The Inquisitr » television

Apple TV Subscriptions? Oh man I really hope so!

Steven Hodson — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 22:19:27 +0000

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.

Freedom Communications To File For Bankruptcy This Week

AHN — Tue, 01 Sep 2009 04:00:25 +0000

New York, NY (AHN) – Freedom Communications, the owner of more than 30 newspapers and eight TV stations across the country, is expected to file for bankruptcy this week, possibly as early as Tuesday.

The owner of the Orange County Register in Santa Ana, CA, may hand off ownership of the media empire to its two largest lenders, the Blackstone Group and Providence Equity Partners. The transaction would wipe out the investment groups’ 45 percent equity in the company.

The Hoiles family is majority owners of Freedom, which was founded more than 70 years by R.C. Hoiles.

Cutbacks were already underway at Freedom. In July, salaries were cut 5 percent at WPEC in South Florida. That followed layoffs in January and unpaid one-week leaves in March.

WARNING: All men should get their drool towels now!

Steven Hodson — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 23:45:00 +0000

Never mind that Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Edition. Ignore that Victoria Secret’s catalogue you have hidden in the garage. Walk away from that most excellent beer fridge you and your buddies like to hang around at on the weekends. They will all pale in comparison to what I am about to present to you so prepare your drool towels gentlemen for I bring you ……

The Man Wall

Okay … take a deep breath … here take this paper bag … breathe …. breathe …..

Feeling better?

Good. Now just to let you know what the good people from Hybrid Space furniture have brought together in order to provide you with this nirvana here’s a list of the Man’s Wall features.

52″ Vizio Flat Panel LCD HDTV
2 – 26″ Vizio Flat Panel LCD HDTVs
1200 watt Panasonic 5.1 Home Theater System
DVD player with 5-CD changer
2 – Wireless surround sound speakers
Live 7-foot sports ticker with built-in computer
1 year free service for sport’s ticker

But wait that’s not all.

How about a 1000 watt microwave oven and a 32-bottle wine rack (what no wine chiller ?? tsk tsk)

Add to that a full-size built-in beer refrigerated beer keg with tap

Then there is the iPod docking station for those times when only music will suffice.

Oh and for those times you and your buddies just want to chill with a fine cigar to go with the wine you have your own cigar humidors complete with temperature gauges.

Now for the bad news my friends so prepare your drool towel to become a crying towel for this thing of male testosterone beauty will cost you $14,900. However if that is something you are willing to forego a child’s education for you can find out more here at the Man Wall site. Enjoy.

hat tip to My Modern Metropolis

Reporter hits heckler on live television

Duncan Riley — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 03:30:46 +0000

The life of a reporter who does live crosses can sometimes be a difficult one. There’s always the chance that hecklers will magically appear behind you, or in front of you trying to interrupt your report.

Having said that, seasoned reporters usually know how to handle the situation because it happens regularly, but what if you’re not a seasoned reporter?

Steve Ryan for ABC 13 in Las Vegas was doing a live cross from the Vegas strip on Michael Jackson’s death when a drunk heckler decided that he’d like to be on television as well. Ryan tried repeatedly to move away from the heckler until finally he’d had enough…and hit the guy on live television.

The classic moment in television as follows. Watch for the look on the news teams face after they cut the feed for added value.

Are Comcast and Time Warner ‘authenticating’ themselves right into another failure?

Steven Hodson — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 08:00:00 +0000

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.

Battlestar Galactica producer says webisodes will be obsolete

Steven Hodson — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 22:09:25 +0000

In the nascent world of web produced episodic video shows everyone involved is still trying to figure out how it is going to work. Things like the optimum length of the (web)episodes, ownership of the product and whether they should be treated the same as their television counterparts. At one of the spectrum we have people like Kevin Pollak who produces a full length video chat show (and one I wouldn’t miss) while at the other end we have Felicia Day and her Guild web series.

However not everyone seems to think that these types of web video shows will last. One such person is Ron Moore, known for his work on Battlestar Galactica series, who has stated that he doesn’t like the format.

While speaking at the Banff World Television Festival, Moore said the network and studio requested short, Web-only stories about Galactica just before it headed into its third season in the fall of 2006.

Moore says there were difficulties off-the-bat. "I don’t like the runtime on it, it’s hard to tell a coherent story in three minutes when it’s part of an hour-long show," he said.

"I don’t know that it’s a format that’s really going to withstand the test of time. It feels like something that people do right now because of technical, sort of, limitations – viewer habits, how much they want to download."

"I could be wrong, but I don’t see in 10 years people are still doing webisodes."

Source: The Globe and Mail

I’m not sure exactly what Moore thinks will replace them unless of course it is things like your run of the mill (boring) televisions shows courtesy of geotarded services like Hulu. I think he is being extremely short sighted in his viewpoint and I would imagine that folks like Felicia and Kevin would disagree with him – I know I do.

