Slashdot Mirror
CBS, NBC to Offer TV Shows for 99 Cents
According to an AP report. "CBS and NBC have announced deals to offer replays of prime-time programs for 99 cents per episode, shifting television toward a sales model that gained popularity with downloaded music." But the shows will only be available over Comcast on Demand, not for download.
For the cost of fifty shows you can just get a Tivo.
NBC's offering will be through DirecTV. CBS will be through Comcast.
We had our Comcast person hooking up a phone line to let the cable box talk to their service. At the last minute he asked, "do you have DSL?" We did, and now it looks like we have to use the actual phone to order OnDemand shows. We never have, since it's such a pain, though we constantly watch the free ones, expecially the kid shows.
Of course, eMule works fine with DSL and the price of t.v. shows from that venue are quite competitive. For some reason, using the Internet as my Tivo doesn't fill me with a twinge of guilt.
First comes mainstream TV on the net.
Then comes internet only TV.
On-demand, lower broadcast costs, and the replacement of 'public access' with equal opportunity online broadcasts all push internet video over it's ancient predecesor.
It's only a matter of time until the TV joins the newspaper in it's slow walk to the grave.
Mooniacs for iOS and Android
I'm willing to bet they will push DC to enact laws that may recording TV illegal. Kiss your Tivo goodbye. This is just them being able to tell everyone, look people can get the TV show after it plays for a fair price, they shouldn't be able to record it on their own.
Error: Sig not found.
you can watch your ipod show over and over. The Comcast deal is $0.99 per play.
Channels like HBO and Showtime offer all of their programming free to subscribers on Comcast In Demand.
What makes time-shifting Survivor worth 99 cents when I can time-shift The Sopranos for free?
... $0.99 seems good, until you realize that this is a rental, not a purchase.
...
Rental schemes in the music industry have yet to take off (Napster? Yahoo music?). iTunes provides ownership, which I think is a cause of it's popularity
From the article "The new DirecTV DVR comes with a hard drive that holds 160 hours of programming. One hundred hours are available for subscribers to record and store programs. The remaining 60 hours will be used by DirecTV to download programs that can be viewed on demand for an extra fee."
So they are recording a few shows from NBC, push them to your PVR, then let you pay money to watch them. Are you able to record them using the PVR in the first place for free? Or does the software prevent you. IF they prevent you from recording them yourself, this could be a preview of the boradcast flag, well a proprietary version of it.
Which means, to make ourselves clear, neither of these are IP downloads.
or until DirecTV cancels MPEG-2 service, but i tell you what, i'm going to run my hacked DirecTiVo until the wheels fall off - screw everyone else and their lameastic ideas.
My Hacked DirecTiVo works 1 step simple to get any show i want with my iPod (now, with Video), doesn't cost me per play, works great with my Mac, and doesn't have any DRM.
These things are going to be insanely valuable in years to come because of their incredible feature set, lack of DRM, and compatibility with so many other devices.
meanwhile, newer systems are going to be less and less useful and less interesting to me. HDTV doesn't make my skirt fly up compared to a well written show or good coverage of a hockey game... neither of which requires higher resolution.
guns kill people like spoons make Rosie O'Donnell fat.
I misread your question. The cost difference is $1.00. Comcast is offering their product (with commercials) for $0.99 while Apple is offering their product (without commercials) for $1.99. Again, the Apple download can be viewed multiple times, whereas Comcast is essentially rebroadcasting for your viewing pleasure at a time more convenient for you. You are paying for the service of the rebroadcasting, not a downloadable product.
Me: OK - now I have my DVR so I can record shows.
Satellite company: Hey, but if you miss a show, you can download it to your DVR!
Me: Uh - that sounds pretty good. How much?
Satellite company: $0.99!
Me: Great - that's a better price than iTunes! So I can download it and watch it on my computer while I'm traveling -
Satellite company: No, you have to watch it at home.
Me: Oh. So can I sync it to my [insert portable video device here]?
Satellite company: No, you can watch it at home.
Me: But - could I just record the show with my DVR then? You know - the whole reason why I got a DVR?
Satellite company: You could, right until we decide that you can't record any shows you can buy. Isn't that swell?
