# three television networks that have blocked access to their websites on Google TV



## BubblePuppy (Nov 3, 2006)

From Reuters:


> Three of the biggest U.S. television broadcasters have blocked the Web-based versions of their shows from Google's new Web TV service, throwing a wrench into the company's plans to expand from computers to the living room.
> 
> Representatives from Walt Disney Co and NBC Universal confirmed on Thursday that the companies blocked access to the broadcast TV shows available on their websites from Google TV. Disney owns ABC network and cable TV business ESPN.
> 
> ...


http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE69K5QS20101022

The money grab begins. It will be interesting to see if Sony, Logitech, and others join Google in this tug of war between the olde dinosaurs and the family of the future.


----------



## Marlin Guy (Apr 8, 2009)

Growth can be painful.


----------



## matt (Jan 12, 2010)

I am shocked that providers are starting to not want to show their content for free via the internet. :nono:

I always have thought that all this free streaming of TV shows wouldn't take over traditional sources like satellite and cable, and this isn't helping to change my mind.


----------



## fluffybear (Jun 19, 2004)

I'm now kind of glad that we decided to hold off getting a Google TV enabled device. 
Given there is more to Google TV then just being able to access programming from the major networks but in our case that would be it's biggest use and the major reason for getting it.


----------



## paulman182 (Aug 4, 2006)

Good news for those of us who like satellite TV.


----------



## smiddy (Apr 5, 2006)

Interesting!


----------



## Lee L (Aug 15, 2002)

This is kind of funny when I bout a Dell Zino last year for something like $200 bucks after the Bing Cash back. It has a HDMI out, is pretty darn small and with a wireless keyboard it could not be simpler to watch shows on my TV.


----------



## TheRatPatrol (Oct 1, 2003)

Do you guys think one day local network channels will scramble their signals, require a set box and start charging a fee to receive them? I mean they already charge cable and satellite to retransmit their signals.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

The current "free" model by the networks is really meant to augment the existing pay-for services. As more and more people shoot for the free-only option, the folks making it available will have no choice but to introduce a new pay-for model. (legal) TV via the Internet is not going to be forever free. At lease not in a near real-time format.

The whole point of any business is to get paid, and if folks aren't paying, then what's the point? More likely, Google TV (and other TV providers like them) will end up having to negotiate retransmission rights just like Sat TV and OTA TV providers have done for years.


----------



## bt-rtp (Dec 30, 2005)

The Logitec Revue & Google TV device should have an antenna input for ATSC Over The Air (OTA) TV signals. That would eliminate the problem of not being bale to receive real-time broadcast content the for some users.


----------



## Lee L (Aug 15, 2002)

TheRatPatrol said:


> Do you guys think one day local network channels will scramble their signals, require a set box and start charging a fee to receive them? I mean they already charge cable and satellite to retransmit their signals.


They are specifically forbidden from doing this by teh terms of their licenses to broadcast on the airwaves, which cost them nothing when they were assigned.

Political rammifications aside which would keep this from happening for a long long time if not forever, Unlce Sam would be looking for a pretty tremendous amount of money from the nets if they did this. Likely a whole bunch of zeros.


----------



## bicker1 (Oct 21, 2007)

BubblePuppy said:


> The money grab begins.


The money grab began as soon as the first online website saw fit to try to make money off of other people's programming.



matt1124 said:


> I am shocked that providers are starting to not want to show their content for free via the internet. :nono:


Really!


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

Google didn't work these things out before introducing Google TV? My, my.:nono2:

And I suppose they'll want your ISP to let you and your 20,000 closest friends stream content through your town and state clogging things up for other people.

Yep, that's a real good technology. Don't pay for the content and don't pay for the delivery service. Good plan if you can get away with it.


----------



## bicker1 (Oct 21, 2007)

Precisely, but Google has always had an arrogant streak - a belief that they could trump rational logic and force people to do things their way. This is perhaps the first time they've done something that is both this big and represents so much value that they're trying to take away from others. 

To be fair, though, the television arena needs to be thought of, these days, like the cancer treatment arena. You can't "work things out" in advance to ensure that you're going to come up a superlative cancer treatment. How viewers are going to want to view television, and how you're going to coax them to do so, and how you're going to be able to apply the strong-arm of propaganda to bring about a situation that benefits you - these are analogous to the unpredictable elements of physiology involved in developing cancer treatments. 

