×

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 Kills Next-Day Streaming For Non-Subscribers

timothy posted about 3 months ago | from the back-to-piracy-with-ye dept.

Advertising 169

jfruh writes "ABC shows are available for free to anybody with antenna on the day and time they're first broadcast. But if you want them at any other time, it's getting harder to see them unless you pay someone. The network had previously made free ad-supported streamed versions of its shows available on its website the day after they aired, but now they're shifting that back to a week. Next-day streaming is still available if you have a cable or Hulu Plus subscription, showing the extent to which "broadcast" networks are dependent on subscriber fees."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

169 comments

Uggh... (2)

michrech (468134) | about 3 months ago | (#45850661)

I, personally, watch very little on the 'big four' networks, however this trend is a disturbing one -- especially for those of us in markets that aren't served by all the networks. My market has no NBC, so the only way for us to get their content is to wait for it on their web page, or to pay someone. We have no other legal choices...

Re:Uggh... (1)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about 3 months ago | (#45850671)

I, personally, watch very little on the 'big four' networks, however this trend is a disturbing one -- especially for those of us in markets that aren't served by all the networks. My market has no NBC,

I presume by "My market," you're talking about OTA broadcasts? Having only recently discovered the joys of watching Parks and Recreation, I feel for ya.

Re:Uggh... (4, Interesting)

noh8rz10 (2716597) | about 3 months ago | (#45850793)

I disagree with GP and P; this trend is very positive. The reason why networks have been fighting against streaming is because they didn't see a business case. If ABC is starting to see how it can make money online, then it benefits all of us who want to watch shows online and cut the cord. A watershed day is when HBO GO becomes available without a cable subscription.

Re:Uggh... (4, Insightful)

Tamran (1424955) | about 3 months ago | (#45850947)

A watershed day is when HBO GO becomes available without a cable subscription.

Interesting indeed. I wonder if Netflix will become what HBO GO could have been sooner? They're starting to develop some stuff of their own and don't require cable at all.

Re:Uggh... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#45851863)

HBO's owner (Time Warner) owns a lot of cable stations; letting HBO go the netflix route would mean a lot more cord cutters.

Time Warner Cable is not Time Warner (2)

xenoc_1 (140817) | about 3 months ago | (#45852605)

Time Warner has not owned Time Warner Cable for several years. Other than whatever royalty deal Time Warner has with Time Warner Cable to allow them to continue using the "Time Warner" name and the "Road Runner" IP, they have nothing to do with each other - except that Time Warner Cable is one of the independent TV distribution systems that Time Warner want to get paid by for having it distribute the various cable tv networks of Time Warner's Turner and other cable TV divisions - channels like HBO, Cartoon Network, CNN, Turner Classic Movies, etc.

Your "owns a lot of cable stations" is inaccurate and ambiguous? Do you mean, "owns a lot of cable systems"? If so, you're wrong, as I've explained. Time Warner does not own cable systems at all anymore, the entity called Time Warner Cable is an unrelated company.

Do you mean, "owns a lot of cable networks"? In which case, yes, HBO's owner owns quite a few other cable networks.

Your argument either works or is totally invalid, depending on what you mean. There is no such thing as a "cable station". CNN is a "cable network" owned by Time Warner, "Time Warner Cable of North Carolina" is a cable system owned by Time Warner Cable. The interests of Time Warner vs Time Warner Cable are not aligned.

HBO Go becoming independent, in terms of subscription availability, from having to also have HBO-the-cable-network subscription, might be a net positive for Time Warner the owner of HBO. It might be a negative to Time Warner Cable, because it would remove an "upsell package" opportunity of bundled or special deal premium network sales at huge markups. It would just be more bits, like Netflix or Amazon or Hulu.

But it might be a net positive for Time Warner Cable, and for Charter Cable, Verizon FiOS, AT&T U-Verse, CenturyLink DSL, as providers of high-speed broadband internet (ok, allegedly high-speed allegedly broadband allegedly internet, really minimal speed barely-broadband walled-garden). It might encourage more people to get high speed internet and to upgrade the speed and or monthly total data transfer allowances, because now Game of Thrones without TV.

I believe it would be the latter. But I believe that the cable system executives believe it would be the former, at least the ones that are originally/primarily cable-tv systems that then added data. I have no idea what the cable network and broadcast network executives feel about it.

Personally, I'd like every entertainment series available unbundled, released on the "broadcasting network" servers on a specific schedule, but available continuously after that "street date"/"air date". I'd like to be able to get Sleepy Hollow without having to get American Idol. I'd like to be able to get that Fox Network series without having to get a Chthulu Plus subscription. But if I found I liked enough series that were on Hulu, as one of their options, and that a Hulu Plus subscription was the most economical way to get them, then I'd like that option. If I instead only wanted to buy one series, I'd like the price to be very low, and I'd like it available simultaneous with "home network" air date and time. If it's on ABC broadcast network Tuesday at 8pm EST, I want to be able to start streaming it at 8pm EST that same Tuesday. Even if I'm in the Pacific Time Zone. Or in the Uruguayan Time Zone and IP block. (which I am).

Oh, and a pony.

But note I never said I wanted it to be totally free-as-in-beer. Well maybe the pony.

Re:Uggh... (0)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about 3 months ago | (#45851111)

I disagree with GP and P; this trend is very positive.

