Comments on: Channeling TV shows to the Web

Viewers are loving sites like Hulu.com that offer free TV shows on the Net, but can cable and media companies give people what they want--and still maintain control?

[BtmnHatesRbn]

Thanks to downloads limits, I no longer watching Hulu, YouTube, play with Google Earth, play on-line video games, or download movies anymore. Every single ISP is doing download limits, so I don't at all understand CNET's hype in promoting this service at all. Also, scanning the article a few times, how come download limits aren't addressed in regards to Hulu and other like services? This is shoddy reporting.

[trewbux]

In a related question, will ISP download limits apply to their own online cable offerings? If so they will be handicapping their own business and it will never get off the ground, and if not they will clearly be violating net neutrality (as if they weren't already).

[ethan_v]

Can't speak for "every single ISP" since I only use Verizon FiOS (hard to believe BtmnHatesRbn has experienced every single ISP you must move a lot) but I have absolutely no download limits and thus this article makes perfect sense to me.

[ofmyony]

I have no download limits either and a 15mbps download speed. I don't have to put up with being ripped-off by the cable companies and neither should you BtmnhatesRbn!

I watch Hulu, Sling, Tv.com, Crackle, You Tube, Netflix, The Networks, Joost, Amazon and so on. Many of them in HD.

Keep up the hype Cnet. You are right on the money!

[trewbux]

ethan_v and ofmyony, it seems you are some of the lucky few who have a choice in ISP (or at least access to a decent one). Where I live, and for many other Americans, it's Comcast or stone-age, and we must contend with their data cap. Hopefully someday soon I'll have access to FiOS too...

[ofmyony]

I support internet video streaming. Cable Tv is not a value for the consumer. First they charge you for channels that you don't want, Second they make you watch ads for something you have already paid for. If the cable companies want cable tv to survive remove the ads from cable tv. Then you have something the web can't match. But charging people twice is a rip-off.

Once consumers understand that they can get better quality video through the internet and better options (Example: not having to use a DVR which is 3rd rip-off because they charge you for that too). I am enjoying watching the Cable companies squirm. They have been dreading the adoption of video streaming for years and now they are paying the price for poor customer service and overcharging consumers.

The internet is great, The internet has brought down the greedy phone companies, the greedy music industry, the cable companies and soon the greedy movie industry.
Love it!

[1egalbegal]

FIOS On Demand offerings stream video directly to my large HDTV (who wants to sit for hours in front of their computer) with extremely limited commercial interruptions, if any. This is a close to a web experience as you can get. The claim of better quality video from the net versus my fiber TV connection, I challenge.

Unfortunately, the offerings from the networks are limited, and you have to wait a day or two after airing for them to show up on the available programs list. And they are gone after a month. But, using On Demand has allowed us to reduce the number of shows we record on the DVR, which is a big help because the FIOS DVR has lousy capacity. I would prefer the DVR series programing and On Demand bookmarking to work similarly, and be integrated on a single menu. Perhaps this is a programming improvement that Verizon can consider in future upgrades.

It won't be long before data is just considered data, regardless of the format and source, with little distinction between computers, TV's, audio, etc. But the delivery system still has to be something that the average person can administer. Unfortunately, we are not there yet.

[chuck_whealton]

ofmyony:

Don't forget the cable company's preoccupation with FORCING us to rent hardware in the form of set top boxes that we shouldn't need with the technology built into any new television available today.

I also enjoy seeing them squirm.

I lept into Internet TV with a $16 investment (VGA extender cable from Staples and a PC audio cable from Radio Shack). Since my HD LCD TV has a VGA port and a PC audio jack, I was able to connect my laptop (using WiFi) to the TV and was amazed at the amount of content I had access to. In full-screen mode the picture looked great and I had free on-demand viewing.

I told some neighbors about my hookup and several of them are on the verge of dropping their cable TV/phone service, doing NetFlix for movies, ESPN360 for sports, using a pay-as-you-go or cheap phone service (e.g. MagicJack) and keeping the cable internet. Estimated savings, about $100 per month, $1200 per year.

That's why the cable companies are worried.

Power to the people!

[1egalbegal]

Can you break down these savings between cable TV versus VOIP? When bundled together with other FIOS services (TV and net), I found little difference between a subscription VOIP and regular phone after getting the discount on bundling. I went a la carte, and went back when the bundling was offered and restored my inconsistent phone service back to normal.

When I first had the 'triple play" from my cable provider my bill was $160. That included '2' HD boxes, DVR service on 2 boxes and HBO. Now that the promo is over it is $200 or $2400 per year. I dropped the phone service and got '2' MagicJacks ($20 per year for each one, that's $3.33 per month for '2' lines). I kept the internet service ($50 per month), and NetFlix is $9.95 per month. ESPN360 is free and so are the video streaming services. So that's $63.28 per month compared to $200. Savings = $136.72, or $1640.64 per year.

A by product of this change?

More time with family as we only watch what we want it.

[Voice_Of_Logic]

All Cable companies should be taken out behind the barn and shot. When you do not provide me any other alternative CABLE services, then you are a monopoly. Ha. They called Microsoft a monopoly when you can go and purchase ANY operating system you want to and replace Windows but when Time Warner is the ONLY cable system "allowed" in my city, and they're not a monopoly, then someone is getting paid off. You check it out...... local city councils paying millions to Time Warner to "stay" ... What ********.

