Movies and TV Fox challenges cord-cutters by sticking TV shows behind paywall - Page 2

Deberg_1990 · 07-27-2011, 12:04 PM

Well this blows...the other Networks are not far behind....

http://arstechnica.com/media/news/20...nd-paywall.ars

Those who enjoy Fox shows such as Family Guy, Glee, or The Simpsons will soon have to wait an extra eight days if they want to watch new episodes online—or prove that they're a paying cable or satellite subscriber. Fox made the announcement on Tuesday, saying that it would begin putting next-day streams of popular shows behind a paywall.

The changes go into effect on August 15. At that time, Fox and Hulu will stop putting Fox's shows up the day after they air on broadcast TV. Instead, those who subscribe to the DISH Network service will be able to log into DISH's website in order to "authenticate" themselves and see the shows immediately online. The company says that DISH will be the first partner for the new system, but that other cable and satellite providers will be "coming soon." Paying Hulu Plus subscribers will also be able to log into Hulu and see the shows the day after they air.

Those who don't subscribe to cable, satellite, or Hulu Plus will have to wait more than a week before their favorite shows come online—assuming those viewers don't watch those shows for free (with ads) when they broadcast on normal television. Indeed, the fastest way to see the latest Glee would be to watch it the old-fashioned way (or on a DVR), but Internet users have become accustomed to finding their shows online the day (or sometimes a few days) after broadcast. In fact, that was practically the entire reason for Hulu's launch: it offered Internet users a way to watch their favorite shows soon after they aired, but on demand and on the Internet, while providers were able to make some extra ad dollars from users who were not watching their shows on broadcast TV to begin with.

Needless to say, fans of Fox shows aren't happy with the news, and Fox knows it. "We understand that there may be consumers that are unhappy," Fox's president of affiliate sales Mike Hopkins told the Wall Street Journal. "If this works, you're going to see a lot more content online."

And it's likely that Fox is just the beginning. ABC is reportedly considering the same move, according to "people with knowledge of the discussions" speaking to the New York Times, and the WSJ says that CBS has also supposedly engaged in such talks with TV providers. In an e-mailed note seen by Broadcasting & Cable, Bernstein Research analyst Craig Moffett implied Fox's move was a signal of things to come for online video, calling it an "unmistakable straw in the wind."

What caused Fox, and presumably others, to become gun-shy about putting ad-supported content online for free? "We're concerned that cord-cutting is going to be a problem," Hopkins said. The networks have long feared a small but growing group of Internet users who have completely ditched their TV subscriptions in favor of over-the-air and online video; the Convergence Consulting Group published a report last year saying that cord-cutters represent less than three percent of those who watched TV online in 2009, but that number was expected to double by 2011.

Six percent or less is still a small fraction of the overall market, and a recent survey revealed that a large majority of people keep their cable or satellite subscriptions around so they can watch live sports. So, while cord-cutting may be en vogue among Internet hipsters (I say this with love, as I cut the cord five years ago), most of America seems to be fine with taking things slow. It doesn't seem like Fox has anything to worry about just yet, but it's no secret that the online ad market is nowhere near as blingy as the broadcast ad market.

Because of this, TV networks have turned to partnerships with cable or satellite networks in order to promote both offerings and force users to stay dependent on TV subscriptions—a risky move to push on those who are already leaning away from subscription TV. When it's still so easy to find high-definition TV shows—next day and without ads—on P2P networks like BitTorrent, what motivation does a cord-cutter have to begin forking over a monthly fee again?

ElGringo · 07-27-2011, 04:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deberg_1990

I think a two hour movie streamed from something like Netflix is 3 or 4 Meg. I would guess a bit torrent size would vary wildly depending on the source and quality. I don't know much about torrents though admittedly....

If this were true, you would be correct, a movie from netflix is considerably lower than a torrent (average for 2 hour movie standard def is 700MB). I was wondering how Netflix got it down so low, and googled it.

Quote:

The company admits that "there is some lessening of picture quality with these new settings" but insists that "the experience continues to be great." Customers can manually switch their accounts to two higher levels of service, "Better" (0.7GB per hour) and "Best" (1GB per hour with standard definition content, 2.3GB per hour for HD content).

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/n...ming-video.ars

Albeit this is from 4 months ago, I doubt it has changed that much which means at "better" quality it would be about 1.4 GB for a standard 2 hour movie.

Discuss Thrower · 07-27-2011, 05:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deberg_1990

Oops I meant gig, not meg...