How can you disagree with my post, which makes no statements that merit disagreement?

Re:Uggh... (1)

noh8rz10 (2716597) | about 3 months ago | (#45851195)

OP said "I find the trend disturbing", and you said "I feel for ya", obv agreeing with his sentiment. I disagree with both you and the OP on that statment.

Re:Uggh... (1)

squiggleslash (241428) | about 3 months ago | (#45852263)

He was very clearly talking about the lack of NBC in that person's region, as could have been deduced by reading the rest of the comment!

Re:Uggh... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#45852447)

I disagree with GP and P; this trend is very positive.

How can you disagree with my post, which makes no statements that merit disagreement?

Maybe he is tired of you and your prick attitude, like many of us are here.

dependent on subscriber fees? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#45850667)

showing the extent to which "broadcast" networks are greedy bastards.

FTFY

Re:dependent on subscriber fees? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#45850845)

OMG, a business model that involves making money for the company and its shareholders... What a sin... companies should just provide everything they produce for free for anyone anytime...

Re:dependent on subscriber fees? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#45851041)

You think you're being snarky but you're really just a sad example of what's wrong with the human species. "companies should just provide everything they produce for free for anyone anytime". Yes. Should. But don't. People like you are the problem with the world. You're just another ape trying to get as many bananas as he can. Every single human being alive should be working for the benefit of every other person in the collective, something like ants, but not territorial. Do we have the capability to do this? Yes. Do we have the technology to do this? Yes. Do we have the resources to do this? Yes. Do we have the intelligence to do this? Apparently not.

Re: dependent on subscriber fees? (3, Insightful)

Scowler (667000) | about 3 months ago | (#45851125)

Did you know producing and marketing high quality TV and movies costs money? Shocking news!

Re: dependent on subscriber fees? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#45851573)

Did you know that the only reason high quality TV and movies are produced is to create a medium in which advertisers can grab your eye?

The reason why OTA TV is 'free' is because advertisers pay for the whole kit and kaboodle. TV started as a medium for advertisers to sell their wares. The programing is just a 'gimmick' to keep the audience (consumers) watching.

It's the advertisers that 'pay' for all this costly marketing and production. It exists for their purposes and this is how it should be.

But somewhere along the line cable companies discovered they could charge both customers AND advertisers and ever since we (the consumers) have been paying through the nose ever since. We're double paying now and I'm sure if they could find a way the networks would make us triple pay.

Who do you think paid for that last episode of Marvel: Agents of Shield? You know the one where every other screen shot was a Windows 8 screen?

Stop bitching about "oh oh the dork wants free stuff" and start taking a closer look at the world around you.

Re: dependent on subscriber fees? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#45851943)

* "original reason"

For someone who goes on and on, you sure still seem to think it's the 1950s. Newsflash, advertisers don't cover the entire cost anymore. The rest of your point falls apart.

Re: dependent on subscriber fees? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#45852233)

Do you think it was 'cheaper' to support this model in the 1950s? Newsflash, it cost advertisers more to reach fewer people in the 50s.

Now television is just hack for anyone with a few dollars and a snuggy to sell.

Maybe advertisers should cover the entire cost again.

Re:dependent on subscriber fees? (1)

Oligonicella (659917) | about 3 months ago | (#45851225)

"Do we have the intelligence to do this? Apparently not."

That description applies to you, sir or ma'am, for not understanding that there is no one on this planet that is required to - or should - provide you with things for free simply because you want them.

Please, pray tell, what do you do for "the collective" that makes it so worth supporting your "needs"?

Cable Cutters don't care (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#45850673)

The biggest commonality of cable cutters (including me) I know is that they don't watch or care about "live" TV. The difference between a day and a week is nothing to them. DVRs changed a lot of peoples watching habits and these people aren't paying the premium anymore.

Look at Redbox, does a 90 day DVD release delay help sales? Not likely, you just shift what I watch 90 days in the future.

Re:Cable Cutters don't care (4, Interesting)

Shados (741919) | about 3 months ago | (#45850791)

Cable cutters also often care about different things. Obviously Neflix and Hulu, Amazon, etc are the big boys and contain mostly stuff that came from theaters or normal TV channels, but if you look at, let say, the roku channels, there's a TON of content that is simply not available on normal TV...

I didn't cancel cable to save money. I did it because while I watch a -LOT- of TV, there's only one show I ever watch that I could watch on cable, among the dozens that I follow.

Re:Cable Cutters don't care (0)

jedidiah (1196) | about 3 months ago | (#45850919)

I cut the cord because the spouse objected to subsidizing Duck Dynasty.

As far as "saving money" goes, the spouse doesn't care how much I spend on content if it's something we choose to support.

Re:Cable Cutters don't care (3, Insightful)

operagost (62405) | about 3 months ago | (#45851033)

With all the junk on TV, I'm amazed that Duck Dynasty is what set her off. Good luck to you.

Re:Cable Cutters don't care (2)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about 3 months ago | (#45851135)

With all the junk on TV, I'm amazed that Duck Dynasty is what set her off. Good luck to you.

I've actually heard someone bitch about Duck Dynasty and praise Here Comes Honey Boo-Boo in the same sentence.

Reminds me of why I 'cut the cord' half a decade ago.

