Hit Zombie series The Walking Dead broke a cable viewer record last night when the season 2 debut attracted 7.3 million viewers, shattering the previous record held by Kyra Sedgwick’s TNT series The Closer.

That number of viewers is up from the shows Halloween night premiere in 2010 when 5.2 million people tuned in to make the show an immediate and surprising hit.

Not only did The Walking Dead win the nights best ratings it also attracted 4.8 million viewers in the all important 18-49 demograhic, more than any other basic cable drama in the history of their category.

Speaking about the show’s season 2 success Charlie Collier, President of AMC said:

“The Walking Dead is one of those rare television programs that reaches both a core genre fan as well as broad audiences simply looking for a great, character-based story. We’re so proud of and grateful for the amazing team on both sides of the camera who works so hard and is so committed to making this a unique programming event. That The Walking Dead is now the most watched drama in the history of basic cable is staggering, just like our zombies.”

Did you happen to catch the season premiere of The Walking Dead? Did you find the premiere to be worth the number of visitors it received?

AMC’s ‘Walking Dead’ Sets Cable TV Viewer Record is a post from: The Inquisitr

Netflix is a major force on the web as they continue to grow and take a large percentage of our online viewing time. The company is constantly looking at ways to grow its audience  but the one thing that the company has stayed away from, especially after shutting down its Red Envelope indie film division, is getting behind original content made just for Netflix.

Well according to a report out of Deadline Hollywood this could be about to change given that Netflix has outbid several traditional old media networks for the series “House of Cards”. The deal is reported to be in the neighborhood of $100 million,or more.

For a company that has only 20 million subscribers, in contrast to the cable networks which have 127 million subscribers, this could be a huge gamble but one that if it pays off could hold big dividends for Netflix. Not to mention giving the cable executives yet another reason to be stocking up on cases of aspirins.

The $100 Million bet by Netflix to get into the original content game is a post from: The Inquisitr

We are hearing a lot these days about cutting the cord where people are cancelling their cable subscriptions in favor of getting all their entertainment via the Web. This cool infographic from Clicker.com sheds some light on the facts and figures behind the move to online TV.

via Windows Observer

Is this online TV thing really that hot? is a post from: The Inquisitr

Neelie Kroes, European Commissioner for Digital Agenda

Over here in the US and Canada we constantly hear the telecoms and cable companies beating their chests about how all these big sites like Google and their high volume brethren are abusing the networks and that they should be allowed to charge them just as they do us. This of course brings up the whole subject of net neutrality and threats of government intervention.

Well it appears that the European cousins to our telecoms feel the same way as they are hyping the same load of trash using the same old tired reasoning of

We need to explain that this will reduce incentives for us to invest in much-needed networks.

Just as over here they are facing stiff opposition according to a post on Geek.com

Everyone except the networks seem to disagree with such thinking as the telecoms companies make revenue from subscribers, not content providers. Such a stance has now been backed up by the European Commissioner for Digital Agenda Neelie Kroes.

In response to the threat of action against Google from Telefónica, France Telecom, and Deutsche Telekom, she said users have a right to choose what content they view online. She also said net neutrality meant no network could block, or limit the speed of commercial websites.

It is amazing how telecoms through their constant manipulation of words think that their argument even has any merit. The idea that Google or any other web service for that matter is the one’s responsible for the network traffic is mind-numbingly stupid.

Just stop and think logically for one minute. If you and I, and every other person on the web, stopped doing Google searches, stopped watching YouTube videos would Google be using any of the network as these telecoms claim?

No. They wouldn’t. That is why they are called services or content providers. If we, as consumers, don’t use their services, don’t read or watch their content, then they are just a blob on the network not using any of the network’s resources.

The nice thing is that unlike here in the US and Canada the EU actually has the will and the ability to back up their threats to the telecoms.

European telecoms told by EU to think twice is a post from: The Inquisitr

In a recent interview, Motorola CEO Sanjay Jha said the company is looking to bring a whole new level of connectivity to their consumer products by loading a common Motoblur system on their cable tv boxes and cell phones

By integrating the software users will be able to more quickly and easily share their multimedia files, while creating a more connected enviroment.

