ABC, CBS Fox Join Hulu In Blocking Google TV Welcome to the new, fractured, half-insane Internet As we've been covering, Hulu recently thought it would be a brilliant idea to block Google TV devices (be it the Logitech Revue or GoogleTV-embedded Sony TVs) from accessing Hulu.com -- in turn blocking millions of potential ad viewers. Given Hulu has made it clear they're simply an extension of broadcaster desire, it's not too surprising to see the major networks now also blocking GoogleTV viewers from accessing their content and ads. Why fight against a natural evolution of the set top? Fear: "Everybody knows the lock that Google has on Internet traffic in terms of advertising. If you take that model and you extend it to television, suddenly Google's power becomes enormous in the advertising space and the broadcasters don't like that idea," Baker said. Google said in a statement that its new Google TV service "enables access to all the Web content you already get today on your phone and PC, but it is ultimately the content owner's choice to restrict users from accessing their content on the platform." Between retransmission disputes shifting into the Internet space, walled gardens, and business models that restrict what content you can see based on your ISP, things are fracturing as broadcasters and cable try to force an open Internet into their closed, gated and locked business model vision. Fortunately for consumers, any effort to block what's essentially browsers accessing Internet content is destined to fail, though the evolution away from old business models won't be pretty to watch.
|
  baineschile2600 ways to livePremium
join:2008-05-10
Sterling Heights, MI
 ·Comcast
| Eh "As we've been covering, Hulu recently thought it would be a brilliant idea to block Google TV devices (be it the Logitech Revue or GoogleTV-embedded Sony TVs) from accessing Hulu.com -- in turn blocking millions of potential ad viewers. "
Millions? How many Google TVs have sold so far? Barely a few thousand, last I read. | |
|  | | | |  MSaukMSaukPremium
join:2002-01-17
Sandy, UT | Re: Eh I just officially cancelled my Hulu Plus subscription.
--
801 Images | |
|
| | | Yeah, if there were millions to block, no way these content providers would be blocking them. When it's only a few thousand, they can play hardball.
Because what they probably want is a licensing agreement with Google of some kind before they get to the point of millions. | |
|
| | Content Limited to ISP Choice The Internet will bring innovation... but then companies will find a way to kill it... | |
|  woody7Premium
join:2000-10-13
Torrance, CA | hmmmmmmmmmmm................... blocking content and "ads" priceless................. 
--
BlooMe | |
| | | | |
 MPScanPremium
join:2001-08-24
Boston, MA | A for Effort Broadcast networks today are like the RIAA in 2000. Eventually they will realize they don't control the distribution and use of the content -- we do.
--
Organized religion is for those who need it because they don't have enough faith in themselves. | |
| |  TransmasterDon't Blame Me I Voted For Bill and Opus
join:2001-06-20
Cheyenne, WY
 ·CenturyLink
| And mean While..... In the back ground is Apple's hobby, iTV which may or may not go the iTunes route with content. Imagine being able to watch TV shows directly from the producers of such shows instead of them going through as they do now through layers and layers of distribution companies. This would cut out all of the middle men each of whom exercise content control and raise the cost. Watch out Traditional TV land there is a monster lurking in the back ground. 
--
I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man's reasoning powers are not above the monkey's.
- Mark Twain in Eruption | |
| | |  n2jtx
join:2001-01-13
Glen Head, NY | Re: And mean While..... said by Transmaster:In the back ground is Apple's hobby, iTV which may or may not go the iTunes route with content. Imagine being able to watch TV shows directly from the producers of such shows instead of them going through as they do now through layers and layers of distribution companies. I would be curious to see what Two-and-a-Half Men looks like if it wasn't subject to censoring by CBS. If Chuck Lorre's vanity cards are accurate, there is some funky stuff that gets dropped due to "network standards".
--
I support the right to keep and arm bears. | |
| | | | TransmasterDon't Blame Me I Voted For Bill and Opus
join:2001-06-20
Cheyenne, WY Reviews:
·CenturyLink
2 edits | Re: And mean While..... All you have to do is watch a current sitcom produced in the UK. Gays, of both sex's, but mostly men, transitory in context nudity, etc. The BBC, and the independent channels do have a formula for these sitcom just like in the US, but this standard is far more open. Some of these shows are so funny you have to watch them several times to see everything because you are rolling around on the floor laughing. others are just plain awful.
