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!

YouTube Co-founder Calls For Global Access To TV Online

Soulskill posted about a year ago | from the incumbents-are-annoying dept.

Television 140

An anonymous reader writes "YouTube co-founder Chad Hurley says internet users should be able to legitimately watch content from anywhere in the world at any time. He says the days of national TV networks controlling the global online rights to shows has to end. 'I think the business models are breaking down and the companies that are going to win in this new world are the ones that make it as easy as possible for the consumers to consume the content wherever and whenever they want.' Hurley also says YouTube will be bidding for more online live sports."

cancel ×

140 comments

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

I'm glad they will show live sports online. (4, Insightful)

Wild_dog! (98536) | about a year ago | (#44465403)

That is the only reason I pick up cable part of the year anymore.....American College Football.
Finally, I will be able to drop cable entirely.

Re:I'm glad they will show live sports online. (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44465457)

Only imbeciles watch sports. Why are you such a worthless person!? Just vanish already! Vanish! I demand it! Reality demands it! You have negative value, and you poison everything you touch! You are the quintessence of an existencesore!

Re:I'm glad they will show live sports online. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44465527)

lel

Re:I'm glad they will show live sports online. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44466089)

Honestly the same could be said of most television broadcasts throughout the past 80 years. The general rule is that if you're worth something to society then you've got better things to do than watch television. Same applies to commenting on news stories. /worthless

Re:I'm glad they will show live sports online. (0)

Wild_dog! (98536) | about a year ago | (#44466145)

not sure what you are meaning about tv broadcasts from the past 80 years? clarification.
commenting on news stories is worthless? how so?

Re:I'm glad they will show live sports online. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44466561)

I think he was saying people who have nothing better to do than to read and reply to comments on news stories are worthless to society.

Re:I'm glad they will show live sports online. (1)

Chompjil (2746865) | about a year ago | (#44466143)

I only watch Cable to support anime ;P Toonami, of course

Re:I'm glad they will show live sports online. (1)

Wild_dog! (98536) | about a year ago | (#44466157)

Sounds like another good reason for Cable.
Fortunately for me I only need cable for Sept-mid January. Then I get to turn it off for the rest of the year.

Well... (3, Interesting)

djupedal (584558) | about a year ago | (#44465411)

This is just another chapter in the old 'information wants to be free' refrain. And while I'm down with that, I don't think there is much more to be done, as I've lived on three continents, and found it trivial to find broadcast content from other regions around the world if I just made the effort. Now if they are talking about bundling it all up and creating a delivery service, let me remind how expensive and controlled cable can be in the US, so if I had my druthers, I'd be more inclined to again bring things together on my own, say in the spirit of the guy in Cuba that used a pringles can to pick up CNN from the States, back in the day :) And really....there is a long list of countries that have strong feelings about what content is available to their citizens, from Singapore (small) to China (big). A full-on WeAreTheWorld channel isn't going to cut it, I think.

Information shouldn't be free (4, Interesting)

mozumder (178398) | about a year ago | (#44465575)

Free information is the death of all culture. It leads to the homogenization of society. It is why people are complaining about the stagnation of the arts since about 1995, when the internet started to become widespread. You ever notice how people's sense of style now is the same as back in 1993? Compare this to the massive stylistic shifts between 1953 to 1963 to 1973 to 1983 to 1993. Each decade was vastly different from the decade before.

This cultural & artistic stagnation is because information is free. It is because everyone in the world has access to the same information, which is not good.

Acquiring information should have a cost associated with it. Before the internet, you actually had to find a record shop to find obscure bands, costing time and effort. Now, there is no cost associated with this horrible consumer lifestyle associated with free information, and everyone has access to the same information, giving privilege to none.

People should NOT have the same information as everyone else. People should be divided and separated, as this inequality is what causes art to happen.

Life should be unfair. It is better that way.

Re:Information shouldn't be free (3, Interesting)

CohibaVancouver (864662) | about a year ago | (#44465599)

This is a very clever post because I can't decide if it's sarcastic or not, but I'll bite.