Re:Cable Cutters don't care (1)

TooMuchToDo (882796) | about 3 months ago | (#45851237)

I forget where I read it, but while Honey Boo-Boo is extremely irritating, the mother is extremely responsible with regards to the money the show is bringing in for her child. Its locked up until her child is 18, unlike what the majority of people due with their children's television/movie earnings.

"Credit where credit due" sort of thing.

Re:Cable Cutters don't care (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#45852361)

When that 'child' hits 18 and gets all that cash.

be ready for a trainwreck of beyond epic.

America loves a good trainwreck. And this ones going to be legend.

Re:Cable Cutters don't care (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#45851227)

lol Duck Dynasty? Are you that pussy whipped or just full of shit? Honey Boo Boo doesn't do it? Singer of the week? Fox? 100 worse shows than DD and all out for much longer...

Re: Cable Cutters don't care (3, Insightful)

iamhassi (659463) | about 3 months ago | (#45850937)

This. Been a cable cutter since before it was cool. Without the constant bombardment of "omg look new episode look look LOOK!!" you don't care when it comes out. Days, weeks, months, they mean nothing. Same goes for movies. Now I usually wait until the entire season is done before getting episodes, because its just easier to get everything at once then one episode at a time. While I'm waiting for a season to finish I usually find something good on Netflix. Netflix gets me so they get my money. Why pay money to some network that makes one or two good shows when I can pay Netflix and they give me thousands of shows and movies?

Re: Cable Cutters don't care (2)

TooMuchToDo (882796) | about 3 months ago | (#45851257)

Why pay money to some network that makes one or two good shows when I can pay Netflix and they give me thousands of shows and movies?

That you can watch at home, on the go, on all of your devices. For less than $10/month.

Re:Cable Cutters don't care (1)

rocket rancher (447670) | about 3 months ago | (#45852051)

hmmm...you make a great point. But the change in viewing habits that you refer to has to be countered because it is eating into broadcast TV's primary revenue stream. The national broadcast companies can sit back and watch their profits get time- and/or format-shifted to oblivion, or they can do something about it. The writing is on the wall -- it seems pretty clear that people would rather pay a subscription to avoid commercials. As long as consumers can control how the content is presented to them at their end, they are going to continue to lose advertisers. Tivo's 30 second skip pretty much was the first nail in that coffin -- I haven't seen a broadcast commercial since I bought a Tivo a decade ago. Companies are not going to continue to waste their advertising dollars on broadcast ads. Pretty much the only option for broadcasters is to adopt a streaming model ala Netflix/Amazon Prime/Hulu+. Broadcasters are going to have to control the pipe from end-to-end for their revenue model to work -- they have to eliminate a consumer's ability to avoid commercials.

Re:Cable Cutters don't care (2)

Richy_T (111409) | about 3 months ago | (#45852201)

The thing is, commercials are a terrible value proposition for consumers. For the pennies or, perhaps, fraction of a penny that the entertainment provider receives from the advertiser per viewer per hour, the viewer has to put up with around 18 minutes of wasted time per hour of annoying, repetitive, irrelevant content. I don't know how you value your time but I value mine at more than a nickel per hour so of course viewers will buck against this where possible. A new business model is in order and those that get it right are going to clean up (I believe Netflix is probably mostly there).

They probably don't want to burn affiliates (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#45850683)

If you're getting something for free, then you're not the customer.

There is no such thing as a free lunch, ever.

Re:They probably don't want to burn affiliates (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#45850775)

Hooray for not understanding the advertising model.

Re:They probably don't want to burn affiliates (2)

jcochran (309950) | about 3 months ago | (#45851293)

Oh, the AC you're responding to knows all about the advertising model. And he or she is completely correct. If you're getting something for free, you're not the customer. In fact, you're most likely the product. And in the case of the advertising model, YOU ARE THE PRODUCT. The advertisers are the customer. The content is merely bait to attract product. Now what's the product? Simple. Ears and eyeballs. Or to be more specific, exposure to ears and eyeballs. Your ears and eyeballs being exposed to the advertisers. So do you now understand what "you're not the customer"?

Re:They probably don't want to burn affiliates (2)

cloudmaster (10662) | about 3 months ago | (#45850811)

It's not really "free" to watch OTA - you have the show interrupted every few minutes by commercials, which cost you time. The problem here is that OTA broadcasting costs pretty much the same whether it goes to one TV or one million. All they pay to do is vibrate the air[1]. Cable's not that different. With Internet streaming, however, each individual connection typically costs more.

The solution is to fix the medium, IMHO. Big networks and content producers should be pushing for less expensive bandwidth or, even better, for working multicasting. :)

[1] yeah, I know how radio actually works, but I'm trying to make a point here.

Re:They probably don't want to burn affiliates (1)

suutar (1860506) | about 3 months ago | (#45851331)

so should ISPs, frankly. They have a better chance of convincing regulators to let them charge more for special stuff if they can show how it's really different, and 'multicast makes us buy new hardware!' would be an awesome tool in that attempt.

Re:They probably don't want to burn affiliates (1)

Tamran (1424955) | about 3 months ago | (#45850837)

Often the "client" and "customer" are different groups. Advertisers pay based on number of viewers which is why ratings are so heavily measured and talked about. Rarely does the customer pay the networks directly except in certain cases like HBO and Showtime.

