catflap to US TV networks
p2p news / p2pnet: The American TV networks are in trouble. BIG trouble. But that’s not BIG news.
What is big news is that they’re scrambling at the 11th hour to change their business and distribution models to meet (what they believe are) consumers’ demands.
ABC has contracted with Apple to distribute $2.00 per pop DRM-infected episodes of “Lost” and “Desperate Housewives” for download to view exclusively on the video iPod’s microscopic screen. NBC has begun distributing it’s “NBC Nightly News with Brian Williams” online as well.
And now CBS is in the game with a limited-time trial period of streaming three episodes of “Threshold”. The first, Episode 1×03 “Blood of the Children”, was streamed this past week. The next scheduled stream is 1×08 “Revelations”, streaming online Nov. 9-11, followed by 1×09 “Progeny”, streaming November 16-18 on the CBS web site.
Chris Ender, senior vp of CBS Communications Group, says, “We think that the traditional network run will always be the primary broadcast, but this is an opportunity to recruit viewers that may not have experienced the show yet or (provide a chance) for those that missed an episode to get caught up.”
That might be a nice idea in theory, but listen to his next comment: “The Internet audience loves to debate the paranormal and unravel mysteries, so this content fits perfectly with this platform.”
Well, isn’t that special? That’s a bit patronizing, to say the least. Which “Internet audience” is he talking about? Where did CBS get that data? Yes, it’s true that there are many websites which discuss these types of subjects “ad infinitum” and “ad nauseum”, but why pigeon-hole their potential viewers this way? That just pure cartel PR nonsensical lip service. To say “The Internet audience” is to lump all internet users together and label them geeks.
I haven’t tested the first stream of “Threshold” because I found out about this service too late for the first streaming, so I can’t say what format it’s in, or if it’s possible to download. It’s also unknown – to me, anyway – if access to the streams is restricted to IP addresses in the USA and/or its territories.
I agree it’s high time – and very late in the game – for the networks put their entertainment content online. But I don’t think this is the way to attract an online audience with time-limited streams. A positive point to make is that these streams will be free, as well as ad-free, according to CBS.
But I believe the BBC has a better idea. This past year, the Beeb promised it would digitize every television program it has in its archives and put them online for free downloads, albeit to UK residents only. And it’s making good on that promise. It experimented and had a trial period, presumably a successful one, and is endeavoring to continue digitizing and putting all of its programs online in the near future. Even if access is restricted to UK residents, at least it’s being done, and in a fairer way than the way in which American networks are attempting to go online.
If the networks want to combat (or enter) filesharing they can try, but they’ll ultimately fail nevertheless. They need to do a lot more, and to do it differently, to compete fairly. Because as they see it, it’s a competition as well as a battle against so-called “piracy”.
There’s no need to conduct surveys or formulate elaborate marketing strategies. The “Internet audience” is already there waiting for, and expecting, free, uninhibited downloads of television programs. World audiences are already scanning local TV guides for information on when programs will be aired in their respective countries, if at all.
The audience is already there, and filesharing proves it.
Instead of waiting months, years, or an eternity, for a program to be aired in foreign lands (sometimes a program never airs in certain countries), people around the world use p2p file sharing -NOT “piracy” – to view what they want, when they want and in the formats they prefer.
A decade ago, NBC bought the European television station “Super Channel” and renamed it “NBC Europe”. At the time, “Super Channel” was airing mostly old B-movies and reruns of “Bonanza”, “I Spy”, “Richard Diamond, Private Detective” and “Honey West”. When “NBC Europe” took the reins, the schedule changed dramatically. Gone were the reruns and B-movies, replaced by “The Profiler” (1-week delay), “The Tonight Show”, “Late Night with Conan O’Brien”, “Dateline”, “NBC Nightly News”, and a few short-lived sitcoms.
But then after less than two years, NBC dropped the ball. They allowed the programming to be taken over by infomercials, religious programs, and the German “Giga” (a live, teen-oriented program centered on pop music, internet, and video games which ran incessantly throughout the evening).
It’s only recently that “Giga” finally said good-bye and “NBC Europe” resumed some of its previous programming.
Also until recently, I was unable to receive “BBC1” and “BBC2”, instead having to put up with the deteriorating quality of programs offered by “BBC Prime”, the pan-European BBC channel. But earlier this year my cable company started offering digital channels, including “BBC1” and “BBC2”, “E!”, “CNBC” and a few other English-language stations, via a set-top box (unfortunately, they took away my “Cartoon Network”). Until this year, “BBC1/2” weren’t even allowed to be broadcast outside the UK, even with a satellite receiver.