Why shouldn't someone in rural Nebraska or Korea have the same right to an obscure band as someone who lives in NYC with access to record shops stocking obscure content? "Giving privilege to none?" Gimme a break.

Re:Information shouldn't be free (0, Troll)

mozumder (178398) | about a year ago | (#44465813)

Why shouldn't someone in rural Nebraska or Korea have the same right to an obscure band as someone who lives in NYC with access to record shops stocking obscure content?

Because then they ignore their local art if they pay attention to far-away art. There is no benefit for a Korean to listen to a Williamsburg band. Tell them to go listen to their local fucking band. Their local band is just as bad as a Williamsburg band.

And, no, they're not going to have time to focus on local art if they cared about far-away art, as time is the ultimate limited.

If you want everyone in the world to be the same and destroy all cultures, then, sure, go ahead and make information free.

Re:Information shouldn't be free (2)

CohibaVancouver (864662) | about a year ago | (#44465877)

So if you live in Hyder, Alaska you're only expected to listen to Twangy's Good Ol' Boys (specializing in CCR cover tunes?0

Re:Information shouldn't be free (3, Interesting)

gl4ss (559668) | about a year ago | (#44467101)

So if you live in Hyder, Alaska you're only expected to listen to Twangy's Good Ol' Boys (specializing in CCR cover tunes?

well if you're a goo 'ol hipster then yes.

on the other hand internet allows you to listen to twangys even if you're a finnish dolt - or new c64 remixes. the variety is through the roof in reality.. there's more sub cultures than ever, but no "new" mainstream fads. this makes it of course harder to be against mainstream and that annoys the hell out of some assholes.

you know what pop music used to be in Finland in 60's? fucking translated pop songs - seriously, a way to make a finnish hit: just take the italian/american/british song, copy it and change lyrics to stupid finnish lyrics.

ever heard a version of bowie's space man that has lyrics like "why doesn't my girl-prince* come already?" *yes, prince, not princess. fucking confusing.

Re:Information shouldn't be free (1)

Ardyvee (2447206) | about a year ago | (#44465951)

What's stagnating art is the notion that people need to always be around people, slowly losing their identity in favor of the group identity. Then again most of the great artist weren't exactly the kind you see being another individual in the crowd: they had their ideas, they explored them, they didn't exactly follow societies rules and ideas.

This video [ted.com] is quite interesting in presenting the point I'm trying to express. And I'm positive there is a field in psychology dealing exactly with how individuals behave in a crowd, how they follow the crowd, and how the take on the identify of the crowd.

Re: Information shouldn't be free (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44466695)

Rural Nebraska: now with more local "art"!

Re:Information shouldn't be free (3, Interesting)

blackest_k (761565) | about a year ago | (#44467719)

If you want everyone in the world to be the same and destroy all cultures, then, sure, go ahead and make information free.

you say that like that's a bad thing.

It won't make everybody the same but it might help bring home the realisation we are pretty similar in many respects. I don't think it'll be worldwide main stream tv which will achieve that, more the efforts of ordinary or maybe extraordinary people. talking across cultures.

I don't know what happened to slashdot polls but it would be interesting to see how many countries our friends are from. I suspect there will not be many people on this website who doesn't have friendships outside of their own nationality.

If we want to do away with some of the lousy things we do to our own species then we first must break through the barriers of our nations borders.

Re:Information shouldn't be free (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44465605)

Where on earth is people's sense of style that stagnated and what kind of style?
It certainly can't be hairstyles, clothes nor music in northern Europe.

Re:Information shouldn't be free (2)

zeroduck (691015) | about a year ago | (#44466379)

Right. Go watch a sitcom from the early 90s (when I was a kid). Now when I see one of those I think... "WTF were people wearing?"

Re:Information shouldn't be free (1)

swillden (191260) | about a year ago | (#44466731)

Life should be unfair. It is better that way.

Absolutely. And artists must starve, else where will they acquire the angst needed to create art?

