Is This An Anti-Tivo Move?

Discussion in 'TiVo Coffee House - TiVo Discussion' started by Emacee, Jul 26, 2011.

  1. Emacee

    Emacee Member

    227
    8
    Dec 15, 2000
    Philadelphia...
    The New York Times reports today that Fox and ABC are considering stopping next day Internet streaming of their TV shows. Both networks are partners in Hulu, which is available now on Tivo Premiere units. Their shows would be made available through cable systems' on-demand services. Those cable company on-demand services can not be accessed with most Tivo cable card boxes (just the cable company's own DVR's and specially-tweaked Tivo models which a few cable systems offer subscribers). Mostly, I guess, this should not be a big deal for Tivo users, since almost all Tivo's now in use can record two shows at the same time. Except this past season, on Monday nights I liked Harry, Castle and Hawaii Five-O (so I watched Hawaii Five-O online). This sounds like the cable companies and the networks are getting together so (1) the networks get more money and (2) cable companies can "encourage" subscribers to use their "approved" DVRs (and !@#$ you if you'd rather have a Tivo and your cable system does not offer it).

    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/27/business/media/fox-to-limit-next-day-streaming-on-hulu.html?partner=rss&emc=rss
     
  2. lpwcomp

    lpwcomp Well-Known Member

    9,461
    298
    May 6, 2002
    John's...
    Could be designed to get Comcast customers just as frustrated waiting for TiVo Premiere OnDemand access as DirecTV customers are at waiting for the new HD DirectTiVo.
     
  3. seattlewendell

    seattlewendell New Member

    248
    0
    Jan 11, 2006
    This not an anti-Tivo move. I am wiling to bet the less than 3% of people get to Hulu via Tivo.
    This would be an anti-Tivo move if the year was 2005. Tivo is no threat to the cable companies. Tivo is now a niche device. The cable companies won the DVR war. They bet that if they gave people something "free" (with the true cost hidden in your bill), that was "like" a Tivo it would be good enough for most people. Sadly they were right.
     
  4. aaronwt

    aaronwt UHD Addict

    23,123
    1,093
    Jan 31, 2002
    Northern...
    Maybe it's designed to get people to buy the four tuner TiVo?;)
     
  5. aadam101

    aadam101 Tell me a joke

    7,114
    12
    Jul 14, 2002
    Massachusetts
    Hmmmmm......This is not at all what Engadget is reporting as far as FOX is concerned. The story over there is that FOX will only offer NEW shows to people who subscribe to cable or Hulu. If you don't subscribe you have to wait 8 days to watch the show.

    To me, this sounds like FOX is pro-piracy. This kind of move is simply going to create more bittorrent users.

    The TV industry is trying to to turn internet TV into a walled garden like AOL used to be.....we all know how well that turned out.
     
  6. Worf

    Worf Well-Known Member

    2,417
    129
    Sep 15, 2000
    Not really. The networks want people to pay for TV. Either cable or Hulu. If you want it free, they want you to watch it on your PC, but wanting it on your nice 50" flatscreen means $$$.

    It's not Anti-TiVo unless they're deliberately screwing with the timeslot so TiVo can't catch it. It's more an anti-free-TV move.
     
  7. lafos

    lafos Well-Known Member

    1,428
    33
    Nov 7, 2004
    Sioux Falls, SD
    I don't see it as anti-TiVo. The shows are available on Hulu+, which can be reached by TiVo for a subscription fee, but not by free Hulu for eight days, which can not be accessed by TiVo. More like a way to get impatient people to pay more for content.
     
  8. javabird

    javabird Well-Known Member

    1,173
    35
    Oct 12, 2006
    Seattle
    I see this more as an anti-streaming move. More and more people are "cutting the cord" by canceling cable and getting TV via the web. This is a move to give value to cable. (It's also why most of us got Tivos in the first place -- to record shows on TV so we could watch them later :) )
     
  9. steve614

    steve614 what ru lookin at?

    10,722
    0
    May 1, 2006
    Dallas, TX
    I say not an anti-TiVo move.

