And this part doesn't particularly endear me to Time Warner either:
Part of the disagreement is that most of Viacom's popular shows are rerun on Web sites where Viacom collects advertising revenue that it does not share with Time Warner, Dudley said. "We don't think that's fair," he said.
(Why the fuck would a cable company get any share in the ad revenue for websites showing shows they have nothing to do with the production of?)
This is a little complicated but not really. That cable company sells all that local advertising you see on there and some of the national stuff. If the show they paid for can no longer raise as much in advertising (because it's available for free online) that at least is a valid concern to the cable company.
I'm not really taking sides but that's not as outrageous as it sounds once you understand how the industry works.
I understand the cable company would be upset/concerned about that, but that's not exactly the complaint they're making here -- they want a cut from the ad revenue for the sites Viacom streams its shows on. I'm really not getting how it's "unfair" that they're not getting a cut of ad revenue for 1) ads they're not providing in 2) a completely different medium.
A lot of people watch TV shows on DVD now as well, and those often have some ads tacked on the front -- how would it make sense for the cable company to deserve a cut of that?
I understand the cable company would be upset/concerned about that, but that's not exactly the complaint they're making here -- they want a cut from the ad revenue for the sites Viacom streams its shows on. I'm really not getting how it's "unfair" that they're not getting a cut of ad revenue for 1) ads they're not providing in 2) a completely different medium.
A lot of people watch TV shows on DVD now as well, and those often have some ads tacked on the front -- how would it make sense for the cable company to deserve a cut of that?
I think their argument is that it devalues the content they have already paid for. If I purchase exclusive rights to broadcast Comedy Central and then you offer exactly the same thing on the internet for free you've devalued what I've already purchased the rights to.
I think a share of online revenue is a stupid remedy rather than just lowering the amount paid for the rights in the first place. It's likely because TW wants to argue that each internet viewing is a lost cable viewing which is a pretty stupid position but an advantageous one for them to take. Where Viacom wants to believe that internet viewings cost zero cable viewings which is also kinda silly. Nobody want to just pick a set figure because nobody has a fucking clue on how big internet viewing really is or will be during the term of the contract.
I was thinking about this more and more at work, and this could actually be the start of some amazing new products and services.
Imagine a box (I know, some exist already - but I'm talking something that mainstream, grandma and grandpa, people who aren't tech savvy will see and understand) that will do Hulu, and Viacom network shows. Then imagine everyone else wanting in.
The reason TW is bitching is because you can watch the stuff online too, and they are pissy about that. So the solution is - instead of giving them the money and keeping the current subscribers they have - pissing off Viacom so they take thier toys and go home. Think about it. NO ONE will be GOING to Time Warner because of this move. It won't draw ANY new customers. It's pure, 100% LOSS on thier end. There's going to be a significant chunk of people who want Viacom programming now, who ditch Time Warner to find it.
And they'll do that using the internet. Again, in most of these cases, you're getting your internet ALSO from Time Warner. But - if some companies are quick and smart - imagine a deal brokered with Verizon for example, where they give you a set top box in ADDITION to your modem for your internet? Verizon doesn't do TV in my area - but imagine an Apple TV-esque device that had exclusive access to Hulu, and whatever other "channels" they brokered deals with. You type in your show, on your time, and the episodes come up. Much like the Netflix instant queue thing. This kind of thinking is already starting, with AppleTV boasting it's YouTube abilities.
The Verizon people would then totally undercut Time Warner, as they'd lose thier cable AND internet customers.
I think this is going to be the beginning of the end for cable TV. This is the first blow. I already today realized how little I need cable TV (Netflix streaming on the XBox, and movies and TV shows that aren't on Netflix on my TV through my XBox's connection to my computer). If I was smarter, and had a program that would automatically grab torrents or whatever of the shows I watch, that would be no different than TiVo recording them for me (sans ads, which is a totally different topic).
Viacom leaving TW is going to show these parents and such how easy it is to get Dora and other shows legally and 'free' on the internet (about as free as cable TV is anyways. You're paying for your internet access, you have commercials all over the website), and the winner of this whole thing will be the company that makes the first set top box that can stream the network's shows, as the final hurdle is teaching the tech inept how to put the computer onto the TV.