My point is this: If NBC and the BBC can create foreign versions of their flagship channels, the rest of the American and British broadcasters should do the same. Now I have “BBC1”, “BBC2” and “CNBC”, I don’t feel compelled to try and find their programs on filesharing networks.
If filesharing is “cutting into” their profits – which it isn’t – they must offer all of their content online as free, uninhibited downloads to everyone. I don’t believe people will mind too much if there are ads in the programs, although I do feel it should be possible to fast forward through them if one prefers – just like on a vhs tape or HDD recorder. This would be a fair competition to p2p.
I don’t believe cartel-controlled/operated p2p networks will be successful, for the obvious DRM reasons, but also because there’s no real incentive to share something one purchases through these networks. Rather, people interested in filesharing will use the already-established p2p programs and networks, and people who prefer to watch a program once and not save it will turn to the cartel streams, downloads and p2p services.
Which brings me to my last point.
Who hasn’t noticed the enormous amount of television programs being made available on DVD in recent years? Since the time period between a movie’s theatrical release and its DVD release is becoming shorter and shorter, and the MPAA admits that the bulk of its owners profits come from DVD sales and rentals and not the dwindling sales of cinema tickets, TV producers have finally realised the same thing – that people want what they want, when they want it.
Shows such as “Desperate Housewives” and “Nip/Tuck” are already available on DVD, as are many older shows which are no longer being aired on television, or have never been aired in foreign countries.
You might also have noticed that although the TV producers have managed to cut down on packaging by using slimmer DVD cases, they haven’t cut down the price accordingly.
Everyone knows the packaging for most any product costs much more than the product itself. So trimming the amount of packaging should lower the price of a box set of TV programs. Not so. I haven’t seen a reduction in price. Instead, I’ve seen increases.
There are many programs people would love to purchase and own, either by downloading through cartel-sanctioned websites, or on DVD. But after the local availability, region coding, DRM and DVD player operational restrictions (all of which can be got around), the cost is the most restrictive.
Why pay an exorbitant (and extortionate) retail price tag for something that you would love to own and watch for years, when it can be had for free via the p2p programs and networks?
There are many movies and TV shows that I’d like to own, but because they take years to be aired where I live, or the cost of a DVD is way too much for my purse to deal with, I and others use the only outlet available to us – p2p file sharing. This is what the “Internet audience” wants – availability, fair usage, fair prices.
Until the movie, TV and music cartels wise up and begin giving their customers what they want, when they want it, and in the formats they prefer, an dpriced fairly, non-cartel sanctioned filesharing networks will continue to grow and prosper, leaving any lame attempts at online content from Hollywood, and their counter-productive sue ‘em all campaign in the dust.
Links –
http://www.cbs.com/primetime/threshold/
http://www.ew.com/ew/article/reuters/0,24012,1125553_10_0_,00.html
http://publications.mediapost.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=Articles.showArticleHomePage&art_aid=35887
http://www.tv.com/story/story.html&story_id=2238
http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9588_22-5930362.htmlhttp://www.maconareaonline.com/news.asp?id=12451
http://www.webpronews.com/topnews/topnews/wpn-60-20051104CBSFollowsABCNBCWBUPNOnline.html
catflap – p2pnet
==============
Something you think we should know? tips[at]p2pnet.net
November 6th, 2005 at 6:25 pm
heh, economies of scale aren’t lost on these fellows, they just hope that the concept is lost on all of us.
they see an opportunity to increase profits while cutting costs, WOW, we can offer an inferior lower cost product and make even more money since our existing rip-off scheme is deteriorating…time to say we are recognizing what our customers want…which now seems to be a poor quality (super tiny), DRM crippled TV show that for ONE EPISODE will cost me approximately 4% of what I pay for an entire months subscription to Rogers Digital TV.
oh oh, sign me up RIGHT NOW!!!!!
TT
November 6th, 2005 at 7:09 pm
i get my tv shows free on torrents
why would i pay for the same service. heh
November 6th, 2005 at 8:27 pm
I always enjoy your articles.
This business of TV and its decline into the lowest common demonator audience has left me out in the cold. Between the business end that ensures each and every viewer gets their dose of commercials and the poor subject matter that gets worse with the low budgets alloted, it has resulted in my just not caring about what some soap opera from prime time is headed. The only way I know about this “Housewives” title is through the internet. I understand that it has a following but I am not among that number.