Live sports == YouTube killer application (2)

benjfowler (239527) | about a year ago | (#44465419)

If Google can pull this off (and no doubt they will), everyone will be like "TAKE MY MONEY PLEASE"

That alone would be enough to convince me to switch to Google-everything. ATM, streaming sports semi-legally from other countries is a complete joke,

Google certainly have the size, finance and power to do it; now it's a question of will.

Re:Live sports == YouTube killer application (1)

Billly Gates (198444) | about a year ago | (#44465629)

So instead of having 3 or 4 American conglomerates controlling the media you have just 1. Google.

Or if you are britsh just the BBC anyway.

Remember when we all liked Apple and they were the good guys helping to stop DRM and MS with its predatory pricing? Man, those times have changed once Steve got some real power. Why do you think Google will be any different.

They may even be more evil as having crappy expensive oligopoly that we have today.

Re:Live sports == YouTube killer application (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44465703)

The bbc dosnt have aabsolute power over british tv we have commercial free to air ITV, channel 4, channel 5 and many other broadcasters if you buy a digital freeview box (free to view no subscription after the inital pruchase of the box which isnt tied to any broadcaster).

Oh and of coure the ubiquitious fox/sky channel commercial susbcription channel

Re:Live sports == YouTube killer application (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44465717)

I have been looking for Barcelona soccer games online. They are there, but the quality is terrible. I'm willing to pay to see the games in broadcast quality.

However, I don't want to have to sign up for Youtube. I don't trust Google.

Re:Live sports == YouTube killer application (1)

chowdahhead (1618447) | about a year ago | (#44465735)

TV coverage of sports is a mess, and it's a little different than other TV programming. Sometimes sports are blacked out of their local markets, for no reason. Some events are aired over broadcasting networks and some through cable. If your college team isn't in the top 25, you're probably not going to be watching many games on TV, similar to how the coverage of the Olympics truly sucks. There's no reason for this in the age of digital streaming. If Google can break the stranglehold of sports' coverage, it should open the door for competing providers, just like digital music.

Re:Live sports == YouTube killer application (1)

peragrin (659227) | about a year ago | (#44466327)

at least in football, when local sports are blacked out it is because they didn't sell out the stadium and want you to drive there to watch the game. Of course they blackout everything in a 80 mile circle of the stadium.

other than that I agree completely. current TV coverage sucks, is generally useless and is far harder to find good bits.

though I won't be greedy and can start small. let me have ala carte cable channels. then you will quickly see just how fast things change.

Re:Live sports == YouTube killer application (1)

Raenex (947668) | about a year ago | (#44467095)

Remember when we all liked Apple and they were the good guys helping to stop DRM and MS with its predatory pricing?

Umm, Apple has always been about premium pricing, and they've always been about proprietary computers. The Apple lovefest on Slashdot was a short-lived, hipster fad.

Who Pays? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44465425)

So why should UK citizens pay £145/year just so other people around the world can watch the BBC for free?

Re:Who Pays? (2)

lobiusmoop (305328) | about a year ago | (#44465473)

For the same reason you are paying taxes in general I guess, a form of altruism that keeps things civilized.

Re:Who Pays? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44465549)

In the hope that the US people might accidentally watch it instead of Fox News.

Re:Who Pays? (0)

CohibaVancouver (864662) | about a year ago | (#44465551)

So why should UK citizens pay £145/year just so other people around the world can watch the BBC for free?

All BBC has to do is stick some ads in its stream to help pay for the rest of us. Brits could watch the streams ad-free. I know ads will drive some Slashdotters absolutely apoplecticly apeshit bananas, but I'd watch some ads if it meant I could watch BBC content.

BBC Worldwide (1)

petes_PoV (912422) | about a year ago | (#44465617)

The BBC already has a commercial outfit that allows other countries to buy BBC content. In that respect the rest of the world is helping finance the UK viewers and getting some decent programmes into the bargain.

Re:BBC Worldwide (1)

hjf (703092) | about a year ago | (#44466345)

Argentina's Canal Encuentro (Ministry of Education) is (or at least it was, when I watched it a couple years ago) just EXCELLENT. It even completely replaced Discovery for me. No silly explosions and car tuning on Encuentro. Just some very decent documentaries on a lot of subjects. Then I realized over half of their programming is BBC. I envy the british, who get that kind of programming over the air.