As Engadget points out, the entire process will involve talking to cable companies and getting them on board, a process that’s sure to take quite a bit of time to pass on behalf of Motorola and the companies their boxes are featured with. On the other hand with 60,000 Motorola devices shipping daily, many of which are Motorola based, the move makes perfect sense and would more than likely be used by a whole lot of customers. [Wall Street Journal]

Motorola Wants To Connect Cable Boxes To Phones Using MotoBlur Technology is a post from: The Inquisitr

There is a rumor being floated around the web today that Apple has been approaching the television networks with an eye to creating television subscriptions through their iTunes service. Word has it that the price of the subscription will be around the $30.00 range.

Sure you can already get complete seasons of individual shows through iTunes but this is a totally different beast. You would be getting the networks whole output of network programming.

All I can say to this is – I sure hope they pull it off.

While Martin Bryant at The Next Web points out that network executives might be a tad reluctant to walk down the same path that the music industry has with Apple this would be a big win for the consumer and in the end it could be a win for the networks.

However there’s a real big problem that would need to be overcome for this to be a major game changer in the television industry and it all boils down to one word.

Geotarding.

For those of you who may not have heard of the term before it basically boils down to being able to view or listen to content based on your geographical location. The best example to give regarding geotarding would be Hulu for video and Pandora for music. With either service if you live primarily outside of the US you are shit out of luck.

Now recently Hulu has been making deals with broadcasting companies outside of the US principally England and I understand that Pandora is continually trying to work deals to expand their user base in other countries.

Sure we might like to yell and scream at companies like Hulu and Pandora for doing this geotarding but in reality it’s not totally their fault. In many cases it is a combination of country laws and copyright laws that stop us from being able to access these services.

I can’t talk about other countries but I know here in Canada that when it comes to both television and radio, which companies like Hulu and Pandora would fall under, our country has some exceptionally archaic laws that were enacted back in the 1970′s. These laws were originally intended to protect our cultural identity by forcing Canadian radio and television companies to carry a certain percentage of Canadian made content.

For example any US television networks that wants to make it’s content available to Canadians has to sell it, or go through, a Canadian broadcaster. If a cable network wants to show it’s content in whole above the 49th parallel then it must have a Canadian company. This is why you have Discovery Canada, or SyFy opening up in Canada as Space TV, it was also the reason why CourtTV (before changing their name to truTV) got yanked from Canadian cable and had to open up CourtTV Canada.

When it gets to music things get a little murkier as it becomes a combination of regulations and copyrights. When it comes to the copyrights part it is important to remember that in most cases there is no one single global copyright system – each country has their own copyrights so for a US radio station to play music in Canada they need to pay for Canadian copyright licence on top of already buying a US copyright license.

In the case of Pandora they tried to do this but the Canadian copyright holders were asking such exorbitant amounts of money that Pandora had to walk away from the table. No multiple this problem for all the countries in the world where you want people to be able to hear your music or see your video.

So what does all this have to do with Apple?

Well it all boils down to what a good friend of mine refers to a might makes right. In the case of music Apple is the current powerhouse that everyone in the industry knows that they will have to play with. As much as I may not like Apple they have brought a leveling of the playing field to the downloadable music business. The consumer for the most part has been the big winner in this.

There is no denying that our copyright and governmental regulations surrounding are behind the times and desperately need to be changed. The problem is that the way it is now is benefiting everyone except the consumer.

So here we have Apple, the powerhouse that has help to change the music industry, now interested in getting into provide television network programming at what has to be admittedly a reasonable price. If anyone could possibly influence change in at least the copyright part of the problem it would have to be Apple. Definitely the regulation part – especially in Canada would be the hard nut to crack.

However in this move I am definitely rooting for Jobs and company to at least start the roller coaster of change that would come about with an iTunes TV subscription.

In the end it could be a big win for the consumer.

note: I got Martin’s name wrong but have now corrected it. I knew it wasn’t Michael especially since I had his post open at the time of writing. Sorry about that Martin.

Apple TV Subscriptions? Oh man I really hope so! is a post from: The Inquisitr

When I first saw the news from Sarah Perez at ReadWriteWeb about Netflix being in the process of setting up a streaming movie service for outside of the United States I didn’t really clue in on it at first. Then as I started to think about it from my position as a resident of one of those other countries outside of the U.S. I realized that this could be the largest wake up call that cable television providers could have gotten that the future is coming to them and it isn’t going to be nice.

You see here in Canada companies like Cogeco, Rogers, and Shaw – the big three cable providers in the country – have had the marketplace pretty well to themselves. As with the telco side of the business they have dictated what we can see and how much they want to soak us for in order to watch what they provide.