You see I am no longer exposed to this subpar stuff. I long ago determined I am wasting my money in paying for subscriptions to programming. Cable and satellite just aren’t worth paying for. It would in my case be more cost effiecent if they would allow paying by viewing instead of paying by the month. I am not interested in low brow reality shows that are anything but reality. I am not interested in soaps. I am not interested in sitcoms. I am not interested in reruns. Take all that out of the daily programming for these paid subscriptions and what are you left with? Not enough that it makes it of any value to me. It does little good to have umpteen hundred channels when they all do the same thing. You can watch it this week and come back two weeks later for the newest installments and releases.
Instead it is the reason I don’t know of this “Housewives” show. Simply I don’t watch tv, don’t pay for worthless subscriptions, and don’t have to invest in new equipment to keep recieving it. Nor am I bombarded within my home with all this crap called commercials. I am also not exposed to the latest greatest piece of trash that is supposed to be the hot new thing. I am a market they aren’t reaching and I am not the only one.
According to an article Jon posted here, major corporations are realising they have missed an important segment of the population. To address that the article made mention of hiring college students to become walking advertisers for them. It seems that much of the younger generation is doing this drop out too. Is this a wave of the future? I have no clue. I do know that today’s programming standards do nothing for me but leave me wishing for less.
November 6th, 2005 at 8:53 pm
I guess you don’t like hockey….or seeing different sides of opinion on the variety of news networks, or at least being aware of whats out there….never a good idea to just stick one’s head in the sand, it’s better to view and digest a wide variety of media, be it radio, TV, Internet….besides it’s just amusing watching the MSM twist and spin at the POTUS’ whim…
November 6th, 2005 at 9:02 pm
For the american & UK broadcasters to go online for free is a bit of utopia. These people have to make money in order to pay the cast and mostly the crew making those TV shows. Unless they get paid somehow I don’t see how they can keep their jobs.
US & UK broadcasters should provide legal download to worldwide IP addresses – but for a reasonable fee per episode. They should also let us burn our newly acquired files to CDs & DVDs if they really want to stop piracy.
The iTunes offer of ‘Lost’ & ‘Desperate Housewives’ will not stop piracy as is. First, it’s available only in the US, when most of the so called pirates are in other areas where the shows won’t air before next year ! Then if we have to pay for it but we can’t burn the files it’s not worth it.
Might as well keep downloading for free.
November 6th, 2005 at 9:11 pm
well, that’s what i’m saying. give us what we want, when, how, and where we want it. if the BBC can do it, so can other networks.
The BBc just started airing “Rome”, which it co-produced with HBO, and then paid $800,000 per episode for airing rights. through government subsidising and tv licenses, they surely have enough money – and are willing to prove it – by putting their entire archive online for free.
perhaps there should be a mandatory tv license in the states. most countries have one and perhaps it’s about time the USA had one, too. perhaps that would eliminate a lot of the ads, generate a lot of money, and force production companies to create better entertainment and better distribution methods.
i know, this won’t happen. but it could be part of a solution. local PBS stations just aren’t cutting it anymore.
November 6th, 2005 at 11:17 pm
You are absolutely right; I care nothing for hockey (heck where I live we don’t even know what a white Christmas is), nor do I care for football, car racing, basketball, nor that great time waster baseball (where everyone is waiting for something to finally happen). I care nothing for silly sitcoms where canned laughter has to be put on to clue the cluess that was the punch line.
Different sides of an opinion I like; only I don’t find that on lamescream. The lamescream butters its own side of the bread and leaves the other side wanting. Only through the internet do you get a chance at unbias news. Whose sticking their heads in the sand? Joe Public who gets his dose of “Fair and Balanced” that is anything but fair or balanced?
When a court decided the issue in Flordia over the other side being heard in this “Fair and Balanced” it was ruled that a trade statement didn’t mean they had to support both sides of the issue and the guy lost.
Have you asked yourself, “Why aren’t there any broadcasts dealing with the victims of these financial terror attacks being leashed upon Joe Public” from lamescream? I hear all the time on the net that there isn’t. How is that the other opinion? I hope you see from this one small example what I mean. It is far from the only one and the exposing of varied opinions on broadcast tv is a vast wasteland, notably lacking in both content and consistancy.
Many times small fish are thrown to the viewership to make it appear that it is fair but the big money battles are never thrown as fair fish.
I can understand a rerun because there are folks that just can’t fit into their lives being in front of the tv for the “premere showing”. I can’t understand reruns that last continually for two weeks and on some stations they even run the rerun back to back. If I just watched it, why would I want to watch it again within the very next broadcast? To me that is mindlessness. Those were the last things I recall ever seeing on tv before pulling the subscription plug and starting to save money on something so wasteful as to not be worth funding.