--
I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man's reasoning powers are not above the monkey's.
- Mark Twain in Eruption | |
| | | | | KearnstdElf WizardPremium
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ | Re: And mean While..... Well the US Networks and the FCC are run by a bunch of prudes. You can bet while its ok for two women to kiss and even semi make out on network TV. if two guys shared a loving kiss in primetime the phones at the network would light up with in moments with angry bible thumping parents claiming the network was corrupting their kids.
but have no fear, detailed HD recreations of violent murders on CSI? that is fine with em.
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports | |
| | | | | | TransmasterDon't Blame Me I Voted For Bill and Opus
join:2001-06-20
Cheyenne, WY Reviews:
·CenturyLink
1 edit | Re: And mean While..... said by Kearnstd:Well the US Networks and the FCC are run by a bunch of prudes. You can bet while its ok for two women to kiss and even semi make out on network TV. if two guys shared a loving kiss in primetime the phones at the network would light up with in moments with angry bible thumping parents claiming the network was corrupting their kids. but have no fear, detailed HD recreations of violent murders on CSI? that is fine with em. This is where an iTune model for TV programing delivery would be so great, a Vodcast you could subscribe to like it is with podcasts. I presently have to bittorrent what I watch from the UK if I could subscribe to some of these shows I would do so, and pay for it. I would be happy with programing from Channel4, BBC-2, and BBC-4.
--
I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man's reasoning powers are not above the monkey's.
- Mark Twain in Eruption | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | KearnstdElf WizardPremium
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ | said by Transmaster:said by Kearnstd:Well the US Networks and the FCC are run by a bunch of prudes. You can bet while its ok for two women to kiss and even semi make out on network TV. if two guys shared a loving kiss in primetime the phones at the network would light up with in moments with angry bible thumping parents claiming the network was corrupting their kids. but have no fear, detailed HD recreations of violent murders on CSI? that is fine with em. This is where an iTune model for TV programing delivery would be so great, a Vodcast you could subscribe to like it is with podcasts. I presently have to bittorrent what I watch from the UK if I could subscribe to some of these shows I would do so, and pay for it. I would be happy with programing from Channel4, BBC-2, and BBC-4. And people from the UK and EU torrent US shows, though they do it because our anti-consumer corrupt media conglomerates have series delayed by up to a year for official broadcast channels outside of North America. which was fine up to the late 1990s but nowadays it is kind of hard to be active in a fan community when you are a season behind. Same thing can happen in the reverse direction, lots of US people Torrent Dr. Who for example rather than waiting on the broadcast here.
Funny thing is people on both sides of the Atlantic have admitted if they could legally access same day release of the media they would pay for it. so you have a waiting consumer base but dont service it and then they cry to their purchased lawmakers here in the US that piracy ruins their business but they make no effort to supply those willing to pay.
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | TransmasterDon't Blame Me I Voted For Bill and Opus
join:2001-06-20
Cheyenne, WY Reviews:
·CenturyLink
1 edit | Re: And mean While..... said by Snakeoil:Screw iTunes.. why does it always have to be iTunes? The point I am getting at is you don't need ITunes for everything. Ok you don't like iTunes, Apple and Steve Jobs, however iTunes is the 9000 ton gorilla in content delivery and the example to look at. iTunes already has a massive frame work up and running. iTV is just a part of this process and right now is just a long term project for Apple.
The problem is the TV and Movie industry has seen what iTunes has done to the music business. The record labels first let iTune distribute their catalogs. They thought because they held all of the rights to these recordings they had Apple by the 'nads. Too late they learned who had who. To make matters even worse for these gangsters artists realized they could directly sell their musical efforts on iTunes bypassing the studio completely. This is the real fear of the television broadcasters what happened to the recording industry will happen to them.
--
I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man's reasoning powers are not above the monkey's.
- Mark Twain in Eruption | |
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | said by Transmaster:All you have to do is watch a current sitcom produced in the UK. Gays, of both sex's, but mostly men, transitory in context nudity, etc. The BBC, and the independent channels do have a formula for these sitcom just like in the US, but this standard is far more open. Some of these shows are so funny you have to watch them several times to see everything because you are rolling around on the floor laughing. others are just plain awful. Why aren't there gay female shows... that's so much more interesting. *cough* On a purely intellectual level. | |
|
| | | | said by Transmaster:In the back ground is Apple's hobby, iTV which may or may not go the iTunes route with content. Imagine being able to watch TV shows directly from the producers of such shows instead of them going through as they do now through layers and layers of distribution companies. This would cut out all of the middle men each of whom exercise content control and raise the cost. Watch out Traditional TV land there is a monster lurking in the back ground. There are only three layers - the group that funds and distributes the content, the group that creates the content, and the cable/telco/ISP that provides the network connection. So, your network, the people they pay to make the content, and the local broadcaster/cable/telco the sends it to your TV.
