Fox Extends Cablevision Blackout To Hulu... Temporarily

from the doesn't-make-much-sense dept

Mon, Oct 18th 2010 6:05am — Mike Masnick

These days, fights between the TV networks and cable providers are so common that we stopped bothering to report on them. Basically, every few months, there's a fight over how much money should be paid to carry the networks, and the two sides get angry, a public relations brawl ensues with threats of channels being removed (or, the channels are removed for some time). Eventually a price is agreed upon between the networks and the cable providers... and the consumers pay more. Great, huh? Of course, some have been suggesting that these fights could drive the push for people to ditch cable altogether, and switch to going purely online.

Except, in the latest such fight, between Fox and Cablevision in New York, things took an odd twist, with Fox not just pulling its network from Cablevision, but somehow getting Hulu to block access to Fox shows to anyone accessing the site from Cablevision. Apparently, after people started asking questions, Fox/News Corp. changed its mind and let Cablevision subscribers view Fox content on Hulu again.

However, this does raise a bunch of pretty serious questions. First of all, why did Hulu consent to this move? If Hulu were serious about its offering, it wouldn't agree to take part in a silly fight like this, singling out people on a particular ISP. Once again, though, this shows how Hulu is way too beholden to the content providers. Second, while this is not really a "net neutrality" issue, it's somewhat surprising that Fox/News Corp. would take a step like this that undoubtedly will be talked about in "net neutrality" terms. Any move that specifically restricts content to a certain class of users isn't going to be looked upon kindly. Finally, in what world did News Corp. think this was a smart move? Did they actually think that users would be so upset that they'd asked Cablevision to raise their bills to bring Fox on Hulu back? Of course not. They're simply going to blame Fox (and Hulu) for pulling their shows.

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: cable, internet, tv
Companies: cablevision, fox, hulu, news corp.

44 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

LUIS SANCHEZ, 18 Oct 2010 @ 6:24am

FOX AND CHANNAL 9
DOES THIS MEAN AS A CONSUMER, AM I GETTING MONEY BACK FOR NOT USING THESE CHANNEL. IN OTHER WORDS I PAY FOR SERVICE AND NOW I AM GETTING LESS. SO WHERE IS THE JUSTICE FOR US THE CONSUMER?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- martyburns (profile), 18 Oct 2010 @ 6:28am
  
  Re: FOX AND CHANNAL 9
  Not sure where it is, but it's almost definitely not under the caps lock key.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
R. Miles (profile), 18 Oct 2010 @ 6:27am

Techdirt's memory is failing.
First of all, why did Hulu consent to this move?
Did Techdirt forget this could be answered because it's Hulu+ service was specifically designed not to piss off its cable competition?

Hulu. It should stick to skirts.

On topic: I'm not sure what leg the cable company has to stand on when it's basically charging customers 3x for the transmissions one 1 wire.

All at the cost of "Bend over. This is going to hurt."

Expected when there's NO COMPETITION. Even by "cutting the cord", the prices get jacked up because it's a "singular" service.

Cracked just did a great write-up on FARTS: Forced ARTificial Scarcity.

The future is scary. Can I get off here?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Infamous Joe (profile), 18 Oct 2010 @ 6:28am

Obvious.
Piracy isn't the problem. Big Media is the problem, piracy is the solution.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 18 Oct 2010 @ 6:34am

One more reason why we should be doing more to make them obsolete, people should start producing their own media and to that end I have a present for you guy's.

Techdirt Vignette Demo
http://vimeo.com/15946693

My amateur Techdirt Vignette(it is crappy).

And a challenge, can anybody do better?
I will try to do another one for the next week :)

Thanks to Techdirt for doing a great job and for letting me use their logo without permission to learn some design skills.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 18 Oct 2010 @ 6:49am

"Second, while this is not really a "net neutrality" issue..."
Well yes it is actually - though clearly there are some novel details it's still clearly comes under the remit of net neutrality.

I'm wondering what is motivating the Masnick to say that ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Mike Masnick (profile), 18 Oct 2010 @ 5:35pm
  
  Re:
  Well yes it is actually - though clearly there are some novel details it's still clearly comes under the remit of net neutrality.
  
  Nope. It's not. It's got nothing to do with the infrastructure providers discriminating.
  
