Why Does Everyone Else Want To Stop Netflix Password Sharing, When Netflix Is Fine With It?

from the silly-people dept

I'm not quite sure why everyone is so obsessed about the "problem" of Netflix password sharing, even though Netflix itself is fine with it. For a few years now, we've noted that Charter Spectrum's CEO Tom Rutledge never misses an opportunity to scream about how awful it is that HBO and Netflix have to deal with people sharing passwords, even though the CEOs of both companies have made it clear that they're fine with it as it tends to act as free promotion to get people to sign up for their own accounts over time. Here's HBO CEO Richard Plepler from a few years ago:

"It’s not that we’re unmindful of it, it just has no impact on the business,” HBO CEO Richard Plepler said. It is, in many ways, a “terrific marketing vehicle for the next generation of viewers,” he said, noting that it could potentially lead to more subscribers in the future. “We’re in the business of creating addicts,” he said.

And here's Netflix CEO Reed Hastings at CES three years ago:

"We love people sharing Netflix," CEO Reed Hastings said Wednesday at the Consumer Electronics Show here in Las Vegas. "That's a positive thing, not a negative thing."...A lot of the time, he said, household sharing leads to new customers because kids subscribe on their own as they start to earn income.

Given that, you'd think that (1) a company would think twice about using CES this year to declare that it had a "solution" to the "problem" of Netflix password sharing, and (2) that press outlets like The Independent and Slashdot wouldn't just repeat that company's talking points.

Basically, some company claims it has an AI solution that can "detect" when someone is likely password sharing. To be honest, it's probably not "AI" so much as "oh look, this person is logging in from different IP addresses that appear to be in different locations too closely together" which pretty much anyone -- including the programmers at Netflix and HBO -- could code up in a weekend or so if they wanted to.

Incredibly, the Independent piece repeats claims of "losses" from password sharing that are complete bunk:

Separate figures from research firm Parks Associates predicts that by $9.9 billion of pay-TV revenues and $1.2 billion of revenue from subscription-based streaming services will be lost to credential sharing each year.

Except, that assumes that everyone using a shared password would otherwise buy, which is ludicrous. And, again, the companies whose actual existence depends on this, both insist that it's not having any impact, other than acting as free marketing for them to later sign people up long term. Incredibly, the reporter at the Independent includes that bogus "study" and other quotes about how password sharing is "too expensive to ignore," but doesn't bother to check to see HBO or Netflix's opinion of whether or not this is actually a problem.

It really is a shame that so many people automatically default to the idea that people sharing access to content must automatically be "a problem" that must be "stopped." The companies who dominate this space don't see it as a problem, and just because some company's PR team got the ear of a reporter, that doesn't change reality.

Filed Under: password sharing, streaming
Companies: hbo, netflix

And Now Professional Sports Teams Are Cutting The Cable Cord, Too

from the united-with-the-public dept

In all of our coverage about cord-cutting, we have mostly focused on how the public is in large swaths ditching cable for over the air and internet alternatives. Aside from that, we've also commented on stories where the networks are looking for new ways to measure viewership of their content given all the cord-cutting that has already occurred. The common theme, however, is that cord-cutting is not some fad and is a full on thing among the public.

And also, it turns out, among some relevant companies as well. I've made the point for a long time that professional sports are the last thread to which cable is clinging. Once the larger leagues out there realize that they can just stream games on their own "networks", cable is over. But perhaps it won't necessarily go at the league level. At least in the case of Major League Soccer, one team has decided to cut the cord themselves and go full streaming.

Soccer fans wanting to watch D.C. United this season will not find matches on WJLA 24/7 News, where they were shown for three years. The games won’t appear on NBC Sports Washington — the team’s platform for much of its first 20 seasons — or Mid-Atlantic Sports Network.

In fact, except for select nationally televised matches, viewers will not find Wayne Rooney and United on any standard cable or satellite channels.

That’s because, like millions of Americans, United is cutting the cord and enlisting a pay streaming service for video needs. The MLS franchise said it has signed a multiyear contract with subscription-based FloSports to carry 21 of 34 regular season matches. The remainder will appear on the league’s national TV platforms (Fox Sports, ESPN or UniMas).

So before everyone not into soccer gets into the comments to make the point that soccer isn't the most-watched sport in the United States, yes that's true. On the other hand, the DC United is not some mom and pop sports franchise. As far as soccer goes, DC United has a decent following, as evidenced by their TV contracts. For the team to, on its own, make the decision to go all streaming means it thinks its fanbase will be able to follow the team online just fine without needing a TV screen to do so. This determination is almost certainly correct, given the broader trend in cord-cutting.

