TV Networks Block Google TV from Web Content

[bv90andy]

I bet websites like project free tv and surf the channel still work. Also, how is this different from watching their websites on HTPCs?

 

[Darkk]

You guys have it all wrong. FCC isn't going to do anything because no laws have been broken. The content owners are will within their legal rights to block certian viewers from seeing it. There are exceptions to the rule such as PBS.

You also have to remember the big networks are in business to make money for themselves and the advertisters. If neither can make money then there is no point in being in business, right?

There is no such thing as free lunch. Somebody has to pay for it as there are expenses involved.

Darkk

 

[JohnA]

[citation][nom]hellwig[/nom]i don't think this is very legal. They are blocking access to their websites to a specific piece of hardware and/or browser. What's to stop the networks from blocking access to Firefox users if they sign a deal with Microsoft for IE? What's to stop them from blocking access to HP computers if they sign a promo deal with Dell or Apple? This sets a bad precedent and is entirely anti-Net Neutrality. I would expect an FCC investigation soon.[/citation]
Perhaps you've forgotten what copyright is? They OWN it, they PAID to have it made, they can do what they want with it. Most of the programs you are downloading off youtube and other such sites, stripped of commercials, are illegal copies. Just because you've gotten comfortable with breaking the law doesn't make it legal, or right.

 

[nexus9113]

[citation][nom]cablebs2010[/nom]And the Cable companies say they can not offer ala carte because of technical and bandwidth issues which is BS. We have Bright House Networks in Orlando Florida and right now they are switching channel lineups so we have 2-3 sets of the same channels, thats right and they are also using an IP system that detects which show you want, then retrieves the show in real time, just like your PC and the internet. This is already in place for all channels. So bringing ala carte and paying for only the channels you want to watch would be no problem, EXCEPT these cable companies do not want to part from the money they will lose by offering you USELESS bundles of channels you never watch. We pay $135 for internet and cable and watch 10 channels of a package of about 150 channels (lowest package offered). 10 CHANNELS !!!![/citation]

Actually a number of cable companies are building up to an ala carte pricing structure that is already being tested by employees. It actually saves bandwidth because what is happening right now is that all channels are constantly broadcast to you 24/7, so what is being planned right now is an adaptive system where the most commonly watched channels in a given market will be continuously broadcast, and that will be part of the "basic package" deal, and anything else will remain off of the stream unless requested by the user, allowing people to choose what additional channels they want in a better way freeing up more than 3/4 of the bandwidth being used. So your claim of companies saying "it takes to much bandwidth" is absolute bunk.

[citation][nom]Mathos[/nom] The problem with this whole thing is, from what I can see, is Google tv requires you to have a broadband connection. Which implies that you already have either digital cable + internet. Or, Satellite TV + DSL through one of the major phone companies..... Which means they're already getting royalties through one of those sources for you to watch their channels.... Which means they're double dipping.[/citation]

Actually you don't need television services to get internet. There are many people who have internet without video because they just access the content they want online. And satellite companies don't provide internet, they just have a deal with local phone companies to bundle their service to compete with the cable bundle. In fact, the CEO of DirecTV says he'd be interested in a partnership with cable companies to bundle cable internet with satellite television.

[citation][nom]hellwig[/nom]i don't think this is very legal. They are blocking access to their websites to a specific piece of hardware and/or browser. What's to stop the networks from blocking access to Firefox users if they sign a deal with Microsoft for IE? What's to stop them from blocking access to HP computers if they sign a promo deal with Dell or Apple? This sets a bad precedent and is entirely anti-Net Neutrality. I would expect an FCC investigation soon.[/citation]

Unless it's a publicly supported channel (as in PBS like a previous poster stated), they can block access to their content all they want. Also, you clearly don't understand what net neutrality is if you're using the term in this context. Net neutrality is about the issue of internet providers giving preferential treatment in regards to access speeds between sites. Meaning if Verizon owns the backbone to the site you are trying to access and you're using a Cox connection, they can't limit you because you are trying to access the site from another provider.

In this case it is a site blocking an application from access, an application that is free, and an application they are not in any agreement with to provide content to. Well within their right to do so.

 

[Tomtompiper]

Faux News blocked, surely that is a win win situation for Google TV.