Very shortly, what we think of as "Channels" now will change. Instead of MTV, VH1, BET we're going to just have "Viacom", which will lead you to different sub channels. And "Hulu", which will contain all it's shows. I've been telling my parents and friends for ever - I totally believe that the day of a show being on at a certain time is going to be behind us in the next 5 years. There's no need for a TV schedule anymore. Shows come out on a certain day, and people watch them whenever they want beyond that already.
It seems pretty logical to me...
mxmarks on
PSN: mxmarks - WiiU: mxmarks - twitter: @ MikesPS4 - twitch.tv/mxmarks - "Yes, mxmarks is the King of Queens" - Unbreakable Vow
They got into slapfights all the time when they both needed each other. Networks needed cable companies to deliver their products.
This is the first big slapfight involving a large enough group of popular channels at a time when many networks are realizing that a server and website are all they need.
mxmarks on
PSN: mxmarks - WiiU: mxmarks - twitter: @ MikesPS4 - twitch.tv/mxmarks - "Yes, mxmarks is the King of Queens" - Unbreakable Vow
It'll be another decade before we have the network capacity to even dent cable and satellite subscription rates at the speed connectivity suppliers move.
Viacom always pulls shit like this. I remember the same thing happened with dishnetwork back in like... 2000, or at least the early part of the decade. One side always ends up caving because from viacoms point of view, they lose a shitload of money from the provider, and from the providers view, they lose a shitload of content because viacom owns a peice of pretty much anything worth watching.
So... i wouldnt worry, youll probably still have tv tomorrow.
And just so you know about the NFL Network thing, Time Warner wanted it to be part of their sport package or offered separately. NFL Network said no it had to be part of the basic package. So NFL was more a dick in that regard.
But since they agreed on something it most likely means a price increase for me again.
Does this effect me at all since I'm using satellite?
Nope. Just Time Warner customers.
Once you get down into the details it's really hard to be sympathetic to either side.
I'm sympathetic to the cable company.
only because viacom are being mighty mighty cockfags who are using Dora and Spongebob in advertisements that basically say " [Cable Company] Is taking [Spongebob/Dora] off the air TONIGHT " to get kids crying to mommy and daddy to manipulate them into supporting Viacom over the cable company.
That kinda manipulation and using of kids is a bullshit move on Via and I hope they get raped for it
I doubt many children who watch Dora are of an age to read the NYT on a regular basis.
Does this effect me at all since I'm using satellite?
Nope. Just Time Warner customers.
Once you get down into the details it's really hard to be sympathetic to either side.
I'm sympathetic to the cable company.
only because viacom are being mighty mighty cockfags who are using Dora and Spongebob in advertisements that basically say " [Cable Company] Is taking [Spongebob/Dora] off the air TONIGHT " to get kids crying to mommy and daddy to manipulate them into supporting Viacom over the cable company.
That kinda manipulation and using of kids is a bullshit move on Via and I hope they get raped for it
I doubt many children who watch Dora are of an age to read the NYT on a regular basis.
No, but they are the age to go pester mommy and daddy and possibily see sad dora and spongebob in the adverts.
Buttcleft on
0
ShadowfireVermont, in the middle of nowhereRegistered Userregular
And just so you know about the NFL Network thing, Time Warner wanted it to be part of their sport package or offered separately. NFL Network said no it had to be part of the basic package. So NFL was more a dick in that regard.
But since they agreed on something it most likely means a price increase for me again.
Comcast went through the same thing, and I was (unbelievably) on Comcast's side on it.
Seriously, Comcast? We're losing channels constantly, as they're moving to their stupid fucking "digital tier," and Comcast is blaming it on the DTV conversion. Our bill is not being lowered, FYI.
Can anyone point to a link on how to get Hulu running on a TV? I'm very tempted to give Comcast the fucking finger.