I do believe the subscription model will rule someday, I'd say this is equivalent to radio play for CD sales. It's hard to directly link them but it's clear there is a correlation.

ABC is making a bad decision here because they don't have the "juice" needed to demand a subscription (yet?). I think people will just find something else to watch, record it, or find a torrent.

Re: (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#45850925)

What you're looking for is the difference between the words "consumer" and "customer".
If you watch TV/FB/tweeter, you're the consumer.
If you pay to put ads, or (more recently) to watch, you're the customer.

Re: (1)

bob_super (3391281) | about 3 months ago | (#45850951)

Answering myself here.
Were they getting too much traffic on ./ ?
I'm looking for a reason to have made the comment section so much more painful to filter and use.

Adult Swim (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#45850689)

I remember one time Adult Swim use to have video on their site available BEFORE the broadcast. That eventually changed, but that was nice.

Speaking of ABC, it's probably fine what they're doing. I assume that the one-day-after streaming was somehow cutting into revenue they get from their sponsors. Maybe not enough were watching on TV, and it was devaluing the commercial's worth. Even if they show ads online, it is probably considered separate for when they sell ad spots.

Who cares? (1)

jddeluxe (965655) | about 3 months ago | (#45850743)

There's not a single show on ABC I'd ever watch; perhaps that's why they need to increase revenues...

Re:Who cares? (1)

reboot246 (623534) | about 3 months ago | (#45851491)

I haven't watched anything on ABC, CBS, FOX or NBC in over a decade. Just nothing worthwhile there.

My problem is that the cable channels that used to be good are getting worse and worse. Pretty soon there won't be anything to watch at all.

Blocking customers from the cash register ... (3, Insightful)

Tamran (1424955) | about 3 months ago | (#45850763)

... will ensure they don't buy anything. Similarly, making it hard for people to watch will ensure they don't. If they do want to watch, more will look for torrents (amongst other things) than go back to the stone age days (before PVR's, etc). People nowadays will not bother being inconvenienced unless you have awesome stuff - although it's not my cup of tea, Apple is an example of where people will stand in line for hours and be inconvenienced.

I wouldn't say ABC shows are worth putting off tennis practice (or whatever hobby you have) for. This will not end well.

Re:Blocking customers from the cash register ... (1)

noh8rz10 (2716597) | about 3 months ago | (#45850891)

People nowadays will not bother being inconvenienced unless you have awesome stuff

Extraordinarily true but... I think you're speaking of torrents, which are such an incredible pain in the ass. you need to find the right torrent, and there's often different options of differing quality and integrity but you don't know. then it takes an unknown amount of time to download, depending on seeds or whatever. it takes up how many gigs of hard drive space. then you watch it on your laptop, or futz to get it to the tv. then the episode turns out to suck anyway!

I'm behind on my tv, so waiting another week for something is no big deal at all.

Re:Blocking customers from the cash register ... (1)

Tamran (1424955) | about 3 months ago | (#45850999)

I'm behind on my tv, so waiting another week for something is no big deal at all.

I think the issue is that the networks don't seem to want you to wait a week unless you pay them. My point above is really that they should focus on getting the eyes on the product rather than billing each and ever viewer that doesn't watch when they decide you should.

Google figured this out ... we're all customers, but none of us pay them directly. That's how they can make money. If Google charged me a subscription to do web searches, they'd have died a decade ago.

Re:Blocking customers from the cash register ... (2)

noh8rz10 (2716597) | about 3 months ago | (#45851165)

I think the issue is that the networks don't seem to want you to wait a week unless you pay them. My point above is really that they should focus on getting the eyes on the product rather than billing each and ever viewer that doesn't watch when they decide you should.

Why should they focus on this? Obv they tried the business model of ad-supported streaming, and decided they didn't like it. Now they're trying to payfence approach (not a paywall - pay for better access, but still available otherwise). I don't begrudge ABC wanting to make money, nor do I begrudge them trying different business model. In fact i want them to find a model where they make money online, so they continue to invest resources and make content available.

Google figured this out ... we're all customers, but none of us pay them directly. That's how they can make money. If Google charged me a subscription to do web searches, they'd have died a decade ago.

No, we're all the product not the customers. that's why google is free.

Re:Blocking customers from the cash register ... (1)

bws111 (1216812) | about 3 months ago | (#45851563)

Maybe you should call and explain to them exactly how 'getting eyes on the product' leads to revenue, and more importantly, more revenue than they make by billing for views.

You manage to make it sound like Google (queue heavenly sounds) invented the ad supported business. ABC was an ad-supported business for decades before Google ever existed. What you fail to realize is that people don't want ads interrupting their TV viewing. The only real choices are: even more intrusive ads (overlays, etc), or get paid directly for the content, or some mix of both. If you have a better solution, lets hear it.

WHAT pain in the ass? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#45851539)

I think you're speaking of torrents, which are such an incredible pain in the ass. you need to find the right torrent, and there's often different options of differing quality and integrity but you don't know. then it takes an unknown amount of time to download, depending on seeds or whatever. it takes up how many gigs of hard drive space. then you watch it on your laptop, or futz to get it to the tv. then the episode turns out to suck anyway!

It sounds like your torrent experiences are all from 1995, except that doesn't make sense since it was before torrents.