 

[hellwig]

[citation][nom]JohnA[/nom]Perhaps you've forgotten what copyright is? ... Just because you've gotten comfortable with breaking the law doesn't make it legal, or right.[/citation]
Wow, big leap. Why would I complain about how legal something is if I break the law myself. I do NOT go to YouTube or BitTorrent for shows, I go to Hulu, which is one of the sites blocked to Google TV (no, I don't own one).

[citation][nom]nexus9113[/nom]Also, you clearly don't understand what net neutrality is if you're using the term in this context.[/citation]

Guess what, Net Neutrality isn't something the ISPs are doing without the buy-in of the content providers. No, the ISPs are not blocking access to GoogleTV, but these content providers are showing a clear desire to exclude certain members of the public from their content (and not just those who don't pay or are underage).

These networks feel some sort of danger from GoogleTV (not sure why, its just an internet browser like everything else). Imagine if they blocked the PS3 or XBox 360 from viewing these sites. Oh wait, I forgot that Microsoft already worked out a deal with Hulu to display their content. I guess it's already started hasn't it? GoogleTV provides a "free" way to display Hulu content on your TV. The XBox 360 requires a paid Live! account to view Hulu on your TV, and I'll bet real cash money that Hulu and the networks get a cut of that everytime a 360 user accesses Hulu.

Now, Hulu is starting a premium service, are they not? If, at that time, they don't allow GoogleTV users to display content with a paid account, we'll know something sinister is going on.

Still, I view Hulu on my TV for free thanks to the PC I have connected.

 

[eddieroolz]

More ways these oligarchies are hindering the constant advancement of technology. Shame on you, networks.

 

[back_by_demand]

[citation][nom]devorakman112[/nom]why would they do that? to keep people from progressing to new tech? if you can watch it on a regular PC, and regular tv, why not an internet capable tv? i dont get it.[/citation]
It's not that.
The networks are happy for you to watch old shows in full, notably ones that have already had a pretty good run and even some that have hit nationwide syndication.

But these are all individual users watching for personal use.
What Google is doing is almost like redistribution for business.

Local terrestrial stations have to pay for syndication of content, therefore so does Google, you may think it is no differant than a PC allowing people to watch streaming TV but a PC is not sold as an Internet TV appliance, whereas GoogleTV is solely that.

 

[g00fysmiley]

so... it still plays thier episode, they still play thier couple commertials with direct advertisment, so they get money ... yet they aren't happy because its accesed from the tv not the computer.. yes i get it they dpon't get sas much money but they are still getting paid

 

[dekyos]

Easy fix:

Open the vid on a computer and stream your screen across the network using VLS (VLC's server counterpart) GoogleTV should be able to pick that up. Kinda screws up remote control though

Looks like GoogleTV won't be able to replace my HTPC after all.

 

[nexus9113]

[citation][nom]hellwig[/nom]Guess what, Net Neutrality isn't something the ISPs are doing without the buy-in of the content providers. No, the ISPs are not blocking access to GoogleTV, but these content providers are showing a clear desire to exclude certain members of the public from their content (and not just those who don't pay or are underage).These networks feel some sort of danger from GoogleTV (not sure why, its just an internet browser like everything else). Imagine if they blocked the PS3 or XBox 360 from viewing these sites. Oh wait, I forgot that Microsoft already worked out a deal with Hulu to display their content. I guess it's already started hasn't it? GoogleTV provides a "free" way to display Hulu content on your TV. The XBox 360 requires a paid Live! account to view Hulu on your TV, and I'll bet real cash money that Hulu and the networks get a cut of that everytime a 360 user accesses Hulu.Now, Hulu is starting a premium service, are they not? If, at that time, they don't allow GoogleTV users to display content with a paid account, we'll know something sinister is going on. Still, I view Hulu on my TV for free thanks to the PC I have connected.[/citation]

Again, you have no idea what Net Neutrality is about. It is not about content providers, it is purely about the ISP's blocking certain types of data traffic (P2P, FTP, and gaming traffic), or restricting those types of traffic. It isn't about PC A not wanting to give access to PC B, it's about the moderator of communication not wanting to give PC B access to PC A because of either the type of traffic, or the network PC B is coming from. It is about everyone getting the same Quality of Service (aka speed) as everyone else regardless of the application or data types they use. It has nothing to do with content providers blocking content, at all.

