viewpoints. Nowadays, it seems only the most inescapably moronic people seem to fall into that trap these days.

This is a battle we WON'T LOSE (1)

khchung (462899) | more than 3 years ago | (#33994688)

On the contrary, I think just the opposite. Those TV networks can do whatever they like, but if nobody watch their shows, then it won't matter. Like music and movies, most TV shows are pure entertainment that most people can easily find substitute for. Except for news, I haven't watched any TV shows "over the air" (i.e. at the time designated by the TV network) for years already. If I cannot download or buy DVD for it, I don't watch it. It actually saves a lot of my time, and I don't have to watch any ads at all.

As more people buy IP enabled boxes like Google TV and Apple TV, the networks either have to make their shows viewable over the net for them, or watch as people ignore their shows. People are getting used to watching shows on the phones, on iPads, on whatever they like, whenever they like. There is just no way that the TV networks can tie people to the old model for long.

Re:This is a battle we WON'T LOSE (1)

Angostura (703910) | more than 2 years ago | (#33995000)

"Resisting what the market wants is what makes them dinosaurs."

Umm, resisting free, unlimited, advertising free content on demand, doesn't make them dinosaurs, because it isn't actually a market.

They just need to include Bittorrent (1)

Casandro (751346) | more than 3 years ago | (#33994426)

Once there is a simple, uncontrollable way to distribute video with those boxes, the industry will have to react. After all, it's trivially simple today to just record a whole television station.

Re:They just need to include Bittorrent (1)

julesh (229690) | more than 2 years ago | (#33995174)

Apparently with the next update you'll be able to install Android apps. I haven't looked at the Android API, but I would assume it includes everything you'd need to download a video via bittorrent and play it.

Re:They just need to include Bittorrent (1)

Casandro (751346) | more than 2 years ago | (#33995190)

Well unfortunately they still probably have the technical possibility to remote-delete application.

fear (1)

steeleyeball (1890884) | more than 3 years ago | (#33994442)

Fear of obsolescence and timeshifting are powerful motivations to block other methods of doing things.

Ugh how stupid are these execs? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33994462)

By blocking Google TV or similar services which allow end users (IE us) to access the higher quality versions of their shows, Online, and with whatever directed advertising they see fit to embed. They get higher viewership by those who "want" to watch the show, and with Google services they already use track viewers to other shows. They could gain viewership on shows that people otherwise might not watch because its on at bad time, or whatever.
Not only that, but the whole thing about piracy is just stupid, Pirates will pirate, and nothing anyone tries will succeed in stopping it short 2 options. 1) stop producing content. 2) totalitarian crackdown (which worked so well for before. oh yeh, its not.)

Those who fail to adapt to the world shall be crushed by it.

these huge giant company's shall fall if they do not learn to embrace the new technology that gives people a "gee whiz that sure is handy" feeling.
They tried to stop netflix, tried to stop online video, tried to stop MP3, every thing they try and stop fails in the long run. so why not just embrace change? stop being old and unmoving jackasses.

Enable? (1)

michaelmalak (91262) | more than 3 years ago | (#33994466)

Google TV enables access...

Looks like enable [merriam-webster.com] is one of those words that is its own antonym. The first definition from m-w.com is actual empowerment and the second potential empowerment. The Google statement uses the second definition. But the two definitions are as opposite as actual is from potential.

Oh wait, I'll just get modded -1 Troll by those who think I'm arrogant. Let me try this again in Slashdotese:

Google TV enables access...

Uh, no it doesn't...

Re:Enable? (1)

julesh (229690) | more than 2 years ago | (#33995180)

Google TV enables access...

Uh, no it doesn't...

No, actually it does. Really. If somebody else later disables it, that's not Google's fault, really, is it?

I'm going to bet they'll reverse the ban (4, Insightful)

guyminuslife (1349809) | more than 3 years ago | (#33994468)

Everyone seems to think that the networks don't know what they're doing. They're banning Google TV, when anyone with half a brain knows this sort of thing is the wave of the future. I'm willing to bet that the network execs do, in fact, have at least one half of a brain between them.

It makes perfect sense if you think, well, maybe they don't really want to ban Google TV. More likely, they want to make a deal with Google, whereby Google pays them for the privilege of using their content.

Re:I'm going to bet they'll reverse the ban (1)

Ken V.B. Liar (1176887) | more than 2 years ago | (#33994830)

More likely, they want to make a deal with Google, whereby Google pays them for the privilege of using their content.

This. Look at the current battle Fox is waging with Cablevision in New York and Dish in California. Fox wants them to pony up more money for its channels, but they don't want to pay what Fox is asking. Who suffers? The viewers.

Re:I'm going to bet they'll reverse the ban (2, Funny)

kwoff (516741) | more than 2 years ago | (#33995340)

It's strange seeing this on Slashdot: deprivation of Fox considered suffering.

Why? More users "watching" == "more money"? Right? (1)

AmigaHeretic (991368) | more than 3 years ago | (#33994510)

I'm going out on limb here and assuming ABC, CBS and NBC have created a business model where by they "make" money, presumably by ads, every time a show is streamed.

