  vpokoPremium
join:2003-07-03
Boston, MA
1 edit | What does the broadcast industry have to do with it? I thought recording a program for the purpose of timeshifting was permissible under current law, why is Google negotiating with the broadcast industry? Sounds like they just need TV manufacturers on board. | |
|
 | cacoPremium
join:2005-03-10
Whittier, AK | Re: What does the broadcast industry have to do with it? Retransmission rights I would guess. | |
|
| | vpokoPremium
join:2003-07-03
Boston, MA | Re: What does the broadcast industry have to do with it? Retransmission? I may not understand what Google TV is as well as I thought I did. I understood that it was a set-top box that would allow you to record, playback, and to stream media to your TV. | |
|
| | | openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
kudos:2 | Re: What does the broadcast industry have to do with it? Possibly the "stream media to your TV" part of your post? | |
|
| | | | vpokoPremium
join:2003-07-03
Boston, MA
2 edits | Re: What does the broadcast industry have to do with it? said by openbox9:Possibly the "stream media to your TV" part of your post? Though I think morbo cleared it up for me (without once threatening humans), by "streaming media" I ment media that you own, as in files on a hard drive. I did not realize that Google TV wanted to stream content from the web. | |
|
| | | | | | | Re: What does the broadcast industry have to do with it? said by vpoko:said by openbox9:Possibly the "stream media to your TV" part of your post? Though I think morbo cleared it up for me (without once threatening humans), by "streaming media" I ment media that you own, as in files on a hard drive. I did not realize that Google TV wanted to stream content from the web. I hope they include the ability to access samba shares on it, since I don't actually stream much from online, but I do have recordings from my hd homerun that I'd like to be able to play at my tv in rooms other than where my HTPC is located. | |
|
|  morboComplete Your Transaction
join:2002-01-22
00000 | Google wants them to play nicely -- allow viewing of streaming from their sites on the new google tv box. Broadcasters want the money themselves so they will probably not go for it. | |
|
|  Romney2012Defeat Obama 2012-Chg we can believe inPremium
join:2002-03-03
USA
kudos:4 | said by vpoko:I thought recording a program for the purpose of timeshifting was permissible under current law, If you do your OWN recording. If Google records it and then wants to retransmit it, that is not legal without them paying the content owners for it.
--
Are you happy with your rep in Washington, DC? | |
|
| | KearnstdElf WizardPremium
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ | Re: What does the broadcast industry have to do with it? only if they retransmit it publicly, if it works like a slingbox it is not retransmission.
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports | |
|
Reviews:
 ·TekSavvy Cable
 ·Bell Sympatico
·Rogers Hi-Speed
| sigh.... I'm growing real tired of the broadcast industry.
After years of forcing an over-abundance of stupid and low-quality reality TV programming down our throats, they think they can retain their [antique] business models, which exploit our wallets and our intelligence, and shy in the face of a world that is [overall] continuing to evolve.
If the broadcast industry doesn't want to adapt to the changing world, let them fail a most epic fail. Let them die off like film cameras, VHS, and responsible government.
To borrow a quote from Bioshock: Evolve Today! | |
|
| morboComplete Your Transaction
join:2002-01-22
00000 | Re: sigh.... Piracy is the answer? | |
|
| | | | Re: sigh.... No, but a business model that is as easy and convenient to the consumer is surely out there. | |
|
| | | | | Re: sigh.... said by Skippy25:No, but a business model that is as easy and convenient to the consumer is surely out there. I'm going to say it will have to cost about $10-$20 per month, and have access to 95% of what people want to watch. Otherwise piracy will still be a central pillar of digital media. If the 'legal' solutions only have 40% of the popular content available, and if you're getting 60% of your stuff for free (pirating), why not just get the first 40% for free too? At least then it's all on one platform. | |
|
| | | | I'm not sure that piracy is the answer, but I'll respond this way:
Data (and for that matter, technology) is a lot like water. I twill always find a way past obstacles. Even the strongest dam (and here I compare old-fashioned broadcasters to a dam) can eventually spring a leak, if the pressure of the water is strong and sustained enough.