And beyond that, it isn't necessarily about having a winning product in this market sector in the short-term. People necessarily have to be looking long-term, because the way things are now is almost surely going to expire. Something like AllVid could (and almost surely would) pull the rug out from under everything that has been in place for decades, and so the goal right now, for folks like Google, Apple, and Microsoft, is to have the right foundation to put out the technology necessary to exploit that next generation once it arrives (is imposed). 

And in the short-term, they can readily blame their suppliers and competitors for "unfairly" preventing them from offering consumers a reasonable service - painting their suppliers and competitors as the bad guys seeking to withhold from consumers this superior, low-cost service. Consumers are so blindly orgasmic over the idea of lower prices that the mention of someone being responsible for withholding that from them is enough to get these consumers to forgive the accuser and hate/attack the accused, without any regard for the validity of the accusation.


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

The AllVid proposal is the logical next step now that HDMI has been agreed upon as the current HD TV input standard. Now all it has to do is achieve final design including getting through the crowd of oxen without goring any.


----------



## bicker1 (Oct 21, 2007)

Indeed, and so that'll make it into a horse-race to see who's going to be well-placed to be "the front-end of the future". It's going to be an exciting time, to say the least, but inevitably, everyone buying a device with a television tuner (planning on using that tuner) today is going to experience some kind of disappointment when/if AllVid becomes reality, unless they're aware now of the possibility of obsolescence for their current purchase, and are satisfied that they can get enough value from their purchase before that happens.


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

That's why I keep hoping my 2003 42" Pany Plasma which lacks an HDMI input and is 720p will keep working. With luck, I'll replace it with an AllVid no-glasses 3D whatever p.


----------



## wilbur_the_goose (Aug 16, 2006)

I can't wait till the NAB steps in. (you know, the NAB that has Congress in its back pocket)


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

It appears more and more that Google mishandled this. From Variety:


> Net execs were bemused by the breathless media coverage late last week of the blocking effort because none of the Big Four nets has yet formally signed on as a Google TV partner. Google's partners to date include the HBO Go service, available only to subscribers of the pay TV powerhouse. Turner's TBS and TNT are onboard through their TV Everywhere platform that allows users on-demand access to shows via broadband, so long as they maintain a cable, satellite or telco subscription.


It seems one should plan out partnering with at least the major sites. Or am I overthinking this?


----------



## Lee L (Aug 15, 2002)

They either mishandled it or did it this way as an intentional negotiation strategy.


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

Lee L said:


> They either mishandled it or did it this way as an intentional negotiation strategy.


Could be a strategy. Maybe they noticed the high profile situation in other negotiations right now and figured the more public negative reaction to the networks the better their position to negotiate at this time.


----------



## bicker1 (Oct 21, 2007)

Turn it around: What if they all said 'no' (or demanded a price that was too high, which is the same thing)? Should Google simply bend over and get out of the television business? Uh, no.


----------



## bobukcat (Dec 20, 2005)

I must be missing something. They are blocking access to content that you can readily access for free on a PC, is that correct? If so I don't understand the reasons or why they wouldn't just get advertising revenue the same way they always have - by putting commercials at the beginning and throughout the program. To me this is just another example of how the television networks, and program providers as a general rule, are completely missing the boat on advancing technologies and just trying to stick to "the way things are done".


----------



## Lee L (Aug 15, 2002)

bobukcat said:


> I must be missing something. They are blocking access to content that you can readily access for free on a PC, is that correct? If so I don't understand the reasons or why they wouldn't just get advertising revenue the same way they always have - by putting commercials at the beginning and throughout the program. To me this is just another example of how the television networks, and program providers as a general rule, are completely missing the boat on advancing technologies and just trying to stick to "the way things are done".


Yeah, the nets seem to think that if it is only available on a PC, somehow the small screen makes it different. Even if that were true, they forget about computers with HDMI out like I mentioned.


----------



## bicker1 (Oct 21, 2007)

I think what you're missing is how numbers matter. Things aren't either 0% or 100%, but rather there is a continuous spectrum between those two extremes

For instance, there is a big difference in effect if 80% of HDTVs have computers hooked up via HDMI versus if only 0.5% of HDTVs do.

This matter of perspective and scale comes up quite often in matters of content protection: Folks upset about the protection often launch deceptive, extreme arguments, asserting perhaps that people can get around the protection, but they fail to reveal that only a very small number actually do/would. What matters is the amount of compliance with content ownership provisions, while the extremists try to argue that protection shouldn't exist because there may be less significant amounts of non-compliance.


----------

