Slashdot Mirror


ABC, CBS, and NBC Block Google TV

markjhood2003 writes "The Wall Street Journal reports that 'ABC, CBS and NBC are blocking TV programming on their websites from being viewable on Google Inc.'s new Web-TV service. ... Spokespeople for the three networks confirmed that they are blocking the episodes on their websites from playing on Google TV, although both ABC and NBC allow promotional clips to work using the service.' Google has responded, 'Google TV enables access to all the Web content you already get today on your phone and PC, but it is ultimately the content owners' choice to restrict their fans from accessing their content on the platform.'"

20 of 227 comments (clear)

  1. Sickbeard & XBMC. by 0100010001010011 · · Score: 4, Informative

    Sickbeard makes one hell of a DVR program. (When paired with sabnzbd or a torrent program).

    $25 for a 180GB block from Astraweb has lasted me since August and I haven't even burned through 1/2 of it yet. (I used to have the $10/month unlimited until I realized how much I really didn't use it). Programs available within a few minutes of the show ending. 30 minute TV shows take 2-3 minutes. Hour long never take longer than 10. (Heck when I saturate my cable I can have a movie in 8 minutes).

    XBMC makes one hell of a nice front end. I come home from school or work and just browse to the 'latest episodes' and watch something.

    1. Re:Sickbeard & XBMC. by Chapter80 · · Score: 4, Informative

      Sickbeard makes one hell of a DVR program. (When paired with sabnzbd or a torrent program).

      $25 for a 180GB block from Astraweb ...

      Since I never heard of Sickbeard, sabnzbd, or Astraweb, I figured I'd do a little research, and post my (Score: 5 Informative?) findings here. Please correct me if I made any mistakes....

      Sickbeard is an open source, GPL licensed Python application (so runs on Windows and Linux and other platforms), that watches newsgroups, looking for announcements of TV shows whose torrents have been put on the web. In Sickbeard, the user can specify which shows he is interested in, and it keeps an eye out for those shows. Once it finds shows that the user has specified, it can queue up a retrieval program, but Sickbeard doesn't retrieve them itself.

      Sickbeard will request the show from sabnzbd. Sabnzbd is also open source, Python. Its function is to go retrieve binaries from newsgroups. So it seems to me that the newsgroups have both the announcement of the availability of a TV program (like a torrent tracker), and the actual program. Sickbeard is watching the announcements, and Sabnzbd is grabbing the program.

      Astraweb is a newsgroup website that apparently allows you to download newsgroup posts. This is a paid service, and the parent post signed up for a $25 service for 180GB of downloads. Based on my MythTV experience, I'm guessing this might be 180 half hours of TV (please correct this number if I am off!).

      So for $25 plus 2 free open source programs, I can have almost 200 half-hour programs that I can watch anytime (starting a few minutes after they air). Interesting!

      ----

      I'm looking for a "to go" solution for watching TV at a cottage (where we have no cable, and no internet). We've been getting by with taking Netflix with us each time we go to the cottage (combined with a small DVD collection), but this might be an interesting supplement! (Other suggestions welcome!!)

    2. Re:Sickbeard & XBMC. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      My guess, and I'm no lawyer, is that you can download programs without violating the law (or violating somebody's copyright), but that uploading is where you may run into some trouble.

      In the US, both are illegal. It's just that it's far far easier to go after the uploaders, and even that isn't working out that well for the RIAA/MPAA.

  2. God damnit.... by Rivalz · · Score: 4, Insightful

    That is a lot of crappy television shows I have to boycott now.
    I was just thinking that all the t.v. shows on right now suck because of the writers strike a while back.
    It turns out the executives are just insane.

  3. Re:meh by ArcherB · · Score: 4, Interesting

    google tv is a solution in search of a problem. A half-assed solution at that.

    Nope. A problem exists. My DVR's software is extremely clunky to the point of unusability. If you could replace that crap with a google interface that allows me to search for shows and times and allow me to use it to program the DVR, I would gladly pay for it. I understand that Dish Network is thinking about integrating it into their set top boxes. So, I might be gladly paying for it.

    Add to that the fact that you can use the web on the dang thing is an absolute bonus.

    --
    There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
  4. Report itself as a normal PC? by DelitaTheFridge · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Seems like this would be easily worked around by changing some useragent strings. Not sure why Google wouldn't do that themselves, but I guess they probably care more about their relationship with media companies than I do.