Me: I knew there was a reason why I only use basic cable. This "digital crap but only through our proprietary boxes" is for losers.
Of course, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong.
52 Weeks, 52 Religions with John Hummel
CBS and NBC have announced deals to offer replays of prime-time programs for 99 cents per episode
I remember when cable TV first appeared, and nearly every channel that existed did this for a monthly fee instead of per-episode. It was
called "syndication".
shifting television toward a sales model that gained popularity with downloaded music
Minus the entire computer this time.
With the Comcast deal, you buy an episode for $0.99 and you can watch it as much as you want until the next episode airs, at which point it becomes inaccessible. This is the same VOD model they use for most of their programs: build in an expiration date, much like a video rental.
For more information, click here.
This is proof that the Networks still don't understand this whole "internet" thing at all.
1. While downloading for iPod is mentioned in the article, NBC and CBS are referring to OnDemand (same ol' crap that cable companies have been pushing for years) with their set top boxes.
2. The article says that 99 cents is the cost, but it includes commercials. So you're paying $1 to watch a free show WITH commercials.
3. NBC still believes there "aren't enough protections" to put their content on the internet.
These guys don't realize that their shows are mediocre at best and placing any higher threshold on watching them will actually DECREASE viewers, not increase it. I'm not going to pay extra to watch a show with commercials (which you probably can't skip).
Apple's solution for $1.99 adds the benefit of watching it where you want and without commercials. It's great for the occasional missed episode that I can catch up with while traveling.
I've never used OnDemand TV (whether Cable or Satellite) and this won't be any different.
I pay for cable, which technically pays for all the shows that are broadcast during the month when I have access. And then if I miss a show, they want me to pay again to see it? Like people are actually going to pay twice to see a show, rather then buying a PVR or hacking up a free one themselves?
Honestly, I have no idea how the cable industry can explain how this business model will work now that PVRs are becoming popular.
It doesn't even make sense. People know they don't own the shows they watch, unlike they do with the music they download. If the cable industry wants to copy the music industry, then they would have to let people pay for shows al la carte, and give them access to that same episode as many times as they want. But then the industry wouldn't be able to charge for those huge DVD episode packs, nor if people recorded movies would people ever need to buy DVDs in general. That's not going to happen.
But then again, the point may be to simply capitalize on the millions of people out there who forget to do things. HUGE amounts of money are made from people who forget to cancel subscriptions, who return rented movies late, or who don't know anything about how simple it is to same money by using a free program on their computers. I guess if they really think this is going to work, then there must be a LOT of people who don't own PVRs and who forget to watch shows, that they would be willing to pay 99c to be able to see.
The water has turned out to be warm after all.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
You can watch excellent content even through the Winamp media library, using a simple mix of efficient audio and video codecs for streaming. Alo, an interesting mailing list post in this respect (companies being slow to deliver real time video)
Don't worry, it won't last. Don't expect any network to restrict themselve to only a single distribution channel of paying customers. Soon enough everything will be available everywhere.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
Honestly, this looks ready to fail. Why don't these guys ever get it?
Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
While this is a step in the right direction, I think they still miss the big picture.
"My" DVR box is very convenient. I time shift shows and then erase them.
But when it comes to movies, I'm one of those people that likes to own the movies I very much like, just like books or music. I like to have it close at hand for reference, entertainment, whatever.
Now I realize that they're not selling movies yet, but maybe at some point they will.
The question is, why would I pay for a show twice, if I'm not gonna own it?
I pay for it with my cable subscription, and then again to rent it. That's not a very good value proposition (if I understand the buzzword correctly).
With iTunes I at least, get to keep my shows and some day hopefully movies.
They're not thinking "How can we increase our value to the consumer" but rather "How can we extract even more money out of them?" (Notice that these shows are not downloadable over the net, they go directly to your DVR.)
And that brings me to the second point. I like storing stuff on my PC. I've got all of my data there, my music, pr0n, whatever. I don't want to keep track of different devices for my collections...
If you don't know what AltaVista is (was), get off my lawn.