Now assuming, with crossed fingers, that Netflix is including Canada among the countries that they are talking about streaming movies to the consumer would now have a viable alternative to cable television. No longer do we have to be reliant on cable television to be our sole source of movie entertainment. Depending on what kind of subscriptions and pricing that Netflix goes with I wouldn’t be at all surprise to see it be an almost instant hit with Canadians.

I know myself that if the subscription price was reasonable and I was able to pay for it using PayPal I would sign up right now. Tie that service in with Windows Media Center and I would be one step closer to being able to say good-bye to an overpriced cable service. Not to mention the brownie points I would earn with my wife.

Here’s hoping Netflix is including Canada in their roll-out plans.

Please!

Netflix gives cable television a wake-up call – outside of the US is a post from: The Inquisitr

With all due respect to people like Svetlana Gladkova over at Profy.com anyone who thinks that at this point in time Hulu should start charging for access to its content should stop what they are doing right now and give themselves a good solid facepalm. Please tell me where it makes sense for anyone to pay extra per month for what they are already paying for in their homes as the majority of people who this idea would effect already have cable television.

Cable TV with exactly the same content as what you find on Hulu with the exception of maybe a few movies that will end up there anyway on some superstation of movie channel – how is this any great improvement. It is especially dumb when you factor in the reality that in the US broadband providers are moving to having download caps against which all this streaming video would count against.

Stupidly Walt Disney Co. Chief Executive Bob Iger said at a conference

"There’s plenty of room for people to spend money on things they’re doing online," Iger told a technology conference put on by Fortune magazine.

Source: Yahoo News – Disney CEO: Hulu could charge for content

Sure people are willing to pay for things on the web and yes people are easily conned into believing that maybe paying for Hulu is a good thing but that doesn’t mean that it’s a good idea. I like buying stuff on the web but I can tell you this – even if making Hulu (or a part of it) a pay access service allowed for its content to be shown in Canada I still wouldn’t sign up.

I already pay an outrageous sum for cable TV and Internet access so why am I going to pay again for the same things I’ve already forked money over for – it makes no sense whatsoever. As well the idea that by making Hulu a pay service will open it up to international users – think again. Even though Svetlana might like the idea

Yet revolt or no revolt, I know one category of users (and a very broad one at that) who will only welcome the decision to let them pay for a subscription in exchange for content – if they are granted this opportunity at all. I am obviously talking about international users here. Hulu is only available to the internet users who visit the website from a US IP-address while everyone else will be able to browse the site but will not be able to watch any piece of content at all.

The fact is that it won’t happen because it isn’t something that charging users for will change the current US only service. This is because of international copyrights and broadcast laws – it has nothing to do with throwing money at it. For all we know Hulu would love nothing better that to be able to stream content to Canada or Russia but it isn’t just the US entertainment industry owners of Hulu that are the bottleneck.

For that you have top look at the individual countries. Just as Canada will not allow US television signals to cross the broader and be played on Canadian television they won’t allow video stream to cross those same borders. So we can rant all we want at Hulu and their evil overlords it doesn’t change the fact that if Hulu starts charging for access it won’t make one bit of difference outside of its borders.

Disney CEO on crack for suggesting Hulu charge for access is a post from: The Inquisitr

Like others in old media cable companies and media content producers are in a race – a race for survival in a world that they show just about every day that they don’t understand. A perfect example of this is a joining of Comcast and Time Warner to their cable content to the web but under restrictions that are designed to maintain, or increase, the revenue streams for their programs.

Their thinking is that if they provide “television” shows of their choosing from their various networks or cable suppliers under a subscription basis, and as long as you are already a cable subscriber, you will be willing to fork over extra money to watch those shows from the web. This will over course require some sort of authentication method to guarantee that non-cable subscribers will be able to see those same shows on the web.

With the pervasiveness of broadband and easy availability of tools that allow web video to leap onto your television, cable companies see that their video distribution pipes are becoming less relevant. So they want to control how you watch premium content online and want to impose fees via an authentication system.  Time Warner and Bewkes have been championing this concept — essentially an authentication system that requires viewers to have cable, telco or satellite subscriptions in order to watch certain premium content online or on other platforms. Bewkes recently said he wanted to launch the system during the second half of 2009. (NewTeeVee has just published a great FAQ on TV Everywhere.) Time Warner spun out its cable business as a separate company. Time Warner owns premium services such as HBO.