  I'm wondering what is motivating the Masnick to say that ?
  
  Perhaps it's because I understand the issues and like to say what's true, not what some marketing campaign wishes were true.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 19 Oct 2010 @ 2:34am
    
    Re: Re:
    Net neutrality isn't simply a case of whether or not the infrastructure providers discriminating, it's a question of neutrality or trying to make a neutral resource non-neutral.
    
    For example if I drive my car to a business and they decide not to serve me because I didn't drive their preferred route to reach their business that would obviously be an issue (assuming the technology existed to facilitate that discrimination).
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - The Infamous Joe (profile), 19 Oct 2010 @ 4:27am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      *sigh*
      
      There is no law that says you have to wear shoes.
      
      How many signs have you seen on store windows that say they will not serve you if you aren't wearing shoes? We should demand store neutrality! How dare they require me to wear only clothing they deem acceptable before they will take my hard earned money??
      
      Oh, that's right, because except for a few exceptions, businesses can refuse service to whomever they like for whatever reason they like. On or off the interwebs.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Tom The Toe, 18 Oct 2010 @ 6:51am

Fox = Stickup artists
I just went through this same thing with Dish networks. FOX wants to raise the price,(by over 50%) Dish says no, FOX pulls it's channels. Not just FOX Sports but also FX and National Geographic. I lost about 6 or 7 channels.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Andy (profile), 18 Oct 2010 @ 6:53am

"...in what world did News Corp. think this was a smart move?"

Clearly in that world inhabited by the likes of the record labels, movie studios, TV companies and newspapers, in which they get paid piles of money over and over and over again and consumers smile happily as they fork out anything that hasn't been extracted from their pockets in tax to these "content providers".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 18 Oct 2010 @ 7:00am

Hey Hulu wants to sell their box. Don't piss off the people supplying your product or the will have nothing on it. Sounds like Hulu had their thinking cap on.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
shortcinema, 18 Oct 2010 @ 7:10am

Umm...research?
"Once again, though, this shows how Hulu is way too beholden to the content providers."

You do know that Fox OWNS Hulu?

NBC Universal, News Corp., The Walt Disney Company, Providence Equity Partners ... all owners of Hulu.

So, it is not so much that they are bowing down to the big wig media companies but more like they are doing what their boss tells them to do.

Actually it is more like, Fox was doing what they want to do because...Hulu is their company.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 18 Oct 2010 @ 7:19am
  
  Re: Umm...research?
  your statement does not contradict the article and Techdirt is already well aware of everything you presented as new information.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - shortcinema, 18 Oct 2010 @ 7:36am
    
    Re: Re: Umm...research?
    The article asks,
    
    "First of all, why did Hulu consent to this move?"
    
    That is a moot question if Techdirt is already well aware of Hulu's ownership.
    
    IMHO, the discussion(as indicated in the link I posted) is misdirected.
    
    When the supplier has owned the store from the beginning we, the customer, have really never been participating in a net neutral environment.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - that_id (profile), 18 Oct 2010 @ 9:09am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Umm...research?
      Not really certain that this is a net-nuetrality issue so much as an anti-trust issue.
      If this is the model that the content providers who own Hulu are going to use this platform as, then the question has to be raised. If they are planning on collaborating with the other major networks, putting the advertising revenue under one company that works for all of them (Hulu), then only allowing their content to stream online thru that one outlet (, hence cutting out all other (cable company types) via the IP 'airwaves' which is arguably most definitely going to replace coax someday...) then they are seriously cutting out the only 'competition' for this market before it ever gets off the ground.
      Hulu should be watched as a shell company offering it's providers an avenue for price-fixing and anti-trust of it's ad revenue VERY carefully in the future.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Qritiqal (profile), 18 Oct 2010 @ 7:11am

I canceled my cable TV last week
And I'm never going back.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- GC, 22 Oct 2010 @ 2:06pm
  
  Re: I canceled my cable TV last week
  Ok, did you know that fox pulled the same thing with dish network a couple of months ago.
  and as an are you kidding , who's kidding who fox has even put on their "keep fox on tv" website that we all could go back to antennas on our roofs, which they really don't want
  cause then they don't get the extra fees.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
shortcinema, 18 Oct 2010 @ 7:24am

Umm...research? - Cont'd
How prophetic was this Feb 3rd article http://www.thebigmoney.com/blogs/hulucination/2010/02/03/nbc-officially-owns-32-percent-h ulu-until-comcast-acquires-it
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Christopher Gizzi (profile), 18 Oct 2010 @ 7:27am

Fox.com, too?
I heard that News Corp also blocked Cablevision customers from getting to Fox.com. Since Fox does offer updates on its programming via their website - perhaps for MLB coverage or for their regular broadcast shows, blocking Hulu wouldn't be enough.

