Cable providers Comcast and Time Warner might be late to the Internet video party, but that doesn’t mean they are going to let us enjoy content for free that they pay for. Oh no, the TV Everywhere Model is designed to give Comcast and Time Warner paying subscribers access to content and block-out everyone else. And this system might find its way into Hulu.
You can’t blame the cable operators for their plans. They have to pay good money for access to cable stations. Then they, of course, pass along the cost to subs via a monthly bill. The thought is that those people that pay for the content should be able to watch all of it on both their TVs and computers.
Of course the other side is that if you don’t pay for those services, then you’ll be shut out. This authentication system will be used initially on sites like Comcast’s video site, Fancast, but there is always the possibility that it could eventually make its way on to Hulu.
A lot of Hulu’s content comes from the major networks ABC, NBC, and Fox. (CBS doesn’t have any content on Hulu) This is not the programming that Comcast and Time Warner are bitching about. They are concerned about the cable channel’s programming like Comedy Central, FX, Sci-Fi and others. TV Everywhere tackles this problem by placing content from similar, and even more, stations behind the closed walls of an authentication system at Fancast.com.
Comcast’s own video site, Fancast.com, is similar to Hulu in many ways. It offers a lot of the same programming and a similar, albeit not as nice, look. This is because it actually uses a lot of content from Hulu, but is going to be the launch pad for TV Everywhere.
The trial will include 5,000 Comcast subscribes starting sometime this summer. The test will focus primarily on this so-called authentication technology that’s designed to keep the freeloaders out. Not that many people will really care that much as the only premium content that Fancast is going to feature initially is coming from TBS and TNT. The plan is to eventually give access to even more premium content including movies for no additional cost to current Comcast subscribers.
The average consumer is probably content with Hulu’s offering. Many people have left cable companies entirely and supplement their OTA TV with Hulu. It’s great that Comcast wants to offer its customers more Internet video, but I don’t see how it will generate revenue for Comcast and Time Warner unless its adapted by sites like Hulu, forcing people back to the cable companies for their content.
Responses
-
CBS latest to join Comcast OnDemand Online lineup
July 14th, 2009 at 12:00 -
Leaked Email: Quincy Smith Wants To Counter “Reckless Hulu Streams”
September 24th, 2009 at 16:55 -
Top Ten Digital M&A Deals For 2010
January 3rd, 2010 at 11:16 -
Techcrunch « Blog-Feast.com Blog Collection
January 3rd, 2010 at 13:15 -
Www.webdevote.com » Blog Archive » Top Ten Digital M&A Deals For 2010
January 3rd, 2010 at 21:34 -
What Are Your 2010 M&A Predictions? :: Reboot Partners
January 4th, 2010 at 16:18 -
Only The Paranoid Are Scared Of TV Everywhere
January 16th, 2010 at 12:32 -
Brightcove Wants To Take “TV Everywhere” Beyond Your Cable Company’s Video Website
January 24th, 2010 at 23:46
Comments 
Leave Comment
Commenting Options
Enter your personal information to the left, or sign in with your Facebook account by clicking the button below.
Alternatively, you can create an avatar that will appear whenever you leave a comment on a Gravatar-enabled blog.
- Actively Discussed Posts
- Sketchpad in HTML5: Why Flash is no longer relevant
72 comments - Would a lower price change your opinion of the iPad?
35 comments - Review: Withings WiFi Scale
18 comments - Koreans watch Avatar in "4D"
13 comments - Pandora open-source handheld is go
12 comments
- There are no posts to display.
I guess then if you don’t pay for cable they would let you in if you pay for a reduced membership for online access? Or is it just a better model to make people pay for the whole package?
Anyone else worried about an industry “forcing” consumers instead of attracting them?
jeadly, Lynsey from Comcast here. This isn’t about forcing anything on consumers, this is about making great cable network content — that isn’t yet available online — available to Comcast video subscribers wherever they want to view it (on their computer, on the TV, and so on) giving consumers more choices.
The Bits Blog post here: http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/06/24/why-the-comcast-time-warner-deal-blass-open-tv/
touches on this.
Lynsey I agree with you – but please get your guys writing up a BOXEE app so that anyone who has TV Everywhere, can watch it all on Boxee.
Much thanks.
Lindsay that is great you are here to answer questions.
I, like many here just pay for Internet and limited local cable($50 a mont); Mac Mini connected to LCD TV use wireless hand-held mouse as remote. I would like to see online TV packages where Comcast lets me buy access to premium Fancast.
Is this in the works and will there be different packages; a la carte options? I will never subscribe to cable TV again, as I have no need for it anymore and always disliked having to pay for things I don’t watch(see value in).
thnx
I agree with the original sentiment of “being forced”
… as in
– I only want to pay for or watch about 12 channels but I have to get 512 just to get those. I hope the cable industry is aware that the model angers a lot of folks and that the industry can move to a la carte offerings. Hulu allows me to watch only the shows I care about and I’m happy to watch the ads, I even patronize the advertiser at times.
– as in … it feels like a death grip on a changing business model. Don’t fight the internet. It’s just like fighting your customers. While it’s nice there is a move to make content more accessible, there’s still the package confusion. But, the upside is apparent in this effort. It’s not an immediate trust situation considering, well a lot of things.
– as in … cable tv providers don’t really own any content, they currently deliver content and they should strive to get better at doing so. In some cases this may mean interesting deals like the one above, in others it may mean succumbing to the notion that maybe a cable company is more like an electric company — a utility and not a content company at all.
Just some thoughts.
If they wanted to, they could force the studios to shut Hulu down. They hold the purse strings to a BIG portion of Hollywood’s revenues from TV. I don’t think they’ll try and kill Hulu but this will probably change how Hulu operates.
Nice try guys. When will they learn.
Anger… rising…
squeezing.. stress-ball..
blood-pressure… through.. the.. freaking.. roof.
Why? Because you think you deserve something for nothing?
I think Comcast’s customer service sucks. I think what they charge is way too high. I think their quasi-monopoly is ridiculous. I think that if I pay for a subscription, I should be able to do what I want with what that subscription delivers to me. And I think I should be able to access the things I’ve subscribed to from anywhere I am.
But I don’t think it should be free … real people in a huge variety of positions work real hours to produce the things that are being delivered to me. They deserve to benefit from their efforts, don’t they?
Now, you can argue that you don’t like the quality of what they produce. Fine. Make your own, or watch YouTube. Better, allow a number of companies to find multiple ways to deliver ever-expanding (or ever-more-niche-specific) types of content. Breaking the monopoly is good. Pretending that all of this doesn’t require the beneficiary/consumer to pay something is stupid.