[1egalbegal]

No alternative? What about Dish or DirecTV? DSL instead of cable modem? I don't know anyone that isn't frustrated with their cable company, but voting with your feet and at the polls is a far better remedy than carrying a false hope that some attorney general will go after the cable companies.

[masonx]

TV Broadcasting networks are of the same ilk as the American car companies - totally out of touch with their customers and their needs and wants. Like the American car companies who lost out to foreign car companies that could and would provide superior and longer lasting higher quality products, TV Broadcasters will ultimately succumb to internet business models that provide desirable content without constant commercial interruptions shoved down the viewers throats. Cable companies have slowly violated their contracts with their customers by putting commercials on subscription services that they originally sold as "commercial free." How hard do you have to be hit advertisers in the head (and bank account) before you realize that forcing viewers to Tevo, mute or surf to another channel during commercials is totally counter productive to paid advertizers? Look at the remote control on older sets - it's the mute button that is worn and faded from use. Even a half bright advertiser ought to get that message.

When I want to buy something, I Google up all the sellers of the product, research quality and price and then make the purchase on line if possible - including my cars. Best way to shop there is - and no swine flu or other contagion probable. This is the business model that is going support advertisers effectively now and in the future, not holding viewers captive against their will for lame and repetitive commercials. It may take time - but nothing is going to save the current TV and Cable broadcasting business models from themselves.

[cswor]

the only thing that the cable providers actually control at the moment is the internet pipe. it may be that the only way for them to maintain their revenue stream is to offset losses in content revenue whether it be from people like hulu or pirates, is to increase revenue from the internet pipe. pirates can't do much about that.

[zeroplane]

I am stuck with Comcast's Craptastic service offerings.. The alternative is a money grubbing telco that hasn't upgraded the infrastructure in my area for over 30 years! The local telco has 100% control over the network infrastructure in my neighborhood. No other vendors are legally allowed to install new services on the polls or pipes within my district. Even though the realestate is owned by the city, the telco has exclusive rights to the hardware and air space (what?) of the district.

I called up Verizon to get FIOS and they told me they couldn't offer the service because QWest (the local telco) had exclusive ownership of the infrastructure in my area and it was too old to support FIOS. She told me that if their company could legally gain access to the infrastructure they would install their own fiber network and provide service..

It is ironic considering that they provide service 40 blocks from my home that costs at least $20 dollars less per month then I pay for capped 2mg/sec (Comcast advertises 16mg/sec) service with capped upload speeds of 200kB/sec from Comcast.

The telco on the other hand offers a speedy $120Kb/sec DSL service at $35/mth oh boy! I guess I get to wait 30 more years before they upgrade their infrastructure, or maybe by then I will be using a global wireless internet service (oh no wait that was lobbied out of existence by the current service providers)

Yeah it is great here is the USA, special interests with deep pockets keep costs high and services antiquated.. while in other countries service improves and prices drop.

[pioutsource]

Someone will come along soon with a better way to serve the internet to the masses and we will all be saved. Can I get a Hallelujah?

[Spanwite]

Zeroplane, did you write a open letter to your Major, or the News Paper for a Opinion, or your County?
Start with your Friends/neighbors a "Californian" Style Vote, maybe use also the Internet, place a Blog let everyone know.


Something else, why not sell some content like 3tv shows for $0.99? So anyone can see a full season for $6-7? Then No commercials of course!

[maeckg]

Choice and cost are the reasons I already cut Cox cable TV out of my budget, but kept my cable broadband. The cable companies are also a victim in the middle because they pay so much for such lousy content. After realizing that I was paying more than half the subscription for advertizing, infomercials, reruns and channels that I have no interest in watching, I cancelled the service. Cable companies refuse to offer a la carte service, which I think would make the content providers come up with better programs. A lot of the cost is lost in the multi levels of the process of buying the content with deals that fill a lot of pockets of non-creative people. The content is much the same on satellite TV, so the content model as well as the distribution model are brokien. Maybe someone can develope an internet model that allows viewers better choice also to a wider range of content at a better price while being cheaper to distribute for the providers.

Netflix gives me real choice to watch what I really want at a good price. Cable TV did not. Over the air DTV is limited, but fills out some broad content and news I want while internet provides precise choice also of media content. I found that I am better off without the hype and drivel that comes out of a lot of cable TV channels. Even if I miss something or have to wait or pick up some news or content piecemeal, I am saving money instead of wasting it on stuff I do not want anyway. Cable TV has a lot of airtime to fill; it fills it with a lot of air or poor content'
My suggestion is embrace the internet possibilities, so like has already been said, that viewers can get content through legal channels. To watch Daily Show episodes, I gotta sit through advertising, but I am used to that after decades of American TV. Netflix offers me thousands of movies at a good price even though I have to watch them on my ancient TV or a PC, so I go to the movie theatre for the big screen.

I would move my broadband to another service IF I had another option, but there is no other providers willing to offer me service. Qwest has not been able to offer me DSL although I live in the middle of a college town near Phoenix, AZ(5th largest city in US). I would not really want to deal with them anyway because of the experiences I have had at work. So not much choice in ISP, but Cox is at least fairly fast even while they increase their fees again and again.
YouTube, Netflix or something like it could be a vehicle to aggregate content and make money for the content providers through advertising, subscriptions or micropayments or mix thereof. Most people are willing to pay something...see how they pay cable TV fees...for good content at a fair price rather than all the trouble of pirating it.