Source: Om Malik – GigaOM :: Comcast, Time Warner Team Up to Control TV on the Internet

Authentication. Hmm … I wonder how many times we have heard this battle cry before?

How many different DRM methods, which really is authentication under a different name, have we seen come and go in the last few years. They arrive with much trumpeting and fanfare proclaiming a new era in safe media that can’t be pirated by those nasty consumers out there that want to be able to use the media they pay for as they wish. Then just as quickly those great new methods fail leaving those nasty consumers with unusable media as the authentication engines are turned off.

No matter how many time or how many different ways old media tries authentication, or DRM, won’t work for one simple reason – they no longer control the exclusive access to their products. In the past if you wanted to watch a television show, listen to music or watch a movie the only access you had to that content was through corporate controlled access points. These might have been a television with a cable box, a radio station dictating the playlist, a store selling CD or a movie theater picking what gets played.

The only problem is that now these old media content providers are discovering that just because you make the content it doesn’t mean you control the distribution of that content anymore. All it takes is one person with a TV capture card and access to that show is now Internet wide. Sure it’s illegal but when you place onerous restrictions on content access there are those who will rail against it. As hard as old media might try to control their content the harder the consumer will fight against that control, and today they have tools that are as good as old media’s.

But this is only one reason that old media wants to bring its content to the web because not only can they make increased profits from that addition web distribution but they also increase their profits from the additional demands on their pipes. We have seen an attempt recently to bring back speed and data caps on broadband access. Comcast likes to suggest that even at their top tier no-one would likely every go over those caps of 250 gig but it only takes some simple math to show the bullshit of this idea.

I asked Comcast CEO Brian Roberts if the content being streamed as part of this new effort would be free from the 250GB-a-month bandwidth quota his company has started imposing on this customers.

His answer: No. You’re not going to get close enough to hitting the monthly quota anyway, he said, so why worry? We (and many of our readers) disagree. We feel that while 250GB might look very generous today, it isn’t much when you start streaming or downloading HD-quality video.

Source: Om Malik – GigaOM :: Comcast: TV Everywhere Will Eat Into Your Metered Broadband

A quick check of the file size for a DivX version of an hour long HD television show (which is actually only 40 minutes or so if you’re lucky) can run anywhere from 1.5 Gig to 2.0 Gig. If you move up in video format quality (H.264, HD .ts, HD-DVD, Blu-Ray) you will start seeing file sizes ranging from 2 Gig to over 5 Gig for a regular one-hour television show. All these files sizes count against download cap you might have.

So assume you want to watch your regular television show via the web and on an average of two show a night, 7 days a week, and 30 days a month you would watch a total of 60 shows. Now your watching all these in HiDef at 5 Gig a show only to find yourself now at 300 Gig for the month – you’ve gone over your cap for which you will be charged extra on your Internet bill.

So on top of that nice extra subscription that companies like Time Warner and Comcast what to charge you for the privilege of watching regular television on the web you stand a very good chance of blowing the bottom out of your Internet access bill. For what?

As much as companies like Time Warner and Comcast like to think that their are in the content providers driving seat the fact is – they aren’t. Just as authentication has failed for other types of content providers on the web. In the end the consumer will decide how they want to access their content on the web and if past experience is any indication this is just another attempt that will fail.

Are Comcast and Time Warner ‘authenticating’ themselves right into another failure? is a post from: The Inquisitr

Our current crop of broadband providers, companies like Time Warner, Verizon and AT&T, have it pretty good. Their lobbyists often out number local government representatives they are calling calling upon on behalf of the big providers these companies hold what amounts a monopoly on access. We have seen Time Warner recently pull their roll-out of real broadband speeds because people complaining so loudly about their tiered packages being rolled out that Time Warner had to postpone implementing them.

In short they hold our broadband access by the nuts and they will do anything to keep it that way. This is sad to see in a country that supposedly prides itself in its perceived desire for innovation and drive for success. Instead of innovation though we have companies that fight tooth, nail and political manipulation in order to see that their status quo stay the same.

Never mind that more and more communities around the country are beginning to fight back these powerful companies do everything that they can to squash innovation and stop world class broadband access dead in its tracks. To the big cable and telco broadband providers the whole municipal broadband movement is an enemy that they will fight against, whether it be in the courts or local and state legislatures.

