TV Everywhere - And why you should *HATE* it

[Tilpots]

What began last summer as an experiment between two major cable companies, Time Warner and Comcast, has now evolved into a major coup to kill free online TV.

I have seen the enemy, and it is TV Everywhere. Who's with me? How do we fight it? Can it be stopped?

Free Press:
TV Competition Nowhere: How the Cable Industry Is Colluding to Kill Online TV

We stand at a defining moment for the future of television and film. Existing and evolving Internet technologies may finally inject much needed competition and choice into the TV market by enabling Americans to watch high-definition programs on the Internet from anywhere or on
the family living room screen. But the big cable, satellite and phone companies, which benefit from the status quo, are trying to put down this revolution in online video.

Huffington Post:
Comcast Launches "TV Everywhere": Say Goodbye to Free Online Television

TV Everywhere is designed to protect the current cable TV subscription model and block competition from upstart online video ventures like Vuze, Roku and Hulu. Cleverly marketed as a consumer-friendly product, TV Everywhere is really a desperate bid by old media giants to crush the emerging market for online TV.

ars technica:
TV Everywhere: gift to consumers or plot to kill online TV?

Bottom line: given the coordinated nature of this effort, the TV Everywhere model represents a collusion deal to allocate markets and fix prices (based on cable subscriptions).

 

[mstrze]

How can free online television make money for the providers?

Isn't the purpose of being in business to make money?

I will willingly pay some amount for the ability to watch programs online or on AppleTV or the like.

The internet revolution with it's free content EVERYWHERE really has shocked me. I mean, how can these companies make money by giving away products?

And obviously...they aren't...the big internet bust in the late 90s can attest the that as well as the recent downturn in the economy...but then the question is how can you now charge for something that you have been offering for no change for so long? Won't someone else come along who's willing to lose money and still offer it for free?

Again, I am willing to pay for online access to programs. I get get free TV over the air on my HDTV with an antenna.

 

[rayward]

How can free online television make money for the providers?

Isn't the purpose of being in business to make money?

I will willingly pay some amount for the ability to watch programs online or on AppleTV or the like.

The internet revolution with it's free content EVERYWHERE really has shocked me. I mean, how can these companies make money by giving away products?

And obviously...they aren't...the big internet bust in the late 90s can attest the that as well as the recent downturn in the economy...but then the question is how can you now charge for something that you have been offering for no change for so long? Won't someone else come along who's willing to lose money and still offer it for free?

Again, I am willing to pay for online access to programs. I get get free TV over the air on my HDTV with an antenna.

Remember when ATMs all used to be free? Then banks started tacking on 50c if you weren't their customer. Who's going to balk at that, right? Then they stretched it to $1. Then a buck-fifty. And so on and so on. Lately I've been charged as much as $5 to use an ATM (which doesn't bother me because I now use a reputable online bank who refunds all my ATM charges).

The tactic for Comcast et al is the same. Once you get people used to paying an incremental charge for something, you can incrementally increase that charge, and people won't complain until it's too late.

Do you remember when your cable bill was $30 or $40..?

 

[Tilpots]

How can free online television make money for the providers?

Isn't the purpose of being in business to make money?

I will willingly pay some amount for the ability to watch programs online or on AppleTV or the like.

The internet revolution with it's free content EVERYWHERE really has shocked me. I mean, how can these companies make money by giving away products?

And obviously...they aren't...the big internet bust in the late 90s can attest the that as well as the recent downturn in the economy...but then the question is how can you now charge for something that you have been offering for no change for so long? Won't someone else come along who's willing to lose money and still offer it for free?

Again, I am willing to pay for online access to programs. I get get free TV over the air on my HDTV with an antenna.

You should read the articles.

The cable companies are monopolizing the internet the same way they provide cable service regionally. They are able to lock out competition and charge any amount they want to for service. Say you're a DirecTV subscriber but you have your internet through Time Warner. Well, Time Warner has the ability to block you from certain parts of the internet because you don't have a cable subscription with them. It goes against everything net neutrality stands for. The Providers are stepping in the way of our access. It's much, much bigger than wanting to pay a few bucks here or there for a show or two.

