In an effort to maintain relevancy during a time when online TV viewing
is on the rise, a number of big name cable companies are looking to throw in online companion packages to sweeten the pay-TV equation. The
Wall Street Journal is reporting that top cable providers (namely Comcast and TWC) and TV networks are looking to assemble a large swath of online programming -- some of which has been previously unavailable -- and deliver it only to subscribers. As it stands, loads of shows are available right now for free via
Hulu and
broadcast websites, but some channels without online portals can only be caught via cable. From what we're gathering, it seems that these operators could be working to bring some of that content to the web, essentially providing a means to tune into a Comcast or TWC lineup without having to be in front of the set-top-box.
Update: Due to some quotes taken out of context, we have revamped our story above to show a clearer picture of the cable companies' intentions.
posted Feb 20th 2009 at 10:04AM
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 3)
Jonathan Bergeron @ Feb 20th 2009 10:07AM
I find nothing wrong with that. It's a sound business plan. Not everything can be free, we're not living in the land of Star Trek.
kjb434 @ Feb 20th 2009 10:14AM
I agree.
Cable is not a right by no means. It's a payed service. The cable companies have to work with the networks. If they networks don't agree, the cable company can drop them (networks don't want this).
The days of HULU will not necessarily end, but it won't be free anymore.
Eternal Night @ Feb 20th 2009 10:14AM
The problem is that it sounds like they're not giving an option in the middle. What if I only want to watch a couple shows? Why do I need cable in addition to having online services? Why pay $60 if I only care about watching the last 5 episodes of Battlestar or only want to watch the next season of Weeds?
This whole thing sounds like an easy way for cable companies to cheap out on On Demand services.
Look_Around_You @ Feb 20th 2009 10:15AM
Those shows on network sites have ads that pay for the service.
I totally appreciate having the shows online, and am more than willing to watch a 30 second ad every few minutes. However, I'm not willing to get Concast to have the privilege.
pavelbure @ Feb 20th 2009 10:18AM
by free you mean my internet bill i pay every month. hopefully this will be for all paying cable customers, not just $75+ digital bullshit packages.
MattWPBS @ Feb 20th 2009 10:18AM
On the possibility you're not being sarcastic...
Option 1: Shows are available online via an easily accessible advertising revenue supported platform (eg: Hulu). People can watch the shows on their TV via Boxee or similar, or watch them in the browser on their computer. People use this due to ease of use. Content provider receives advertising revenue.
Option 2: Shows are only available online via a subscription service bundled with cable supplier or similar . Only people who can access it are those with the correct cable supplier, and is limited to the supplier's choice of where they can watch it. Additional effort/cost is more than the additional effort involved in downloading from torrent sites or the like. Content provider gets decreasing revenue from the supplier, and no revenue relating to torrents.
Which is the better business case?
Josh @ Feb 20th 2009 10:20AM
@ kjb434
while that makes sense in theory, do you really think comcast will drop nbc? the backlash from customers would be insane, not to mention that you can get nbc ota, so cable companies are powerless for network broadcasts
Tyanney @ Feb 21st 2009 10:51AM
I'm not sure that you understand the way hulu, you tube and every legal video viewing service works. They're not free they have commercials and sponsors. With your logic over the air TV is free. I wonder how over the air networks stay in business offering a free service?
THizzle7XU @ Feb 20th 2009 10:21AM
Yes, but Hulu is not cable shows. The cable companies show not have their hand in the cookie jar on that one. I can throw up an antenna and watch most of the stuff on Hulu. All I would need is to buy my own DVR. And boom, it's Hulu. It's all "free" network television! This is a desparate move on the cable companies part since people are realizing that the actual cable channels are mostly crap and that you can get by with OTA, online, and Netflix. The only exception is live sports, and if you don't mind heading to a sports bar, you can get rid of cable no problem.
Rakesh @ Feb 20th 2009 10:22AM
I agree too. It's a perfectly logical move, if you ask me, for cable companies to deliver the same content they deliver over a cable connection, via the Internet as well. They have all those content relationships in place and the networks want to see their content available online.