If the brits leave the country for a bit, and watch what's available everywhere else, I assure you they'd gladly pay the TV license and more.

Re:Who Pays? (1)

Festering Leper (456849) | about a year ago | (#44465651)

I'd consider paying for it but, sadly, it's not an option for those outside the U.K.

Re:Who Pays? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44466117)

Why should people in the USA pay for VOA? Really not much comparison of course since UK residents are probably actually watching the BBC, whereas I think I've hit the VOA web site a handful of times in as many years and never watched or listened to a VOA broadcast.

Quality aside, why should residents of any country pay for something that benefits another country? US residents pay for foreign aid of dubious merit. At least overseas residents can ignore the BBC if they don't like it. African farmers, OTOH... kinda hard to ignore grain being dumped on your struggling agriculture industry, or arms being supplied to your enemies...

Re:Who Pays? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44466311)

I don't live in the UK but I would happily pay BBC 145 quid a year so I can watch their full advert-free coverage of F1 races, soccer and rugby matches. It doesn't even have to be live, I'm happy to watch them time-delayed. Ironically, I know of people who pay for a VPN service to watch BBC sports coverage online, that's money that goes to the VPN service when BBC could've easily pocketed the money if they offered a paid subscription from anywhere in the world.

What's stopping BBC from doing this? They got re-broadcast contracts with local stations, most likely with an exclusivity clause for that region. But these type of contracts are out-dated now with broadband internet becoming so ubiquitous, and in the end we the consumers lose out, because the local stations never carry everything from BBC, or for something like F1 don't show the pre- or post-race programmes.

Re: Who Pays? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44467413)

Just because it's on YouTube doesn't make it free. Google would do well to agree with TV channels whether they want their product with ads or with pay per view, both on a revenue share model.

Meh (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44465429)

Of all the world's problems, this is not too large. People need food and shelter and antibiotics more than TV. Dilettantes like Chad Hurley would not know this however, as they relax in their luxury villas on the Peninsula near San Francisco.

Re:Meh (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44465715)

Better than that handjob who wanted his own libertarian island paradise country.

Re:Meh (0, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44466453)

Ah to get a handjob from a librarian in an island paradise country. Thank you Anonymous Coward and thank you brain for your Freudian misreadings.

If they want to do this (1, Troll)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about a year ago | (#44465431)

Copyright must be thrown into the dumpster. There is no other way around it. The right to distribute and share belongs to everybody.

Re:If they want to do this (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44465793)

Troll

Uh ohhh.... Copyright shills are on the attack... What else is new?

Evidence plz (1)

tepples (727027) | about a year ago | (#44465923)

Was it moderated down because it expressed an opinion contrary to that of major publishers of non-free works? Or was it moderated down because it made a claim that a field of law ought to be discarded and failed to back up this claim with evidence? I'm inclined to assume the latter.

Re:Evidence plz (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44466109)

Or was it moderated down because it made a claim that a field of law ought to be discarded and failed to back up this claim with evidence?

Show me evidence to the contrary... Copyright law exists to protect a specific industry. They can all go to hell.

Now that's freedom (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44465471)

Everyone in the world should be able to access "The Kardashians" for free, from any device, whenever they want.

*sniff* that's what the patriots fought for 230 years ago.

Jobs had to pull music industry into the Web (2)

theodp (442580) | about a year ago | (#44465497)

Re:Jobs had to pull music industry into the Web (1)

Hsien-Ko (1090623) | about a year ago | (#44465615)

I like how no one ever recalls AudioSoft.

Re:Jobs had to pull music industry into the Web (1)

Rockoon (1252108) | about a year ago | (#44465639)

I'm quite certain that Steve Jobs didn't have anything to do with creating the digital music market.

You know who I think did? Shawn Fanning, John Fanning, and Sean Parker.