    1. Re:Report itself as a normal PC? by Lobachevsky · · Score: 4, Insightful

      ABC, NBC, et al. could claim Google is spoofing its useragent to circumvent the ban on Google TV. That means they could sue Google under the provisions of DMCA. Blame your legislators for passing idiotic laws that forbid gaining "unauthorized" access through spoofing.

    2. Re:Report itself as a normal PC? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

      No they couldn't.

      User agent strings don't count as "technological measures"; both the IETF and the W3C say that they're purely advisory, optional, not guaranteed to even exist let alone be correct (or to be useful when they are correct), and MUST not be relied upon.

      Besides; what's to stop someone filtering the User Agent with a proxy? That's what I do.

      CAPTCHA: baseless

  5. It baffles me by txoof · · Score: 5, Interesting

    It baffles me that the networks' left and right hands don't know what the other are doing. With one hand they gleefully provide online versions of the shows and with the other, they smack down anyone (Boxee, Google) that tries to make the consumption of those products easier.

    People that choose to watch the shows over the internet are actively choosing to not make regular network TV a part of their day. They aren't willing to sit down at 8 pm, 7 central to watch Chuck; they want to watch it at 6:00 am before work. 10 years ago, they would have been lost viewers. All that advertising revenue would have vanished with their choice. Today, the networks have an option to recapture some of that lost revenue via internet viewers. Granted, they don't show as many adverts, and that ad space (for the moment) is worth less than TV ad time, but they still get money.

    Why are they getting upset when google/boxee/whoever drives MORE users to their product? Or are they just afraid that people will choose to eschew network TV in favor of internet TV? If that's the case, they've already lost the battle by offering shows on the internet. Some networks have come up with reasonable solutions though: Fox shows House a week late on the internet for example. Why not offer extra content on TV to encourage TV watching over internet watching. Or, resolve cliff-hangers on the air and make internet viewers sweat it out for an extra two weeks.

    What other reasons can /. think of for the networks behavior? Why are they so afraid of internet content aggregators?

    --
    This one's tricky. You have to use imaginary numbers, like eleventeen... --Hobbes
    1. Re:It baffles me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      As you said, they are terrified that people will stop watching regular TV. Not only do most networks get paid by cable companies per customer (rather than based on viewership numbers), they also get much higher advertising rates on regular TV.

      They started putting content online for a variety of reasons:
      1) Because some people have switched permanently and they can't afford to miss out on that revenue
      2) Because they don't want to get left behind their competitors
      3) Because if they can increase online viewership sufficiently and/or prove to advertisers through metrics that internet ads yield a similar or greater return than traditional tv, they can up their online advertising prices.

      If ESPN3.com and similar sites succeed, expect all the major content providers to do the same thing. Charging an ISP per customer to let them have access to a website is what most TV companies (and even sites like NYTimes) want the most. Reliable baseline income + bonus from advertising is how these companies like to operate.

    2. Re:It baffles me by GiveBenADollar · · Score: 4, Insightful

      There is a reason why very few companies last over 100 years, the longer it exists the harder it is to change. Right now network execs are still thinking in terms of time slots, competing with the other guy, and other outmoded concepts. The internet does scare them, that's why many shows are unavailable until a few days after airing. If consumers stop watching when the show is on the air they might be watching something else! The silly thing about this is DVRs have made timeslots meaningless, and have also made commercials easy to skip through. If they really wanted to profit they would embrace the internet and start showing all their programing online with ads so that the viewer can decide what he or she wants to watch and when.

    3. Re:It baffles me by nametaken · · Score: 4, Informative
    4. Re:It baffles me by nametaken · · Score: 4, Informative

      My apologies, for NBC this is the contact page...
      http://www.nbc.com/contact/general/

    5. Re:It baffles me by arkhan_jg · · Score: 5, Insightful

      That one's easy. They're terrified of losing control of your big TV with a remote in the living room. Ordinary viewers do not have a computer hooked up the TV, and a laptop is just too inconvenient to use for most.

      The internet viewing streams are there to use hunched over your laptop or sat at your desk. It's not the 'premium' experience of the family sat on the sofa with an easy to use remote. The internet streams are based on that, and the revenue from that is relatively low.

      Remember, you are not the customer - the advertiser is the customer, you're the product, and the TV program is just there to get your eyeballs on the adverts. Google TV threatens to bring the internet streaming model to the comfy sofa TV viewing for the masses, and is a direct threat to their broadcast business model.