And who knows... maybe the cable company even gets the user interface and delivery model right (like Hulu has)! That'll be the tough part of this for them IMO.
Geoffrey Sperl @ Feb 20th 2009 10:54AM
Is it sound?
I pay $62.95/month to Comcast for the cable modem rental and service. That's it. That $62.95/month goes solely to Comcast (sure, the "rental fee" subsidizes their purchase cost on the cable modem, but I've paid for that exact same modem for almost six years now so I have to assume I have more, much more, than covered their costs on that).
So I'm using OTA to get my broadcast TV, and I have an Apple TV to grab the video podcasts and cable shows I watch from the iTMS. I also game online and stream Netflix. No VoIP here, and, I should note, that I might grab a show unavailable elsewhere using a torrent, but that's very, very rare. I'm running a router using the Tomato firmware and, from month to month, I'm using a decent amount less than 100GB of bandwidth... so I'm not one of their crazier customers.
How much, exactly, does it cost for them to maintain that connection coming into my house?
I just can't imagine, even sucking up 100GB of bandwidth a month (when you have users like my mother, who might use 1GB of bandwidth a month, if that), that Comcast is not making a profit from my being their customer. I even looked into going to their next highest speed... but at ~$75/month they were still going to keep the 250GB bandwidth cap (and, while I'm nowhere near hitting that cap, I think it's a bit greedy to give higher speed at a higher price and not increase the cap for those customers).
So, no, It's not a sound business plan. It's greed, plain and simple. And when you are a greedy company and your customers know you are greedy, you end up paying by losing those customers.
Evan @ Feb 20th 2009 11:09AM
If consumers are going to pay for online content, it should be to the companies producing the content, NOT the cable companies.
What the cable companies are doing is extortion - they are forcing themselves to be a part of a transaction that should be directly between consumers and television networks, because the cable companies control the pipes and have the power to harm the network's traditional services (e.g. by dropping channels or moving channels to less favorable "tiers"). Right now, delivery of traditional channels is more important to the television networks, so the networks comply. But that compliance today will come back to haunt the television networks in 20 years, because the cable companies will have established themselves as a middleman instead of the "dumb pipe" they should be (dumb pipe - we pay for bandwidth and can use that bandwidth however we choose, including buying streaming video directly from the source of our choice).
Faridi Qaium @ Feb 20th 2009 11:17AM
you know jonathan, S###w you. You must have a bun of money lying around so you dont care about it. Doing this will encourage more pirating.
pavelbure @ Feb 20th 2009 11:27AM
@Geoffrey Sperl
try signing up for comcast's basic cable service. it's about $12 a month and with this you will get the discount on the internet service. which comes out cheaper than just internet. that's what i do. my bil is about $58 a month with both.
BananaBoat @ Feb 20th 2009 11:34AM
The problem here is that ratings are sinking on TV. Ratings that they depend upon to get advertising dollars. Yes, they may get Ad dollars for an online show, but not nearly as much. They are desperate to find a way to monetize online content before it is too late. I don't agree with how they are going about it (How will they know if I have cable? Will I need to sign up at Hulu now and have my watching habits tracked as if I were a Nielsen household?) but I understand their reasoning.
As for dealing directly with the content producers...well... there is always Itunes where you can cut cable companies completely out of the loop, or by buying a DVD, etc. Nothing is free though. It never has been. (Personally I Tivo things and skip the commercials completely. If I love a show, I'll buy the Blu-Ray version eventually. If I forget to Tivo, I'll watch it on Hulu. If Hulu suddenly was closed off to me because I have Sat and not Cable, I'm sure I'd still find a way to watch, one way or the other)
Chris @ Feb 20th 2009 12:13PM
the problem with hulu is that they don't have enough bandwidth, I have a 16Mbps cable connections an their low resolution content often buffers, and the 480p option is just unwatchable. If my cable company starts providing me the same shows in a similar way it would not only be fast enough for HD, but would cost them less on internet bills since the content is only on their wires. As a customer, I like this idea, and doubly so if I can still access the content from any connection. I'm already paying for cable, but watch online because the network's scheduling doesn't match up with my viewing habits.
as for the other sources, it's mostly Windows only and that's just not convenient for me.
cable companies can't take hulu down, they don't have that power or right, but if they make a better way to watch for their customers, how's that not a good thing?
