Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

ABC, CBS, and NBC Block Google TV

Posted by timothy on from the speaking-of-locked-down dept.

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.'"

6 of 227 comments (clear)

  1. 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.

  2. 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 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.
  3. 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.

  4. 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...