“The decision was very much based on what our options were and what was going to be best for our fans to really connect with the team,” said Sam Porter, United’s senior vice president for business and legal affairs. “What FloSports is going to offer is more in-depth coverage and story lines around the team on a year-round basis.

“When you look at all the cord-cutting that is going on, it’s really not as radical as it would have been a couple of years ago.”

The cable companies out there can play pretend that this analysis isn't soon going to fit the views of the more major sports leagues out there if they want, but there is an inevitability here that is palpable. Many have predicted the swift demise of cable television for years and they have been wrong. But sports teams cutting the cord? That's a dark cloud on cable's horizon.

Filed Under: cord cutting, sports, streaming
Companies: dc united

Cable's Response To Surging Streaming Competition? More Price Hikes

from the unhealthy-markets dept

We've noted for years how when the cable and broadcast industry is faced with new challenges, its very first reaction is almost always to double down on dumb ideas. When consumers began complaining about the volume of ads during prime time, the industry's first response was to try and edit down or speed up programs so they could shovel more ads into every viewing hour. When consumers began using new DVR ad-skipping tech, the industry's first reaction was to sue companies offering such advancements.

In a healthy market, companies respond to the rise in new competition by competing on service quality and price. Not the cable industry. Despite a soaring variety of new, cheaper streaming options, every year the industry's first impulse has been to raise cable TV prices, in turn driving more users than ever to "cut the cord" and embrace these streaming options instead. As a new year rolls in, its a phenomenon that's once again repeating itself as Comcast, Dish, AT&T, and most other pay TV providers once again raise rates for 2019:

"Giants including Comcast, Dish, and DirecTV plan to raise rates again in the new year, a move that could boost revenue but risks alienating subscribers who have been ditching their traditional TV subscriptions in record numbers. Cable and satellite providers are hoping to squeeze more money from consumers who remain loyal to their packages with hundreds of channels, Philip Cusick, a JPMorgan Chase analyst, said in a note this week, even though "this strategy could accelerate video sub declines."

While most cable operators will place the blame for these higher rates exclusively on the shoulders of broadcasters, that's not really always true. Yes, much of the unsustainable rate hikes you'll see in cable TV are due to programmers constantly wanting more money for the same content. That, however, ignores that most cable operators contribute to the rate-hike festivities by also socking consumers with a universe of higher rates for things like DVR and cable box rental, not to mention the universe of fees, many of which are completely made up with no tether to any real-world cost.

So why does a company like Comcast continue to raise rates on traditional cable TV, knowing this is just driving more users to cut the cord? For one, while streaming video is increasingly popular, most TV watchers (around 90 million Americans) still subscribe to traditional TV, making these rate hikes a quick, all-too-tempting source of up front cash they've grown used to. Many cable executives still believe that cord cutting is a temporary storm they'll be able to weather without having to make too many concessions (like lowering rates or improving historically terrible customer support).

Companies like Comcast also have an ace in the hole when it comes to weathering this particular storm: their growing monopoly over broadband. While users may be able to quit Comcast cable TV, it's statistically unlikely they'll have the choice of another broadband provider, especially at speeds over 25 Mbps. As a result, Comcast leverages that monopoly by imposing all manner of unnecessary usage limits should you stream video from competitors, a lovely bit of leverage Comcast will only exploit more fully should net neutrality not be restored.

As a result, the normal response to more competition (actually trying harder) is replaced by a sort of stoic indifference by cable giants, who know their broadband monopolies (not to mention current control over FCC policy in the Trump era) will protect them from having to actually adapt anytime soon.

Filed Under: cable, competition, cord cutting, price hikes, streaming, tv
Companies: comcast, directv, dish

CBS Eyes Ditching Nielsen As Streaming, Cord Cutting Change The Game

from the adapt-or-perish dept

For years, we've noted how popular TV ratings firm Nielsen has turned a bit of a blind eye to cord cutting and the Internet video revolution, on one hand declaring that the idea of cord cutting was "pure fiction," while on the other hand admitting it wasn't actually bothering to track TV viewing on mobile devices. It's not surprising; Nielsen's bread and butter is paid for by traditional cable executives, and really, who wants to take the time to pull all those collective heads of out of the sand to inform them that their precious pay TV cash cow is dying?