I'm a Cablevision subscriber and didn't test it out over the weekend. If they blocked all of fox.com for Cablevision users, would that be a "net neutrality" issue?

And on a side note, I seriously wish we could get a-la-cart cable sometimes. I know there are good and bad points to it. But I'd seriously love a breakdown of my per channel costs. If Cablevision published that list, people could compare the before and after price of a Fox cost increases, they'd know where their money goes and could make a choice.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Jon B., 18 Oct 2010 @ 7:39am
  
  Net Neutrality
  No, if a particular content provider chooses to block people for whatever reason, that has absolutely nothing to do with net neutrality. Hulu.com and Fox.com can block whatever they want, just like I can block people on my websites.
  
  If it was Cablevision that was doing the blocking, that might have a little to do with it, but that's still a little of an abuse of the term.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 18 Oct 2010 @ 7:50am
    
    Re: Net Neutrality
    This isn't simply blocking of subscribers but blocking of subscribers who do business with a specific ISP which is different in important ways.
    
    Clearly is presents net neutrality issues even if they are issues you never anticipated.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - The Infamous Joe (profile), 18 Oct 2010 @ 8:01am
      
      Re: Re: Net Neutrality
      Easy there, Purple Princess AC. It's not net neutrality if it's not an ISP giving priority to one bit of data over another. This is a company deciding (not very smartly) to block customers. Unless it's one of the few things that you *can't* block customer's for (race, religion, etc) then it's completely legal, on or off the internet.
      
      Your favorite theater will tell you you're not allowed to bring your Starbuck's coffee inside. That's their decision. So, Hulu says you can't use their services from a Cablevision IP address. That's also their decision. Granted, it's a bad decision, but that's the beauty of a free market.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 18 Oct 2010 @ 8:18am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Net Neutrality
        If you think net neutrality is something that can only applies to ISPs then you clearly haven't understood the issues yet.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Chuck Norris' Enemy (deceased) (profile), 18 Oct 2010 @ 8:46am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Net Neutrality
        ISP = Dumb pipe
        Fox = content
        
        If there is no content the pipe is still doing its job.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        The Infamous Joe (profile), 18 Oct 2010 @ 8:52am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Net Neutrality
        Maybe I'm wrong, but humor me and read this. What you described above is *not* a net neutrality issue. It is a [bad] business decision. For the life of me I can't understand why you insist otherwise, so please elaborate. I am certainly no expert, so if you can point out an error (besides "you clearly haven't understood the issues yet") please make your case.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dark Helmet (profile), 18 Oct 2010 @ 7:28am

Conspiracy Theory Alert!!!
"Eventually a price is agreed upon between the networks and the cable providers... and the consumers pay more."

Any chance that this is all a show and the end result is the whole point of this anyway?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Hephaestus (profile), 18 Oct 2010 @ 9:05am
  
  Re: Conspiracy Theory Alert!!!
  "Any chance that this is all a show and the end result is the whole point of this anyway?"
  
  NBCU holds a 32% stake in hulu. In 2 years Hulu will be worth about 2 billion dollars. Fox wants to see the Cable vision - NBCU merger happen with hulu being sold off. This was already called for by Senator Herb Kohl.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 18 Oct 2010 @ 10:06am
  
  Re: Conspiracy Theory Alert!!!
  We subscribe to the same newsletter.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Hephaestus (profile), 18 Oct 2010 @ 10:14am
    
    Re: Re: Conspiracy Theory Alert!!!
    NewsLetter?? I would have thought that was just plain obvious ... :)
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 18 Oct 2010 @ 7:37am

Call officer Bubbles now, he will solve this problem.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Berenerd (profile), 18 Oct 2010 @ 7:44am

Fox sucks...
I have always felt Fox was worthless anyhow. even the local channel when I lived in VT would be a crappy picture, horrible sound quality, and they would cancel shows that were good so they could push more reality TV shows down our throats.