At the time I quit using those prescription services there were prehaps 2 or 3 programs that would inform and interest me within a week to month timespan. The rest was an absolute waste of time.
November 6th, 2005 at 11:42 pm
“Have you asked yourself, “Why aren’t there any broadcasts dealing with the victims of these financial terror attacks being leashed upon Joe Public” from lamescream? I hear all the time on the net that there isn’t. How is that the other opinion? I hope you see from this one small example what I mean. It is far from the only one and the exposing of varied opinions on broadcast tv is a vast wasteland, notably lacking in both content and consistancy. ”
thanks, you just answered my question regarding an interest in being aware of alternative viewpoints, whether you think them right or not, unfortunately ouy have now cut yourself off from that very viewpoint by restricting yourself to outlets YOU deem as relevant or ‘right’…hmmmm, keep your friends close and your enemies closer, thats why organizations like ACLU, EFF subscribe to a variety of media (including exorbitantly priced and biased trade publications)….I’m approaching this from desire for knowledge, while you seem to focus on the entertainment aspect of it (hockey comments aside)….but hey, thats just a different opinion….
November 7th, 2005 at 1:51 am
“thanks, you just answered my question regarding an interest in being aware of alternative viewpoints, whether you think them right or not, unfortunately ouy have now cut yourself off from that very viewpoint by restricting yourself to outlets YOU deem as relevant or ‘right’.”
actually he can get the other side without actually watching the shows or subscribing to cable, most or all of the news stations have websites where they carry their stories.
November 7th, 2005 at 3:15 am
This was the point I was trying to make in that post of getting alternate viewpoints and the lack of quality in the broadcasting. I have nothing against viewing both pro’s and con’s (even if I don’t like the message, it is still informative) but that is the very thing I don’t have a choice on with broadcasting. You get only their prospective outlook and no other. The majority of lamescream is carrying the same messages without that alternate viewpoint and that is the issue as far as news goes. To me this sort of onesided news by itself, isn’t news, its stilted propoganda.
November 7th, 2005 at 7:15 am
Yeah, can you FEEL it?!!! Can you hear the screams and cries and moans of the CABAL execs? Crying because their days are numbered!
November 7th, 2005 at 8:39 am
I’m in Oz, but it’s much the same as the US tv here. Heck, if shows on our tv aren’t from the UK they’re from the US. The better stuff is from the UK strangely enough, but the US stuff is more common. Guess it’s cheaper.
Not that i watch much. It probly adds up to an hour per fortnight most months.
November 7th, 2005 at 6:00 pm
“I always enjoy your articles.”
**************************************
thanks. you might be in the minority…but i enjoy doing them anyway.
i also have basically divorced myself from most lamenews broadcasts – mostly the ones from CNN, the “Criminal News Network”. but occasionally i watch BBC news and Euronews, which is an independent station.
but anyway, to the topic of this piece…i do sometimes buy a dvd or two, but only when it’s in the bargain bin at a fair, realistic price. i’ve noticed that many new films – mostly the big-name lackluster remakes this past year, have pretty much gone directly into the bargain bins after a very short top-shelf lifespan (a subject covered by me in a future article). that doesn’t mean i’ve bought the remakes – i haven’t. i’m just noting that a large part of the bin contents are the remakes of the past year or two.
i also like collecting series and box-sets of films and tv shows – ones which are classic and/or ones i enjoy a lot and that i feel are worthy of receiving my money. but i just can’t buy all of them. i try to be conscious and aware enough to not let myself be influenced by fancy marketing and packaging – which is what hollywood and madison avenue would like. i’mk glad that many old and new tv shows are being released on dvd, but the price is not fair.
i don’t use the pay-per-view or movie-on-demand services of my cable company. the cost – although lower than a cinema ticket, is still too much. and anyway. i’ve already acquired most of their selection by other means. hey, i already use their phone, tv and internet services. i think i’m paying enough.
November 8th, 2005 at 10:20 am
As far as I can see from trawling the Beeb site, the downloads issue is a trial at present due to run to Dec 2005 and is limited to radio broadcasts. Couldn’t find anything in their archives relating to offering their full history of programmes for download.