The dam begins to leak around the sides and eventually erodes the foundation, leaving a marvelous edifice that has no support.
Piracy, in this analogy, is nothing more than little rivulets of water finding their way around the dam and seeking their own path to the sea.
The broadcasters (dam owners) could build their own more direct pathways and play a constructive middle role, but they are so nearsighted that they don't see that the damn is being undermined in no small part due to their own intransigence.
Or as we used to say in the 60s - if you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem. | |
|
| openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
kudos:2 | So you look forward to a world without video content? I don't wish death on the content industry, but it would be nice if the content owners woke to realize that we're in the 21st century. | |
|
| |
1 edit | Re: sigh.... said by openbox9:So you look forward to a world without video content? I don't wish death on the content industry, but it would be nice if the content owners woke to realize that we're in the 21st century. NO. we should still get content, but the providers should not need large distributors (Broadcasters) help in getting it to us.
We as customers should be able to get anything from anyone when and how we want it. I should not have to buy a bundle from my cable company with 100's of channels i don't want.
In this day and age, anyone can make a video and show it some how on the internet, why not the broadcaster one at a time. | |
|
| | | openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
kudos:2 | Re: sigh.... So your beef is with the content owners/producers, which may or may not be broadcasters. Based on your argument (sounds a little entitlement-isty, btw) , one could easily replace "broadcasters" with "ISPs" and we could continue the conversation. There will always be a middle man of sorts, so it's in everyone's best interests to establish a viable business model. | |
|
| WHT
join:2010-03-26
kudos:3 | said by Tristan:After years of forcing an over-abundance of stupid and low-quality reality TV programming down our throats, they think they can retain their [antique] business models, which exploit our wallets and our intelligence And the unwashed masses haven't figured out that in a thirty minute times slot, there is only twenty minutes of "content". The business model of commercial TV is to provide "content" to keep you glued to the TV set until the next commercial.
It was never about providing entertaining content, much less educational or informative content. | |
|
| | Plan B Well, then, tell the broadcasters to stuff it. Then, grab up every public domain film, invite independent producers on board, and bring in foreign programming, especially from other English-speaking countries where the broadcasters are willing to play ball. Then sell the box slightly below cost for a year, or, if you really want to go all out, give away the first 100,000.
If you get market penetration, the broadcasters will quickly change their tune. | |
|
| | | Re: Plan B the sad thing is other non English speaking countries still deal with the same companies we do here. | |
|
|
|
| | | Re: Yawn... they do offer that. It's called C-Band. | |
|
| | |
| | I thought it was all about the eyeballs? Someone correct me if I'm wrong but I thought TV networks (besides the premium ones) get their money from advertising. The more eyeballs watching, the more they can charge. If this is the business model, why are they so worried about streaming content AND commercials to people. Right now they have to get their view numbers from Nielson, but with streaming, they know EXACTLY how many people are watching and most of the time, where they are located.
Now, the CABLE companies and the local affiliates need to be scared... very scared. Cable should start shifting its core services to big dumb pipes to houses and start to get out of the content delivery models. Content delivery as we know it is going the way of the 8-track tape.
What bothers me is the Comcast / NBC deal, if that goes thru, the cable company will then control the content and its distribution... bye bye Hulu, Google TV, ect.... | |
|
| Reviews:
·WOW Internet and..
| Re: I thought it was all about the eyeballs? Hulu is going public. And as far as content delivery going the way of the 8-track. That won't happen for many years to come.
Comcast and Disney own enough networks to keep it from happening. Especially since they set the amounts that the delivery companies will pay.
But as far as the IPTV sector not everyone will be able to get the services due to speed of their connection. Especially DSL customers that are limited to the distance. They'll be luck to get 1 stream on some of their connections. Many small Telcos that own the cable companies will make sure that never happens too. Especially the ones where they use DSL for HSI and FTTN for Cable (MSO style).