Plus, they don't want Google displaying ads on the TV with their content in a window. On cable side, they can do contractual limitations that control how their content is displayed. If they play with Google, they lose that control.
Google TV can go directly to the content creator to get content and bypass that normal middlemen. However, no one has been able to build a business around that direct to consumer model yet. | |
|
 vpokoPremium
join:2003-07-03
Boston, MA
1 edit | It seems too easy to overcome technically There's no way to know what kind of device is connecting to your website unless it tells you. I'm sure it would be trivial to hack the Google TV to make it pretend that it's Internet Explorer running on a Windows PC. | |
| | DodgePremium
join:2002-11-27 | Re: It seems too easy to overcome technically said by vpoko:There's no way to know what kind of device is connecting to your website unless it tells you. I'm sure it would be trivial to hack the Google TV to make it pretend that it's Internet Explorer running on a Windows PC. But then they can counter with, "Oh this is IE, mind installing this activex that will make your experience so much better. Oh you can't, well so sorry, do come back when it works" | |
| | | vpokoPremium
join:2003-07-03
Boston, MA | Re: It seems too easy to overcome technically Yeah, they'd need to give you a choice of browsers to mimic, that way the studios could only break it if they found a critical technology supported by all major PC platforms but not Google TV. | |
|
|  milnoc
join:2001-03-05
H3B
kudos:1 | Or Google TV could allow you to select which browser you wish to mimic, including the option of specifying a custom browser ID.
If it becomes this easy to break, Google TV won't have much to worry about for now.
--
Watch my future television channel's public test broadcast!
»thecanadianpublic.com (click "Watch Live!") | |
|
| | How'd you like to be the person who has to implement this? I wonder how the programmers feel when they get the memo - "Design a system to block our content from being seen on a, b and c". Personally I couldn't do it, the internet was and will hopefully still be a place that everything is open to everyone. But I know that is a pipe dream and every morning I wake up reading another story about how X company now says I can't access this because I'm not special enough or I'm not worth enough money to them. | |
| | | | | |
 FBGuyPremium
join:2005-03-19
Evanston, IL | what OS does GoogleTV run on? i'd imagine that it will get modded eventually and this functionality will work again. | |
| | | Imagine... if McDonald's, Wendy's, and Hardee's et al decided to block everyone from their drive-up windows who was driving a, say, Chevy (or Ford or whatever)? (similar concept in its dumb-assery) | |
| slckusrPremium
join:2003-03-17
Maumee, OH
kudos:1 Reviews:
 ·AT&T U-Verse
| Afraid of Google? Why are the networks so afraid of Google, they make no tv shows, they own no broadcast networks, My TV with GoogleTV attached still plays the same commercials, i can skip them with my current DVR, I can go online to HULU with my pc hooked up to my PC.
This box offers nothing different than a pc/tv solution other than ease of use. More use = more viewers = more ad dollars.
/shrug i dont get it, all the big networks afraid of a little box. | |
| |
See 8 replies to this post | |
| | You can run, but you can't hide. They can fight it all day long, but only 10 years from now we will look back at the days when we had to sit in front of our TV at a certain time to watch a certain show and laugh. Pretty soon everything will be VOD through a variety of digital media devices and the users will pick their own lineup. There will be no such thing as "prime-time" or "late-night". It only makes sense that we should be able to watch the programing we want, whenever we wanted on whatever devise we choose. I mean think about it, how about a Samsung refrigerator with a built in digital media device and a 9" lcd where you can watch your favorite show whenever you choose while being in the kitchen. The major networks should embrace that change and not fight it and I think whichever realizes this first and gets a head start will be the winner. | |
| | | | Re: You can run, but you can't hide. I already laugh at the times of "My show is on at this time I must be home to watch it" thanks to my DVR. In 10 years, though, we might be seeing the death of the networks and cable's lock on content. You'll be able to get content right from Netflix, Google TV, iTunes and other similar services.
