PDA

View Full Version : Movies and TV Do you think the streaming sites are right?


CrazyPhuD
02-07-2011, 04:25 AM
So part of me is surprised at all the negative reaction to the government seizing the websites of all the streaming sports sites. Part of it was driven by an article posted in DC.

I was just shocked that people really felt those sites were ok. I almost went all Dane on the poster for believing these sites were actually right. But instead I thought I would do something constructive and post a poll and try to see how at least our small community felt.

Hopefully we can keep this civil and out of DC but we'll see. Here's part of my take. I gave up directv last year and have been living on internet content for almost a year now. Honestly I doubt I'll ever have cable or satellite again until they change their business practices to allow me to pick and choose what content I want and what I don't. Until then I don't see me ever going back to them again.

I subscribe to netflix and I have Hulu Plus(which is mostly a crappy deal BTW). I buy content off amazon, etc on a per show basis etc. I would love to subscribe on a per channel basis over the internet for things like showtime, HBO, cinemax, etc at even the same rate I was paying through directv(I think each channel was $12 per month bought individually), but they don't even offer it. ESPN would be another channel that I would consider buying individually if they had offered it. But they don't. I look for legal options for most of the content I want and if I can't find it or it's horribly inconvenient then I'll look at streaming sites. I don't use them particularly frequently, but when I do I don't lie to myself and say hey this is legal or this is right. I just refuse to support the broken system that is cable tv. The vast majority of times I find a legal option, but when I can't I have used them. Hell I was afraid I was going to have to find a way to do cardio at the gym for 2hrs tomorrow to watch the KU/MU game until I checked ESPN3(my ISP gets it) and saw that they have it live.

Frankly legal tends to be a more satisfying experience and the quality doesn't suck as much balls as some of the illegal sites. But when I use the streaming sites I don't claim that they are legal or right. It usually because I have no other option. I would strongly prefer a legal option if it existed.

To me the sites getting pulled is just the nature of the game. I'm not going to get angry about it because it's not like it's right in the first place. So I guess I ask those who are angry about it. Do you really feel that it's right in the first place? Sure it can make your life a bit harder if you really want to watch some content, but the providers need to make money too.

Do you really want to live in a world where no one pays for any content? It sounds great on the surface till you realize that if no one pays then no one will create great content either and all we'll be left with is youtube garbage.

CrazyPhuD
02-07-2011, 04:46 AM
So here's the original article that T'd me off. Part of me is shocked that people believe this. It's intellectually dishonest in a number of places.

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110203/22422912958/homeland-security-tries-fails-to-explain-why-seized-domains-are-different-google.shtml

Point no 1 that is pretty blatantly wrong.

Hayes then goes on to repeat the long-debunked talking points of the industry -- insisting that anyone watching a PPV event without paying represents lost revenue.

This is just blatantly wrong, it's economics 101. Everyone has a marginal cost for every product. I doubt anyone has a truly zero marginal cost, if they did they probably wouldn't actually want to watch the content. If you want something you're willing to give up something for it. Maybe it's not money(which would be clearly revenue), but maybe it's time(ala advertisement). But you always are willing to pay something for that content. Hell unless you pay nothing for your internet, you are paying for the bandwidth that you then use to download the show. So clearly you are willing to pay something to watch that show and if it doesn't go to the content provider then it IS lost revenue to them. Even if it's only a few cents it's still lost revenue. Claiming that you're not costing a content provider lost revenue, no matter how small that revenue is, is dishonest.

The other major point they claim is that somehow google is the same as the streaming sites because it can link to the content too. This also seems really intellectually dishonest. To me the difference here is extremely clear, google does it unintentionally, whereas these sites explicitly look for content to link to provide people(and I assume make money off of ads). The difference in intent is huge.

It would be like saying that the guy selling stolen goods is innocent because he never asked if the good were hot even though he knows the people selling it to him are burglars. Ever court in the land will convict him of trafficking in stolen goods because he should have known the goods weren't legal.

Psyko Tek
02-07-2011, 04:54 AM
as long as they play the commercials I see no harm in what they are doing
it's just a bigger antennae to see content out of your area

CrazyPhuD
02-07-2011, 05:09 AM
as long as they play the commercials I see no harm in what they are doing
it's just a bigger antennae to see content out of your area

So maybe...BUT only if the content providers are actually getting paid for the extra views of the commercials. I suspect they are not for two reasons, first it can be extremely difficult to estimate what the 'pirate viewership' really is and given the poor quality they may not feel that their message is appropriately displayed. Still it is an interesting case.

