Old school media companies and content providers can (should) be wiped out. Anyone with a digital camera and Final Cut Pro can produce a show that someone will watch. I mean, look at the shit that’s produced on mainstream tv now? Reality shows like dancing with the stars? Someone could stream and HD feed of puppies playing in the backyard and gain viewership.

Content producers and carriers (big ISPs like TW, Comcast etc) are colluding to make sure that the old model stays in place. This is why it should be illegal for a company to be a content creator AND a carrier. Simply untenable and unfair. Instead, community owed fibre networks should be put in place (already started thanks to the broadband stimulus) and ISP’s should be falling over themselves trying to compete on providing services. Everyone should have incredibly fast symmetrical connections to their home (the last mile) that let’s them selectively choose what they want to watch.

From MC> you also dropped any resemblance of sense

Marks (and other media giants) dream is to subvert the internet into some lame $39.99 dollars a month cable package with 10-15 websites that are offered. The rest are cut off. This goes against everything the Internet was created for, and is (shitty) “business as usual for the media companies”.

Fuck them. I’ve found better content online and at other locations. I dropped mainstream media a long time ago.

The great thing about the internet is that you don’t HAVE to stream EVERYTHING. We have hard drives in our computers. If we set up things such as RSS feeds, or if a forward-thinking content provider were to set up a more user-friendly means, they could simply pre-cache any episodes you want to watch on your local computer while you are sleeping or at work, and only stream the shows/movies/programs that are live content (or that you decided to watch at the last minute). The ONLY people who would have to worry about are the sports fans who want to watch several games of their favourite sport ALL AT ONCE. Talk about a niche audience ? Most sports fans would prefer watching the game on THEIR time… meaning they could stream the big game, while downloading the others in a queue… by the time you are done watching the first streamed game, the next is already downloaded, and your download queue has moved on. If you think any household other than the most rural cannot support one stream and one download at a time, you are fooling yourself. For the sports fan who absolutely MUST watch all their games at once… they can upgrade their internet access to higher bandwidth.

Bandwidth is of no concern in this debate, except in the cases of rural residences, who most likely couldn’t get cable TV anyway.

Worried about those who want to watch their shows right as they air ? Again, you can pre-cache these files on the customer’s machine. Steam does this with video game releases… they allow you to download most of the files, so on release day, you simply download a license or the final critical file to run the game, rather than all 8GB of the game when everyone else is stammering to download the whole thing… All the technical details of how to get Network Television on the internet can be worked out with current technology. The only thing holding it back is the content providers who refuse to take the ball and run with it, by building a web presence. I commend NBC for their forward-thinking in creating Hulu, and I hope it spurs a trend with the other networks so we can finally cut the cable company ties.

Am I the only one who has been disappointed in “network television” for other reasons ?

Sure, everyone argues that their bills are too high to pay for channels they don’t watch, etc… but what about how Network Television is KILLING creativity and true entertainment ?

My favourite shows of all time have been canceled before even finishing their first season, due to the “Fox Syndrome.” Fox seems to love picking up shows that have a great storyline, great acting, directing, writing, etc… then just canceling them because they didn’t get a billion viewers on their pilot episode. These shows include Drive, Jericho, and Firefly. The letter two of which had millions of dedicated fans launching massive-scale protests against the canceling of their show, yet the networks did nothing (up until they finally allowed Jericho to finish one season to end the series)… even going so far as to refuse to release the rights to a show to another network, or even to the show’s producer (a-la Firefly by Joss Whedon).

It is like the networks would prefer no other network could ever air that show just because they, themselves couldn’t make a profit off of it.

You want to talk about not generating enough revenue for a show if it were internet-based ? I guarantee, two years ago if Fox had allowed Joss Whedon the rights to his own show, he could have put it on the internet (via iTunes, Hulu, or private site) with a pay-per episode structure, and every last Firefly fan would have been more than happy to shell out $2/episode. Without all the middlemen, like the cable providers, taking their cut, he would be a rich man, and the show would be hugely successful both in fanbase, and profits.

I see the de-centralization of video programming as a good thing for the content producers. If the Cable Companies were smart, they would see this, and see the opportunity to become a web-portal, much like Hulu, and a separate internet provider. If they were REALLY smart about it, they would charge for their web portal on an a-la-carte basis, but offer customers of say “Time Warner Cable Internet” free access to all shows in the Time Warner library… encouraging users to get their cable internet from Time Warner, to avoid internet fees to watch their favourite shows.

Another thing it affords, is the fact that networks no longer have to cancel a good show because it isn’t as profitable as a “more lucrative” show in the same time slot. With no time slots on the internet, you could host as many shows at the same time as you want. This mitigates the lower advertising dollars per-show, since you can replace a single ad for a single time-slot with a hundred ads for a hundred different shows, all in the same slot.

This makes it:
Good for the advertiser, since they can choose the programming they wish their products to be featured in.
Good for the content provider since they can now expand their advertising potential, by not selling time-of-day ads.
Good for customers, since their favourite shows no longer get canceled due to a lack of a good time slot.

The only downside, is that the content providers need to make a sizable shift in their business model to adapt to the new format.

Either they adjust for the times, or they WILL get replaced.

That the users of an ISP or satellite or mobile video receive a bundle of available content above what they utilize for free is only the result of a transition from one market paradigm to another. Let the market decide – keep the internet free and distribution channels open and expanding and what content is worth and what value it will receive will be up to us to decide.

“Not allowing affordable flexibility is what is going to kill the cable content providers.” should be: “Not allowing affordable flexibility is what is going to kill the cable companies.”

Is it any wonder that Time Warner is pushing “TV Everywhere” and is upset with cable content providers that put content online for free?

Sorry, Time Warner. It is time for the monopoly to end. Bring me free, advertisement-sponsored web content!

For the Boxee or no Boxee argument, if I only want the major networks, all I need is to pick-up what is going over the airwaves. If I miss a show, I will catch it on the web, or better yet, on Boxee. Yes, I do get the shows in HD-quality without having to pay for it. Commercials? Yes, I will watch them on the TV or Boxee for free content. Oh, and Boxee doesn’t mess with the commercial content. Why the heck would content providers have an issue with this? This is why they are stupid. Posting content on the web is ok, but treating the TV like a web browser is not ok? Limiting content to specific formats/players didn’t help the music industry either.

Is cable/satellite content so much better than broadcast TV? If so, why do we have commercials on cable/satellite AND consumers also have to pay monthly fees? It’s communism and greed. Not allowing affordable flexibility is what is going to kill the cable content providers. Quit gouging the subscribers and get the content providers to get up off their lazy butts and fund their own content with advertising revenue!

Companies are dying in this lousy economy. Why shouldn’t inadequate content providers?

seriously… stop whining and get DSL. The guy that owns your cable company has it.