This is exactly the fight that Wilson; and a growing number of other small communities in North Carolina, is now facing. This community in North Carolina is one of 44 publicly owned fiber networks serving more than 60 communities that has decided that they can do a better job of providing their citizens with high-speed access than the big providers either won’t or say isn’t economically feasible at this time. Wilson is doing just that and at higher speeds and a lower subscription cost to their service’s subscribers.

In the case of Wilson Time Warner; who has been providing cable service to the community for 30 years, charges customers $240 per month for their premium cable TV and broadband services. through Time Warner’s Roadrunner service; the name of the division that handles broadband accounts, they typically offer speeds no higher than 10Mbps. They recently increased this speed in Wilson to 15Mbps – due they say to competition.

However through Wilson’s public company; Greenlight, that handles their equivalent ‘triple-play’ services customers get the same 300 TV channels, High Definition signal, pay-per-movies, DVR boxes and all the same phone services customers will see broadband speeds starting at 10Mbps. Not only that but unlike the choked back upload speed that Time Warner provides the Greenlight customers see almost an equal speed of 10Mbps for uploads.

For a breakdown in the differences of services being provided here is a chart of services courtesy of Indy Week

Time Warner’s reaction to this competition?

They gathered up all their lobbyists and headed to Raleigh, North Carolina’s state capital, and proceeded to try and the movement hobbled and for all intents and purposes too onerous to implement. At this point the push for the Local Government Fair Competition Act has failed to pass but that doesn’t mean it won’t be coming back up again in future legislative sessions.

The reason for fighting movements like the one happening in Wilson is as quoted by Fiona Morgan of Indy Week having to compete against public money

"We don’t believe it’s a good idea for public entities to compete with private business because it’s inherently not a level playing field," said Embarq spokesperson Tom Matthews. "We’re going to be competing against purely public money."

On the other hand communities like Wilson are going this route because companies like Time Warner won’t provide the services that more and more people are coming to consider a necessity – a utility – in today’s world. As companies like Time Warner continue to control access it is the state and local legislators that are being called to task by the people that they represent

If you have any doubt about whether broadband is an issue that matters to people, ask state Rep. Bill Faison. A House Democrat representing Orange and Caswell counties, Faison said the No. 1 constituent complaint he hears is a lack of access to broadband.

"I can’t go to a public meeting anywhere in Orange or Caswell without someone coming up to me and saying, ‘We’ve got a problem with Internet and here’s what it is,’" Faison said. "No one comes up and says, ‘We’ve got a problem with Medicaid,’ or ‘We’ve got a problem with the wildlife commission.’ No one complains about the Department of Transportation not fixing a road in front of their house. They all show up and want high-speed Internet.’"

Source: Indy Week

So far Wilson’s business model; at 54 percent of subscribers, is above the national industry standard of 30 to 40 percent. For Greenlight, the break even point of their business is the low end of the industry standard which after four years of service they have more than surpassed.

Is this kind of community driven movement for world class broadband access a threat to the major companies like Time Warner?

You bet it is but isn’t that what being an innovative country all about – finding ways to improve upon the proverbial mousetrap. Or, in this case being able to have the same kind of access to the Internet that other countries have without having to hand over a pound of flesh for substandard services and all in the public eye.

Broadband – a public utility or a profit margin? is a post from: The Inquisitr

Back on April 14th I wrote a post about Time Warner implementing metered broadband in certain test area and how I thought it was a bad idea. I wasn’t the only one to write about and in the resulting furor it seemed as if Time Warner had reconsidered the whole idea, even if only temporarily. As everyone was patting themselves on their backs it appears that Time Warner went onto Plan B.

Because of all the bitching Time Warner has also decided to reconsider its deployment of super-fast broadband in San Antonio and Austin, Texas; Greensboro, N.C.; and Rochester, New York. As Time Warner said to Stacey Higginbotham in an email reply

A Time Warner Cable spokesman says the cable company was planning to roll out DOCSIS 3.0 upgrades as part of its consumption-based broadband trials, but it’s now “reevaluating whether or not the trial cities are among those places” scheduled for DOCSIS 3.0 rollouts. As for rolling out next its next-generation cable network, Time Warner has been making vague statements but so far hasn’t laid out any definitive plans.

So in other words you don’t let us cap your asses we won’t let you have really cool high speed broadband like most of the rest of the world. Nice play Time Warner – nice play.

Time Warner Cable to try out some social blackmail is a post from: The Inquisitr