A company is trying just that BUT it looks like they are in trouble legally.

http://www.fierceiptv.com/story/internet-cable-company-ivi-tv-suffers-setback-court-can-it-survive/2011-01-25

The other case is quite a few of those feeds are from overseas that have no commercials. What about them? Should they have to police the links to prevent overseas feeds?

Gonzo
02-07-2011, 05:45 AM
IMHO channels that can be pulled via antenna should be accessible via the net for free. Cable channels is another story entirely.
Posted via Mobile Device

Guru
02-07-2011, 05:52 AM
IMHO channels that can be pulled via antenna should be accessible via the net for free. Cable channels is another story entirely.
Posted via Mobile Device

This.

Baconeater
02-07-2011, 06:03 AM
No, they're not right. But when your only other option is to have to deal with companies that have as shitty of business practices as Directv, I don't really blame people for using them.

DaKCMan AP
02-07-2011, 06:22 AM
Companies are not providing the product that consumers want. I want to watch Chiefs games. I don't care to watch 15 other games every single week. I want to watch Miami Heat games. I don't care to watch 2,000+ other NBA games. If all cable/satellite/internet providers offered packages where I can subscribe to the team(s) I want to watch, and not have to pay for an entire league pass full of games I don't care about, then I'd pay. Until they, the SERVICE providers, offer what consumers want then it's their fault, IMO.

Pushead2
02-07-2011, 06:29 AM
No, they're not right. But when your only other option is to have to deal with companies that have as shitty of business practices as Directv, I don't really blame people for using them.

this....

mikey23545
02-07-2011, 06:52 AM
Companies are not providing the product that consumers want. I want to watch Chiefs games. I don't care to watch 15 other games every single week. I want to watch Miami Heat games. I don't care to watch 2,000+ other NBA games. If all cable/satellite/internet providers offered packages where I can subscribe to the team(s) I want to watch, and not have to pay for an entire league pass full of games I don't care about, then I'd pay. Until they, the SERVICE providers, offer what consumers want then it's their fault, IMO.

I know just what you mean. When I go into a grocery store, I want my 27 and a half ounce carton of milk, but what the hell do I see? Sixteen ounce and thirty-two ounce containers!

As you can imagine I feel completely justified in sticking that poorly packaged milk in my jacket and walking out the door with it, all the while knowing it's the fault of those damn milk producers that I was forced into stealing...

DaKCMan AP
02-07-2011, 06:59 AM
I know just what you mean. When I go into a grocery store, I want my 27 and a half ounce carton of milk, but what the hell do I see? Sixteen ounce and thirty-two ounce containers!

As you can imagine I feel completely justified in sticking that poorly packaged milk in my jacket and walking out the door with it, all the while knowing it's the fault of those damn milk producers that I was forced into stealing...

Shoplifting and viewing a stream that someone else posts online aren't equivalent. Nice try, though.

Saulbadguy
02-07-2011, 07:04 AM
In the end, the consumer always pays. :)

cdcox
02-07-2011, 07:16 AM
It boils down to property rights. If you believe in them, then streaming isn't right, nor is watching illegally streamed content.

rad
02-07-2011, 07:30 AM
I know just what you mean. When I go into a grocery store, I want my 27 and a half ounce carton of milk, but what the hell do I see? Sixteen ounce and thirty-two ounce containers!

As you can imagine I feel completely justified in sticking that poorly packaged milk in my jacket and walking out the door with it, all the while knowing it's the fault of those damn milk producers that I was forced into stealing...

Dumb analogy.......

Cable and satellite providers suck balls. You can't tell me they are unable to provide us with what we want.

Al Bundy
02-07-2011, 07:34 AM
Where I live I cannot get DirecTV or I would pay for the sunday ticket.

ElGringo
02-07-2011, 07:38 AM
I watch streamed content, but it is content that I have NO other way of watching. I can not subscribe to DirecTV or NFL sunday ticket as it is not available in my area. Therefore I see nothing wrong with what I am doing when watching that content. As a side note I did watch the superbowl on TV, in Spanish.

Chiefnj2
02-07-2011, 07:44 AM
Companies are not providing the product that consumers want. I want to watch Chiefs games. I don't care to watch 15 other games every single week. I want to watch Miami Heat games. I don't care to watch 2,000+ other NBA games. If all cable/satellite/internet providers offered packages where I can subscribe to the team(s) I want to watch, and not have to pay for an entire league pass full of games I don't care about, then I'd pay. Until they, the SERVICE providers, offer what consumers want then it's their fault, IMO.