Its about time to face facts, people in general do not consider content to have the value that the companies would like to claim. I would suggest that a rough acceptable tariff for downloadable content would look like:
In addition I would suggest that people expect a licence to the content to mean they have a right to that content in any form with no extra licence costs. DRM might exist, but it can never interfere with the customer enjoying their property.I'll guess that there are rewards for the first company to realise where the market is going and act accordingly. People expect that the quality will not be there, and are unwilling to pay up on spec. Its a mass product market, not a premium product market.
Why pay to watch it once when you can just TiVO it and be done? Maybe this is what the broadcast flag thing is all about. All TV will become pay-per-view.
DUH!
2 cents,
Queen B
HDGary secures my bank
The Daily Show/Colbert Report is the big stumbling block for me.
*dramatically shakes fist* Damn you Jon Stewart!
I am getting excited about the shift towards internet viewing, and would actually prefer cheap rental over buying for video, and as a consumer don't really care about rented material being highly DRM'ed (purchased is anothering).
But this particular service isn't all that exciting. You need to have DirectTV's or Comcast's DVR already in order to use the service. That means that I could have been recording these shows and watching them whenever I wanted.
The price wouldn't be too bad on it's own. I figure that reasonable internet rental prices prices are $0.50 for a 20 minute show, $1.00 for a 40 minute show, and $2.00 for a movie. But this is on top of the $50-70 dollars that you are already paying for cable or satelite. I have already payed to watch these shows, I am not going to pay again.
Bingo. The difference between iTunes and cable though is that most iTunes users already have the bandwidth, paid for originally with your stolen tax dollars for decades, and now paid for you monthly. Let's take away your DSL or cable and try to sell you iTunes for $39.99 / month (includes free Internet!) and $0.99 per song. This changes things greatly.
I'm not asking the cable company for free hardlines to my trailer. I'm asking for them to offer it free once they've recouped the expenses of rolling it out (if ever). I'd rather receive the On-Demand over IP if possible, but I don't see it happening any time soon. I honestly hate BitTorrent and Limewire (too slow, too long to find anything, too low quality in general). What P2P are people using for movies and TV shows?
Seriously, this is just a marketing move by these networks. In no way is this service different than what subscribers could already do with the equipment necessary to participate in the new service, except now they have the option of paying for it. I really hope people don't take too much advantage of this, so that the iTunes version of business can shine more brightly. Then again, there are a lot of idiots paying ridiculous prices for digital cable these days, what's a few more $0.99's tacked on top?
I think its entirely possible either these deals were in the works before the iTVS went public, so they just seem late, or else they are bids by these networks to have firmer footing in negotiations with Steve Jobs to offer their content through iTunes. Although why they would go with a lower pricepoint, I have no idea. I guess this scheme would have made more sense if they'd gone for a larger price. The article I read did not indicate how DRM'ed to death the episodes would be (as far as expiration and portability) but that might be a factor for negotiations. They may be opting for a 'but we already have an on-demand contract that works just fine for us' approach in order to get a larger percentage cut of the profit.
You say you got a real solution
Well, you know
We'd all love to see the plan
(The Beatles)
Actually this is not true. The article says Comcast on Demand customers can use the service. Cable on demand is not like satellite on demand. They truly have servers in the headend like a big TiVo machine. The viewer can watch the show whenever and as often as they want and have pause, fast forward, and rewind capability. Having said all of this, I believe that I would still opt for the TiVo option.
If you have a working MythTV box, couldn't you just record the episode when it airs instead of paying $1 the next day to rent it? Then you can strip out the program to get to the commercials you want to see.
For more information, click here.
Oh how wrong you are.
They're turning alright... Just in the other direction. This is the first step towards requiring payment for timeshifting. Want to record that show to your DVR or VCR? You have to pay. This is the beginning of the networks trying to get people back in their seats watching only one show in any particular prime time slot so their current ratings and advertisment rate paridigm will continue to work. You're *not* the customer, you're the product, and your eyes are being sold to the advertizers.