Re:Jobs had to pull music industry into the Web (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44465749)

hmm thought it was whoever first ripped the mp3 encoding routines from movie software that did that. still remember encoding stuff that used to take all night from batch files. Even when you had a huge hd of 20 gb

yes thats right 20 whole gb.

Re:Jobs had to pull music industry into the Web (1)

swillden (191260) | about a year ago | (#44466739)

yes thats right 20 whole gb.

Hehe. And you actually think that was small.

Re:Jobs had to pull music industry into the Web (0)

BitZtream (692029) | about a year ago | (#44466513)

Thats cute ... you know I was sharing MP3s before Shawn made it out of grade school. You kids are cute, napster wasn't the start bud, it was the end of free music sharing.

Any true warez rat knows popularity is the antithesis of doing it wrong.

Re:Jobs had to pull music industry into the Web (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44466197)

Apple did break the DRM stranglehold on Music. For all their faults Apple has done a few memorable things.

- Removing DRM from iTunes music
- Not supporting FLASH on the iPad. (they certainly dared to think different and told Adobe that Flash is a POS)

When it suits them... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44465509)

He says the days of national TV networks controlling the global online rights to shows has to end.

And YouTube aka Google would like to replace this model with their own multinational/global monopol/business model because their "new world" would benefit them the most as the current status quo is unsatisfactory for there shareholders. In fact Google, like most multinational business, would like to remove all regional regulations and redtape as it hurts there bottom line. Ultimately it would be better for Google if we would all just watch the same program on the same channel in the same language at the same time, as profits could be maximised.

*Yawn* The doublespeak of corporations is not as subtle as it once was.

Re:When it suits them... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44465521)

there == their
ftfm - (fixed that for me)

Re:When it suits them... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44465525)

No shit, thanks for pointing out that Google have an interest in making the internet better for users while at the same time making money. That's insightful, right there.

Ultimately it would be better for Google if we would all just watch the same program on the same channel in the same language at the same time, as profits could be maximised.

How does that even make any sense? You realise the Internet is not a broadcast medium, right?

Re:When it suits them... (1)

Molt (116343) | about a year ago | (#44465597)

Google have an interest in making money and if they happen to make the internet nicer at the same time then that's a nice side benefit. It it made things worse for internet users then they'd still want to do it but they wouldn't shout about it as much.

IP multicast (1)

tepples (727027) | about a year ago | (#44465721)

Anonymous Coward

You realise the Internet is not a broadcast medium, right?

Whose fault is it that IP multicast over the public Internet remains unimplemented?

Re:IP multicast (1)

Lincolnshire Poacher (1205798) | about a year ago | (#44466241)

Whose fault is it that IP multicast over the public Internet remains unimplemented?

Huh? Even my small UK ISP supports multicast, on all its services ( ADSL up through Ethernet and who-knows-what-else ).

I just have to set the mode to PIM-SM and enter the rendezous IPv4 address.

Just Business (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44465529)

This is purely about business, not about some noble stand to make the internet more free. Google benefits from having more video content available to everyone, and if they were able to license/play basically every sort of video content available on the internet then they could dominate video/monetize YouTube more effectively.

And Another Thing... (1)

sycodon (149926) | about a year ago | (#44465595)

...what he is really calling for is for government to pass laws that enable him to achieve his goal. So... coerce others to work with him.

While it is a laudable goal, it will only come to fruition when he or someone else makes a convincing financial argument for it to the producers of the content.

Copyright is already coercion (3, Interesting)

tepples (727027) | about a year ago | (#44465751)

Copyright is already coercion of the public. If YouTube is asking for coercion, it's asking governments to replace coercion that serves incumbent middlemen with coercion that serves the public.

Re:Copyright is already coercion (1)

BitZtream (692029) | about a year ago | (#44466527)

No, its asking to replace the incumbent middleman with a new middleman, otherwise its the same.

Not all middlemen are equal (3, Interesting)

tepples (727027) | about a year ago | (#44466613)

The argument is that it would serve the public to replace the middleman that that geodiscriminates with the middleman that does not.

