Slashdot Mirror
The Future of Web Video At Stake In Comcast-NBC Regulatory Review
Phoghat writes with this excerpt from the Washington Post:
"It won't be long before video from the Internet is always within reach — whether it's on a smart phone, a tablet computer or a high-end television in your living room. But what if there's nothing worth watching? ... Regulators are pushing for tough conditions to ensure that Comcast can't stifle online video services by withholding content or pushing up prices for marquee NBC programs at a time viewers are starting to turn to the Internet for recent movies or the latest episodes of 'Saturday Night Live,' '30 Rock' and other popular TV shows. The concessions they extract from Comcast in its bid for NBC will help determine whether customers can someday realistically drop their cable subscriptions and go online-only for their TV. ... Comcast has been resisting federal regulators' efforts to tear down some of those walls, arguing that those efforts are unnecessary because NBC Universal accounts for about 10 percent of television viewing in the US and less than 10 percent of US box office revenue — and is therefore too small to dictate how the industry will develop."
Its good to see regulators taking a pro-active role than a reactive one.
Right. Because Apple, which had less than 10% market share, has had 0 effect on the computing market, and other related markets, in the last decade, because of a
"It won't be long before video from the Internet is always within reach — whether it's on a smart phone, a tablet computer or a high-end television in your living room."
Umm.... I thought video from the internet already was always within reach? I can get to video from the internet via my smartphone, iPad, AND TV already!!!
I'm sure the book is more nuanced than this, but IMHO allowing competitors to control access to each others' content is simply bound to fail, converging at a point advantageous to those who own the toll booths, and bad for almost everybody else and the economy and culture as a whole.
It's not the NBC that worry me, it's Comcast power of a cable provider cutting off other shows from HBO or ESPN for example.
"But what if there's nothing worth watching?"
I did not realize the networks had anything worth watching right now.
How many people choose IE to get at that other 10% of the World Wide Web?
When my wife discovered Netflix streaming I had to switch from Linux to OS-X.
When it comes to accessing information, people will put in some extra time/money/effort.
I will not mourn that which I never had to lose. - Unknown
Fuck you and your BBC exclusion to the United States.
Sincerely,
Americans tired of American media
Did you catch the new Futurama series online?
The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
The concept of having to wait watch videos at intervals set by a company is so very 1950s. This is the 21st century as we have something called on-demand. Yeah, cable companies do it to a small extent, but not like Netflix does. Combine that with the sub-par quality and speed they provide compared to DSL and they're going to be marginalized in the coming years. Even more so when the over 50 crowd dies.
Much like music and the RIAA, they're going to loose the center stage. Which means that you can expect them to start trying to buy politicians (or using the ones that they've already purchased) to pass laws that try to keep their antiquated method of business alive.
I like this proactive step to prevent that.
The concessions they extract from Comcast in its bid for NBC will help determine whether customers can someday realistically drop their cable subscriptions and go online-only for their TV.
As a matter of fact, I just dropped off my old cable box today. "Internet only," I told them...
I suspect that I'm going to be modded into oblivion with this comment. So be it.
TV* is an addiction that's sapping so many of time and energy. How important is Dancing with the Stars, Saturday Night Live and CSI:Whocareswhere? One of the better things that could happen to Western society, IMO, is that there'd be no more "interesting" TV. People would spend more time exercising, engaging in hobbies and talking with others.
I know, I know, everyone watches only three "quality" shows per week - all on the Discovery Channel, natch. That must be why the highest viewership numbers are for the most intellectually barren shows.
Over ten years ago, my wife and I ditched our TV. For the first couple of weeks, in the evenings we were at a loss. There was this "hole" in our lives. But once we got past the withdrawal symptoms, we realized how much we'd been hypnotized by the damned thing. We have so much more time now - and we're a lot fitter (back then I was quite the couch potato with the physique to match). When we visit friends who have TVs, watching proves to be quite boring (and at the same time amazing for how utterly moronic the commercials are - we're no longer desensitized I'm guessing).
Perhaps some will think that I'm a holier-than-thou elitist snob, lying about my lack of TV viewing in an attempt to elevate myself. Whatever. Just try ditching the thing for a few weeks. See what it's like. If you find that your life is really poorer, you can always go back to watching your shows.
Fire away.
*: I use the acronym "TV" now as the generic act of watching entertainment shows - regardless of medium.
But what if there's nothing worth watching?
Sorry, kid. You're 20 years too late.
I hadn't known there were so many idiots in the world until I started using the Internet -Stanislaw Lem
Hey, I've got an idea. How about we stop acting like ready access to TV shows and movies is an inalienable right? Or like we're being repressed as a people when movie and TV studios make watching their content more difficult or comcast decides to limit access to the latest episode of your favorite show?
We're wanted men. I have the death sentence in 12 systems!
Did anyone else hear something? Hmm... weird... Guess I might have my AWESOME HIGH DEFINITION STREAMING VIDEOS turned up too loud...
P.S. Until BBC starts simulcasting new Dr. Who episodes on their website to the entire world, I could care less what you non-American subhumans think. :)
Maxim: People cannot follow directions.
Increases in truth directly with the length of time spent explaining them
But it's pretty hard to see how "media" companies can't see that the future is in web streaming and TV programming with was the norm from the 1930's-2008 is just not the future. It's plain to see that that is not what consumers want, regardless it may be harder to push a new show, but I don't have cable and I have found many new shows using the "what's popular" on Hulu. Not that Hulu is the answer but it's a better direction then the Live TV or even TEVO type model. And remember that the "networks" fought hard against TEVO even to the point that advertisers were working on commercials that had visual cues at marked points in the fast forward stream. It's just not possible to conceive of an video future that the old model fits. NBC may push them selves into forced irrelevance if they try to force what remaining viewers they have into an archaic model of broadcasting.