Eventually, the cord cutting trend became too big to ignore, forcing Nielsen to change its tune and start acknowledging the very real trend (though they called it "zero TV households" instead of cordcutters). Broadcasters (especially those hardest hit by cord cutting) didn't much like that, and began bullying the stat firm when it showed data that didn't jive with the view a foot below ground. While Nielsen slowly improved its methodologies, it would occassionally back off on certain data collection and reporting changes if the cable and broadcast industry complained loudly enough.

Ironically, this fealty to wishful thinking may not pay dividends for Nielsen. Nearly every broadcasters in your cable lineup is expected to launch their own streaming service by 2022. Many of these companies (like CBS) are now considering ditching Nielsen because, they claim, it's charging too much money for a user tracking system that hasn't adapted for the streaming era:

"At issue is a long-running complaint from TV networks that Nielsen isn’t measuring the many different audiences for their programming as well as it should. As smartphones, mobile tablets and broadband-connected TV’s gain more consumer acceptance, audiences are increasingly able to stream their TV favorites in on-demand fashion, making the task of counting them exponentially more difficult. TV networks have long based their advertising rates on Nielsen’s measure of linear TV audiences, which have slipped as consumers embraced Netflix, Hulu, Amazon Prime and other streaming and on-demand options.

In this environment, TV networks believe Nielsen’s overnight ratings are no longer as reliable a barometer of viewership as they once were.

Go figure. It's ironic that Nielsen often went out of its way to show cable and broadcast executives a narrative they desperately wanted to believe, only to find itself (potentially) booted by broadcasters who no longer see Nielsen's measurement systems as an accurate barometer of customer viewing habits in the cord cutting era.

Filed Under: cord cutting, nielsen ratings, streaming, tv, tv ratings
Companies: cbs, nielsen

Study Shows That No, Netflix Isn't Killing Movie Theaters

from the synergistic-not-cannibalistic dept

It's odd how conventional wisdom usually isn't all that wise. For example the entertainment industry for years has proclaimed that piracy was killing numerous business models, despite record profits and a steady parade of studies showing that pirates routinely buy more legit content than their non copyright-infringing counterparts. The entertainment industry willfully ignored for years (and often still does) that many of these users were engaging in copyright infringement because owners and distributors were failing to provide this content at a reasonable price via legitimate means.

The chicken-little argument then mutated over the years to imply that streaming services like Netflix were also killing traditional brick and mortar movie theater attendance. That, too, simply isn't true.

For example, a new study by EY’s Quantitative Economics and Statistics group (funded by the National Association of Theater Owners) found that young people that stream a lot of content at home are also more likely to go see movies in brick and mortar theaters, showcasing how different methods of media consumption are complementary, not automatically cannibalistic. More specifically, the study found that users who visited theaters nine times or more in the last 12 months consumed more streaming content than consumers who visited a movie theater only once or twice over the past year:

"The message here is that there’s not a war between streaming and theatrical,” said Phil Contrino, director of media and research at NATO. “People who love content are watching it across platforms and all platforms have place in consumers’ minds.”

This study also showcased how claims that young people specifically don't go to the theater because they have more choices and a better experience at home (as if that would be such a bad thing in the first place) aren't true either. In fact, the study found that survey takers between the ages of 13 to 17 went to a mean of 7.3 movies and consumed 9.2 hours of streaming content -- notably more than any other demographic. The lesson, again, is that most media consumption sources are synergistic, not cannibalistic. That said, the study does try to suggest that there's an area where home streaming is having a notable impact, and that's on traditional TV and the rate of cord cutting:

"There’s data to suggest that one way they’re cutting costs is by cutting the cord. The number of consumers who have ever cancelled cable or other pay-TV services in 2018 is projected to climb 32.8%, to 33 million adults, according to recent estimates from research firm eMarketer. Contrino said he thinks that’s where streaming’s influence is clearest. He argues its upsetting the balance in the home entertainment space, not in the theatrical realm."

But even here there's a number of reasons that people are cutting the traditional TV cord (apocalyptically bad customer service, high prices) that has nothing to do with them having more options. The traditional cable industry could also operate synergistically with the rising tide of streaming options if they were simply willing to compete more seriously on price and listen to consumers. But here too, entrenched industries would prefer to hyperventilate about the end times instead of simply realizing there's still ample money to be made all over if you're willing to be competitively flexible and adapt to voracious appetites.