Re:Just Business (2)

chowdahhead (1618447) | about a year ago | (#44465837)

I'd wager that every sports fan in the world wants this, and Google is best positioned to provide it with the infrastructure they already have in place--they have live streamed events and premium channels on Youtube already. Of course it's a business move, but that doesn't preclude it from being in the best interests of consumers either.

Sorry. (5, Funny)

CohibaVancouver (864662) | about a year ago | (#44465539)

[We're sorry, but the comment you selected isn't available from your location. Please select another comment.]

Re:Sorry. (3, Insightful)

AmiMoJo (196126) | about a year ago | (#44465789)

Correction: It's not available on your platform. The Pirate Bay has everything.

Re:Sorry. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44466155)

They told us to use BSD at work

Re:Sorry. (1)

Skapare (16644) | about a year ago | (#44467389)

If the NSA would just open up their computers, then information would finally be truly free.

Re:Sorry. (1)

Pinky3 (22411) | about a year ago | (#44466321)

I get this all the time, but I can't complain. I believe in copyright. If a Taiwanese television station sells online rebroadcast rights to a website based in Shanghai with the restriction that only computers with IP addresses in the PRC can watch, that is its right. These same websites show "The Big Bang Theory" to the Chinese, but I can't watch it either.

P.S. In fact, I can't watch TBBT on CBS.com here in the US since my internet provider is Time Warner. 8=)

Re:Sorry. (1)

Alejux (2800513) | about a year ago | (#44467495)

That is the story of my life, being from Brazil. Sigh!

Cultural Imperialism and Nativist Reaction (2)

westlake (615356) | about a year ago | (#44465633)

He says the days of national TV networks controlling the global online rights to shows has to end.

Historically. this gives the big budget Hollywood production dominance in all markets. It is why New Zealand becomes a standing stage set and nothing more. It is why governments impose domestic content requirements on theaters, broadcasters, and so on.

---- and why Disney is intent on calming the waters by green-lighting a multi-cultural Pacific Rim anime Big Hero 6 [cartoonbrew.com]

makes $89 every hour on the internet. (-1, Offtopic)

maria2201 (3007281) | about a year ago | (#44465641)

my classmate's half-sister makes $89 every hour on the internet. She has been without a job for six months but last month her payment was $19310 just working on the internet for a few hours. Read more on this site... www.nn13.om

Re:makes $89 every hour on the internet. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44465663)

You classmate's half-sister is blowing sailors in the alley and you probably are too.

Re:makes $89 every hour on the internet. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44466995)

I vote for long thread.

Putting it online not always in our best interest. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44465697)

Right now you have a balance/constant struggle between companies that produce content and those that deliver it.

If the producer controls the delivery, they can shove as much crap along with it as you can stand. Ridiculous restrictions, long commercial breaks, or play this stupid game or answer this stupid quiz. It is one thing to be able to just checkout mentally while a commercial airs if you wish to, another thing to be forced to interact to continue viewing.

Re:Putting it online not always in our best intere (2)

Impy the Impiuos Imp (442658) | about a year ago | (#44465873)

I agree about normal entertainment, but not the "you can't watch this Olympics stream in your country" stuff.

One of the reasons I stopped with Hulu was because they went from one 15s commercial every 10 minutes to 6 30 second commercial blocks all the time, just as if it were broadcast TV.

Well, I can go watch it on my tivo thanks, and skip all that crap.

If YouTube goes past one skippable 30s commercial, or one 15s non-skippable, I'm outta there, too.

Offline viewing (3, Insightful)

tepples (727027) | about a year ago | (#44465801)

users should be able to legitimately watch content from anywhere in the world at any time

Does "anywhere" include on a city bus? What I'd like to be officially able to do is queue up some 1- to 10-minute videos to watch, download them (possibly using encryption) while connected to the Internet, disconnect, and watch them. Even if offline viewing were restricted to 360p, that'd still be better than having to pay hundreds of USD per year for cellular Internet for my Nexus 7 tablet.

Re:Offline living (1)

petes_PoV (912422) | about a year ago | (#44465921)

is queue up some 1- to 10-minute videos to watch

Or you could use the time constructively. Maybe consider some of your higher goals, what you *really* want to do, take the time to observe the world around you, maybe even dream a little. It's not necessary to fill every waking moment with entertainment.