That's how I see it. Keep up with the demand. Look ahead rather than whine about it.

jspchief
02-07-2011, 07:47 AM
Buy an album, get 11 shitty songs and the 1 good song you wanted, for the price of 12 songs.

Buy cable/satellite, get 200 shitty/infomercial channels and the 20 good channels you want, for the price of 220 channels.

Not hard to figure out why people have no remorse stealing from these companies.

Saulbadguy
02-07-2011, 07:51 AM
Buy an album, get 11 shitty songs and the 1 good song you wanted, for the price of 12 songs.

Buy cable/satellite, get 200 shitty/infomercial channels and the 20 good channels you want, for the price of 220 channels.

Not hard to figure out why people have no remorse stealing from these companies.

The music industry has adapted well, I think. I can buy songs for 99 cents now rather than an entire album.

jspchief
02-07-2011, 07:56 AM
The music industry has adapted well, I think. I can buy songs for 99 cents now rather than an entire album.Unfortunately, it took consumers stealing music hand over fist to get them to do it. It's not like they made individual songs available simply because the latest demographic study showed them it's what people wanted. Consumers found out a way to cut the head off the beast, and record companies slowly figured out they were going to have to do something to stop the bleeding.

loochy
02-07-2011, 07:57 AM
The music industry has adapted well, I think. I can buy songs for 99 cents now rather than an entire album.

Exactly this.

If we could buy whichever individual games we wanted for a reasonable price, say $5, then I would have NO problem buying them.

However, since UVerse doesn't even have league pass, let alone individual game purchase, I'll just go ahead and watch my streams.

The same goes for the soccer games I watch every weekend (Fulham and Real Madrid).

Al Bundy
02-07-2011, 08:03 AM
Exactly this.

If we could buy whichever individual games we wanted for a reasonable price, say $5, then I would have NO problem buying them.

However, since UVerse doesn't even have league pass, let alone individual game purchase, I'll just go ahead and watch my streams.

The same goes for the soccer games I watch every weekend (Fulham and Real Madrid).

This!

Saulbadguy
02-07-2011, 08:14 AM
Unfortunately, it took consumers stealing music hand over fist to get them to do it. It's not like they made individual songs available simply because the latest demographic study showed them it's what people wanted. Consumers found out a way to cut the head off the beast, and record companies slowly figured out they were going to have to do something to stop the bleeding.

Very true. I'll take it, though.

Frazod
02-07-2011, 08:33 AM
The whole concept of Sunday Ticket is fucked - charging people hundreds of extra dollars to watch programs that are HALF COMMERCIALS. It's not like stealing HBO - it's like being charged twice for something that's already been paid for - a penalty for daring to live your life away from your home state/area and follow your hometown team. As has been mentioned earlier, if I was only charged per game I watch it would be one thing, but I get charged for all of them, which is horseshit. I only want to watch the Chiefs. A Chiefs-only DTV package would be great. But it's not an option, because I'm sure the vast majority of people who have Sunday Ticket probably feel the same way.

I have Sunday Ticket, basically because I have no choice. I paid a lot of money for my TV setup, and I'm not going to watch some crappy, choppy streamed internet feed. However, if I didn't have the means to afford it, I wouldn't lose a second's sleep over streaming, and if I knew some sure-fire way to get around it, I'd be all over it - it's like screwing over a bank. I'm really supposed to feel bad about taking a little chunk from an organization dedicated to raping it's fans? Fuck 'em.

DaFace
02-07-2011, 08:52 AM
It boils down to property rights. If you believe in them, then streaming isn't right, nor is watching illegally streamed content.

Pretty much.

IMHO channels that can be pulled via antenna should be accessible via the net for free. Cable channels is another story entirely.
Posted via Mobile Device

The issue has to do more with your local TV stations than it does with the NFL as a whole. When you stream a game online, you're viewing a number of local commercials for wherever the stream originates that aren't relevant for you. You don't count for that local market's ratings, so you don't help them generate revenue.

Conversely, you would most likely be watching another NFL game on TV if you couldn't stream it online. And obviously, you're not counting toward THEIR ratings since you're not watching. That means that you are, in effect, costing your local network channel money by watching an online stream. Sunday Ticket does the same thing, but that's part of why the national networks get some compensation for that (I believe), which I assume gets passed down to the local markets in one way or another.

I'd have no issue with local channels being broadcast for free on the web in the local markets if it were possible to control it that way. But I certainly understand why they don't just let every TV station in the country stream online.

(That said, I DO wish there were more options out there than NFLST.)