I was gonna say that seems more than a little less than it should.

On that note, **** bandwidth caps. The big boys are making enough money to increase their fiber lines so it shouldn't be a problem.

Valiant · 07-27-2011, 08:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ElGringo

This also wouldn't make a difference for me as I do not live in the U.S. As stated earlier, this will just drive more people to use torrents, not only piratebay but others as well.

As for the person who suggested attacking the torrent sites, I also believe that this would end up with the networks themselves going to court for unfair practices. As much as they are trying to bring torrent sites down (mainly piratebay) these sights are operating within the law of their governing countries. What you are suggesting is someone create a malicious attack against a perfectly legal site (and you are probably the same type of person that says pirating is wrong).

Meh.. It would be genius of them.. The people are not their customers anyway.. All it would do would screw over millions of people who did not properly secure their computer when downloading the torrents.. What are they going to go to the authorities in the US and tell them.. Sir I was downloading movies and tv shows and Fox put up fake torrents to give me viruses??

I know, I know.. The stations gave me a way to get the shows by DVRing them or proving I paid for them through hulu/netflix/cable/satellite, but I am lazy..

Man.. If every single person would just pirate the tv shows it would be solved.. I mean revenue from tv ads, no wait.. revenue for netflix, no wait, shit they will make money somehow..

You want to pirate some movie/tv show that is not available through legal means then great.. But pirating available stuff that is freely/cheaply and legally obtainable through easy methods is stupid..

**pr_capone** · 07-27-2011, 10:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-Town Fan 1988

I was gonna say that seems more than a little less than it should.

On that note, **** bandwidth caps. The big boys are making enough money to increase their fiber lines so it shouldn't be a problem.

Do you have the ****ing foggiest idea how much fiber lines cost? How much you have to pay a specialized tech to put them in? And lastly, the sheer mind blowing amount of HFC/Fiber Only lines they have to put down?

Silock · 07-27-2011, 10:55 PM

Haha **** that. Torrents FTW.

Valiant · 07-28-2011, 09:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pr_capone

Do you have the ****ing foggiest idea how much fiber lines cost? How much you have to pay a specialized tech to put them in? And lastly, the sheer mind blowing amount of HFC/Fiber Only lines they have to put down?

They pay for themselves in a couple years. And as long as crooks dont steal the non-existent copper in the lines they should be good for a while. That is the biggest problem for them. People cutting cables and theft of them.

MOhillbilly · 07-28-2011, 09:38 AM

tv is ****in stoopid anyway. God bless trees, sunshine, creeks, grass, and dirt.

Discuss Thrower · 07-28-2011, 10:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pr_capone

Do you have the ****ing foggiest idea how much fiber lines cost? How much you have to pay a specialized tech to put them in? And lastly, the sheer mind blowing amount of HFC/Fiber Only lines they have to put down?

More than you realize. Family business is in telecoms.

ElGringo · 07-28-2011, 11:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Valiant

Meh.. It would be genius of them.. The people are not their customers anyway.. All it would do would screw over millions of people who did not properly secure their computer when downloading the torrents.. What are they going to go to the authorities in the US and tell them.. Sir I was downloading movies and tv shows and Fox put up fake torrents to give me viruses??

I know, I know.. The stations gave me a way to get the shows by DVRing them or proving I paid for them through hulu/netflix/cable/satellite, but I am lazy..

Man.. If every single person would just pirate the tv shows it would be solved.. I mean revenue from tv ads, no wait.. revenue for netflix, no wait, shit they will make money somehow..

You want to pirate some movie/tv show that is not available through legal means then great.. But pirating available stuff that is freely/cheaply and legally obtainable through easy methods is stupid..

I really don't disagree with them putting up fake torrents (some movie studios already do this). What I was disagreeing with was an all out attack on the pirate sites. What I download is not available to me legally, so you would have no problem with what I do. And for the attacks on sites (namely thepiratebay) these sites are operating legally within their own country (some anyway).

Param · 07-29-2011, 12:07 AM

Fox is free, so I can watch it anytime.

Live sports, on the other hand, is what takes work to find.

Skyy God · 07-29-2011, 01:26 PM

Watched Bob's Burgers on my JB Apple TV (thanks, Fish) last night.

Keep going the music industry route, networks, see how that works out.

Fish · 07-29-2011, 01:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pittsie

Watched Bob's Burgers on my JB Apple TV (thanks, Fish) last night.

Keep going the music industry route, networks, see how that works out.

Oi oi! How's it working for ya?