Or you could even read a book

End of netbooks (1)

tepples (727027) | about a year ago | (#44465985)

Or you could use the time constructively.

That's what I currently do. But my Dell Inspiron mini 1012 laptop will eventually break. With affordable 10" laptops having reached end of manufacturing at the end of last year [slashdot.org] , doing constructive work on a device that fits on a crowded bus has become far more expensive.

Re:Offline living (2)

BitZtream (692029) | about a year ago | (#44466745)

The ignorant slashdot troll telling someone else how to use their time constructively, cute.

Perhaps that commute is the one time of day he fills with entertainment, and the rest of the time he is doing great things?

What if the commute is his only time to unwind and he's trying to fill it in with 10 minutes of something he couldn't otherwise fit into his schedule?

Your comment is insanely short sighted. You're in such a hurry to knock him, you completely ignore the possibility that he may do exactly what you speak of the rest of his time.

Hell, these videos could be segments Cosmos episodes, what then? Is that not enlightening yourself?

Re:Offline viewing (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44465995)

What I'd like to be officially able to do is queue up some 1- to 10-minute videos to watch, download them (possibly using encryption) while connected to the Internet, disconnect, and watch them.

I'd like it to be officially available, too. But the unofficial [github.io] solution is pretty sweet.

Two reasons why this hasn't happened yet (3, Informative)

FuzzNugget (2840687) | about a year ago | (#44465875)

And both of them are horseshit.

1) The entrenched interests have invested too much in existing legacy infrastructure to let this happen. Sure, they've already seen the returns hundreds or thousands of times over, but if they can wring it out longer, they will. It will take the majority of consumers demanding IP-based TV for this to change.

2) Internet connectivity is mostly shit in North America. Either it's high bandwidth with a deprecating cap, or shitty bandwidth with no cap. Until telcos are reined in by regulation, forcing them to build out the fiber infrastructure for which billions in tax dollars were earmarked and quit this rent-seeking business model, we aren't going to have the sort of connectivity we need for universal IPTV. And let's not forget how a number of ISPs muddy the waters by running their own streaming services; again, due to piss-poor regulation.

Re:Two reasons why this hasn't happened yet (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44466341)

I got awesome internet with no cap! I am the exception!

Re:Two reasons why this hasn't happened yet (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44466467)

More than half of my city does too. The roughly 60,000 of us are the exception!

On a serious note it's only temporary. The cap was lifted due to faulty tech. Seriously faulty. One month you'd see a hundred gig or so of usage then the next tens of terabytes. I don't understand how one fucks up counting code that badly.

Chance of this happening? Zero,Zilch, Nada. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44465967)

There is the issue of copyright and broadcast rights. This is another major stumbling block. All the Actors will need to sign away their rights globally and not just for a few countries. That will take years and years as the Actors Guilds will state that their members survive of repeat fees and license deals for other countries.

Then the broadcasters will need licenses to broadcast or let their stuff be seen online in different countries. This will cost mega bucks as countries seek to protect their national TV service.

While this is a wonderful idea and immensly appealing to the few remaining broadcasters of quality left but it ain't gonna fly.

high quality content v. Youtube (2)

Joining Yet Again (2992179) | about a year ago | (#44466069)

What Chad means is that he envisions a world where people only watch shitty Youtube videos all day, and Google gets a cut from showing an obligatory advert at the start.

Quality programming is difficult to make, and distributing it efficiently (as opposed to the "fuck you and build a bigger pipe!" unicast method of distribution Youtube uses) is also a challenge. Showing crap worldwide when all you have to do is to build a streaming server, adorn it with sponsorship, and take advantage of having been early to the party... well, that's a job for the geniuses at Google to have their brainpower wasted on.

Re:high quality content v. Youtube (1)

GodfatherofSoul (174979) | about a year ago | (#44466287)

Hey, it works for XM radio, and they just broadcast the sound!