    I read somewhere that this is going to be the trend for programming providers.
    They want to have some time between when a show is aired and when it is available online. This will supposedly discourage people from watching online as opposed to the actual broadcast.
    They also want to limit the number of episodes available online, hoping to increase DVD sales.
     
  10. TheWGP

    TheWGP Hmmm...

    299
    0
    Oct 26, 2007
    I'm really shocked that the TV industry isn't learning from the experience of the music and movie industries. The RIAA, in particular, fought digital distribution tooth and nail - and now a significant portion of young people think there's nothing wrong with simply downloading whatever they want for free.

    The fundamental issue they're having is: how do you compete with free? This is a bit nuanced in the case of the major TV networks, because they WERE originally free over the air (ad supported, govt spectrum, etc, etc, but to the consumer, free over the air). Of course, they're still free over the air - but that's not the model that makes them money anymore. The money is in retransmission fees and licensing... and the large distributors are simply more important to the TV industry than still-relatively-small players like Hulu and similar.

    Anyway, as I was saying, competing with free: I don't think the networks realize that when they pull the next-day ep of Show X off Hulu, the next thing a TON of people are going to do is go search "free download SHOW X." Sure, maybe you drive a few, few, few people to pay for a one-time view like iTunes or something, but most cord-cutters are relatively willing to "supplement when necessary" with less legitimate sources. Why? It's just easier... it's not always that you're competing with FREE per se, it's that you're competing with FREE AND EASY. The software developers have started to learn this - sometimes even people who *bought the game* will download the cracked version because it's LESS HASSLE.

    I don't know what the right solution here is, but I'm 99.9% sure it involves MORE access to shows, not less. The fragmentation of 'where can I find show X' is already awful among the various services, and unfortunately it looks like it'll only get worse. Of course, every show is available, every time, free, no waiting period, without ads - on BitTorrent. If I were in the TV industry, that would be a simple statement of facts that would scare me.
     
  11. aadam101

    aadam101 Tell me a joke

    7,114
    12
    Jul 14, 2002
    Massachusetts
    I don't think there is any company they is anti-Tivo. The players in the game are big and Tivo just sits in the dugout.
     
  12. Worf

    Worf Well-Known Member

    2,417
    129
    Sep 15, 2000
    The TV and movie industry has adopted digital distribution. After all, iTunes, Netflix, Amazon, Xbox Live, PlayStation Network and other places all offer digital downloads of TV and movies.

    However, they also see digital distribution as a tier of services. For movies, it's theatres, second run, rental/PPV, disc/digital, and finally, streaming. For TV, they have Hulu, to which they treat as a service for people to catch up on shows people have missed.

    Anyhow, streaming video or downloads are far less efficient than broadcast TV - it just isn't scalable bandwidth wise (adding another TV to a cable or OTA broadcast doesn't reduce the number of channels you can serve. Adding another simultaneous TV watcher consumes added bandwidth). Very few people stream videos right now - it may seem a lot, but it's still a tiny fraction.
     
  13. ZeoTiVo

    ZeoTiVo I can't explain

    25,527
    2
    Jan 2, 2004
    actually the networks that own Hulu now simply want to sell it off, it is that simple
     
  14. aadam101

    aadam101 Tell me a joke

    7,114
    12
    Jul 14, 2002
    Massachusetts
    I've seen estimates that say Netflix streaming uses about 20% of the total bandwidth in the US.

    http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2011/05/netflix-traffic/

    I wouldn't call that a tiny fraction. It's quite large and very surprising actually.

    Also, the fact that Netflix bandwidth is higher than bittorrent bandwidth means the pirates are actually losing which should make content providers happy.
     
  15. Worf

    Worf Well-Known Member

    2,417
    129
    Sep 15, 2000
    The measurement was done at the ISP level. This is important, because it doesn't measure traffic over ISP-ISP transit links.

    Netflix, like Hulu, Steam, and other large content providers colocates a server with many large ISPs. That server caches content for serving to customers - it doesn't have the entire library, but it's often pre-loaded with high-demand content, and caches other streams when necessary.

