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."

Comments

Regulators taking a Pro-active Role

[findlawyerdirect]

Its good to see regulators taking a pro-active role than a reactive one.

Re:Regulators taking a Pro-active Role

[beakerMeep]

If by proactive you mean re-branding "managed services" as net neutrality and patting themselves on the back -- meanwhile blessing ISP throttling, and mobile throttling, thus protecting corporate profit in an industry with already insanely high profit margins, at the expensive of the consumer and innovative companies like netflix... then, uh, yeah.

The FCC needs to wake the hell up and realize they aren't protecting competition in a nascent market but rather protecting the government granted monopolies which stifle innovation and are the very reason the market is still "nascent." This is why the US is so far behind in broadband.

Personally I suspect a lot of the news coming out now is orchestrated PR for the policy vote coming on the 21st. I think the FCC is putting out a lot of "we're fighting for the little guy" stories to soften the blow of toothless net neutrality policy that relies on the goodwill of ISPs to act "reasonably" and "transparently"

Enforce Separation of Medium from Content

[timeOday]

Tim Wu's new book, The Master Switch: The Rise and Fall of Information Empires," is relevant and worth looking at here - if nothing else, read the salon.com review:

Wu, a prominent champion of net neutrality, proposes what he calls "a Separation Principle for the information economy." He wants to see "those who develop information, those who own the network infrastructure on which it travels, and those who control the tools or venues of access ... kept apart from one another." He also wants the government to "keep its distance and not intervene in the market to favor any technology, network monopoly, or integration of the major functions of an information industry."

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.

Re:apple

[Anonymous Coward]

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

because of a .... what?!? Dammit! Do I have to wait 'till next week to find out?!? Get the DVD?!?

What!? What ?!?

Flawed Assumption

[retech]

"But what if there's nothing worth watching?"
I did not realize the networks had anything worth watching right now.

Re:Flawed Assumption

[Binestar]

Chuck, Top Gear, NFL Football, Tosh.0, Robot Chicken (Those are my top 5, not in that order)

Re:Flawed Assumption

[timeOday]

Call me crazy, but I like to watch networks' nightly news. It seems to me that because it is so mainstream, and not targeted to much of anybody in particular, that it is more balanced (compared to most Internet news sites). And because they are constrained to a 1/2 hour format, they don't waste so much time on talking heads, and repeating themselves (compared to cable news). Finally the production value is very high; they send people to do onsite reporting, obtain the best footage available, have more access to noteworthy people, etc. Note: this is not a blanket endorsement of everything they do.

Reminds Me of the First Browser War

[4pins]

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.

Re:Screw this

[Anonymous Coward]

Fuck you and your BBC exclusion to the United States.

Sincerely,
Americans tired of American media

Step Aside

[Das Auge]

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.

Re:Step Aside

[c0d3g33k]

Even more so when the over 50 crowd dies.

I was actually enjoying your comment until encountering this bit of prejudicial age-ist nonsense. In my experience, lack of imagination, fear of new things (including technology), and the reluctance/inability to change old habits (or deal with change in general) don't correlate very well with age. Today's youth could very well be in the same boat 30 years from now when their own inflexibility keeps them stuck while the world moves on. But there will be plenty that keep up just fine, regardless of age.

Re:Step Aside

[the eric conspiracy]

These people grew up with only scheduled television, so they'd be most likely to continue using it because it's what they've done the longest.

Poppycock you whippersnapper. I am 61 years old and my home is fully wired to accept programming from cable, OTA HDTV, shortwave, and streaming over IP. Plus I frequently use streamed media from my own media server or physical media (SACD, DVD-A, CD, DVD or BluRay). My experience is that when a new technology is added it gets incorporated into my life in addition to what I already use. The only things that get dropped or avoided are those that have been supplanted by something with much better performance for the same programming. Think 8-track, VHS, cassette tape, LD, LPs etc.

It would be very nice to dump cable but I haven't found a good substitute for HD broadcasts of live sporting events over cable.