Filed Under: movies, streaming, theaters
Companies: netflix

Nintendo Shuts Down Its 'Creators' YouTuber Program, Replaces It With Simpler But Still Confusing Guidelines For Streaming

from the request-for-commentary dept

Way back in 2014, after years of waging a prolonged war on let's play streamers and game reviewers, Nintendo introduced a bureaucratic mess of a policy that would eventually become its "Creators Program." After being insanely heavy-handed towards streamers for years, the new program, that would allow for game streaming so long as the program rules were followed, initially was thought to be a major step forward for Nintendo. All too quickly, however, the whole thing devolved into a bureaucratic mess that saw applicants not getting responses to applications, and the revelation that Nintendo had some unethical rules for just how positive about Nintendo's games streamers had to be to remain in the program. Many of the bigger names in streaming simply swore off doing anything with Nintendo games, while others attempted to soldier on until Nintendo suddenly revised the program to essentially ban live-streams, the lifeblood of streamers. That last bit occurred roughly a year ago, rendering confusion and anger at Nintendo in the streaming space.

Well, it seems like Nintendo has realized what a mess all of this had become, as the company has now announced that the Creators Program is now no more, replaced with a much simpler set of guidelines of what will keep streamers on the right side of Nintendo's legal dogs.

The Nintendo Creators Program, launched as an attempt to moderate what folks were doing with the company’s content on YouTube, is closing down next year. In its place is will be a set of guidelines that might have a pretty big impact on the way you watch Nintendo games online.

Three years after its contentious debut, the program will cease operations on March 20, 2019. From a Nintendo statement:

We are ending the Nintendo Creators Program (NCP) to make it easier for content creators to make and monetize videos that contain Nintendo game content. We will no longer ask creators to submit their videos to the NCP, and creators can continue showing their passion for Nintendo by following Nintendo’s guidelines.

And, much to the surprise of your faithful writer, the guidelines are indeed much simpler and, largely, better. You can read the guidelines here in their entirety. And it will only take you a few minutes to do so, as they are blessedly terse. The bureaucracy is largely gone, as is the more heavy-handed oversight by Nintendo from the Creators Program. Instead, streamers are asked to follow a handful of rules to stay in Nintendo's good graces.

Those more interested in streaming their games might find things a bit easier. In 2017 Nintendo brought in some strict rules regarding where and how livestreams of their games could be made as part of the Creators Program, but those are now gone, with the single set of guidelines now covering both pre-recorded content and live broadcasts (across all major sites).

However, this is Nintendo we're talking about, which means it couldn't do all of this with nothing being odd about it. That oddness is in one of the guideline requirements. While gamers in general are getting older as a demographic, it's certainly true that Nintendo fans still skew younger. It's also true of that younger demographic that they are more likely to watch game streams in general and more likely to use those streams to find new games to enjoy.

Which is what makes this requirement a bit odd.

We encourage you to create videos that include your creative input and commentary. Videos and images that contain mere copies of Nintendo Game Content without creative input or commentary are not permitted. You may, however, post gameplay videos and screenshots using Nintendo system features, such as the Capture Button on Nintendo Switch, without additional input or commentary.

Honestly, it's not the biggest deal in the world, but the commentary offered by YouTubers in their game streams tends to carry with it adult language and references. It's rare that a teenager can go out and get commentary-laden game streams that many parents would feel are appropriate for their age. Forcing that commentary into game streams that aren't using Nintendo's video capture system seems likely to deprive young gamers of the game footage they want to help them figure out what to buy without curseword-heavy commentary.

Is that the biggest deal? Nah. Overall, these guidelines are an improvement over the nightmare that was the Creators Program. Still, it would have been nice if Nintendo could have shown it was looking out for its core customer base a bit more.

Filed Under: creators program, streaming, video games
Companies: nintendo, youtube

Senators Press Wireless Carriers On Streaming Video Throttling

from the ill-communication dept

Three U.S. Senators are pressuring wireless carriers for answers after recent studies showed they routinely throttle video services -- not to protect the network from congestion -- but to simply make an extra buck.

One of the core goals of net neutrality was to prevent ISPs from imposing arbitrary restrictions on the network just to harm competitors or boost revenues. Of course lax enforcement and now dismantled rules have made that hard to stop. As a result, ISPs like Comcast routinely impose completely arbitrary and unnecessary usage caps, then exempt their own content from those limits, but punishing users if they step outside the Comcast walled garden. Wireless carriers have similarly throttled music, games and videos, then begun charging users more money if they want those services to operate as the creators intended.