Pants
02-07-2011, 09:01 AM
So here's the original article that T'd me off. Part of me is shocked that people believe this. It's intellectually dishonest in a number of places.

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110203/22422912958/homeland-security-tries-fails-to-explain-why-seized-domains-are-different-google.shtml

Point no 1 that is pretty blatantly wrong.



This is just blatantly wrong, it's economics 101. Everyone has a marginal cost for every product. I doubt anyone has a truly zero marginal cost, if they did they probably wouldn't actually want to watch the content. If you want something you're willing to give up something for it. Maybe it's not money(which would be clearly revenue), but maybe it's time(ala advertisement). But you always are willing to pay something for that content. Hell unless you pay nothing for your internet, you are paying for the bandwidth that you then use to download the show. So clearly you are willing to pay something to watch that show and if it doesn't go to the content provider then it IS lost revenue to them. Even if it's only a few cents it's still lost revenue. Claiming that you're not costing a content provider lost revenue, no matter how small that revenue is, is dishonest.


This is a pretty atrocious argument, man. I'm willing to pay up to $10 to watch a UFC PPV event from the comfort of my home, anything higher than that and I'm just not going to watch it, becoming lost revenue for UFC/ZAFFA/whatever. What are my options?

cdcox
02-07-2011, 09:03 AM
If we could buy whichever individual games we wanted for a reasonable price, say $5, then I would have NO problem buying them.


There are 17 weeks per season and 2 slots per week. That's 34 slots. Right now DirecTV customers pay a little less than $10 per slot. They are always going to give a discount for large purchase compared to ala carte. If it does go to individual game purchases, I bet the price is $15 per game or better.

cdcox
02-07-2011, 09:08 AM
This is a pretty atrocious argument, man. I'm willing to pay up to $10 to watch a UFC PPV event from the comfort of my home, anything higher than that and I'm just not going to watch it, becoming lost revenue for UFC/ZAFFA/whatever. What are my options?

That's the thing. Those events go for what, $40 per pop? If they drop the price by a factor of 4, they need to quadruple their audience just to break even. I don't think that would happen. I'm sure they've got people figuring out the optimum price to maximize their profits.

Pants
02-07-2011, 09:13 AM
That's the thing. Those events go for what, $40 per pop? If they drop the price by a factor of 4, they need to quadruple their audience just to break even. I don't think that would happen. I'm sure they've got people figuring out the optimum price to maximize their profits.

No, I agree. I'm not saying they should drop the price, I'm just saying that Crazy's lost revenue argument is invalid. You have an option of paying $50 or going to a bar to watch an event. Whether you go to the bar or not, the UFC doesn't gain or lose anything, the bar is going to pay for the event regardless.

rad
02-07-2011, 09:57 AM
There are 17 weeks per season and 2 slots per week. That's 34 slots. Right now DirecTV customers pay a little less than $10 per slot. They are always going to give a discount for large purchase compared to ala carte. If it does go to individual game purchases, I bet the price is $15 per game or better.

$20 per gameday > $15 per gameday........option to watch 2 games > forced to pay for two....

Chiefs Rool
02-07-2011, 10:20 AM
make the shit we want to watch more accessable and not super expensive and people would be more willing to pay. How about this for a crazy idea? You like the KC Chiefs? how about a season pass with your damn cable company for just that team and pay $30 or something like that. But no, everybody is too fucking greedy and that would never happen. Want to watch your favorite team? you must pay $300 or whatever it is! FUCK YOU

patteeu
02-07-2011, 10:37 AM
It boils down to property rights. If you believe in them, then streaming isn't right, nor is watching illegally streamed content.

Property rights aren't an all or nothing proposition. If they were, then you couldn't believe in property rights and property taxes or zoning laws at the same time.

MahiMike
02-07-2011, 10:38 AM
As far as internet TV goes, I'm even cheaper than you. I just use HULU regular. For ESPN, I just go to their site. It's all just repeats and commercials on TV anyway. In order to watch Chiefs games, I use NFL replay for $39/year. Much cheaper than DirecTV and no commercials. I believe the streams are illegal. However, they're the 1st form of alternatives and will hopefully spawn to legalized channels of watching our shows.

Buck
02-07-2011, 10:42 AM
No and I don't think the NFL/MLB blackout policies are right either.

Buck
02-07-2011, 10:44 AM
Also I will never pay $50 for a PPV, but if they were $25 I'd buy every UFC and a lot of big boxing matches.