Also don’t pay too much attention to the impartiality of BBC news coverage. It’s not as independant as maybe you think and they would like you to believe. You only have to look at their coverage of issues such as “internet piracy” to get an understanding of how biased their reportage really is. Even when reporting on their own internal activities, they can’t tell it straight:
http://biased-bbc.blogspot.com/2005_08_01_biased-bbc_archive.html#112190325209689973
The Beeb is a government-controlled “independant” [sic] broadcasting corporation and has a history of kow-towing to various governments in the past even though they are evangelical about their independance from political pressure. Gavyn Davies and Greg Dyke both resigned over the Hutton enquiry and the British Government then decided to appoint Michael Grade as the new chairman, who previously held a part-time non-exec position on the Board of Governors.
Anyone who thinks the Beeb is impartial and is not controlled by Government should wake up and smell the coffee! [No offence meant Catflap old bean!] Doesn’t mean to say they don’t produce some brilliant radio programmes though. Long live Wogan!
Blaggo
November 8th, 2005 at 10:33 am
Just one more thing to consider about our dear old Beeb – they are more than happy to report about people who are caught filesharing to help promote its demise, and yet no one iota of webspace is given over to reporting about the growth of filesharing and the fact that what Organised Media are doing is morally, legally and ethically questionable and reprehensible.
Blaggo
November 8th, 2005 at 12:17 pm
i don’t lie or fabricate things.
if you look through the bbc new archives, you’ll find articles regarding the online tv downloads.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/tv_and_radio/3177479.stm
no problem. you just have to know where to search. and i’ve confirmed everything i said with UK friends.
i believe it was also reported on p2pnet, but i’m not sure.
the trial for tv download has stopped, but it should resume in the near future.
when i watch bbc news, it mostly because i can’t stand cnn and also because i’m interested in what’s happening in the UK. cnn doesn’t really cover UK events unless king george is there to feed his lapdog, or there’s a disaster. otherwise, i watch euronews.
November 8th, 2005 at 6:23 pm
Pros:
1. If the TV licencing fee is high enough (say about $3000) most people in the P.S.A. will not be able to afford it. This will result in a bunch of unlicenced receivers or the cutting off of the Democrat-Republican party’s brainwashing apparatus (even better). If all of the people switched to the Internet to get their news, chances are that they will become better informed.
I’d have to hear less trash coming out of the family room.
Cons:
1. The citizens will be forced to pay for the licence while (large) corporations will somehow write it off on their income taxes. They play you pay.
2. The government of the P.S.A. will give the money to the same (large) corporations in the form od contracts, etc.
November 9th, 2005 at 3:01 pm
The entertainment cartels are going to lose the money they get from my satelite subscription in a couple of months. I have decided that cable and satelite subscriptions is also a very big source of revenue for the cartel. My local telco announced that broadband will be available in my area real soon, and I am going to take advantage of this fact. The entertainment cartel has really screwed itself by all of these frivilous lawsuits.
Before open source software came back into vogue, I used to copy the commercial programs in order to have programs to use. I was poor at the time and could not afford the unreasonably high proce that these companies charged. I used the “pirated” software to increase my knowlege as well as my income. When I was in a position to be able to buy the company sanction version of the same software, I did so. “Piracy” actually caused the company to gain a sale that they would not had before. Now if the cartels war to stamp out “piracy” was 100% successful, they would not have gained me as a customer.
I no longer buy product from the software cartels due to the fact that I have embraced free and open source software. I can now get the same functionality for a much lower price. In fact, the only price that I pay is the donation I send to the project (which is much lower than the asking price of the cartel produced product). I also have the option to adapt the software to better suit my needs. This is what the entertainment and software cartels should really worry about, the independents. You see, I have outsourced my business to the independents because thay produce nearly the same product at a minimal cost.
The cartels have decided to bypass workers in “developed” countries in order to exploit slaves in less developed countries. This has resulted in a great loss of income for the workers in the “developed” countries. Where one person’s wages could support a family in the P.S.A. in earlier times, it now takes at least two incomes. As the purchasing power of average citizens (i.e. the customers of the cartels) in the P.S.A. decrease, they must find new ways to stretch what little money they make. One of the ways is by filesharing. Another way is by using alternatives (independent entertainment and software) to cartel product. If the cartels are complaining that sales are low, then it it is their own damned fault!
November 11th, 2005 at 1:25 am
I don’t think BBC 1 and BBC 2 are broadcasting foreign feeds of their flagship channels. The BBC unencrypted its signal in the past year, something which saves them $80 million/year, but allows its programs to be seen across the satellite footprint, which covers most of Europe. This hasn’t gone over well with some of their programming suppliers, as they seek to sell exclusivity in each country. It’s for that reason that 24 moved from BBC 2 to Sky 1. I’m guessing your cable company is (illegally) retransmitting these channels from the satellite downlink.