 

[mstrze]

You should read the articles.

The cable companies are monopolizing the internet the same way they provide cable service regionally. They are able to lock out competition and charge any amount they want to for service. Say you're a DirecTV subscriber but you have your internet through Time Warner. Well, Time Warner has the ability to block you from certain parts of the internet because you don't have a cable subscription with them. It goes against everything net neutrality stands for. The Providers are stepping in the way of our access. It's much, much bigger than wanting to pay a few bucks here or there for a show or two.

BUT we have AT&T (and perhaps other companies in the near future) laying fiber optic cable to provide faster internet and 'psuedo cableTV' to customers, PLUS we are on the verge of being able to have 4G internet speeds wirelessly through any of the cell/wireless providers.

Cable rips people off...no doubt BUT it is not the monopoly it once was. Yes, they are nickel and diming, BUT cable television is NOT the cash cow it once was. They have to make their profits somewhere. That's why it's nice to have another option....and 99% of people out there do have multiple options. And then either the nickel and diming will stop...or said company will go out of business.

In your example, the DirecTV subscriber CAN get his internet through DirecTV as well...or possibly from the phone company through DSL. I believe in my neighborhood, I have 4 options...Other parts of my city have 5 or 6.

 

[almostinsane]

You should read the articles.

The cable companies are monopolizing the internet the same way they provide cable service regionally. They are able to lock out competition and charge any amount they want to for service. Say you're a DirecTV subscriber but you have your internet through Time Warner. Well, Time Warner has the ability to block you from certain parts of the internet because you don't have a cable subscription with them. It goes against everything net neutrality stands for. The Providers are stepping in the way of our access. It's much, much bigger than wanting to pay a few bucks here or there for a show or two.

This is a value added service provided by the content companies. If you dont pay for their service you shouldn't be able to access it for free. It has nothing to do with net neutrality. It's a service provided by them to their customers, not everyone on the internet.

 

[Tilpots]

BUT we have AT&T (and perhaps other companies in the near future) laying fiber optic cable to provide faster internet and 'psuedo cableTV' to customers, PLUS we are on the verge of being able to have 4G internet speeds wirelessly through any of the cell/wireless providers.

Cable rips people off...no doubt BUT it is not the monopoly it once was. Yes, they are nickel and diming, BUT cable television is NOT the cash cow it once was. They have to make their profits somewhere. That's why it's nice to have another option....and 99% of people out there do have multiple options. And then either the nickel and diming will stop...or said company will go out of business.

In your example, the DirecTV subscriber CAN get his internet through DirecTV as well...or possibly from the phone company through DSL. I believe in my neighborhood, I have 4 options...Other parts of my city have 5 or 6.

You have more options than the vast majority of the people, but the issue remains the same. These companies, in your case 4 companies, are likely colluding and price fixing. This is not legal. It denies competition and hurts the consumer. They are divvying up the turf amongst themselves and deciding which parts of the net you get to access.

Again, I suggest you read the articles. They do a far better job of explaining it than I. I even included a link to the ars technica report that really shows both sides of the issue. IMO, TV Everywhere will ultimately hurt the consumer.

This is a value added service provided by the content companies. If you dont pay for their service you shouldn't be able to access it for free. It has nothing to do with net neutrality. It's a service provided by them to their customers, not everyone on the internet.

Value added to who? The cable companies? They are the only ones in the deal who get the value. It's not as if the content holder is receiving money from the viewer.

 

[bmb012]

Aw man, you're right, can't wait to see the awesome new reality shows that crop up as networks get even less budget to work with!

Seriously, though, you don't have a 'right' to content. This has absolutely nothing to do with net neutrality. You didn't pay to have it made, you have no intrinsic right to content that you're not paying for.

Online freedom and privacy /= right to piracy and free everything.

 

[almostinsane]

Value added to who? The cable companies? They are the only ones in the deal who get the value. It's not as if the content holder is receiving money from the viewer.

Value add to the subscriber and the content companies. If I can watch content online provided by Comcast from anywhere then why would I download the program from an illegal source?