TV Companies Embracing Online Streaming... But Why Not BitTorrent?
from the solves-the-bandwidth-problem dept
The NY Times has an article talking about how the various TV producers are finally embracing the idea of offering up TV shows online, noting that Warner Brothers is now opening the vault and adding a bunch of old shows that can be streamed directly online. This isn't all that surprising. However, what's odd is that the article includes a few complaints about the cost of doing this compared to the revenue, with NBC Universal boss Jeff Zucker complaining "there are streaming costs so you have to make sure you’re covering that." Of course, that brings me back to a discussion some folks had around here over four years ago -- when we started wondering why television companies didn't just use BitTorrent to distribute their shows. If you combined RSS and BitTorrent (which was briefly referred to as "Broadcatching" by Ernest Miller) television companies could make it very easy for people to watch their shows. With RSS, they would "subscribe" to the shows, so as soon as a new one came out, subscribers would definitely see it. It would increase loyalty and remind people to watch their favorite shows. And by using BitTorrent, it would take the bandwidth cost away from the television companies. Unfortunately, the entertainment industry is still too scared of BitTorrent to realize how it can be embraced. So they complain about bandwidth costs for absolutely no reason.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: bittorrent, costs, rss, streaming, television, televisions shows
Companies: nbc universal, warner brothers
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
No kidding
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Old Dog Can Learn New Tricks
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Tribler and 'P2P-Next' in Europe
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- I'm still against the money grubbing A-Holes with the networks. They can kiss my left nut
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Of course. But they can always pretend.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Um. I understand the difference between streaming and downloading -- but that's the point. By letting them download it (also using someone else's bandwidth) they no longer have to worry about the cost of all that bandwidth.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
maybe you haven't heard...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: maybe you haven't heard...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'd stream if I could
I WOULD stream shows if it were easier than BT, but as it is I can have a full resolution show in about 8 minutes - why deal with the BS? I bet if the networks released an "official BT" with commercials left in people would actually grab those trackers - especially if it was RSSed. That would give many benefits for the company: they know how many people downloaded, very low overhead, and additional advertising revenue. I'd happily support the networks but if they are an order of magnitude harder to work with I am left with only one option.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I'd stream if I could
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What they need is devices
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
with NBC Universal boss Jeff Zucker complaining "there are streaming costs so you have to make sure you’re covering that."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I assume...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
as rhetorical questions go, this one is a bit dim
Doesn't matter that this is a better way to do business -- they don't want us to have their stuff on any but the narrowest terms.
Just as well. They'd probably try wrapping their garbage in some sort of pointlessly annoying DRM anyway.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Advertising
I know folks who worked on the Hulu project etc. The biggest part of the work effort is making sure you can not only show the advertisement to the viewer, but accurately count the number of views of that advertisement. The online model for ads is very different from the tv model for ads: pay per click or pay per view. The ad companies/ad buyers won't buy ads on a broad number like nielsen numbers etc the way they do for tv.
If you allow folks to bittorent/dl the content with ads embedded, how do you count the ad views?
If you use something like wmv which allows you to do callouts/popouts that get ad content dynamically, how do you guarantee that the person doesn't adblock those ads? With server streaming you have a high bandwidth cost, but at least you can sell the advertisements. I think you see that where you don't have advertisement based models, like public radio, you end up with delivery mechanisms that emphasize conserving bandwidth. They offer streaming, as do most radio stations, but they also offer podcasts of all shows.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Advertising
I'm sure that is the thinking, but it's incredibly dumb thinking.
Would you rather have a small audience you can measure accurately or a much larger audience that you can estimate? I'd go with the second one...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Advertising
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
bit torrant
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: bit torrant
Personally I connect my laptop to my TV using an s-video connector, and the use the headphone socket on the laptop as the sound input.
I do this for iplayer and 4OD.
Why would I clog up my hard drive with content that I might view only once.
Besides there's so many repeats I don't need to worry if i miss something that week.
As an aside why on earth do TV content providers think that more 'digital' channels is more important than decent NEW programs?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
it doesn't even matter
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Seems like BOTH sides are a bit clueless
What is the incentive for a business to offer television shows for viewing online for free? It's the same incentive as offering them on television for free. Advertising.
If you make a show available to stream on their site, it requires you to visit their site, being reminded of all their other TV shows that you may want to watch on your TV, being reminded of other goods that their partners are advertising, and creating further mindshare.
If you make a show available for torrent, it magically appears in the unbranded torrent application of your choice, free for you to play, rewind, fast-forward as you like, and view over and over again without any mental connection to the company that provided it, and without surrounding advertising.
It's pretty obvious where they're coming from. Does that mean I like it? No. If I had my way I'd have my TV shows delivered to me the same night they air, commercial-free, in 1080p in a standard DRM-free format, with no network badges in the corners, and portable to any device I please with ease, all for no money down. Am I going to get that? Of course not. It doesn't make the network that funded it any money, and it doesn't pay the producers, writers, directors, actors, etc. for their work.
So we have to settle for whatever options provide the best financial return for the networks. And right now that appears to be placing the TV show in a network web page, surrounded by ads. And honestly, that's okay by me. For anything I have to have look good and play on my TV, I'll use the unofficial torrents recorded from HD feeds. For my lunch breaks I've been very impressed with how well 30 Rock on NBC.com streams. If they're unhappy with the backbone required for this, they clearly have some work cut out for them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
P2P for free stuff only. (no ads either)
So if the content is free and ad-free as well P2P it. Otherwise the distributor is "stealing" the user's network bandwidth, and CPU resources to service other users. Unless they have some for of compensation for the use of others infrastructure I find the use of P2P abusive to distribute non-free content. Example the dirtbags at Blizzard "distribute" their patches via P2P, and even have it setup so technofeebs aren't even aware that it's running in the background.
