Slashdot Mirror
Cable TV's Password-Sharing Crackdown Is Coming (bloomberg.com)
Charter Communications' CEO, Tom Rutledge, is leading an industrywide effort to crack down on password sharing. It's a growing problem that could cost pay-TV companies millions of subscribers -- and billions of dollars in revenue -- when they can least afford it. Bloomberg reports: Cable and satellite carriers in North America have lost 3 million customers this year alone. But the prevalence of password sharing suggests many of those customers, and possibly many more, are watching popular shows like "The Walking Dead" for free, robbing pay-TV providers and programmers of paying subscribers and advertising dollars. Most pay-TV companies only require users to re-enter their passwords for each device once a year. During contract negotiations this fall, Charter urged Viacom Inc., home of Comedy Central and MTV, to help limit illicit password swapping. The cable company wants programmers to restrict the number of concurrent streams on their apps and force legitimate subscribers to log in more often, according to two people familiar with the matter who asked not to be identified discussing private deliberations. ESPN, meanwhile, has reduced the number of simultaneous streams that it allows on its app to five from 10 and is considering cutting that to three, Connolly said. ESPN wants to work more closely with distributors to validate subscribers when there are high volumes of streaming on its app outside the cable company's territory.
We need a law to prohibit all terms in a contract not specifically related to the acquisition and distribution of said content. Problem solved. How many times a app requires someone to reauthorize really? I would assume they were talking Netflix...
"GET / HTTP/1.0" 200 51230 "-" "Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; Setec Astronomy)"
Agreed. Were it up to me we'd simply shoot the thieves in the streets.
With every passing year it becomes more of a pain in the ass and more expensive to "consume content". I cut the cord almost ten years ago and now only pay for my DSL connection and Netflix. I would never in a million years pay for multiple streaming packages and/or cable tv or satellite tv.
Never...
If anything, this amalgamation of absolute fucking crap that continues to roll downhill, masquerading as the current content consumption paradigm, has me watching less "tv" and reading more.
Thanks!
I'm sure all of those millennials sharing their parents' passwords will immediately sign up for cable as soon as the restrictions take effect.
$n.nn for two screens $n.nn + $5 or so for 4 screens.
Seems pretty dang simple to me.
Rather than trying to police the mess that is "is this a shared PWD or is this a mobile user or is this a legit user that moved their cable box for the night?" they just limit concurrent streams to whatever you've paid for.
whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
I can see perhaps for Netflix or Amazon but is anyone really sharing their cable account password? For the most part I can only watch a majority of the content when I'm on my home wifi anyway. (Charter subscriber) If I'm on Charter wifi at another location and login I still get a very limited selection of channels and am told I need to be connected to my home network.
Charter should work to expand access to subscribers connecting to Charter through alternative locations that are served by Charter....not restrict them further.
If everyone paid for their own share, those of us who are honest wouldnâ(TM)t have to pay extra to subsidize the free loaders. I canâ(TM)t wait til everything is a la carte also, so I can pay for a particular NFL game or ESPN in general without subsidizing shit like PBS or CSPAN
The way things are going at ESPN, PBS and CSPAN are going to be subsidizing ESPN.
Dunno if you caught pics of NFL stadiums lately, but lots of fans are showing up disguised as empty seats.
The networks and the NFL have an obvious vested interest in not showing that, but even in last Sundays Steelers-Patriots game (probably the two best teams in the NFL right now, that had huge playoff seeding implications), I caught one aerial view that for a few short seconds showed a shitload of empty seats. The network cut to another view pretty fast...
NFL empty seat images
Is the TFA really implying locking down concurrent streams is a problem?
The more you tighten your grip cable companies, the more customers will slip through your fingers.
Yaz
Netflix DVD catalog is VASTLY bigger than the streaming catalog. It has almost every movie ever made. In addition, you can rent a DVD, watch it, sneakernet it over to your buddy, who watches it. Then post it back to netflix. No password needed.
The only significant drawback is that you might have to wait a few months for the newest TV series to appear on DVD - unless you can pick them up on broadcast. Just think of it like if they had come out a few months later. In some ways that is nicer, because you can binge them if you want without waiting a week between eps.
No inviting friends over to watch the stream.
No discussing the stream without written consent.
All streamers need to be identified via camera.
All streamers need their identity verified by retinal scan.
Please, make it more difficult and onerous to access content. You need to compete with $0.00. Also, please add:
-more commercials
-more intrusive commercials
-more intrusive commercials that require "participation"
-higher prices
-more commercials on the higher priced tiers
-more hardware, rootkits, and software.