MahiMike
02-07-2011, 10:48 AM
I totally agree with the NFL blackout policy. If I go to see a movie at the theatre, why should you get to stay at home and watch for free?

patteeu
02-07-2011, 10:48 AM
Oh, and my answer to the question is no, I don't have a problem with streaming websites or with watching streams (although I've only done it myself once) as long as people aren't being charged to view the streams. I also don't have a problem with people who invite others over to their house for a superbowl party, thus denying the broadcaster some theoretical revenue.

Deberg_1990
02-07-2011, 10:52 AM
I totally agree with the NFL blackout policy. If I go to see a movie at the theatre, why should you get to stay at home and watch for free?

Well, it used to be the NFL live gameday experience was better than sitting at home and watching it on TV. Thats why fans were willing to pay.

Its already been discussed alot here, but part of why the NFL is having attendence problems is because of the experience people can get at home now trumps the live experience.

Buck
02-07-2011, 10:54 AM
I totally agree with the NFL blackout policy. If I go to see a movie at the theatre, why should you get to stay at home and watch for free?

This isn't even the same. Companies pay millions of dollars to advertise during NFL Games, and they are on Free TV channels.

CrazyPhuD
02-07-2011, 11:32 AM
No, I agree. I'm not saying they should drop the price, I'm just saying that Crazy's lost revenue argument is invalid. You have an option of paying $50 or going to a bar to watch an event. Whether you go to the bar or not, the UFC doesn't gain or lose anything, the bar is going to pay for the event regardless.

Except the bar pays for the event based upon commercial rates not residential, which means it's price is based upon it's capacity. If not enough people were to show up during the event it would become economically not worth it to the bar to offer the event and then they wouldn't.

The point of the argument is that there is some price people would pay and if they get it for free, that price is lost to the provider. It wasn't to say that option is available today, just that the argument that 'I wouldn't pay that price for it therefor me watching it for free costs no revenue' is garbage. You would pay for it if the price was right and that price is non-zero. So there is potential revenue lost. The key question is how to capture that revenue.

There are models that could enable that, BUT I have a feeling people would complain if you were to use them. One example is dynamic pricing, it's used by airlines and some concerts now. The notion is charging different prices to different people based upon what it's worth to them. Everyone would clearly be ok if they paid $10 while there neighbor paid $50 for the same PPV content. But would you be ok if you paid $50 for the content when your neighbor paid $10? Even if at the time the $50 was more than willing to be paid by you?

I'm not sure people would be, but that's how you can make this work. Another way to think about this is that you would pay X dollars for a chiefs season pass, but if you paid per game you may quite a bit more for popular matchups versus the poorer matchups. The ultimate question is if the public would accept that they paid more than their neighbor for the same content even if it was worth it to them?

Valiant
02-07-2011, 11:35 AM
We are beta testing the stream.

CrazyPhuD
02-07-2011, 11:41 AM
IMHO channels that can be pulled via antenna should be accessible via the net for free. Cable channels is another story entirely.
Posted via Mobile Device

I tend to lean this way to a degree....but there is an interesting side point here.

http://www.freeby50.com/2010/02/percent-of-households-with-cable-and.html

91% of all households have some form of cable. Which means the majority of people are paying fees for channels that they could get for free. Ad dollars are dropping and subscription revenue is becoming more important in the business. Which suggests that network TV might actually look more like cable channels.

Now if I were a network station and my costs to transmit over the air were greater than the add dollars lost to the 9% of customers who don't have cable/sat. I would be seriously looking to see if the networks would allow me to drop the transmission and deliver strictly over cable or the net.

The problem is the people who would lose access are likely the poorest of the local consumers, but if you were to take transmission off the air and then devote those frequencies to wireless internet(even if only government supported or subsidized). Imagine the potential bandwidth for other services that would be available.

Mr. Laz
02-07-2011, 11:49 AM
fuck'em ... these companies do everything they can to screw everyone out of every cent they can so what do they expect?

patteeu
02-07-2011, 12:02 PM
Except the bar pays for the event based upon commercial rates not residential, which means it's price is based upon it's capacity. If not enough people were to show up during the event it would become economically not worth it to the bar to offer the event and then they wouldn't.

The point of the argument is that there is some price people would pay and if they get it for free, that price is lost to the provider. It wasn't to say that option is available today, just that the argument that 'I wouldn't pay that price for it therefor me watching it for free costs no revenue' is garbage. You would pay for it if the price was right and that price is non-zero. So there is potential revenue lost. The key question is how to capture that revenue.