However, I expect maybe in the minority with regard to my views, given that cable has advertisement and chuckle-heads are buying wide-screen monitors for their PCs, and gaming is de-evolving to consoles it not surprising.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: P2P for free stuff only. (no ads either)
You're not even talking about that, you're saying the distributor is somehow stealing from me because something I'm getting for free includes ads, and I'm not being compensated for... use of the p2p protocol? I'm pretty sure I benefitted from being able to use p2p to get the content in the first place.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yes, but capturing streaming Flash videos (true streaming, not the buffered streaming like YouTube uses) is still kind of dodgy. There's really only one program that claims to be able to do it, Replay Media Catcher. I don't know if it works since it won't run on my older version of Windows. The one program that supposedly works on my system, FLV Recorder doesn't actually do anything.
But if people have it on their system, they won't come back to the site over and over, watching new ads each time. Also, If people have a copy saved, then the company can't delete it like they can from their web site.
It's all about control.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ok, so what are some of those programs? Replay Media Catcher is the only one that I ever see mentioned and the only one that seems to come up in a search of programs being able to download RTMP streams. Oh, there's FLV Recorder, which supposedly works under 98, but refuses to recognize my ethernet card. The company also doen't bother to answer email. What are the rest?
Show me where I ever said that.
The problem is that if something is popular, there will already be copies floating around. If something is less popular, not only will it be less likely that there are already pirated copies on the net, but it will also be less likely that someone will capture a copy from the site and put it up on P2P.
You want an example? Someone I know wanted to get the episodes of Mrs. Piggle Wiggle off Hulu for his kids. I can't download them, but I figured there must be copies of it floating around. If there are, I can't find them.
Before you ask, yes he has XP, but like most users today, about all he knows how to do is load IE and check his email. I haven't yet had the opportunity to try RMC on his system yet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
And not only that, he seems to think that Microsoft discontinued security updates for 98 because it had become so refined that it just didn't need them anymore. Ever wonder how those botnets find so many easy targets? People like this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
So, you argue that the media companies are relying on their shows being unpopular...?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
How about you show me where I ever said you said that?
I imagine you'll be trying to "upgrade" him to Windows 98 too. Poor guy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'm very glad you did, I was starting to get worried that you might actually know what you were talking about. However your list of programs has proved that you know a lot less than you think you do.
There are a couple Firefox extensions with this name and also a web site. All of them will only download from Flash sites that use HTTP to send the video, like YouTube or iFilm. None of them will work with sites like Hulu or AtomFilms because they use RTMP protocol. Anytime a Flash downloader provides a list of sites that are supported, it means it won't download true streaming Flash videos.
Same limitations as Video Downloader, for the same reasons.
SnagIt saves screenshots, not videos, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you meant Camtasia Studio Screen Recorder by the same company. Hmm, I asked for something that would download streaming Flash videos and you recommend a $300 screen recorder. Ok, I'll concede that it would allow you to save the videos, albeit not in their original format and at a rather expensive price.
Ok, a Mac screen recorder for $69. I guess that would work for people who own a Mac. I've never met a Mac owner, but I hear they exist. Also not what I asked for.
Not sure about this one. The web site claims it captures "streaming" Flash videos, but makes no mention of support for RTMP protocol. Also, the page for Replay Media Catcher, which does mention support for RTMP streams, says that you should use Replay A/V for capturing Windows Media and Real Video formats. I suspect, though I can't prove since it doesn't work under 98, that Replay A/V only supports sites like YouTube. Otherwise it would make Replay Media Catcher pointless.
From the features page; "HTTP, FTP, HTTPS, RTSP, MMS, MMST protocol support" Next...
Although the web site is poorly laid out and full of broken English, if you follow the section for downloading Flash videos, you'll see that HiDownload doesn't download RTMP streams. For that you'll need FLV Recorder, which doesn't seem to work. Also, before you blame my system (which I'll admit might be the reason it doesn't work), note that virtually nobody seems to use FLV Recorder.
Supports; HTTP, HTTPS, FTP, MMS, RTSP, PNM, BitTorrent, eMule. Next...
From the features page; "FlashGet supports HTTP,FTP,BT,MMS,RTSP and other protocols." No mention of RTMP. Next...
According to this page;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_download_managers
The only download manager to support RTMP is Orbit Downloader. Most do NOT support RTMP streams.
Congratulations! You've finally managed to stumble across a program that claims to support downloading RTMP streams! Although given how many programs you listed that don't download RTMP streams, I imagine that it was probably blind luck rather than careful searching on your part. I admit that I overlooked Orbit because the features page still says that RTMP support is coming soon. It won't run on 98, but it's interesting to note that the screenshot of the transfer screen looks almost identical to Net Transport. Maybe this is why NT still doesn't support RTMP.
I'm big enough to admit that I managed to miss this one too. It even says it works under Windows 98. Thank you. :)
So the final tally is 9 programs that won't do what I asked for (I'm not counting the "most any other download manager" part, which would greatly increase that number) and 2 that will. This gives you a 22% success rate, although if I exclude the screen recorders, your rate goes up to 28%.
RTMP isn't listed as one of the protocols that Ethereal supports, although I suppose it's possible that it can just capture raw packets. Of course then you'd have the fun task of putting them back together into a playable format.
Says the person who obviously had no idea what I was asking for and rattled off a list of programs that clearly did NOT do what I wanted.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Replay Media Catcher 3.0
That's pretty much all of them... in one program.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]