Even with net neutrality rules intact, the FCC didn't really do a good job understanding how these arbitrary restrictions (like usage caps and zero rating) could prove anti-competitive. And in the year or two since things have only gotten worse, with wireless carriers like Verizon throttling all video on its network unless you pay the company for an even more expensive plan. The perils of this should be obvious--especially for Americans who already pay some of the highest prices for mobile data in the developed world.

Historically, ISPs have tried to claim they only throttle video when it causes network congestion, with net neutrality generally allowing such network management. But recent studies out of Northeastern have shown that this throttling has nothing to do with managing network congestion, and everything to do with erecting artificial barriers consumers then have to pay more to overcome. David Choffnes, whose data for these studies is being collected via his WeHe app, also recently found that Sprint has been throttling Skype (a potential competitor to Sprint's own services).

Last week, Senators Edward Markey, Richard Blumenthal, and Ron Wyden sent joint letters to AT&T, Verizon, and T-Mobile, demanding answers as to why they throttle, which services they throttle, and whether they clearly inform users of the throttling (in Sprint's Skype instance, they didn't).

"We write to express our concern that mobile carriers may be inappropriately throttling and prioritizing internet traffic from common mobile apps without the knowledge of their customers. All online traffic should be treated equally, and internet service providers should not discriminate against particular content or applications for competitive advantage purposes or otherwise."

So far the FCC and major carriers haven't wanted to much talk about Choffnes or Northeastern's findings. Choffnes recently informed me in an interview that his goal is to bring some crowd-sourced transparency to network performance in the wake of the repeal of net neutrality. He was quick to highlight the inherent problem with letting ISPs non-transparently hamstring companies they're actively trying to compete with (Netflix vs. AT&T, for example):

"In a neutral network, all of these services can compete on a level playing field to offer a product that attracts the most users,” he said. “When an Internet provider targets a service for throttling, the playing field can tilt in favor of one service over another.”

“This is particularly problematic if the Internet provider's service is favored, because they can use this advantage to drive users away from competing products and to ones belong to the Internet provider,” Choffnes added. “And because the competition is limited by the Internet service they are given, in some cases there may nothing they can do to regain equal footing."

While the major carriers have until December 6 to answer, it's unlikely carriers will face much in the way of repercussions during FCC boss Ajit Pai's watch. Pai was not only happy to kill net neutrality and gut FCC authority at telecom lobbyist request, the net neutrality repeal replaced hard rules on transparency with entirely voluntary guidelines that ISPs can ignore at their leisure with absolutely no meaningful repercussions.

Keep in mind, that ISPs are currently trying their best to behave ahead of next February's court showdown over net neutrality (which could restore the 2015 rules). Should they win that fight, the kind of nickel-and-diming they engage in will progressively be less and less subtle.

Filed Under: broadband, fcc, net neutrality, senate, streaming, wireless
Companies: at&t, comcast, t-mobile, verizon

Comcast To Battle Cord Cutting By... Reinventing The Closed Cable Box

from the round-and-round-we-go dept

Like many cable operators, Comcast continues to slowly bleed cable TV customers to cheaper, more flexible streaming alternatives (aka cord cutting). The industry just saw its biggest ever quarterly loss of such subscribers in history, with Comcast losing 106,000 subscribers during the third quarter alone. It's a trend that's directly thanks to the industry's refusal to not only compete on price, but flexibility and openness.

You'll recall that Comcast (with the US Copyright Office's help) played a starring role in killing plans at the FCC to bring more competition and openness to the cable box. The cable industry hauls in $21 billion in cable box rental fees annually, so their motivation here should be obvious. The combination of limited cable box competition and the walled-garden approach to content also lets these companies keep would-be competitors at arms' length, helping to "protect" existing customers from the temptation of cheaper, more flexible programming options.

Realizing the company had to do something to address the rising streaming threat, Comcast has been doing things like adding Netflix to some cable boxes in the hopes that would keep its existing customers from cutting the cord. And, in last week's news, it emerged that Comcast would soon be launching a new streaming device for its broadband customers that actually lets users view not only Comcast's cable TV content, but that of some competitors. Again, the hope is that adding a few additional options will prevent users from fleeing to alternative options.

Of course this being Comcast, you won't actually be able to install whatever you like on it, just like a... cable box:

"The product isn’t quite a direct competitor to Roku or Apple TV because it won’t allow customers access to hundreds of apps, including streaming TV bundles like AT&T’s DirecTV Now or Dish’s Sling. Those services are direct competitors to Comcast’s video bundle, and Comcast wouldn’t be able to push its own video service to its broadband-only customers if it allowed them access to those bundled OTT services. Comcast hasn’t decided the exact number of apps that will be accessible through the device, said the people."