Network neutrality is the principle that Internet users should be in control of what content they view and what applications they use on the Internet. The Internet has operated according to this neutrality principle since its earliest days... Fundamentally, net neutrality is about equal access to the Internet. In our view, the broadband carriers should not be permitted to use their market power to discriminate against competing applications or content. Just as telephone companies are not permitted to tell consumers who they can call or what they can say, broadband carriers should not be allowed to use their market power to control activity online.
—Guide to Net Neutrality for Google Users

This issue here has nothing to do with the ISP's, it's not saying, "Comcast is blocking Google TV's from accessing NBC, ABC, etc.'s content" or "AT&T is blocking its subscribers from using GoogleTV to view internet programming", it is saying the content provider themself is blocking access to a certain application or device which is well within their rights.

Using Xbox Live as an example is a gross mistake to make as well. Saying "Well I can't access this person's content because of Microsoft, NET NEUTRALITY!" is a statement made out of ignorance. You are not connecting to the internet at large through your Xbox360, you are using an application that is connecting to a closed garden network, that provides a specific service for a specific purpose. There had to be a deal to be made because Microsoft had to design an application with the provider (Hulu in your argument) so that their customers could access the service, because the 360 doesn't have a web browser. Companies have to do the same thing with internet enabled blu-ray players and televisions.

The arguments you make reek of the typical anti-corporate conspiracy theorist BS spouted by people who really don't know what their talking about, but want to use the latest slang words to sound smart.

 

[ssddx]

"All three networks confirmed that the TV shows from their websites will not play on Google TV because they have been blocked."

That line says it all.

Who cares whether you view it on a htpc, gtv, desktop, laptop, phone or other device? If it is on their website for free viewing there is no point to this besides bad publicity. All the gtv seems to do is take all the content and make it easier to access.

I'm sure google will figure out a way to set things straight.

 

[kinggraves]

First of all, from what I know of GoogleTV (or at least the Logitech Revue), in order to get access to your cable programming, you need to have a cable/sat box. The only input is an HDMI, there is no Coax input for basic cable or antenna. In other words, it's only serving the purpose of a DVR (which would already be in the cable box usually) when it comes to cable service. Everything else is based off of apps and services you could get off your computer.

So what's the problem? GoogleTV tells you where else you can get the same programs for free, it throws all the "other" options to cable right into your face. "Hey, you know all those shows you're paying a cable company 60 dollars a month for to watch when they tell you to. Here are the same shows on the internet for 10 dollars a month whenever you feel like watching them" GoogleTV is going to punch the cablecos right in the grapes and force even the most ignorant to realize there is no need to pay for cable service.

Like most rich billionaires however, these CEOs are so oblivious to technology that they don't realize a move like this only encourages piracy and open platforms. Don't want your programming on GoogleTV? Sucks to be you, because it'll get there anyway, with or without your consent. You block it and someone will use their computer that DOES THE SAME THING to rip off the content and toss it on Youtube. Block Youtube too and they'll turn around and upload it elsewhere. Fighting open platforms and media sharing is a losing battle, work with these companies or you'll lose everything.

 

[Supertrek32]

I wonder how the networks would react if google excluded ABC, CBS, and NBC sources from search results...

 

[back_by_demand]

[citation][nom]ssddx[/nom]I'm sure google will figure out a way to set things straight.[/citation]
Of course they will
It will consist of a Google representative speaking to someone from the network and paying a fee for access to the content like everyone else does. What just because it's Google you think that everything should be for free? Have you not been watching the news? These f**kers have been driving around and stealing emails, password, IP addresses from the whole planet - then inventing reasons not to delete it once caught and we are suddenly all OK about it because they allow you to watch re-runs of Desperate Housewives?

Grow a brain, Google is NOT your friend.

 

[Guest]

Whether you access ABC, CBS, NBC, or FOX from a PC or Google TV device should be a moot point. Both receive the content via the Internet so both should be allowed to view it. Their is no loss of revenue to the networks; the same asinine ads would still be loaded. It omounts to nothing more than a discriminatory policy on the part of the networks and, legal or not, it is a pretty rude way to treat Google TV users.