>>...when they can least afford it
Go on, tell me another one!
So rise up, all ye lost ones, as one, we'll claw the clouds.
Sounds like cable is about to shoot itself in the foot.
Meanwhile, Netflix doesn't complain about shared passwords, even allows users to set up multiple profiles on each account so it's easier to share.
I hope netflix has enough bandwidth to absorb all the new customers that are about to join up.
Or just deprioritize traffic for additional logins
i dont want a comcast package... i just want a pipe to the internet, and subscriptions to CNN, CNBC, AMC, and thats it. My roku box has a CNN app, but to be able to use it, I need to be a cable subscriber. And if I was a cable subscriber, I wouldn't be trying to use the app in the first place.
Seriously. Maybe next time we have Democrats in office, they can force what will probably be the single remaining entertainment/cable company to unbundle its services.
No shit, itâ(TM)s easier, cheaper and you get a better view to watch from home.
In my case they can limit the number of concurrent streams all they want because no on in my family that has a cable account streams any online content (at least not from the cable or sattelite provider). I would still be a single stream on any of the numerous accounts within my family. However, I only ever wathed 2 shows (3 if you count the walking dead which I gave up on) Breaking Bad and Game of Thrones. Once Game of Thrones is off the air then I really have nothing left for cable and/or content providers.
Just limit it by MAC to a certain # of devices, and let the user delete devices from time to time. Apple does this already, so does Adobe CC, and Google Music. It's not that hard.
The whining is coming not from the content providers, but from the cable companies, because they're the obsolete ones getting screwed. Viacom doesn't care because the more streams there are (regardless of shared login) the more $ they get to charge advertisers on OTT.
It's simple math: a+b = cable companies just need to die already.
-SM
It seems like I'm being asked to log into my Roku apps on a monthly basis already, how much more do they want?
Is anybody using YouTube TV? How is it for $35 a month? I only feel moderately bad about streaming shows without commercial...
Yup those R's are tight with the entertainment companies I can't wait till the D's get back in and straighten things out. I mean the way Hollywood and entertainment types just swoon over Trump and company clearly we need the impartial D's to break up that marriage.
Seriously!! What reality do you live?
I don't want channels. I want content. Give me Southpark, the rest of comedy central can pay for itself.
Cable companies can't afford "revenue loss?"
Get the fuck out of here
If everyone paid for their own share, those of us who are honest wouldnâ(TM)t have to pay extra to subsidize the free loaders. I canâ(TM)t wait til everything is a la carte also, so I can pay for a particular NFL game or ESPN in general without subsidizing shit like PBS or CSPAN
Eh you're a moron. Producing the content is a one-time cost. Once the content has been produced, the marginal cost to infinitely copy and redistribute it approaches zero. There is no further expense to "subsidize" as you imply. This is simply middlemen wanting to increase their profits, nothing more.
Every time it's been used in the past it's been a rousing success!!
Stuart Chiffet says 'don't copy that floppy!'
I have the one disc at a time plan from Netflix and rip them as soon as I get them then send them back. I have a pretty good sized streamable library now. The library also has quite a lot of decent titles.
with overage charges and now this. It's funny that they had 8 years to do these things and restrained themselves and for some reason in the last year or so they've gotten a lot bolder. I wonder if something happened about a year ago to change their outlook on customer service and how much they can get away with...
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
"Cable TV's attempt to boost Netflix subs is coming" - corrected headline
We are losing customers, so lets piss off the ones we have left and see if that slows the bleeding.
You mean people like Verizon, AT&T, Cox Cable, Time Warner, T-Mobile, Sprint corporate officers, board members and stock owners?
They're the marauding thieves in this country.
Making it more annoying to use streaming apps is only going to serve to drive people back to piracy where it always just works. Pirate the show as its airing and if its good enough, I'll buy the complete season on BluRay to support it.
The (R)s are waaaaaay more beholden to the telecoms though, and it's the telecoms who are demanding these sweetheart deals to protect their cable business from cable-free streaming.
No shit, itâ(TM)s easier, cheaper and you get a better view to watch from home.
The problem is much larger than that for the NFL.
The fact is that the vast majority of people have better things to do than watch a football game. It's taken the people themselves a very long time to realize this, but once they stop watching they are unlikely to ever start again.
Wow I remember cable. People are still on it?
per device fees and must rent our gateway will fix it and boost profits on internet only subs.