OneLove @ Feb 20th 2009 3:20PM
alt.binaries.tv
alt.binaries.multimedia
bitches!!!
thedesolate1 @ Feb 23rd 2009 8:59AM
@Onelove
You broke the first rule!
you bastard....lol
Jason @ Feb 20th 2009 10:08AM
No problem, I'll just continue to pirate shows.
PDubNYC @ Feb 20th 2009 12:31PM
meaning you pirate them now, so this really has nothing to do with you. And, if I feel like being really preachy about it (which i really don't, but since you are one of these pirate braggarts...) you are part of the problem, causing these over-reactions that affect the rest of us
Jason @ Feb 20th 2009 1:56PM
I'm sorry, what? I was too busy checking my torrents.
Look_Around_You @ Feb 20th 2009 10:08AM
TV-Links FTW!
thedesolate1 @ Feb 20th 2009 10:10AM
Niiiice. We should boycott these fuckers.
MaxSMoke @ Feb 20th 2009 10:21AM
How can you boycott? They OWN everything we watch. God forbid we turn off the TV. Owww, fate worse then death!
dazepro @ Feb 20th 2009 10:29AM
Or you could always go outside and enjoy what God created, or better yet, pick up a book, I know, hard to think of isn't it.
Andir3.0 @ Feb 20th 2009 10:45AM
"Or you could always go outside and enjoy what God created"
We need to have at least one thing to enjoy.
Radioheaddickie @ Feb 20th 2009 2:01PM
@dazepro I use TV to escape the shit your "god" has created.
Shaka @ Feb 20th 2009 12:36PM
Truth be told my only reason for watching tv is The Daily Show. So that shouldn't be too hard.
MaxSMoke @ Feb 20th 2009 10:10AM
Never underestimate Corporate America's ability to F'up a good thing.
hexydes @ Feb 20th 2009 11:06AM
Only when the government has given them a clear path to do so. Generally, when corporations have to survive on sheer competitiveness alone, whoever rises to the top provides a great service.
It's only when the government starts making back-room contracts with these providers that they become lethargic and heavy-handed, taking the position of "You don't like what we're doing? Then leave us...you'll be back..."
Government involvement creates lazy corporations. The only role the federal government should play in private industry is making sure that they are being as competitive as possible.
Josh @ Feb 20th 2009 10:15AM
so...won't hulu still exist?
why does this even matter?
drakehatfield @ Feb 20th 2009 10:19AM
Cable will be phased out but it will take some very big moves to get there. The biggest move, IMHO, will be when Netflix begins some hardcore focusing on streaming video. I'd buy a device for it right now if it weren't for the severe delay/limitations in which movies can be streamed online. When those barriers get broken down, we'll see some big changes. Netflix is paving the way. XBMC and a great host of other media systems are the way of the future. Traditional TV is out of date and unappealing for many of us.
I have never paid for cable, and never will, but I will gladly pay an additional Netflix fee to instantly play TV shows, movies, etc... streaming over the net.
MaxSMoke @ Feb 20th 2009 10:25AM
But how do you get your internet connection? Cable. Cable won't be phased out, they'll just deliver different stuff. Considering what they rob me for with my monthly bills, I think they get all the money they need. I wonder if there's a voice of reason in their corporate offices that points out that they DO make money off Hulu, via Internet service charges?