For the last many(!) years: 1) torrents have been automatable. You use a tool like flexget or something, to basically "subscribe" to some RSS feed just like you'd set up a PVR. You select the desired quality at that time. 2) unknown amount of time: irrelevant. Your habit is that you watch things asynchronously. You watch things when they're in your list of newly-available shows. And it happens to be pretty fast, anyway. 3) Gigs: irrelevant. Go look at hard disk prices. 4TB drives are below $200 now. Enormous fault-tolerant arrays are affordable and easy to set up. Take the amount of money someone typically sends to Comcast in a year, and send it to Newegg instead, and you will have more Terabytes of storage than you'll know what to do with. And definitely more than you can fill in a year. 4) watch it on your laptop: that amounts to "mount /mnt/videos && mplayer something.mkv" And playing it on your tablet is easier easier, since it'll probably just talk DLNA/UPNP to your plex or mediatomb or whatever server, automatically by default, without you ever dealing with mounts, thinking about what devices can speak NFS vs Samba, etc. 5) futzing to get it to TV: no 'futzing" ever happens. Your TV's main HDMI input is permanently hooked up to your HTPC's HDMI-out, it's already sitting there all the time, and how you watch everything you ever watch, anyway. If a file comes in via bittorrent rather than other means, that's not a special case. It's always easy, no matter where the file came from. 5a) Or you have gone the relatively lame (but cheaper and possibly more grandma-friendly) model where you have some kind of embedded computer (e.g. WD TV Live) which also easily plays your files, but maybe it's quite as interoperative as mplayer. Either way, this is simply just never a problem unless your embedded computer is from Apple or Microsoft or Roku or someone like that.

6) episode suckage. That happens with all delivery techs. It's not a torrent thing. If you don't like s01e01 of something, tell your RSS reader to unsubscribe to that show. What's the problem? After a few weeks, you're mostly just watching stuff that you like, the exceptions being when you try something new, "in case it's good."

Re:Blocking customers from the cash register ... (1)

Matheus (586080) | about 3 months ago | (#45850945)

Personal example:

I download a lot of TV (not having any workable TV reception at home broadcast isn't an option). There are a large number of shows that I used to watch via Hulu/etc and sat through the ads because hey... they gotta get paid somehow! BUT every time they add another restriction (sorry you can't watch this until tomorrow / next week / no more (only past 5-6 episodes) / ever, I switch to more reliable and ad free sources .

They were making some amount of money off of me, now they are not because of their own bumbling efforts.

IMHO: The internet should be as 'reliable' a delivery mechanism as broadcast. Unless the big broadcasters have a stake in the sales of physical televisions and Cable/Sat service there should be exactly ZERO difference between me watching a show on my TV and streaming it from an official site.. especially when, with companies like Hulu, they don't even have to pay for the infrastructure. What are they gaining by making me wait to see or limiting how much historical I can see? Someone please educate me!

Re:Blocking customers from the cash register ... (1)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about 3 months ago | (#45851169)

People nowadays will not bother being inconvenienced unless you have awesome stuff

I take it you don't spend a lot of time in airports?

Re:Blocking customers from the cash register ... (1)

praxis (19962) | about 3 months ago | (#45852451)

I think taking several hours to travel somewhere is pretty awesome stuff compared to a week of driving or many many months of walking. That's why I put up with the inconvenience of the airport.

last days of broadcast tv (4, Interesting)

RichMan (8097) | about 3 months ago | (#45850767)

This is move is going to lose me as a viewer, not push me to subscribe to cable.

I have netflix. I get TV over the air. This sort of access was the only way for me to watch current shows other than at their prescribe transmission time. Other networks have made it "enter your cable bill number" to access this content as well.
I guess they don't want me, and those like me, to watch their shows at all.

I am certainly not going to subscribe to overpriced pile of crap that is basic cable. I grant you can get some good stuff by going specialty cable, but that is even more $$ on top of basic. I am almost never home at the right time to watch it "live" over the air. So count me and countless others like me off the viewship list. This is move is going to lose me as a viewer, not push me to subscribe to cable.

Bu-bye.

Re:last days of broadcast tv (1)

Ken_g6 (775014) | about 3 months ago | (#45850841)

You clearly have a computer capable of playing video. Why don't you just get a cheap ATSC tuner to record your shows when you're not there? Here's one for $25 at NewEgg. [newegg.com]

Re:last days of broadcast tv (1)

dugancent (2616577) | about 3 months ago | (#45851079)

Because it requires having a desktop computer that runs all the damn time. I've converted over to laptops and don't bother with towers anymore.

Re:last days of broadcast tv (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#45851781)

Because it requires having a desktop computer that runs all the damn time. I've converted over to laptops and don't bother with towers anymore.

Tower not needed. I have a $50 USB TV dongle, a $100 terabyte USB disk and kaffeine+mplayer all on a 5yo laptop. It works well and I highly recommend it. I run linux but you should be able to organize something similar on mac or windows if that's your preference.

Re:last days of broadcast tv (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#45852663)

Why waste $25 to jump thru stupid hoops? Assuming that solution would work at all. It sure won't on comcast cable where you must have THEIR device. Or go thru the hell that is trying to get cablecard and have it working..

Hop on one of 3-4 torrent sites. type what you want. sort by seeds. click magnet links. wait 6-10 minutes per tv show. done.
Queue a season or 3 and goto bed.