--
www.twopugsbrand.com Kosher, Vegan, and Organic Certified Dog and Cat treats/foods and other products! www.etsy.com/shop/snakx4u/ Organic, Kosher, Gluten Free, Vegan Human Baked Goods | |
|
| | | | Re: I thought it was all about the eyeballs? What both of you guys talk about is the problem its self. The fact that the model is to get the money from advertising and not from the channel or shows on the channel.
And that everyone still can't get HSI in some locations and the Telco's are not even trying to supply it in some areas. Of course in these areas they will still use old tech cable or SAT. But all city's should be looking at FTTH networks and it should be part of the home owner taxes these days. That is going to be the future. | |
|
| | | Reviews:
·WOW Internet and..
| Re: I thought it was all about the eyeballs? and are you going to pay my taxes if i don't want the FTTH network? I'm not. The cities do NOT belong in the private business of selling HSI, CableTV nor Phone and building out these networks. That's why we have private businesses to do this. I also don't have a problem nor does most of my area getting services, we have TWC NEO/WPA, WOW, U-Shit and whoever else decides to give The State of Ohio $2,000 for their application to provide services and build out a wireline based network (and yes I know my area is not the norm for having 3 providers but yah shit happens). Did you forget the cities still have to follow the same rules/laws that the private companies do for providing services in most states? Especially in states where they have state wide agreements.
As far as the telco's go for providing access; maybe you should write the FCC and the USF and tell them to start making the telco's spend that money on building out HSI networks to their rural customers instead of pocketing it or spending it on their Wireless networks.
And another note about the property taxes with FTTH- who is going to pay for those taxes when the property gets foreclosed on due to the purchaser is now longer able to pay? the bank? Yep! so we can bail them out again. 
--
www.twopugsbrand.com Kosher, Vegan, and Organic Certified Dog and Cat treats/foods and other products! www.etsy.com/shop/snakx4u/ Organic, Kosher, Gluten Free, Vegan Human Baked Goods | |
|
| | | | | | Re: I thought it was all about the eyeballs? Well of course i am not going to pay your taxes. If the house is for closed then the next owner will be paying the back taxes to clear the lien.
The fact that you have 3 provider in your area means you are already paying taxes for all 3 in some form or another. At some point these older systems will not be able to handle the data flow and fiber will be required, this may be in 2015 or in 2025 but it will happen in most city's. So you can pay now or later. I am not saying the city should provide HSI, TV and such them self's but the network needs to be built and shared it is going to be the new way of allowing competition. If your city don't build it they will request your provider to build it, but you the home owners will be paying for it in some form in the end.
I agree i don't like the way the TV industry is setup big change is most likely to happen in the coming years. I think some of the best ideas have been put forth on this site but that info is not used when the idiots in charge make the changes. | |
|
| | Things change in time... These broadcasters need to realize that the sooner they partake in new business models, the easier time they will have when something major finally HAS to occur in the TV business model. (i.e. major technology change like going to IPTV exclusively etc.) Technology changes, its better to be ready when that happens. | |
|
| | | Re: Things change in time... its the horse and buggy v the automobile | |
|
| | | | Re: Things change in time... and the horse and buggy is still widely used today as well. | |
|
| | And in other news.... ... the sky is blue, the sun rises in the east and sets in the west.
Seriously, I hold out little hope that the broadcasters will ever get out of the Jurassic period. | |
|
Reviews:
·Optimum Online
 ·Verizon FiOS
| catalyst the video industry better start a game plan that can do/say something other than "NO"... or they will forfeit their chance to get out ahead of the mass adoption of a few appliacations that share video across platforms, with android os being one of the more prominent wireless, portable devices softwares of choice. the embedded device stumbling blocks are about to be erased in the next several months... and broadcasters are gonna look like a bunch of chumps who missed their big chance to get ahead of the technology--followed lock-step by the cable industry & first-run movie industry. | |
|
|
|
·
·