The more views the more money, correct?

So why do they care if I use IE, Firefox, Orb, GoogleTV, etc.? Are they suggesting the more people watch the less they make? If so then why do they have this online business model at all?

From the article Hulu is blocking viewing from Google TV as well. Again, what do they care if I use Opera, IE, Google Chrome, Google TV, as long as I am "watching" at all?

Or is Google TV stripping away the ads that generate money?

Because advertisers pay less for online viewers (1)

Rix (54095) | more than 3 years ago | (#33994664)

It's that simple. Apparently they'd rather people torrent.

not sure I care, really (0)

TheGratefulNet (143330) | more than 3 years ago | (#33994518)

large entertainment 'containers' (abc, cbs, nbc, fox) don't contain anything useful these days, anyway.

google is less and less useful as time goes on; and their 'no evil' is more and more suspect.

meh - I don't care who 'wins' this pissing contest. both sides have interests at stake and none of those align with those of the consumer (bet on it).

this is another kang vs kodos. we don't really win from this. its a big guys ego pissing contest. who the hell cares (yawn).

Re:not sure I care, really (1)

theY4Kman (1519023) | more than 2 years ago | (#33994866)

"When life gives you lemons, just say 'fuck the lemons' and bail."

and so the clash begins (1)

cekander (848307) | more than 3 years ago | (#33994602)

Round 2. The NYTimes paywall already lost round 1. Will the broadcast tv corps follow suit? Stay tuned.

Re:and so the clash begins (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#33994846)

the nytimes.com paywall is returning in a couple months, bro.

Shit doesn't work anyway. (1)

RyuuzakiTetsuya (195424) | more than 3 years ago | (#33994660)

I saw a review linked from daring fireball and one of the things they noted was that various ad solutions didn't work right. I suspect this isn't the nature ofthe problem though.

Streaming vs Broadcast (2, Interesting)

networkzombie (921324) | more than 3 years ago | (#33994722)

We have passed the Iron Age, the electronic Age, and entered the information Age. We will look back upon this time as the turning point of entertainment distribution. Will Cable companies become Internet on-ramp companies or will they wither and die. I use UseNet for all my needs. A GBPVR system gives me all that, free radio, and a bag of chips. Will new networks arise? American Internet Corporation? National Broadcast Internet? What will it take to change the cash flow from broadcast advertising to the Internet Google HD Streaming Network? What if Conan left TBS and did an Internet only show? Oprah? Will infomercials and house flipping shows become relics? Will adverts cease if we pay (Netflix)? How will the cable companies keep ripping off consumers when more and more of their programming becomes available online?

User Agent String (1)

DeadboltX (751907) | more than 2 years ago | (#33994916)

If I understand correctly then these companies are simply blocking the user agent string that the google tv browser uses. I have read that there is an advanced settings option that allows you to change the string, which should allow you to bypass their "block".

blocking set-top is silly, but normal (1)

dltaylor (7510) | more than 2 years ago | (#33994956)

Suppose you were a company that had a set-top box that can access local media, pay-per-view, and free stuff, like youtube.com. Further suppose you had customers that wanted to PAY to subscribe to content, such as Major League Baseball. To anyone with enough functional brain cells to form a synapse it would seem logical that the content provider would make it easy for the company's set-top box to offer the subscription option to the PAYING customers.

Not so, of course. For example, the execs at MLB want the company to PAY THEM to add the feature of allowing PAYING customers to subscribe. The company declined, of course, since adding the burdened cost of paying MLB to the box makes it too expensive to sell.

(Not so) subtle (1)

Krokus (88121) | more than 2 years ago | (#33994962)

"...it is ultimately the content owners' choice to restrict their fans from accessing their content on the platform."

Now that's what I call a back-handed comment.

Why watch when you can read... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#33995134)

I don't think that I'm the only one, in this day and age, that would rather spend my time reading on slashdot and other sites about what is happening to the tv networks than actually watching the shows. I'm geeky like that.

Re:Why watch when you can read... (1)

AmazinglySmooth (1668735) | more than 2 years ago | (#33995550)

Why watch when you can be making babies? I see a baby-boom in our future.

ABC CBS NBC (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#33995290)

Google is just going to end up buying them.
Just waiting for the right time to strike
No need tp pay more than you have too there is time.

Nothing new... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#33995316)

Broadcasters in Europe basically do the same thing for internet tv: 'if you want to get our shows, live by our rules' ('or we wont support your device anymore...').
The rules include: get out of my lane - ie. don't put your content over my content. In the end, the consumer suffers, as things like 'twitter over your favorite broadcast channel' are impossible without the broadcaster making this available themselves.
That the same game starts in the US now surprises, as they apparently were playing by different (read: more free) rules up til now, but I guess Google just found out they (the broadcasters) did not abide...
This is quite a big issue, as Google TV is very much based on 'overlays' and the search engine in itself just invites the people to search for new content based on the show they are just watching (which is most likely NOT content controlled by the broadcaster publishing said show).
Oops....
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...