No hoops. No data to enter. Nothing to login to. You don't even have to get your lazy ass up and find your credit card.

Ok sure it's not legal. But there's no legal way to get content that easy. Every time they start to make a move to making it that easy. They fuck it up. Such as this story right here. Why keep chasing their moving target when they clearly have no damm clue at all?

Because you want to be legal? How many pointless hoops are you willing to go thru to do so? I'm not willing to do much anymore for content giants who have forgotten the basic rule... MAKE IT SIMPLE FOR CUSTOMERS TO BE CUSTOMERS.

Re:last days of broadcast tv (1)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | about 3 months ago | (#45850975)

I have netflix. I get TV over the air. This sort of access was the only way for me to watch current shows other than at their prescribe transmission time.

I'm probably not the only one who doesn't understand this - perhaps you could explain?

If you can watch it a week later, why does this matter at all? Their move presumes some people are willing to pay for faster access - why would they do that?

And if you're willing to watch shows on Netflix a year later, why not on abc.com a week later? Is the calculus that ads are only worth a 1-day delay?

Less ads please (4, Informative)

Scowler (667000) | about 3 months ago | (#45850773)

Waiting a week / month / year is fine. I accept the business model at play here... Milk the wallets of those who can't resist instant gratification, and find some nominal revenues from everyone else. It's just... I hate the ad interruptions. I'd gladly pay for Hulu Plus... if there were no ads!

Re:Less ads please (1)

MozeeToby (1163751) | about 3 months ago | (#45850979)

It is confusing. On the one hand we have the networks, complaining (if you follow the summaries logic) about not being able to turn a profit with ads. On the other, you have Hulu complaining about not being able to turn a profit with subscriptions.

Not New (1)

nwaack (3482871) | about 3 months ago | (#45850797)

This is not new. Fox has been doing this for a while to try to push everyone to get a Hulu Plus membership.

Cutting it back a week... lol (1)

Maxo-Texas (864189) | about 3 months ago | (#45850815)

Many of my friends are between 6 months and 2 *years* behind current broadcast schedules.

I watch very little network television (POI & Elementary).

And what was lost? (1)

nurb432 (527695) | about 3 months ago | (#45850857)

Really, not joking here.. So you lose the ability to time-shfit for free, not the content. Just more of the 'me me me' crowd whining.

Fine, I'll get it off the Pirate Bay (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#45850869)

As an added bonus all the ads will be stripped off. Sorry ABC, you blew your opportunity to make money off my eyeballs.

Oh well... (5, Funny)

grub (11606) | about 3 months ago | (#45850873)


If only there were a way to get my favourite TV shows soon after being broadcast, preferably in high-definition and without commercials, so I could watch from the comfort of my couch at my leisure.

Re: Oh well... (1)

Scowler (667000) | about 3 months ago | (#45850983)

For an avid TV fan, the cost of an Apple TV plus buying seasons on iTunes isn't too terrible. Or Roku/Chromecast/Apple TV plus Amazon.

Re: Oh well... (1)

grub (11606) | about 3 months ago | (#45851085)

I was being facetious :) We have 2x Apple TVs (Netflix & YouTube) and 3x PopcornHour media streamers. Torrents and usenet fuel the latter.

Re:Oh well... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#45851265)

What, you mean like Dish's Hopper, which autoskips commercials? (Provided you're watching one of the PrimeTime Anytime networks and it's 24 hours after broadcast.)

No TV (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#45850927)

We only have cable here. There is no broadcast that we can receive with an antenna. How exactly would I watch it when it is aired? Oh yeah, wait until it has been aired and stream it off the web (non-abc sites).

Whining is so unattractive (2)

bfr99 (1729262) | about 3 months ago | (#45851031)

Content creators and providers want to get paid. If their fees seem too high or their contract terms too onerous don't view the content. I'm sick of people whining about it. As wonderful the concept is you don't have a free right to the creative effort of others.

Re:Whining is so unattractive (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#45851683)

We are saying we would watch it as is as content+adds from their web site. We will not pay cable fees. Certainly if they are unwilling to meet us at the trade point not trade will be made. We accept that. They are not going to up the cable subscriptions like they think. They are going to lose the eyeballs that would see the adds.
They have priced themselves out of market.
We are warning them we are not going to buy their overpriced product.

Time-shifting is no longer a "feature" (4, Insightful)

netsavior (627338) | about 3 months ago | (#45851035)

Time shifting is no longer the "killer feature," time shifting IS television. This is the equivalent of a TV station in the 1950s saying "we will no longer be offering moving pictures with our radio programs."

I have not watched TV on a network schedule for a decade, and my children don't even have the concept of a "TV Schedule".

Fighting consumer demand is difficult, fighting consumer default expectations is suicide; especially in Entertainment media, where the whole world can turn on a dime, except you.

Re:Time-shifting is no longer a "feature" (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#45851475)

You could not be more correct, but it goes further. Like you say, scheduled TV is a foreign concept to kids, but then so are ads. When my son watches tv at grandma's house or something and ads come on he just looks around like "wtf is this? turn my show back on!".

Who owns ABC? (1)

dysmal (3361085) | about 3 months ago | (#45851043)

Don't act surprised. It's business. Who said creativity is dead? People keep coming up with new ways to charge for something that had been free'ish traditionally.