07-27-2011, 12:04 PM
Deberg_1990 In Search of a Life Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: San Antonio Tx. Casino cash: $3914454	Fox challenges cord-cutters by sticking TV shows behind paywall Well this blows...the other Networks are not far behind.... http://arstechnica.com/media/news/20...nd-paywall.ars Those who enjoy Fox shows such as Family Guy, Glee, or The Simpsons will soon have to wait an extra eight days if they want to watch new episodes online—or prove that they're a paying cable or satellite subscriber. Fox made the announcement on Tuesday, saying that it would begin putting next-day streams of popular shows behind a paywall. The changes go into effect on August 15. At that time, Fox and Hulu will stop putting Fox's shows up the day after they air on broadcast TV. Instead, those who subscribe to the DISH Network service will be able to log into DISH's website in order to "authenticate" themselves and see the shows immediately online. The company says that DISH will be the first partner for the new system, but that other cable and satellite providers will be "coming soon." Paying Hulu Plus subscribers will also be able to log into Hulu and see the shows the day after they air. Those who don't subscribe to cable, satellite, or Hulu Plus will have to wait more than a week before their favorite shows come online—assuming those viewers don't watch those shows for free (with ads) when they broadcast on normal television. Indeed, the fastest way to see the latest Glee would be to watch it the old-fashioned way (or on a DVR), but Internet users have become accustomed to finding their shows online the day (or sometimes a few days) after broadcast. In fact, that was practically the entire reason for Hulu's launch: it offered Internet users a way to watch their favorite shows soon after they aired, but on demand and on the Internet, while providers were able to make some extra ad dollars from users who were not watching their shows on broadcast TV to begin with. Needless to say, fans of Fox shows aren't happy with the news, and Fox knows it. "We understand that there may be consumers that are unhappy," Fox's president of affiliate sales Mike Hopkins told the Wall Street Journal. "If this works, you're going to see a lot more content online." And it's likely that Fox is just the beginning. ABC is reportedly considering the same move, according to "people with knowledge of the discussions" speaking to the New York Times, and the WSJ says that CBS has also supposedly engaged in such talks with TV providers. In an e-mailed note seen by Broadcasting & Cable, Bernstein Research analyst Craig Moffett implied Fox's move was a signal of things to come for online video, calling it an "unmistakable straw in the wind." What caused Fox, and presumably others, to become gun-shy about putting ad-supported content online for free? "We're concerned that cord-cutting is going to be a problem," Hopkins said. The networks have long feared a small but growing group of Internet users who have completely ditched their TV subscriptions in favor of over-the-air and online video; the Convergence Consulting Group published a report last year saying that cord-cutters represent less than three percent of those who watched TV online in 2009, but that number was expected to double by 2011. Six percent or less is still a small fraction of the overall market, and a recent survey revealed that a large majority of people keep their cable or satellite subscriptions around so they can watch live sports. So, while cord-cutting may be en vogue among Internet hipsters (I say this with love, as I cut the cord five years ago), most of America seems to be fine with taking things slow. It doesn't seem like Fox has anything to worry about just yet, but it's no secret that the online ad market is nowhere near as blingy as the broadcast ad market. Because of this, TV networks have turned to partnerships with cable or satellite networks in order to promote both offerings and force users to stay dependent on TV subscriptions—a risky move to push on those who are already leaning away from subscription TV. When it's still so easy to find high-definition TV shows—next day and without ads—on P2P networks like BitTorrent, what motivation does a cord-cutter have to begin forking over a monthly fee again?
Posts: 66,914

07-27-2011, 10:55 PM	#20
Silock MVP Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Overland Park Casino cash: $10020882	Haha **** that. Torrents FTW.
Posts: 19,908

07-28-2011, 09:38 AM	#22
MOhillbilly Mama Tried Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Missouri Casino cash: $9949903	tv is ****in stoopid anyway. God bless trees, sunshine, creeks, grass, and dirt. __________________ True Son of Liberty
Posts: 23,371

07-29-2011, 12:07 AM	#25
Param Veteran Join Date: Jul 2009 Casino cash: $10005218	Fox is free, so I can watch it anytime. Live sports, on the other hand, is what takes work to find.
Posts: 2,173

07-29-2011, 01:26 PM	#26
Skyy God 11-5, baby Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: Livin the dream Casino cash: $2191557	Watched Bob's Burgers on my JB Apple TV (thanks, Fish) last night. Keep going the music industry route, networks, see how that works out.
Posts: 22,416