Well, for Hulu on a TV, you can build an HTPC (or plug a laptop in). If you already have a 360 or PS3, you can use PlayOn. And if you have a PS3 with the latest firmware, the internet browser on it supports Hulu just fine.
Posts
A lot of people watch TV shows on DVD now as well, and those often have some ads tacked on the front -- how would it make sense for the cable company to deserve a cut of that?
I think a share of online revenue is a stupid remedy rather than just lowering the amount paid for the rights in the first place. It's likely because TW wants to argue that each internet viewing is a lost cable viewing which is a pretty stupid position but an advantageous one for them to take. Where Viacom wants to believe that internet viewings cost zero cable viewings which is also kinda silly. Nobody want to just pick a set figure because nobody has a fucking clue on how big internet viewing really is or will be during the term of the contract.
Imagine a box (I know, some exist already - but I'm talking something that mainstream, grandma and grandpa, people who aren't tech savvy will see and understand) that will do Hulu, and Viacom network shows. Then imagine everyone else wanting in.
The reason TW is bitching is because you can watch the stuff online too, and they are pissy about that. So the solution is - instead of giving them the money and keeping the current subscribers they have - pissing off Viacom so they take thier toys and go home. Think about it. NO ONE will be GOING to Time Warner because of this move. It won't draw ANY new customers. It's pure, 100% LOSS on thier end. There's going to be a significant chunk of people who want Viacom programming now, who ditch Time Warner to find it.
And they'll do that using the internet. Again, in most of these cases, you're getting your internet ALSO from Time Warner. But - if some companies are quick and smart - imagine a deal brokered with Verizon for example, where they give you a set top box in ADDITION to your modem for your internet? Verizon doesn't do TV in my area - but imagine an Apple TV-esque device that had exclusive access to Hulu, and whatever other "channels" they brokered deals with. You type in your show, on your time, and the episodes come up. Much like the Netflix instant queue thing. This kind of thinking is already starting, with AppleTV boasting it's YouTube abilities.
The Verizon people would then totally undercut Time Warner, as they'd lose thier cable AND internet customers.
I think this is going to be the beginning of the end for cable TV. This is the first blow. I already today realized how little I need cable TV (Netflix streaming on the XBox, and movies and TV shows that aren't on Netflix on my TV through my XBox's connection to my computer). If I was smarter, and had a program that would automatically grab torrents or whatever of the shows I watch, that would be no different than TiVo recording them for me (sans ads, which is a totally different topic).
Viacom leaving TW is going to show these parents and such how easy it is to get Dora and other shows legally and 'free' on the internet (about as free as cable TV is anyways. You're paying for your internet access, you have commercials all over the website), and the winner of this whole thing will be the company that makes the first set top box that can stream the network's shows, as the final hurdle is teaching the tech inept how to put the computer onto the TV.
Very shortly, what we think of as "Channels" now will change. Instead of MTV, VH1, BET we're going to just have "Viacom", which will lead you to different sub channels. And "Hulu", which will contain all it's shows. I've been telling my parents and friends for ever - I totally believe that the day of a show being on at a certain time is going to be behind us in the next 5 years. There's no need for a TV schedule anymore. Shows come out on a certain day, and people watch them whenever they want beyond that already.
It seems pretty logical to me...
This is the first big slapfight involving a large enough group of popular channels at a time when many networks are realizing that a server and website are all they need.
What are you? New?
So... i wouldnt worry, youll probably still have tv tomorrow.
Check out my band, click the banner.
http://www.wral.com/business/story/4220655/
But since they agreed on something it most likely means a price increase for me again.
I doubt many children who watch Dora are of an age to read the NYT on a regular basis.
No, but they are the age to go pester mommy and daddy and possibily see sad dora and spongebob in the adverts.
Comcast went through the same thing, and I was (unbelievably) on Comcast's side on it.
Seriously, Comcast? We're losing channels constantly, as they're moving to their stupid fucking "digital tier," and Comcast is blaming it on the DTV conversion. Our bill is not being lowered, FYI.
Can anyone point to a link on how to get Hulu running on a TV? I'm very tempted to give Comcast the fucking finger.