The television infrastructure in the US could be SO MUCH better than it is if it weren't for the rampant money grab these idiots are making on a daily basis. Instead of serving the customer they are serving the shareholders. It didn't used to be this way. It used to be a two way street where the networks actually made programs that people wanted to watch and in exchange people saw commercials for products they might actually be interested. Here we are 60-some years later and we are deluged with MORE advertising than ever and it's for shady loan companies, fly-by-night weight loss formulas (read "snakeoil") and 900 numbers for every kind of moronic obsession from fortune telling to phone sex. Any why? Because it makes a very small group of people very rich. They are no longer serving the customers. If they were they wouldn't be misinforming and making people dumber with crap programming and the advertising of products that are just barely legal.
I remember once reading the excited statements of the early engineers behind television in the 20th century. They believed (much like the internet in the 80s and 90s) that this new and wonderful technology would be used to bring culture, education and entertainment to the masses. They envisioned visual travelogues, remote classrooms, orchstral, operatic and stage productions being brought into people's living rooms. A populace with access to high quality content to enrich their minds and their lives. So we have the poorest funded public television network (PBS) that has to rely on donations because good quality television isn't profitable. Just like good quality internet resources aren't profitable.
It's not just the content that's crap. It's also the service. When I was growing up TV was percieved as "free" entertainment because you could just buy a TV and watch. Then cable came along with the promise of commercial free television. (PBS also offers this but no one is paying attention or paying donations) People rejoiced at the success of capitalism + television. You could PAY for better quality TV! But slowly the ads crept back in. Now you can't escape them. While the movies on certain cable and satellite channels might be free of commercials, the in between slots are marred with MORE commercials.
And your provider has the right to slap commercials over top of the network feed. Thereby allowing them far too much control over say... political ads. If the provider is biased towards a certain party or candidate, they can now completely slam competing candidates or issues out of your view without your consent. They can also make sure you're only aware of certain products. It's all too much control.
Why don't we have the promised "video dialtone" that AT&T was once working on? At one time there was talk of a new approach to video. TRUE on-demand content. And not just controlled content but ANY content. An actual realtime video library with on-demand access. It's a friday night and you want to watch a 50s Sci-Fi movie. You just do a search through the catalog, select the movie you want to watch. Go get some popcorn, come back and start the playback. You need to go to the bathroom? Pause it. Come back and pick up where you left off. You need to rewatch a section? Just rewind it. And since it's not tape, it's just the drag of a slider on your screen through a GUI. Once you're done watching it, the fair price charge ($.25 per hour) gets added to your phone bill. You only pay for what you watch.
Conversely, you want to watch the latest episode of a new series on SciFi, you again select from the same GUI based catalog and only get charged a fair price (which might be a bit higher for new content). Even better, for a slightly higher price you can watch it BEFORE it airs. True capitalism that works for the consumer and the service provider in a fair and balanced way instead of the rotten and corrupted version that has infected America. And if you REALLY wanted to own it, you could download it for a fair price a
-"...bad old ideas look confusingly fresh when they are packaged as technology" - Jaron Lanier (Digital Maoism on Edge.o
That's assuming that you knew it was coming up and scheduled a recording in advance.
If only there were some kind of "guide" to give people advanced notice of upcoming TV episodes...
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
if it were legal I'd do it.. but honestly.. illegally downloading the stuff just supports the old business model that the industry clings to.. the only ONLY way to change it is to boycott
I've got Time Warner's digital cable service at home, which offers a similar On-Demand feature. Unfortunately, it's essentially worthless due to a constant "service is very popular. Please try again later." message. I've watched a couple (completely free) episodes of The Sopranos that way, but only at about 3am when bandwidth allows.
All in all, I find it amusing but mostly worthless. If it was fast, easy to use and navigate, and priced the way it is now (from free to slightly-more-than-competitive) it might be worthwhile.
If you have a working MythTV box, couldn't you just record the episode when it airs instead of paying $1 the next day to rent it?
For now. That's the danger of the broadcast flag. It's currently defeated, but stay tuned, more to come after these messages.
NBC makes $0.00 if you record with MythTV
NBC makes $0.99 if you buy/rent/beg for it the next day
They probably understand these numbers very well, and will make no bones about describing MythTV, Tivo, et al. as "theft" devices to your local congressman. The way to prevent such "theft" is with a broadcast flag.