There are models that could enable that, BUT I have a feeling people would complain if you were to use them. One example is dynamic pricing, it's used by airlines and some concerts now. The notion is charging different prices to different people based upon what it's worth to them. Everyone would clearly be ok if they paid $10 while there neighbor paid $50 for the same PPV content. But would you be ok if you paid $50 for the content when your neighbor paid $10? Even if at the time the $50 was more than willing to be paid by you?

I'm not sure people would be, but that's how you can make this work. Another way to think about this is that you would pay X dollars for a chiefs season pass, but if you paid per game you may quite a bit more for popular matchups versus the poorer matchups. The ultimate question is if the public would accept that they paid more than their neighbor for the same content even if it was worth it to them?

You're right that it's "potential revenue". You're wrong about it being "lost" if there was never any method in place to capture that revenue in the first place. At least it's not lost due to streaming.

Count Zarth
02-07-2011, 12:14 PM
Why don't they try and shut down bars that show Sunday Ticket every weekend? Same fucking thing. The NFL and DirecTV aren't getting a dime of money paid for wings and beer. I used to watch the Chiefs every weekend in Dallas at a bar, and all I did was spend $10 on food.

The online stream and the bar showing games is basically the same thing.

CrazyPhuD
02-07-2011, 12:21 PM
Why don't they try and shut down bars that show Sunday Ticket every weekend? Same fucking thing. The NFL and DirecTV aren't getting a dime of money paid for wings and beer. I used to watch the Chiefs every weekend in Dallas at a bar, and all I did was spend $10 on food.

The online stream and the bar showing games is basically the same thing.

http://www.milwaukee-business-lawyer.com/do-i-need-a-directv-commercial-license-for-my-bar/

Like I said above...DTV sunday ticket has very different rates for commercial locations, they depend upon occupancy.

DirecTV has two different types of subscriptions, residential or commercial. The residential rates range from $30 per month to about $90 per month. In contrast, the minimum commercial package starts at $151.99 per month and maxes out at $361.99 depending on the size of your establishment. Add in the fact that commercial NFL Sunday Ticket prices range from $869 per season all the way to $45,799 based on your establishments fire code occupancy, you can see why business are trying to avoid paying for commercial licenses.

However, DirecTV has been making these business pay, and in a big way. Its anti-hacking website lists dozens of examples of $50,000+ settlements for violations of showing DirecTV programming without paying its commercial license rates. DirecTV also has not limited its blitzkrieg to large commercial bars, small mom and pop establishments are getting slapped down with four and five digit fines. Its main cause of action is based on 47 U.S.C. §605 “Unauthorized Publication or Use of Communications” which sets out damages of $1,000 to $100,000.

So yes streaming and your bar are pretty different things. If the streaming site were paying based upon audience then yes I agree same thing, but bars par a FAR greater price for sunday ticket than home users do.

But for sunday ticket this issue is pricing options. I was almost excited that we could get sunday ticket online this year without DTV. Until I found it was the same price as with DTV but of much less quality and no way to DVR the games. Hell if they had DVR ability I probably would have bought it but they didn't. They just need a single team subscriptions. I couldn't care less about the rest of the teams. I only want one.

Count Zarth
02-07-2011, 12:23 PM
Did not realize that. In that case I think it's pretty obvious streaming sites should be shut down.

Wonder why they don't go after torrent sites?

CrazyPhuD
02-07-2011, 12:43 PM
Did not realize that. In that case I think it's pretty obvious streaming sites should be shut down.

Wonder why they don't go after torrent sites?

Honestly for sports it's probably a much less serious issue. Sports are very time sensitive. The game has the greatest value while it's being played. After it's over and everyone knows the score, the value of the game drops substantially. I'm sure they may go after them eventually, but for sports the big cost are sites that stream them live. Movies aren't nearly as time sensitive so going after high fidelity downloads is probably just as important(or more so ) than going after low quality streaming.

One way to think about it is how often do you buy DVDs of the games after they are played?

Count Zarth
02-07-2011, 01:01 PM
Most of the people on Ten Yard Torrents treat the downloads as live games. They avoid spoilers. There's a lot of foreigners downloading games.

DJJasonp
02-07-2011, 02:23 PM
this is all about - what the networks perceive as - lost revenue.

If they knew their broadcast was going to reach 'x' number of additional viewers, they could negotiate larger prices for their advertising.

I really dont feel too bad for them. Cable providers, in many areas, represent a monopoly (a monopoly of sh***y service at that).

To give you a prime example - in San Diego, you have Cox Communications and Time Warner....depending upon where you live, you get one or the other. You do not have a choice.

To make matters worse, if you get Directv (pray you have the unobstructed south view)....you dont get the station (cox exclusive) that broadcasts the padres games.