I do not play in the middle of the road
How about NOT approving the Comcast and NBC merger?
How much media content should a single corporation own? What if that corporation also is one of the largest cable providers in the US? What if that corporation has a startup service named Xfinity that competes with other streaming services?
These rhetorical questions should serve as red flags that maybe we should not allow Comcast to own NBC. Anyway when was the last time a pre-merger condition from a government agency was honored and actually benefitted the consumer? Need more evidence, just look at FM radio. How many of those stations on your local radio dial is owned by a single communication company? I'm full of questions today ;)
These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
We need a new phrase... media neutrality?
Level 3 made a deal with Netflix, so Level 3 amped up their own bandwidth and servers to push out Netflix content. Comcast felt their agreement with Level 3 to pass traffic for Level 3 was being abused. So rather than throttling all Level 3 traffic, Comcast decided to block only their competitor, Netflix who they feel is a threat to their business, to temporarily "balance" their traffic passing agreement with Level 3, unless Level 3 pays more to Comcast.
I get it all in HD and without commercials via bittorrent...
Until they stop being idiots and assholes, I'll stick with the content delivery that I trust.
and yes I PAY for a private tracker group that has no MPAA or industry lackeys in it. I'd PAY them for the files, but NBC, COmcast and everyone else is not interest in selling them to me. Give me non DRM standard 720p mpeg4 files and I'll give you $1.00 an episode. force DRM on me then I'll look elsewhere as I want to use MY playback system not your crappy screwed up junk.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Accept No Substitute for Real Net Neutrality
Sign the petition.
An effective "democracy" creates the illusion the people have a say in their government.
There's a certain amount of content that you lose by dropping cable/satellite TV, and going Netflix/Hulu. However, the savings of maybe $80+/month sure makes this choice a no-brainer. You could even buy those few series that you lose out on, on DVD so there's really not much of a loss.
I finally persuaded my spouse to drop TV early this year, and we don't miss it one bit.
Exclusion? I get all the BBC I need off of piratebay.org.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
I second this.
I have an antenna and get the local stations in HD (which is brilliant) and I can watch ESPN3 and ESPN through the Internet, as well as all the other online services. I do have NetFlix for movies and instant. I also have an HDHomeRun to make HD tuners available to any computer on my network.
We actually DID miss cable this weekend when the CBS NFL game we wanted to watch wasn't the one scheduled for this "region." Of course, it wouldn't have been on regular cable either. It would have been the basic cable package PLUS whatever sports package. Conservatively, the ability to watch those extra couple shows I don't see (and miss) would cost over $1000 per year.
Thinking about what I can get for that $1000 feels great, and pays for the drinks when I have to go to a sports bar.
I've convinced a couple light-TV users to ditch cable, buy a computer that'll hook up to their HD TV, and pocket the difference. There hasn't been a complaint or regret yet.
Help! Help! I'm being repressed!
"Comcast has been resisting federal regulators' efforts to tear down some of those walls, arguing that those efforts are unnecessary because NBC Universal accounts for about 10 percent of television viewing in the US and less than 10 percent of US box office revenue — and is therefore too small to dictate how the industry will develop."
This is one of the goddamdest disingenuous statements I've heard in a while. If a Comcast spokesperson said this to my face, I would have to be held back from beating the crap out of them.
If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
In the late 1940s the government (through anti-trust action) forced the movie studios to sell off their theater chains and end the practice of forcing theaters to buy (and exhibit) an entire package of films just to get the one film they actually wanted to get.
The government needs to do the same again and break up the vertical content companies, ban content producers from requring cable operators to buy (or sell/bundle) one channel when they want another channel (e.g. where Disney might say that Comcast has to bundle ESPN Football and ABC Family into one block) and separate the pipes from the content that goes over those pipes.
I am so confused. Why is a huge leap in comprehension required to go from a typical computer monitor with a diagonal increases of 17-24'' to a standard TV with a diagonal of 35-50'' or more? It is the same LCD based technology. It is not a different type of tool. It does not require a separate cultural upbringing or years of additional technical training to understand the other once you understand one.
Your college age movie watching experience on a tiny laptop in a cramped dorm room neatly maps onto a more leisurely experience staring at your obscenely large TV from the comfort of your living room couch. You don't like staring at a big black box underneath your precious media center? Fine, then get an HTPC form factor computer, and hide it behind the TV itself. You don't want a keyboard? Then get a bluetooth remote control. All this should be straight forward. You don't need a box with a prominent 'CPO stamp of approval' (Cable Provider Oligopoly) and ridiculous price and limitations. Essentially all you need is a $10 HDMI cable to connect your computer to your TV. How atrophied is the American consumer's capacity to reason and think independently...?
Is it just me, or is there no one on slashdot who actually *has* cable tv? Everytime I see anything related to comcast or other networks, I usually take it for a given that there'll be a liberal amount of comments that are just rehashes of "Between the individual network sites, hulu, and netflix, I haven't missed a thing (other than a lot of commercials) by not having cable for the last couple years."
Watch the news on there, do you?
Brain surgery - it's not rocket science!
But what if there's nothing worth watching?
OMG!! Do you mean we would have to.... read!!?!?
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means... At least since around 1995.
That is all.
> "whether customers can someday realistically drop their cable subscriptions and go online-only for their TV"
Um...what? Someday? I've been doing this for 3 years now, and before that my roommate had it, not I. I can't fathom how or why anyone would ever pay the exorbitant prices for cable television! Seriously...do people think they NEED TV that much? That's just sad... Then again, this is the U.S. we're talking about, where the government had to pay people just so that they wouldn't lose their precious TV when switching to digital.