Comcast doesn't appear to have gotten the message that openness is the future. Streaming services now operate on an ocean of third-party hardware that (with some caveats like piracy) largely allows users to install whatever app or service they'd like. That's even more true of custom-built media center PCs. It looks like Comcast is attempting to justify the closed-nature of the device by throwing in some additional internet of things functionality (read: "we had to lock this device down for security purposes"):

"Rather, Comcast wants the device to be the hub to the connected home, they said. In addition to aggregating streaming apps, the device will also allow customers to control anything that’s connected to the Internet, including thermostats and smart-locks."

Still, a walled garden by any other name...

Granted this being Comcast, there's sure to be some additional caveats (like price or rental fees) at launch. Given Comcast's past actions on this front, it wouldn't be shocking to see Comcast exempt owners of its own hardware from broadband usage caps given the death of net neutrality rules.

Of course that brings us to Comcast's ace in the hole when it comes to battling cord cutting: limited broadband competition. Limited competition means bullshit usage caps and overage fees can be imposed on user lines without them being able to vote with their wallet. Such caps and fees not only let Comcast counter lost TV revenues with broadband price hikes, but simultaneously punish and profit from users who wander too far off-script to enjoy "non-sanctioned"competing products while using a Comcast broadband connection.

Between locked down hardware and the death of net neutrality, it's a good bet Comcast is hoping it won't have to compete quite as intensely on openness, flexibility, and price as the streaming wars truly accelerate.

Filed Under: cable, cord cutting, streaming
Companies: comcast

Charter Spectrum's CEO Continues To Whine About Streaming Password Sharing

from the get-off-my-damn-lawn dept

For years now, streaming video providers like HBO and Netflix have taken a relatively-lax approach to password sharing. Netflix CEO Reed Hastings has gone so far as to say he "loves" password sharing, and sees it as little more than free advertising. Execs at HBO (at least before the AT&T acquisition), have similarly viewed password sharing in such a fashion, arguing that young users in particular that share their parents password get hooked on a particular product via password sharing, then become full subscribers down the road once they actually have disposable income.

On the other side of the equation sits Charter CEO Tom Rutledge, one of the highest paid execs in media. He, in contrast, has long complained that he views password sharing as "piracy", and has consistently promised to crack down on the practice. Rutledge and his fellow executives gave a particularly rousing "get off my lawn" lecture at a media event last year:

"There’s lots of extra streams, there’s lots of extra passwords, there’s lots of people who could get free service,” Rutledge said at an industry conference this month...“It’s piracy,” Connolly said. “It’s people consuming something they haven’t paid for. The more the practice is viewed with a shrug, the more it creates a dynamic where people believe it’s acceptable. And it’s not."

Of course it's far from "piracy" if it's being sanctioned by the companies doing it, with an eye on generating product awareness and happy customers. That last bit is something Rutledge could use some lessons on. Rutledge fixates on password sharing when he should be focused on why exactly his company continues to bleed subscribers to these cheaper, more flexible traditional cable alternatives. Hint: endless rate hikes, historically terrible customer service, and megamergers

Last week Rutledge was at it again. During his company's latest earnings call, Rutledge proclaimed that streaming providers like HBO and Netflix clearly "don't know what they're doing" because they've refused to crack down on the villainous practice of password sharing:

"By the content companies going over the top without having the experience of being distributors, they’ve done that in a way without securing their content, which any distributor would theoretically do if they knew what they were doing. But that hasn’t been the case, so you have free service all over the country through passwords,” Rutledge said. “The reality is television can be had fairly easy without paying for it."

Granted just because television can sometimes be "had fairly easy without paying for it" doesn't mean it's bad, or it's "piracy." Millions of users increasingly are flocking to over the air antennas as an alternative to the bloated, expensive cable bundles execs like Rutledge simply can't move on from. It's worth noting that this is a "problem" that really isn't. Most streaming services already limit simultaneous streams per account, and being able to share your password with a limited set of friends and family members is part of the value equation you're paying for.

It's also worth noting that when HBO or Netflix execs acknowledge the trend, they note there really aren't all that many users actually doing it. As such, if there's something Rutledge wants to spend several years hyperventilating over, it should probably be his company's continued failure to actually listen to consumers, and offer a better product with support that isn't ranked among the worst of any company, in any industry in America.

Filed Under: passwords, piracy, pricing, sharing, streaming, tom rutledge
Companies: charter, charter spectrum