You are taking the "content" as a given. It's not. The content doesn't materialize of its own accord from the vacuum. Someone produces it, and unless they are making art for art's sake, they have an expected return.
Customers are leaving, so punish the remaining customers. What's worse? Sign-in sharing or people using BitTorrent?
You already can. For example my wife can wait for Gilmore Girls to play on Netflix. Or pay $30 for a 24 episode season. Or pay $4 for a single episode.
Sweet! How about we do the a la cart for internet in general too? Use nothing pay nothing, just $5 a month for Facebook, $10 for gmail, $12 for google search or pay $0.25 per search with no monthly plan. What an awesome fucking deal!
It is blatantly obvious to anyone paying attention that cable subscriptions are way, way down. The gig is up for these bandits. It took me a while to figure it out but I went from paying about $140 a month for 200 channels of crap to:
1) An $18 Mohu Leaf OTA antenna. One time cost and picks up about 35 channels, many of them in fantastic resolution. Monthly cost: $0
2) Plex media server. Free to install and use. Lots of channels with zero commercials. Monthly cost: $0
3) Pluto. Another free media app with lots of free content, albeit with commercials. Monthly cost: $0
4) Netflix. Comes free with my T-Mobile family plan, which I already had before the promotion was introduced. I decided to bump up to the 4K plan and extra screens. Monthly cost: $2.
5) Amazon Prime. I got Prime just for the free shipping. I consider the TV shows and movies an added bonus. If you want to include the yearly membership then Monthly cost: $8.
So I went from about $140 a month to about $10 a month. Along the way I mostly ditched all commercials and I get to watch what I want when I want.
The people that have yet to figure this out (this means you, cable subscribers) are left to pick up the pieces as the cable companies try to figure out how to stem the bleeding. ESPN is laying people off left right and center. Viewership is down across the board. Once the advertisers figure this out they will demand lower rates, thus the profits plunge even further. Meanwhile, the cable companies predictably are in scramble mode. This password cracking down is just another pointless maneuver. It's not going to work and I think deep down they know it.
I thought the Democrat party had the sodomy market cornered?
Hmmm... I guess à la carte means different things to different people. I'd be willing to go either way, although I prefer specific content over specific channels, like you suggest.
Here's the problem. I cut the cord, but I can already get specific content. Take the Walking Dead, for instance. I can pay Amazon $3 an episode, or $25 for the season. The problem I have with that is, if I were subscribing to cable, AMC would make HALF of what ONE episode costs and I'd be able to watch ALL their shows; even just as conveniently (perhaps more-so) if I have a DVR.
In other words, the à la carte pricing is not commensurate with TV pricing... not even close. AMC is one of those channels I'd directly pay DOUBLE what they make from the cable companies to stream their shows commercial free.... it'd still cost less than $3.00. Even the $5.00 commercial free service AMC is offering right now requires the cable login... the only benefit is you get streaming and commercial free.
So I would expect à la carte pricing for content to be more expensive than the amount you'd come up with by looking at the cost per channel and breaking it down somehow to a cost per show, but even if you take that approach and multiply it by a factor of $10, it's still a tiny fraction of what these stations want to charge, despite the fact that if they had faith in their programming they'd stand to make a lot more, and they'd be happy, and the people would be happy, and the only one's crying would be the cable companies.
IOW, I should be able to pay roughly what a basic cable subscription costs to get just the 10-15 shows I might want to watch streamed commercial free, and the stations would make more money from me than they would from the cable company.... but apparently that's not good enough for them.
Stupid sexy Flanders.
You can get PBS ala-antenna
Millions of customers lost to password sharing? Pure bullshit.
Maybe those customers are tired of getting fucked over by the cable companies and the past few weeks have been the last straw.
Cable companies are losing money and are desperate to make it up. Bullshit and fuck you, that is insulting to our intelligence.
I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
Back to Bittorrent it is. *shrug*
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
... It's a growing problem that could cost pay-TV companies millions of subscribers -- and billions of dollars in revenue -- when they can least afford it. ...
My office mates are looking at me funny, because I quite literally laughed out loud when I read that.
tl;dr Offer episodes for rental and not just purchase.
They can have their shitty, commercial laden, pain-in-the-ass to watch shows. If itâ(TM)s not on Netflix or Amazon Prime Iâ(TM)m just not going to watch it. If more folks are like me itâ(TM)ll help bring about cableâ(TM)s irrelevance sooner. Youâ(TM)re biting the hand that feeds you charter.