My father, who is 88 is a little behind the curve not having bought into streaming yet but I think he is going to get a HTPC this Christmas.

Funny you mention it...

[BobMcD]

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...

Opium

[ScientiaPotentiaEst]

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.

Re:Opium

[cappp]

While I agree with your general point, I wonder if you’re not understating the positive side of entertainment media. All those shows you listed are what create unifying shared cultural moments – the quintessential water cooler conversation topics. A significant part of what makes American’s American, or the French French, or what have you, is their shared cultural touchstones – which are in turn created, propagated, reified, and dissected in popular media.

Take for instance Jerry Springer. Horrendous exploitation on one hand. On the other? A morality play in which the audience and the host cooperate to establish shared social values and negotiate the ins and outs of simplistic moral cautionary tales. CSI? Stupid science and convenient plot twists on the one hand. On the other...a not too bad exploration of moral and legal questions, and a fantastic jumping point for further conversation. TV is what you make of it. There is a degree of depth present if you’re willing to put the effort in and find it. Watch American Idol with your kids and have a conversation about what an Idol is as portrayed on the show – popularity versus meritocracy. Watch Survivor and discuss teamwork. Watch The Apprentice and let the warnings of bad hair pieces sink in for themselves.

Anyone interested in a far better framing of the argument should consider looking at Joshua Gamson’s Freaks Talk Back. It’s an interesting inversion of that idea that trash TV is in actually, complete trash.

Re:Opium

[gmhowell]

This link may be relevant to your interests.

Re:Opium

[ScientiaPotentiaEst]

All that you mention involves passive viewing. For example, instead of critiquing CSI's poor make-believe science, engage in real science activities. How about looking at the mountains of the Moon through a telescope? Perhaps make said telescope first. Surely such interactive pastimes are more enriching and persistent. How about building and/or learning to fly a model airplane? Build a radio? A musical instrument? Engage in real activities instead of watching fiction.

I question the value of the shared experience involved in watching TV. Compare the collective experience of watching American Idol with your children to taking them out kayaking or caving, observing or building, playing musical instruments. To me, there's no comparison in relative value.

This is just me, of course, but I can think of very few activities exceeded in any value by the viewing of Jerry Springer.

Re:But it's already here!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, to be fair, you either do it "illegally" or you wait something like 6 - 15 days after "original airing" to see it (if it was a TV show). Some people don't care about the delay, others do. Obviously the delay is there to "protect" the premium advertising dollars that broadcast TV still pulls in. The question is, will the FCC back Comcast and other broadcasters plans and protect their business model. I think even the Comcast's of the world realize that the days of "broadcast TV" are numbered and that it becomes ludicrous to have "channels" and all with "guides" to what is on at what time as technology progresses such that anything can really be done on-demand (technology wise). It is just that, for now, they see those ad dollars and want to keep the gravy train flowing as long as possible.

This seems really important

[podom]

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?

Re:Screw this

[Chibi Merrow]

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. :)

Re:apple

[Ihmhi]

He was writing a sarcastic post that was ever so slightly derogatory about Apple. His iPhone's Brand Image Integrity Sensor (R) (C) (TM) picked this up and dispatched a team of commandos driving black Priuses and wearing black turtleneck combat vests.

Good thing I don't have any Apple products in my home! The bastards can't get to disregard my previous statements. All is well. Hail Apple and Greatfather Jobs, for he brings glory to all of our iProducts.

But what if there's nothing worth watching?

[chord.wav]

But what if there's nothing worth watching?

OMG!! Do you mean we would have to.... read!!?!?

Re:Slashing Cable

[Tacvek]

Many of us who have Cable TV (or some other equivalent, like Satellite, FIOS, or U-Verse) just don't have that much to say about them. I for one have yet to really investigate Netflix's offerings, but hulu and the network sites don't really cut it for me, since they still lack some shows I follow.

(By the way, there is no reason to ever navigate directly to a network's site, since Hulu's search will direct you to them if they have the show and Hulu does not.)