Re:Who owns ABC? (2)

bws111 (1216812) | about 3 months ago | (#45851701)

It was never free, or even free-ish. It was just that is used to be paid for by someone else (the sponsors). In turn, you, the viewer, 'paid' the sponsor by watching his ads and maybe buying his product. If you are not willing to 'pay' the sponsor, then he is not willing to pay for you to be able to watch TV for free. Quite simple. Quit acting like something has been taken away from you, or that the TV networks are somehow greedy by still needing to be paid for what they produce.

What is This "cable" Of Which You Speak? (4, Insightful)

rueger (210566) | about 3 months ago | (#45851059)

Seriously. $75 to $100 a month for cable? Haven't done that for years. $8.95 a month for Netflix, plus a bit of Pirate Bay to top up the offerings. You tell me what makes more sense.

Although honestly I'd be happy to pay say $25-30 a month for some hybrid of the two - at least for news channels.

Of course the downside of not watching cable or network TV is that you really appreciate how horrible advertising is. Easily the most painful part of going out to a movie.

Amazingly stupid way to lose viewers (1)

frovingslosh (582462) | about 3 months ago | (#45851101)

I get most of my TV over the air, meaning that I mainly watch the networks. But occasionally life takes priority over TV watching and I end up watching a show that I missed on-line. But almost all (or maybe all) of the shows that I watch have running story lines spanning the episodes. I've missed an episode in the past and when I found that I couldn't watch an episode on-line before the next episode aired (or even couldn't watch it at all), I've just decides "screw it" and quit watching the show. What does ABC think they are accomplishing by only letting viewers who pay someone else see the episodes in order in a timely manner? Why in the world would they do something that can only drive more viewers away from broadcast TV?

Re: Amazingly stupid way to lose viewers (1)

Scowler (667000) | about 3 months ago | (#45851297)

Does broadcast TV still carry serials like "Lostâoe these days? I thought all serials had entirely gone over to paid Cable (and now also Netflix exclusives). Isn't broadcast stuff entirely reality TV, sitcoms, episodics like NCIS, etc? Why is watching that stuff out of order a problem? And also, why don't you use DVR?

Re: Amazingly stupid way to lose viewers (1)

frovingslosh (582462) | about 3 months ago | (#45851593)

Many network shows are indeed serials (CBS's Hostages, ABC's Scandal or NBC's Blacklist or Revolution, for example), but many other are self contained main stories but still have on-going back stories that develop over time even though each episode usually wraps up the main story line. In fact, I'm hard pressed to think of anything that I watch other than PBS science shows and The Simpsons that don't have some running background stories that are impacted by watching out of order.

As to why I don't use a DVR, reread my original post, I get my TV through free air broadcast. There are few decent DVR solutions that work without being part of a cable or satellite system. I actually do sometimes use a PC based TV tuner and software, but this isn't a perfect solution (both because of show times changing due to sports or other "events", and because free air reception isn't always completely reliable. Plus, of course, that only allows me to record one show in any one time slot, which is overly restrictive (and networks are getting more sloppy about start and end times, so it can be hard to switch between stations and not chop off the end of a show or the start of the next show).

The network seems to still be perfectly willing to offer on-line access to the shows, but just wants to make it more inconvenient to the viewer. Why?

Re: Amazingly stupid way to lose viewers (1)

Algae_94 (2017070) | about 3 months ago | (#45852503)

I think frovingslosh adequately answered your questions, but don't forget that broadcast TV has daytime programming. I don't watch soaps, but last I remember "Days of Our Lives", "General Hospital", etc. are definitely serials.

Re: Amazingly stupid way to lose viewers (1)

Scowler (667000) | about 3 months ago | (#45852651)

Once upon a time, my girlfriend (now wife) was hooked on Days of Our Lives. I remember, you sort of had to watch the Friday episodes in order to know what was going on, but the Monday-through-Thursday episodes could be watched in any order, or not at all for that matter. :)

Wanted: VCR (1)

Catbeller (118204) | about 3 months ago | (#45851277)

We need a VCR equivalent. Been looking for one for a while.
For all you young people, a VCR - Video Cassette Recorder - let us record live TV - unencrypted - onto tapes. I'm only half kidding about the education here.
We need a simple box that records OTA in 1080P onto a hard drive or USB stick. There are several out there, of various flavors. The key for searching for such is "converter box" with recording capabilities.
A PC with media software is not sufficient. We need a simple solution.

This might be a contender very soon:
http://www.avsforum.com/t/1500872/channel-master-cm-7500-2-tuner-ota-dvr-with-guide [avsforum.com]

Re:Wanted: VCR (1)

Bodhammer (559311) | about 3 months ago | (#45851459)

See the Tivo Roamio (basic model). 4 tuners and a 500GB drive. Best Buy has been selling them for $199 with a $50 gift card and then you can price match to Amazon's $149 price. You can put a a 3TB drive in there for $130 more giving about 470 hours of HD. I just cut the cord from Comcast and went DSL, saving us about $125/month.