BRING BACK FIREFLY!!!!!!!

That is all...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Dark Helmet (profile), 18 Oct 2010 @ 7:46am
  
  Re: Fox sucks...
  If it weren't for their awesome sports coverage, I'd agree with you....
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
bob, 18 Oct 2010 @ 7:55am

It's Simple
Hulu is at the mercy of content creators, ergo they did as Fox asked.

I always tell the cable operator to fight to keep prices lower. the problem is that congress has mandated that cable must have the local channels on it's cable lineup.

I would think that as most people have cable TV in my area that the local TV stations would want to stay on the cable providers service, as they are losing market share and their removal would decrease it even more. This would impact ad revenues.

But I download most of the TV shows that I watch now, from various file lockers. I do try to Tivo the greatest number that I can so they get the count to their numbers. Plus a downloaded show does not have that pesky digital block on it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Chris, 18 Oct 2010 @ 7:56am

re:blocking internet subscribers
So did this also block people who only subscribed to Cablevision's internet service, but not TV? That would seem to be borderline illegal, since these people are being punished for not even subscribing to an entirely different service. What would stop Fox from working with the ISPs to block people from Hulu who don't subscribe to cable?

Also, were normal FOX channel shows blocked, since these are available free over the air?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
PRMan, 18 Oct 2010 @ 8:06am

This is already happening
If I want to watch the local NHL team, I can't watch it online. Even if I subscribe to the GameCenter package which is over $150 for the season, I can't. It's blocked so the local sports network gets their numbers.

Being a hockey fan, if I wanted to drop cable, I would have to find a very good proxy in another city, which is probably against the terms of service.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Dark Helmet (profile), 18 Oct 2010 @ 8:11am
  
  Re: This is already happening
  "Being a hockey fan, if I wanted to drop cable, I would have to find a very good proxy in another city, which is probably against the terms of service."
  
  Meh. There are online streams of games as well, you know. I use them for the Blackhawks games that appear on Versus, since my Cable provider doesn't have that channel....
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
ofb2632 (profile), 18 Oct 2010 @ 8:47am

faux news corp
I think fox blocking their channels happens to be a good thing. They have become way over the top and seem to be brainwashing people.
Mabe without faux news people can see what is really happening in this country.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 18 Oct 2010 @ 9:55am

FCC
I hope all this nonsense brings the FCC to mandate that all cable companies offer an a la carte package so we can't have this anymore. Let the consumers decide what they want to watch as far as channels go. Not the networks themselves.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 18 Oct 2010 @ 10:31am

hulu sucks, who cares!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
JC, 18 Oct 2010 @ 11:35am

Removing Content
Apparently, the content providers are still behaving as if the content they provide is not available by any other means. They're fighting for the stage as the theater burns down around them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
DanVan (profile), 18 Oct 2010 @ 11:43am

Not really surprising.

Customers always lose when billionaires fight billionaires for some millions of dollars

Typical
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Rekrul, 19 Oct 2010 @ 5:01pm

I don't watch sports, or news shows, so this wouldn't affect me even if I had Cablevision. All the scripted shows are available for download within a half hour of airing and I just download the ones I want to watch.

I haven't had access to pay channels in a couple years, but that hasn't stopped me from watching shows like True Blood and Weeds. I also watch some British shows that aren't even legally available in the US.

I look back on the time before I got broadband internet access as the dark ages of TV viewing. I still remember how disappointed I was when I missed recording the only airing of a low-rated show, which was canceled half-way through the first season. Today, I don't even bother to turn on the TV, I just wait and download the shows later, or the next day. I'll never miss another episode again. In fact, if I watch an episode and like it, I can go back and download the entire season.

Sure, the networks consider this "stealing", but since I don't have a Nielson box, what I watch doesn't matter anyway.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 21 Oct 2010 @ 1:55am

Please let's support fox. Newscorp needs the money for
political contributions! Think yuor sorry now???? Just wait till everything is fair and balanced!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]