      Apple TV is a little different, as they get paid directly per episode 'bought' through itunes, and I imagine the profit margin on that is considerably higher than the adverts on the web-streaming model. It may even be higher than the traditional broadcast-advert model, and it works as apple users are used to paying through the nose for a slick experience. Ordinary users with a google box (or boxee box) streaming off of hulu etc? Not so much.

      --
      Remember kids, it's all fun and games until someone commits wholesale galactic genocide.
    6. Re:It baffles me by bazorg · · Score: 4, Insightful
      I believe I understand their reasons. If you switch the TV on on a channel or go to the website of the TV channel, you are still using and reinforcing the usefulness of the brand of that channel. If you fire up your computer, do some search for specific TV shows and watch them from within a google user interface, then the channel becomes less important, therefore less valuable for advertisers.

      It might be a losing battle, but I understand why companies would fight it for as long as possible. It certainly seems better to be a good TV channel than to be one of the random websites where people land if they want to watch a TV show that has significant brand recognition and for that reason cost a lot of money for the channel to have the right to broadcast it.

  6. This is a battle we WON'T win... by hackel · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The traditional TV networks, recording companies, movie producers, etc. are *never* going to give up their business model. EVER. They are dinosaurs and simply will not change. It's futile to think that they will. The only option is for them to go out of business. They will, of course, but it's going to be a long wait, unfortunately. They will continue to fight us at every turn, but eventually, they will be gone. Until then, our job is to hang in there, continue to support independent projects, use torrents so that they lose advertising revenue, and teach as many people as we know to do the same.

  7. I'm going to bet they'll reverse the ban by guyminuslife · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Everyone seems to think that the networks don't know what they're doing. They're banning Google TV, when anyone with half a brain knows this sort of thing is the wave of the future. I'm willing to bet that the network execs do, in fact, have at least one half of a brain between them.

    It makes perfect sense if you think, well, maybe they don't really want to ban Google TV. More likely, they want to make a deal with Google, whereby Google pays them for the privilege of using their content.

    --
    I don't believe in time. It's a grand conspiracy designed to sell watches.
  8. Re:meh by mr_mischief · · Score: 5, Informative

    There is one solution that's legal. You could get a dual C band dish or a C and K band, or a K and Ku band with a non-branded digital receiver and pay a satellite channel clearinghouse for channels rather than a satellite service with integrated packages of receiver and set station lists.

    You'll pay more. It won't be as convenient. You'll have a positioning delay as your dish tracks to the different distribution satellites instead of a dedicated customer feed satellite like with Dish Network or Direct TV. You'll have to pay for installation and support on a consulting basis because you won't have the dedicated support staff of a subscriber-based company like Dish Network or Direct TV. You'll have increasingly uncommon equipment to keep maintained at your own expense.

    On the bright side, you can get a few free satellite channels. You'll also be able to get free audio distribution channels for syndicated shows in extra audio channels of the video channels sometimes. You won't have to do business with someone also wanting to sell you Internet access. You'll just have a lot of cons to get the few pros.

  9. Re:meh by Dahamma · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Yeah, that's the *other* problem... the networks have so far treated Internet streaming of shows as an oddity that they need to get involved in to be relevant. But now that they think people may actually use it as their *primary* source of content, they are confused and terrified.

    As for integrating into DVRs - that would be interesting. But the DVR industry is basically made up of 2 camps today - the innovative, struggling companies (Tivo, Moxi, etc) relying on govt regulations like CableCard to survive at all. And the big, bloated cable hardware suppliers (General Instruments aka Motorola, and Scientific Atlanta aka Cisco) that have no concept of user interface or quality control, but have enough influence to dominate the OEM cable box market.

    In the end, though, content availability is all about the providers/owners feeling comfortable with the (revenue from the) distribution model. Can they make a profit with free online content with ads? Do they get enough share from an iTunes transaction? Will they get enough of a cut from a monthly fee in a subscription service? It's going to be an interesting battle...

  10. Re: One solution that's legal by camperslo · · Score: 4, Insightful

    There's something sinister about blocking display of content on a platform that otherwise supports the tech needed for viewing. It certainly looks to be anti-competitive behavior worthy of examination by the F.C.C. or whoever.

    I wonder what else they're doing.