Evan @ Feb 20th 2009 10:40AM
Cable companies may live on as a "dumb pipe" providing internet access, but they don't want to be a "dumb pipe", they want to be a content provider. They want to handle the VOD transaction, not just deliver the VOD content. As long as the money goes through them, they can take a cut of it. But if the transaction goes directly to a third party, it cuts out a potential revenue stream.
hexydes @ Feb 20th 2009 11:10AM
Cable companies are turning into ISPs, whether they like it or not (and they do NOT like it). They've been making money hand-over-fist operating as a content provider (read: middle-man) for the last 20 years. That's about to be taken away from them thanks to services like Hulu, Netflix, YouTube, etc. At that point, they'll have two options:
1. Become a full-fledged ISP.
2. Quit the business and let someone else take over.
If they choose to become an ISP, then they'll have to actually compete on quality of Internet service. That means less caps, faster speeds, etc. I honestly can't wait until cable television fails, because it is a terribly antiquated system, and we'll move forward by ten years in terms of technology when they finally fold.
valleydubs @ Feb 20th 2009 10:18AM
Won't stop them going the way of the dinosaur.
Jeff P @ Feb 20th 2009 10:22AM
Did any of you read this before posting? This appears to only be targeted at cable channel shows - not the current broadcast shows that appear on Hulu already.
hexydes @ Feb 20th 2009 11:11AM
If the cable networks had ANY brains at all, they'd hook up with Hulu, or start their own online service, and pay for it with ads.
wrabbit @ Feb 20th 2009 10:25AM
Wait! Cable companies are trying to screw their customers?! But that can't be right!
Eternal Night @ Feb 20th 2009 10:25AM
Wait a minute, how would they be able to police this? They couldn't tie it down to a person's internet connection, some people have DSL.
Hmm, well if they made you log in to a special site, what's to stop me from sharing that login with 1000 of my best friends and family members?
I don't think they thought this through...
milinds @ Feb 20th 2009 10:29AM
It's not a sound business plan. These guys live in a vacuum, apparently. It's back to illegal downloads, which were unnecessary when people could watch the show of their choice off services like Hulu. Commercials don't bother people. Cable companies need to focus on their internet access capabilities, which is a viable business, and understand that people are moving off of their old model. It is a last ditch effort for survival and it is unfortunate that broadcasters think it's a good idea. They'll hurt themselves in the end. It's really not hard to get shows off of bit torrent and people will do it. In 9 months they'll complain people are stealing again. It's not because of their lack of vision, of course, it's everyone else.
hexydes @ Feb 20th 2009 11:13AM
clap
clap
clap clap clap clap clap....
Arnie @ Feb 20th 2009 10:26AM
I just got rid of my cable and frankly it was worthless. I am glad I did that. Like someone said, this is bull shit. I bet the government will just sit there and let them do it. What next? Protection money? These guys are even worse than the mafia when it comes to scruples.
doan @ Feb 20th 2009 1:08PM
And just when I thought they where starting to get it. Have they heard that people pirate this stuff when you charge too much for it?
Jordan @ Feb 20th 2009 10:29AM
I thought Battlestar Galactica was cable content? I certainly can't get it off my rabbit ears, even with DTV. I'm sure there's more shows like this.
rcappo @ Feb 20th 2009 10:31AM
That's what you get when the biggest ISPs are the cable companies. If there was a distributed wireless network that automatically routed computers in the best way possible (kind of like bittorrent), it could work for no monthly fee. It would also work the way the original internet was intended to.
Then again, I wonder if my neighbor has cable. They send tons of wi-fi signals through my house already. I probably wouldn't be effected by this at home, but at the free coffee shop, airport, and mall wi-fi spots it wouldn't work.
Then again, I don't download TV shows since I have Mythbuntu grabbing all the HD shows over-the-air that I want to watch.
Jugomugo @ Feb 20th 2009 10:31AM
They seem to be making the assumption that people can't go without television. Perhaps some people are so addicted they will pay the hustler for their fix. I'll just stop watching television in its entirety.
The Drifter @ Feb 20th 2009 10:38AM
One word: Torrents
nikescar @ Feb 20th 2009 10:35AM
That's fine. Take away my Hulu and I'll go back to stealing your content off the torrents.
PS If it ends up being my cable provider's (Comcast) fault I'll cancel my service.
PSS Does anyone use PS anymore?
Justin B @ Feb 20th 2009 11:38AM
Apparently PPS is out of style too!