Remember boys and girls, anything that doesn't make money for media companies is stealing. People who steal media will damage the American economy. Terrorists want to damage the American economy. Therefore if you have MythTV you are clearly a terrorist.
TW
I know you're kidding but am I the only one who feels this way?
The pure irony with me is that when I see ads on tv, if I'm truly offended by the most idiotic/annoying thing I've ever seen, I boycott the company personally. People make more $$ when I don't see advertisements. Old Navy and used car commercials are great examples of showing me something similar to a teletubbies episode or someone screaming at me. Bud Light has some of the best commercials and I do my part to keep them all employed.
Also, I usually end up buying box sets of a season of something if I like it. I never know if I like it if I don't watch it and I have no way of being at home at a specific time on certain days. I would have never watched 'Lost' due to the time and day it airs but liked it enough to buy the first season on dvd.
Two roads diverged in a wood, and I - I took the one the bus load of girls just went down.
I can see charging for the show IF there are no commercials. If they want to make people pay for the shows and make money off advertising and product placement, forget that. I have pretty much given up on DVDs now because I can't stand the 15 minutes of ads prior to the disc menu. The same thing for movie theatres. You can't have it both ways and consumers are rebelling against obnoxious, never-ending advertising practices.
I keep a small notebook next to me during the rare times when I watch live televisual programming. When I see a commercial advertisement, I open the notebook and remark on whether I thought the advertisement was of substantial quality. If it contributed positively to my televisual experience, I note the company's name and the qualities which I liked about the advertisement. If it detracted from my experience, I note the objectionable qualities instead.
Afterwards, I place my findings in an OpenOffice.org document on my Debian GNU/Linux-based Ubuntu 5.10 "Breezy Badger" AMD Athlon computer workstation. I then utilize a StarBasic macro to dynamically transpose the content into an XHTML document whose DOM I manipulate with CSS and JavaScript using advanced AJAX techniques I learned; this document is then propagated through the blogosphere so that it attains sufficient impact and increases the televisual capacity of my fellow netizens.
But that's just me.
For more information, click here.
Now, imagine a world where your TiVo (or DVR) won't record your show, because it is available as a PPV download. Not possible? Imagine NBC and CBS and ABC stroking checks for millions of dollars a (season/quarter/year) to Comcast or DirecTV in return for blocking recording of these shows with the "standard" DVR function. Think of it as an internal, proprietary "record none" flag. In return, every dollar above a negotiated threshhold gets split between the content creator and the content provider.
I hear money changing hands...don't you?
(yes, I own 2 SD DirecTiVos and a soon-to-be-hacked HDTiVo)
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
It isn't just near, it is already here. In Belgium at least you can choose between two large ISPs (one DSL and one Docsis) offering digital TV. At the Docsis one you can get a wider selection of channels than plain old analog CATV - 40 channels -, plus 40 optional subscription channels and on-demand pay-per-view shows. The 40 basic channels are priced at 12,39 EUR per month all in.
It's all digital up to the set-top box in the living room, which converts it to plain old PAL, so the end user keeps using his analog TV.
"
NBC makes $0.00 if you record with MythTV
NBC makes $0.99 if you buy/rent/beg for it the next day
"
Actually, NBC makes ~$0.39 if you record with mythtv, through advertising, which is who should be paying for the content, NOT consumers.
-johnson
It's arguable (though I don't necessarily agree) that DVRs make it too easy to bypass commercials so the networks don't really make any money off of them. The reason I don't agree is because I routinely stop fast-forwarding and watch a commercial if something catches my eye. in my scenario the networks may make $0.10 rather than $0.39
But I don't agree at all that advertising _should_ pay for content. I much prefer my content to be ad-free. I'd much rather buy HBO or DVDs than watch mind-numbing, repetitive ads. A lot of people agree with me on this too.
The thing I like the least is when people try to double-dip you. Ads in a $50.00 video game? Ads in my ISP (still don't know why people stood for this with AOL)? Ads when I go to the movie theater? I don't mind paying for ad-free content, but when I get "charged" twice, well, that pisses me off.
TW