Re:Wanted: VCR (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#45852011)

you missed the question entirely... he's looking for a VCR equivalent.. i.e. NO SUBSCRIPTION FEES... tivo, and providers (cable & sat) can suck it with their ridiculous subscription rates.

where's the mass produced, consumer set top box with
* manual and program guide-based recording,
* several recurring schedule options
* ota-sourced program guide
* optional 10-20 day internet based program data with reasonable cost (e.g. $20 a year)
* ntsc/catv and analog inputs for older receivers,
* atsc/clearqam
* blaster capability on each input
* multiple tuners
* analog and digital outputs
* upgraded model with cable card support
* record or archive to optical media
* pause live tv and record to hdd (expandable, replaceable)
* lan-accessible storage for access from pc.
* lan media player

given today's advances in SoC, etc.. board including cpu and media chip, chassis and power supply would cost under $100 at retail. software cost mostly minimal as there is plenty of foss for most of it.. tuners would add less than $20 each with reasonable limit i.e. 4 per unit b4 upgraded board is needed ($50-75? per cable card slot perhaps due to license fees), add $50-75 for a modest hard drive, $20-50 for an optical drive depending on type, $20 for a decent remote and you're looking at a product that would start around $250 mfg list price for a dual tuner 1tb hdd only model .

such a product would sell like crazy.. an alternative to $15-20+ per month subscription fees, often on top of buying hardware like a tivo? an alternative to vendor lock in? user upgradeable? user accessible? HELL YA BRING IT !! I'LL TAKE FOUR

It's harder than... (2)

fred911 (83970) | about 3 months ago | (#45851325)

Clicking an addon on XBMC, joining a public swarm 15 minutes after airtime or googling it to find which file locker to stream or download it? How stupid for them to cut another revenue stream.

Not Sure If This Is News (1)

sabinelr (1061112) | about 3 months ago | (#45851373)

I don't even think I have watched a show on ABC since "V." And that one wasn't available the next day anyway, and since I missed them on-air, I never saw the last 2 episodes. And I'm sure I haven't been back to their site since I found out they didn't have the previous day's episodes. I think this devastating occurrence is what convinced me to buy my HDTV capture card.
For some strange reason, all their sports programming got moved to ESPN, so why should anyone watch ABC anyway?

Re:Not Sure If This Is News (1)

frovingslosh (582462) | about 3 months ago | (#45851709)

The first season of the V remake was available on-line on ABC. I missed the first episode of the second season. Actually realized it was on about 40 minutes in (hard to get back into the fall schedule after the summer break), but said to myself, "Oh well, I'll catch up tomorrow." I tried to watch it the next day and found that ABC wasn't making V available on-line any longer. I said "screw it" and didn't watch any episode after that.

I expect this will happen more and more as they alienate viewers.

Hardly... (2)

Kazoo the Clown (644526) | about 3 months ago | (#45851521)

If ABC wants me to watch their junk they'll have to pay ME. My eyeballs are not free.

Re:Hardly... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#45852595)

My eyeballs are not free.

How much did you end up paying for them?

US only (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#45851657)

So torrents it is for anyone not living in the US. Hulu isn't available for anyone outside of the US and streaming on the ABC website as well. Even if I want to give them my money, they won't take it. So why should I stop myself from finding other ways of watching the shows I want.

Did anyone else read the post? (0)

tpstigers (1075021) | about 3 months ago | (#45851739)

It says they went from next-day streaming to next-week streaming. One day wait to seven day wait. This is a non-thing.

Re:Did anyone else read the post? (3, Insightful)

frovingslosh (582462) | about 3 months ago | (#45852211)

It is a major inconvenience when watching shows that have an on-going story line. You either have to watch the episodes out of order or stop watching the broadcast shows all together and watch all on-line if you miss even one episode. And what in the world does it accomplish for ABC? It only makes over-the-air broadcast TV less attractive to viewers. It hurts local affiliates (if viewers choose to just watch the rest of the season on-line 8 days later when they miss an episode). ABC just annoys people with this with no up side.

ABC kills next day streaming... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#45851757)

Good! More and more people will break the habit of thinking that moronic TV is worthwhile; as the greedy TV-crats cut off more and more, more people will realize that it is all crap, and interest themselves in other things! Good! Good! Good!

This just reminds me ... (1)

PPH (736903) | about 3 months ago | (#45852157)

... of how little I really need to watch ABC programming. Let corporate fuck up a few more times and perhaps they will be replaced.

ABC corporate screwed over our local affiliate years ago. There were a few personality conflicts with popular local personalities that they needed to win. They did. Talented and well liked people moved on and the station's ratings went into the toilet and stayed there.

OTA signal strength (1)

CODiNE (27417) | about 3 months ago | (#45852207)

Curious if I'm the only one who has noticed this. The shows I record OTA often have flaky reception as I don't have a direct line of sight to the towers.

Funny thing is, the commercials never skip or drop out but the shows themselves do. I'm thinking, that doesn't make sense as the video would all come out with the same signal strength regardless of the source.

It's probably just my imagination but... these days is there anything they WON'T do to screw customers? I refuse to pay Comcast a monthly fee to unscramble the OTA signal they've scrambled.

TAFC (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#45852383)

They are fucking crazy to think that I'm going to pay for the pleasure of watching their streaming ads. If I'm going to pay for it, it has to have some added value.

NPR does this... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#45852727)

...on This American Life. The new shows are up for a week until another weekly episode airs. They then charge 99cents for the "archive" podcasts.

Is this a "disturbing" trend as well? It's been their business model for at least 3 years as far as I know. It's just entertainment folks. Not the polio vaccine.

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>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...