--
-Jason Levine | |
|
MartyT
join:2004-09-03
Georgetown, SC | Forget these new boxes! Forget these new boxes. Hook up a decent HDMI equipped laptop without a display or a cracked display (probably get them cheap on eBay) and create your own HTPC. I did.
Get out your iPod/iPhone and install HippoRemote »hipporemote.com Nice virtual touchpad and keyboard (free).
Voila. No blocking of websites and you can do anything. You can install Boxee if you wish too.
Now, how to get the Google TV search experience? Oh, I guess they will block you from that . . . HA!!! A vicious circle. | |
| | | | Re: Forget these new boxes! One thing that has not been said is that they want to protect hulu plus. coming on roku and blue ray players. They need paid apps not free.
it's gross.
jb | |
| | sam64
join:2006-07-31
Newtown, PA | Yeah, but those decent HMDI laptops with no display consume a fair amount of power, put out a nice bit of heat and have the annoying whirring sound of the fan when sitting right next to my TV/home entertainment system. Plus, it needs the user to be somewhat adept with fiddling round with codecs, plug-ins and such.
For most average people (unlike most of the readers on this forum) this is too much and they are happy with solutions like Google TV, the Boxee box, Apple TV or iTV, Roku and other such appliances. Simplicity is what sells these solutions - they may not be the best for the job but for the average user they are the most simple and elegant of solutions. | |
|
| | They aren't just worried about Google The big programmers aren't just worried about Google; what they're afraid of is TV moving to Internet delivery. The reason is simple: the current players have the perfect walled gardens: broadcast TV, cable, and satellite. Let's say you're an independent programmer who has a great idea, and you're ready to produce and distribute it. You can produce it all right, but how will you distribute it? If you want any decent number of viewers, you have no choice but to go through the major media companies, and they take their cut, choose how your program will be delivered, and even exercise editorial control. Internet delivery would level the playing field by allowing independent producers to distribute their content without having to deal with the likes of Disney, Viacom, Fox, Comcast, etc. And that scares the hell out of the big players. Even though we have hundreds of channels, they're owned by only a handful of companies, and the barriers to entry are very high, which keeps out competition. The Internet would change all that, which is what the established players don't want. | |
| | | | Re: They aren't just worried about Google What gets me is that the media companies who produce these shows should welcome this move. I saw a graphic a year or so ago that showed that cable companies pay on average 22 cents per channel per subscriber. Now, obviously, producers will have more than one channel.
Suppose a producer has 5 channels and makes their own paid-subscription Hulu-esque system. They could charge $1.10 per month to get the same revenue they get from the cable operators. Obviously, they would need money to run the system, but they should be able to charge $3 per month and give people on demand access (similar to Netflix) to their shows sans cable.
If I could pay $3 per month for each of Disney, Nickelodean and Discovery content ($9 per month total), I would cancel cable tomorrow. Meanwhile the producers would be getting more money from me than they did when I was a cable subscriber.
--
-Jason Levine | |
| | |
1 edit | Re: They aren't just worried about Google That makes sense in theory, but there is one factor you may not be considering: competition. But first, let me add to the numbers a bit. The programmers, by and large, deal with fixed costs for delivery. Once a programmer like Disney pays for the studios, equipment, programming, and satellite capacity for a given channel, it can deliver that signal to one viewer or 300 million, but the major expenses are going to stay more or less the same. Now, cable and satellite systems are pretty much running at capacity in terms of the channels they can offer, and all the major players have a seat at the table. The same holds true for broadcast TV stations. With those, all of the available spectrum in major markets is taken, and most smaller markets can't financially support any more stations. As for the channels being shown, some are more desirable to the cable and sat services than others in terms of programming, which would seem to imply that the less attractive channels wouldn't get carried and therefore die. However, that doesn't happen because the programmers have demanded that the cable and sat companies carry the lesser-viewed channels in order to get the ones they really want, so these crummy channels still get a free ride and get to sell ad time, even though they may not pull in many viewers. It also has the effect of filling systems to capacity, which keeps out competition. You may have a great idea for a channel that could take on SyFy, but you can't get carriage because, even if the cable and sat providers wanted to carry you, they can't because they can't drop some awful little channel because it's owned by a major programmer who will pull all their channels if that one channel gets dropped.