Then, it gets even worse....if you buy the MLB package on directv - you still cant get the home games (blackout rules apply).

ala carte/on-demand is coming.....just like the music industry, they're going to need to adapt to what the market is demanding.

The Bad Guy
02-07-2011, 06:10 PM
LOL at the people that actually think NFL ala carte is going to be an option like ever.

They are always going to flat rate the sports subscriptions.

crispystl420
02-07-2011, 06:50 PM
The whole concept of Sunday Ticket is ****ed - charging people hundreds of extra dollars to watch programs that are HALF COMMERCIALS. It's not like stealing HBO - it's like being charged twice for something that's already been paid for - a penalty for daring to live your life away from your home state/area and follow your hometown team. As has been mentioned earlier, if I was only charged per game I watch it would be one thing, but I get charged for all of them, which is horseshit. I only want to watch the Chiefs. A Chiefs-only DTV package would be great. But it's not an option, because I'm sure the vast majority of people who have Sunday Ticket probably feel the same way.

I have Sunday Ticket, basically because I have no choice. I paid a lot of money for my TV setup, and I'm not going to watch some crappy, choppy streamed internet feed. However, if I didn't have the means to afford it, I wouldn't lose a second's sleep over streaming, and if I knew some sure-fire way to get around it, I'd be all over it - it's like screwing over a bank. I'm really supposed to feel bad about taking a little chunk from an organization dedicated to raping it's fans? **** 'em.

How is Sunday ticket not some form of a monopoly. There is no equal competition.

wazu
02-07-2011, 07:08 PM
In the end, the consumer always pays. :)

That's a common misconception. Did the consumer "pay" for Napster, and all that followed? What would the recording industry do? Raise their CD prices to punish customers for downloading music for free?

There will always be attempts by companies to gouge and get away with it. But the free market combined with the rule of law finds it's own balance. Now, a very reasonable $1-2 charge for the songs consumers actually want rather than dropping $18 for a full CD is a much better deal. Consumers win.

Psyko Tek
02-07-2011, 09:07 PM
So maybe...BUT only if the content providers are actually getting paid for the extra views of the commercials. I suspect they are not for two reasons, first it can be extremely difficult to estimate what the 'pirate viewership' really is and given the poor quality they may not feel that their message is appropriately displayed. Still it is an interesting case.

A company is trying just that BUT it looks like they are in trouble legally.

http://www.fierceiptv.com/story/internet-cable-company-ivi-tv-suffers-setback-court-can-it-survive/2011-01-25

The other case is quite a few of those feeds are from overseas that have no commercials. What about them? Should they have to police the links to prevent overseas feeds?

yes I agree on the over seas with no commercials
and I had not thought of the local loss on commercials
love to see an alacarte system for games buy what you want internet ort cable

sooner or later there will be no difference between cable and interweb. but you bet your ass direct TV is gonna hold on to the sunday ticket as long as possible

CrazyPhuD
02-07-2011, 09:23 PM
That's a common misconception. Did the consumer "pay" for Napster, and all that followed? What would the recording industry do? Raise their CD prices to punish customers for downloading music for free?

There will always be attempts by companies to gouge and get away with it. But the free market combined with the rule of law finds it's own balance. Now, a very reasonable $1-2 charge for the songs consumers actually want rather than dropping $18 for a full CD is a much better deal. Consumers win.

Actually you pay for it too just in different ways. As Dane has lamented, the quality of musical arists has gone down significantly from the heyday. Part of that is due to the profitability of the industry. The more profitable you are the more risks you can take and the longer you can let acts grow and develop. If your margin's drop you have to do more 'sure things' to make sure you don't lose money. As a result you get alot more generic cookie cutter content. The same type of thing happens with TV too.

Why do you think there is so much reality tv on right now? Part of it is because it is cheaper to create that content than some of the more scripted shows. Now there are some interesting high cost reality shows. But there also is a whole lot of crap too. More reality shows and rehashing of old shows are part of what you expect when you need to take fewer risks.

You actually want the content producers to make a whole lot of money because the more the make, the more interesting content they produce. You just want to make the system more efficient and cut out the middleman so the end user pays less(if you can practically). You just have to be careful to cut out the right fat...not the stuff that still adds significant value.

