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

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?

listopencil · 07-27-2011, 12:08 PM

**** 'em. I have had nothing but broadcast TV for years.

mnchiefsguy · 07-27-2011, 12:12 PM

This is a dumb move. Rather than just watch them at the Fox site, this will just push people to download more. I don't have a problem with that, especially since these programs are the ones Fox broadcasts over the airways that the public owns...so downloading the shows from another source would be the same as using a DVR or VCR to record the shows for later viewing.

**chasedude** · 07-27-2011, 12:18 PM

People will just download torrents from other users capturing (recording) the show. I do it this way to avoid the moronic commercials.

Fish · 07-27-2011, 12:19 PM

This is just the beginning for sure. Media entertainment providers are going to have a very difficult time in the next few years. They're going to be juggling with keeping their declining customer base, while still finding ways to fuel their financial greed.

Valiant · 07-27-2011, 12:34 PM

Meh..

If you are too lazy to dvr or watch it, why should these companies provide it for free online with their resources?? I find what they are doing is fine as long as you only have to prove you pay for cable/dtv. Now if they try to charging paying customersfor it I understand using alternative routes. But really just dvrit.

One thing I would do if I worked for the tv companies. Pay someone to attack torrent sites. Set up trojans/viruses with fake torrents to cast more doubt and misstrust on them. Hell most people that use them do not have the precautions to protect themselves..

ChiefsFanatic · 07-27-2011, 02:39 PM

Do they know about Piratebay? If your show isn't available on the Bay the next day, you know it sucks. The Pirate Bay is like a ratings system.

allen_kcCard · 07-27-2011, 02:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chasedude

People will just download torrents from other users capturing (recording) the show. I do it this way to avoid the moronic commercials.

Agreed

**loochy** · 07-27-2011, 02:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChiefsFanatic

Do they know about Piratebay? If your show isn't available on the Bay the next day, you know it sucks. The Pirate Bay is like a ratings system.

this.

ElGringo · 07-27-2011, 03:36 PM

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).

Deberg_1990 · 07-27-2011, 03:47 PM

Torrent sites would be ok, except that alot of carriers are implementing data caps.

ElGringo · 07-27-2011, 03:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deberg_1990

Torrent sites would be ok, except that alot of carriers are implementing data caps.

I don't quite get this either, watching the show streaming is the same amount of data flow as downloading a torrent is it not? Watching the shows on-line (in my mind) would use the same amount of data flow as downloading a torrent (please correct me as I have heard of this but don't full understand it)

Deberg_1990 · 07-27-2011, 04:10 PM

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....

Hammock Parties · 07-27-2011, 04:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deberg_1990

Torrent sites would be ok, except that alot of carriers are implementing data caps.

So?

One episode of a TV show can be as little as 350 MB.

Deberg_1990 · 07-27-2011, 04:20 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....

Oops I meant gig, not meg...

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, 12:08 PM	#2
listopencil Immanentize The Eschaton Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: In Partibus Infidelium Casino cash: $2235880	**** 'em. I have had nothing but broadcast TV for years. __________________ Good friends we have had, oh, good friends we've lost...along the way. In this great future, you can't forget your past. So dry your tears, I say.
Posts: 55,945

07-27-2011, 12:12 PM	#3
mnchiefsguy MVP Join Date: Dec 2003 Casino cash: $3516206	This is a dumb move. Rather than just watch them at the Fox site, this will just push people to download more. I don't have a problem with that, especially since these programs are the ones Fox broadcasts over the airways that the public owns...so downloading the shows from another source would be the same as using a DVR or VCR to record the shows for later viewing.
Posts: 10,121

07-27-2011, 12:18 PM	#4
chasedude Supporter Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: St. Joe Casino cash: $10004900	People will just download torrents from other users capturing (recording) the show. I do it this way to avoid the moronic commercials.
Posts: 36,287

07-27-2011, 12:19 PM	#5
Fish Ain't no relax! Join Date: Sep 2005 Casino cash: $2288919	This is just the beginning for sure. Media entertainment providers are going to have a very difficult time in the next few years. They're going to be juggling with keeping their declining customer base, while still finding ways to fuel their financial greed. __________________
Posts: 47,515

07-27-2011, 12:34 PM	#6
Valiant Valiant 'The Thread Killer' Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: Kansas City Casino cash: $6422380	Meh.. If you are too lazy to dvr or watch it, why should these companies provide it for free online with their resources?? I find what they are doing is fine as long as you only have to prove you pay for cable/dtv. Now if they try to charging paying customersfor it I understand using alternative routes. But really just dvrit. One thing I would do if I worked for the tv companies. Pay someone to attack torrent sites. Set up trojans/viruses with fake torrents to cast more doubt and misstrust on them. Hell most people that use them do not have the precautions to protect themselves..
Posts: 18,352

07-27-2011, 02:39 PM	#7
ChiefsFanatic DeadPunisher Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Blue Springs, MO. 64014 Casino cash: $3259205	Do they know about Piratebay? If your show isn't available on the Bay the next day, you know it sucks. The Pirate Bay is like a ratings system.
Posts: 7,395

07-27-2011, 03:36 PM	#10
ElGringo Veteran Join Date: May 2008 Location: Shreveport, La Casino cash: $9985100	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).
Posts: 1,196

07-27-2011, 03:47 PM	#11
Deberg_1990 In Search of a Life Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: San Antonio Tx. Casino cash: $3914454	Torrent sites would be ok, except that alot of carriers are implementing data caps.
Posts: 66,914

07-27-2011, 04:10 PM	#13
Deberg_1990 In Search of a Life Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: San Antonio Tx. Casino cash: $3914454	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....
Posts: 66,914