Thing is.... (1)

Chompjil (2746865) | about a year ago | (#44466183)

Cable/Satellite television is SO expensive alone, but if you want certain channels, you CANNOT pick and choose, Boomerang, for classic cartoons, is a premium package, the Horror Film channel is a mid-high range package, HBO is the highest tier, but to get an extra channel or two for those is even more! Here's how it goes, with my DirecTV subscription 80$-High tier package for Sci-Fi and Boomerang and such 40$-HBO,Showtime, etc... 20$-Extra HBO and Showtime channels That adds up to...140 dollars a month! This is why I just wanna switch my family to streaming from a media center.

Re:Thing is.... (1)

van da man (1319543) | about a year ago | (#44466309)

I want to do so as well, if HULU Plus had AMC programming and could keep the full catalog available for any show you can view thru them, it would meet my needs but without AMC I have to buy episodes of walking dead the next day if I want to stay legal. If Youtube can get us access to all shows, all episodes with new episodes added at least a day or so after they air then I'll gladly subscribe then I can ditch my satellite service for good.

Sadly ... (1)

PPH (736903) | about a year ago | (#44466271)

... the optimal business model is one which will deliver the maximum revenue per hour from advertising or subscription fees. Free, or lower cost distribution (costs include making viewers sit through ads) will result in more low cost content pushing out the higher priced, higher quality programming. Eventually, we will have nothing but reality shows, ultimately resulting in programs like 'Ow! My Balls!' taking over.

Would love local Pittsburgh coverage (2)

GodfatherofSoul (174979) | about a year ago | (#44466289)

All I want is to watch Steelers games, but the only legal recourse is to buy DirecTV THEN buy Sunday Ticket which will run you $1200/year. All that for teh 10 or so games that won't be nationally televised.

Re:Would love local Pittsburgh coverage (1)

stinerman (812158) | about a year ago | (#44466539)

I hear you. The only way I can watch Columbus Blue Jackets hockey legally would be to buy cable and get Fox Sports Ohio. There is a way to watch out-of-market NHL games on various devices, but no way to watch in-market games short of routing it all through a VPN or breaking down and getting cable.

I guess the difference with you is that you don't live in the Pittsburgh metro area. It's still a problem for sports/teams that are not usually nationally broadcast. Be happy that your Steelers are good enough that they tend to be on "game of the week" type matchups. I follow San Francisco, and before they were good as of late, I'll bet I didn't watch a game for 2 or 3 years because they simply weren't on TV.

In person (1)

tepples (727027) | about a year ago | (#44466681)

Or you could buy tickets to a Blue Jackets game and travel to the stadium to watch it in person.

will not happen but good luck! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44466387)

this will not fly. especially with news. pr00f of the pudding is the propaganda.
if however you are inclined to DIY (and miss your daily brainwashing) there are until now boxes that will translate
cable-satellite:QAM to ethernet: tcp/ip so as to extend /tunnel /VPN your (already) paid-tv signal thru a looong tube to
your hard earned remote island.
secret negotiations are prolly ungoing to limit the new de/encrypted-QAM chips to output only to HDMI :(
blue yellow green

Hurley should create his own content (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44466417)

Hurley is free today, without hindrance, to create content that is wildly popular and distribute it worldwide without regards to the typical regional licensing model employed by Hollywood. Go for it, Chad. Be the change you want to see in others.

Already Done (2)

vhone (921330) | about a year ago | (#44466615)

http://mikew.github.io/ss-plex.bundle/ [github.io] So far it only exists as a plugin for Plex with versions for XBMC and raspberry pi in development

Global Village Concept Applies (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44467067)

Let's take this idea one step further. We're living in a global village, but the banking system, the mobile phone system, the transportation systems, the electronic interfaces are country specific.

Free to air satellite (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44467133)

Doesn't FTA satellite already accomplish this? Over the net would be cool, but it's a bit wasteful if you can just buy a $50 set top and not use bandwidth.

that's a surprise (1)

murdocj (543661) | about a year ago | (#44467769)

A guy whose business model is based on streaming unlimited access to free content declares that his competitors are dead. Shocking.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?