CoMoChief
02-07-2011, 09:34 PM
Companies are not providing the product that consumers want. I want to watch Chiefs games. I don't care to watch 15 other games every single week. I want to watch Miami Heat games. I don't care to watch 2,000+ other NBA games. If all cable/satellite/internet providers offered packages where I can subscribe to the team(s) I want to watch, and not have to pay for an entire league pass full of games I don't care about, then I'd pay. Until they, the SERVICE providers, offer what consumers want then it's their fault, IMO.

while that seems awesome...there's no way (for many reasons) why that will never happen.

CrazyPhuD
02-07-2011, 09:37 PM
yes I agree on the over seas with no commercials
and I had not thought of the local loss on commercials
love to see an alacarte system for games buy what you want internet ort cable

sooner or later there will be no difference between cable and interweb. but you bet your ass direct TV is gonna hold on to the sunday ticket as long as possible

Here's my honest take on what will happen to the current industry. IMO it's not a matter of if, but when. Satellite is toast. Cable is going to go through major changes. I believe they will turn from cable companies into bandwidth providers. Much like you have your phone companies trying to turn into internet companies/tv companies because the traditional landline business is failing. Satellite loses because it can't easier convert into a broadband company.

At some point you separate content from distribution. That is when everything changes. The question is when. Could be next year...or could be 10 years from now. But it requires bandwidth issues to be resolved.

I worry that in the rush to make everything cheap we'll stop making things good. It's like the rest of our world. There is no doubt that stuff made in china is cheap. But it's also true that alot of times it's crap too. Cheap/free isn't always good.

DaneMcCloud
02-08-2011, 12:59 AM
Here's my honest take on what will happen to the current industry. IMO it's not a matter of if, but when. Satellite is toast. Cable is going to go through major changes. I believe they will turn from cable companies into bandwidth providers. Much like you have your phone companies trying to turn into internet companies/tv companies because the traditional landline business is failing. Satellite loses because it can't easier convert into a broadband company.

At some point you separate content from distribution. That is when everything changes. The question is when. Could be next year...or could be 10 years from now. But it requires bandwidth issues to be resolved.

I worry that in the rush to make everything cheap we'll stop making things good. It's like the rest of our world. There is no doubt that stuff made in china is cheap. But it's also true that alot of times it's crap too. Cheap/free isn't always good.

Once Fiber Optics are in place and available to everyone in the US (not just a few select cities), the internet will virtually change overnight. You'll be able to stream gigabytes of information per second.

The method of the delivery will change (Fiber versus satellite, coaxial cable, etc.) but the companies that provide those services (Verizon, ATT, Time Warner, etc.) will not.

So in the end, not much will really change.

CrazyPhuD
02-08-2011, 01:36 AM
Once Fiber Optics are in place and available to everyone in the US (not just a few select cities), the internet will virtually change overnight. You'll be able to stream gigabytes of information per second.

The method of the delivery will change (Fiber versus satellite, coaxial cable, etc.) but the companies that provide those services (Verizon, ATT, Time Warner, etc.) will not.

So in the end, not much will really change.

While it would be nice, I doubt it'll be that simple. There are quite a few technical challenges to making that a reality. Even if you were to run fiber to every house and provide gigabit last mile speeds it still wouldn't address all of the issues. Why? Because the problem actually isn't the last mile, it's the core of the network that's running short on capacity for hi-fidelity video.

Consider that during peak hours, 37% of the entire web's bandwidth is consumed by web based video.

http://techcrunch.com/2010/11/19/web-video-37-percent-internet-traffic/

This is with relatively small penetration of IPTV services. There are some creative solutions with CDN and caching that will help here. But one other major issue is that there is a distinct lack of investment in core internet infrastructure. Why because the mobile networks are much higher returns so the money they have they will spend to build mobile networks rather than backbone capacity.

Which then begs the other capacity, how much of the traffic will stay on landline and how much will be mobile. We already have significant issues today with rather pitiful mobile bandwidth consumption. The era of 'free bandwidth' may still be significantly far away.

We'll see but one of the interesting(and prudent moves) from a protection point of view is seeing comcast moving to be a content producer rather than just a distributor. Now we'll see if they start locking content to certain networks or not.

DaneMcCloud
02-08-2011, 12:25 PM
While it would be nice, I doubt it'll be that simple.

I have a friend (well, he's engaged to my wife's friend of 35 years) that's an engineer at AT&T that's says that's exactly what they're doing and it'll be available in a few short years. We had a long discussion about it in Cabo last year and it was truly eye-opening.

As for projecting what Comcast will do now that they're also a content provider, I'd expect them to license their programming to anyone and everyone they can. They'll be even bigger whores than NBC because they'll need as much legal income as possible.

I won't be surprised if new services begin popping up in the next few years that rival Google & Apple's plans.