So, even if the big programmers could make more money per channel on the Internet, they'd lose their ability to bundle in their crap channels, and they'd lose their ability to use those bundles to crowd out potential competitors. | |
| | | | | | Re: They aren't just worried about Google Yes, they would lose the ability to crowd out competitors, but they could still bundle. If you signed up for Discovery, for example, you could get Discovery Channel content, Science Channel content, TLC content, etc. They could even keep them "segmented" into channels if they wanted. (I'm picturing selecting Discovery on a Roku or similar device, then selecting Science Channel, then selecting a show and then choosing the season/episode.) So consumers would still be forced to get the whole bundle if they wanted it for just one show on one channel, but it still would be cheaper than paying for cable TV.
--
-Jason Levine | |
|
| KearnstdElf WizardPremium
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ | Fox and Firefly is an example of how a Network can completely Fsck over a quality show. it was shown in terrible timeslots that could be screwed up by sports broadcasts and they where never shown in order. but Networks also do not like to bankroll high quality shows because they cost money, while something like American Idol is pretty cheap per unit.
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports | |
|
| | | *BANG!* That's the sound of the TV networks shooting their feet off! | |
| elray
join:2000-12-16
Santa Monica, CA | Google. Fails. Again. Google still doesn't get it.
Reselling metadata, without being able to deliver the content, ain't gonna work. They didn't do their due diligence - didn't ink contracts with the content owners.
Google may have cornered the market on eggheads, but that doesn't make them marketing geniuses.
iTunes demonstrated that the masses, not just spendy apple devotees, will pay a premium to buy music downloads - where previous efforts died off. Jobs succeeded because he brought the five major labels to the table and (temporarily) achieved uniform pricing.
For GoogleTV to mean anything at all, not just another "Oh, well" in the list of Epic Failures, they would need to use their talents to make a pact with all the players, so all the content is available without interruption. | |
| | | | Re: Google. Fails. Again. Sounds like bribery. Isn't Google TV just a hardware platform with custom software to make access to already available content easier? If they're charging per month for a service, it would be different but what makes this different than any PC user? | |
| | | | | Re: Google. Fails. Again. said by mlcarson:Sounds like bribery. Isn't Google TV just a hardware platform with custom software to make access to already available content easier? If they're charging per month for a service, it would be different but what makes this different than any PC user? In the eyes of the content providers it is different because they did not expect this content to end up directly on a TV and to be someone's main source of viewing the programming.
They expected it to be viewed on laptops or elsewhere, when someone had missed a show or wanted to watch again. They didn't want it on TV's because they will lose the higher revenue of broadcast advertisement they receive when viewership starts to disappear, and appears on the Internet. Where the advertisers are already paying less and are happy to pay less. The content providers expected that to be EXTRA ad revenue, not en lieu of their broadcast advertising.
If they had a way to specifically block HTPC's, you can bet they would.
Since it is easy to block something like GoogleTV or another appliance type box, they do it because they can. | |
|
| KearnstdElf WizardPremium
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ | GTV is really just a method to access existing content streams. keep in mind that Hulu has blocked PS3 as well and is always fighting against boxee. Content owners are deathly scared of Hulu working on the TV via user friendly means.(read plug and play devices and not a PC) because their gravy train is being threatened. the stars of the shows are worried too as their millions of dollars per episode are also in threat and the owners and actors of said shows just cant live with the fact that the future might not be able to fund three beach houses in Malibu.
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports | |
| |  C_Kill The SocialistsPremium
join:2001-03-19
kudos:3 | bingo, google thinks they can throw ads at people while leeching off the content owners
--
"and no matter how drunk you get .. don't lick the wall socket to test polarity..." | |
|
rmdir
join:2003-03-13
Chicago, IL | Options PlayOn serves streams quite nicely to the PS3. I debated about upgrading firmware on my PS and losing Linux, but tried PlayOn since it works with PS3 and was able to watch Netflix the other night. I'm running it across my hardwired Gigabit LAN, not wireless. | |
|  KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK | Seems like that Piracy will be the only true option left ...
When everyone is bound and determined to not provide you anything and demand everything, I think the only option left will be to simply take it without giving them squat.
Hardly surprising, really. Of course I'm sure they'll try and give you the death penalty for daring to defy them, of course.
--
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini
| |
| | | Google TV and Hulu I also just cancelled my Hulu Plus subscription. | |
|
| |
|
|
·
·