    They do this so the content providers don't have to pay transit for every customer, and the ISP network is often faster internally than having to go over the border routers. Customers benefit too - you get faster streaming and more consistent streaming.

    Netflix etc. have to have huge multilayer CDNs out of necessity (people could request uncached stuff, after all), but they save a ton of bandwidth - for every customer served content via the colo'd server, that's one less stream Netflix HQ has to stream over the big and wildly unpredictable Internet. It's a win-win for everyone.

    That 20% is quite meaningless - it doesn't really say how much of that is over the Internet and hoe much was handled by the local CDN.
     
  16. tenthplanet

    tenthplanet Well-Known Member

    1,576
    465
    Mar 5, 2004
    It's an anti free Hulu move. As far as bittorent goes a few more days doesn't create more thieves, as always its a morality question. Time is running is out on free internet TV.
     
  17. aadam101

    aadam101 Tell me a joke

    7,114
    12
    Jul 14, 2002
    Massachusetts
    I disagree. If my Tivo missed a show for some reason or it got pre-empted, I would just go to the FOX website and download it. Since I cannot watch it there I would get it via BT.

    I actually did this the other day. Obama cut into All My Children during the last 15 minutes. Since All My Children is not available on Hulu+ (it's only available on Hulu) I got it via BT and watched it on my TV.
     
  18. rasmasyean

    rasmasyean New Member

    170
    0
    Jul 28, 2011
    Despite what you read in the media, I think regular "bittorent" users are a small minority of the potential market...where most of the "pirated stuff" would have never been bought anyway. I've found that ppl who "work and have money", just buy things and don't really know much about "bittorent". Most are scared of viruses and stuff and don't even think it's worth it. First off, they have the money (of which cable/DVD's are well within budget), and since they spend their time MAKING money and do other things like SPEND money, they don't really bother much with researching all this type of stuff that teenagers/college kids with no money and lots of spare time do on the internet.
     
  19. aadam101

    aadam101 Tell me a joke

    7,114
    12
    Jul 14, 2002
    Massachusetts
    It's the teenagers and college kids who are going to grow into adults and continue to pirate. They know how easy it is and they won't be scared of viruses.

    As for the people who won't use BT, what other options do they have?
    Let's pretend the show 24 is still on the air. I choose 24 because it's a show that you really have to watch in order and has a lot of cliffhangers. They have a power outage and miss the episode. What are their choices now?

    1. Wait 8 days and watch it on fox.com
    2. Sign up for Hulu+ at $8/month
    3. Subscribe to cable

    None of these options are good for the viewer or for the ratings of the TV show. I know plenty of people who stopped watching 24 simply because they fell behind and didn't have an easy way to get access to the episodes. They may have waited a year for the DVD but the Nielsen ratings were lost.

    Let's not forget how brutal FOX is. They VERY often cancel shows after only one or two episodes. You would think they would want people to have as many options to watch as possible.
     
  20. rasmasyean

    rasmasyean New Member

    170
    0
    Jul 28, 2011
    By the time they grow up, tech would have changed and they would have to relearn all those counter-piracy changes in order to keep up with what's the latest safeties and dangers. Technology doesn't stay the same for long. Long past were the days someone just copies "Windows" onto a floppy disk in school and passes it around to friends. People will lose time for trivial stuff like "bittorenting" and do something more worthwhile in their new lives vs. scoure the internet all the time for free crap. The common person is more likely to grab a couple of bargain bin DVD's while shopping at Wall Mart for supplies vs. pirating a bunch of movies for the night.

    How many ppl are you talking about who have "power outages during their favorite show"? That's not an overwhelmingly common natural disaster that we should consider backup plans for. And if they are serious enough about Tube time, they would have a subscription to cable and the associated on demand listings that come with it. And something like "TiVo" too.

    And FOX doesn't care if you want to watch the 3rd episode. They care if A LOT of ppl want to watch the 3rd episode and how much they can charge per viewer to the advertiser.
     

Share This Page