Another who cares Hulu post – this time get your wallet ready

Steven Hodson — Fri, 05 Jun 2009 03:22:10 +0000

Over the last couple of days I’ve been seeing a couple of posts showing up suggesting that people get ready to open their wallets soon if they want to keep using Hulu. Now for the rest of the world this won’t matter one bit because well besides the US and soon (as of September) the UK no-one else can use the service because it’s geotarded.

That hasn’t stop the newly installed head honcho of News Corp, one of the players involved with Hulu, Mr. Jonathan Miller from suggesting that he envisions a time where at least some of the TV shows and movies would only be available through subscription.

Miller, whose last job was running AOL (parent of Daily Finance), prefaced his remark by noting that he won’t attend his first Hulu board meeting until Monday, so the scenario he foresees is merely his own speculation. But, he continued, "in my opinion the answer could be yes. I don’t see why over time that shouldn’t happen. I don’t think it’s on the agenda for Monday [but] it seems to me that over time that could be a logical thing."

Source: Daily Finance

Now the angst over his statement hasn’t really started rolling through the tech blogosphere because everyone is still sucking up to the the Twitter teat and since what he had to say was more than a 140 characters I’m not surprised it’s been missed. That will change the moment word hits that Hulu will be seriously going down that road – which it will.

The only thing I can say is – what do you expect. Just look at who’s involved here – News Corp (Fox), NBC, ABC and Disney. The only network not involved is CBS and they seem to be the only ones by the way who seem to have a grip on how this new medium works and doing a good job at it.

Unfortunately though when Hulu starts dipping into your wallet most of the world won’t even care but that is what happens when you lock us out. So enjoy your free Hulu while it last.

Fail: new study claims online video massively overstated

Duncan Riley — Thu, 04 Jun 2009 00:49:40 +0000

A study on behalf of Nielsen’s Council for Research Excellence has claimed that the consumption of online video is massively overstated, and accounts for only a fraction of all video viewed.

The Video Consumer Mapping Study found that 66% of all video is still consumed via live television, and that online video only accounts for 1% of all video viewed. The study claims that consumers tend to overstate how much time they spend on because “it seems new and cool,” where as watching TV doesn’t have as much social cache so people tend to under-report how many hours they watch.

The results come at the same time comScore video data for April shows a 16% increase in video watched online vs the month before. comScore found that 16,785,432,000 online videos were watched in the United States from 151,652,000 unique users.

Whilst it would be easy to suggest an ulterior motive to the results, particularly given a strong representation of media companies on the Council for Research Excellence, the study has a far more substantive range of verifiable flaws.

The initial consideration is how the data was gathered to begin with. The study used “American media consumers, primarily former Nielsen TV People Meter panelists.” Former is the key word there, because TV panel data is gathered through “people meters,” electronic devices that record viewing habits. In theory, it’s difficult to understate TV viewing when there’s an electronic device gathering data on what you are watching; and yet this study specifically picked people who didn’t have the devices.

Then there’s the problem of sample size and location. From the study:

[the study included ] a final sample of 952 observed days. This included 376 individuals in the Core sample from Atlanta, Chicago, Dallas, Philadelphia and Seattle. Observing those people twice yielded 752 observed days. In addition, for the Media Acceleration portion of this research, 100 people were observed twice and yielded 200 observed days in the Indianapolis DMA.

376 or maybe 476 people in total (it’s not clear if the 100 are originally counted in the 376). The results of 476 people are the key behind a finding that online video is overstated, and some of the United States largest markets, including Los Angeles, San Francisco, New York, and even Austin, Texas (all four known for their tech communities) were completely ignored.

People who play with statistics will always argue that you can use such a small sample size to come to such conclusions, and that may be true to a point. But does a sample so small and geographically limited really reflect the overall market in the United States? Does the sample size fairly support a conclusion that goes against what every other survey and study is suggesting?

Of course it doesn’t, but that was hardly the point to begin with. This study was funded indirectly by media companies, and was to consider the following statements (direct from the study)

- The 30 second spot is dead
- No one under the age of 30 watches TV, They’re all streaming video on the internet.
- No one watches live TV, Everyone is Recording TV shows on their DVRS

Really outrageous propositions to begin with, and you don’t need a $3.5 million study to show that none are true. If you start a study with such outrageous suggestions, its little surprise then that you end up with an outrageous, and ridiculous result.

If you want to read the study, you can download it here (pdf)

Someone call the Fonz – Twitter’s doing TV

Steven Hodson — Mon, 25 May 2009 16:40:10 +0000

While it might only still be in the development stage the idea of Twitter doing some reality type television show has to be one of the most unique business ideas I have heard yet for the company.

According to the AP report at SFGate.com Twitter has teamed up with Reveille Productions and Brillstein Entertainment Partners to create a show that would have Twitter users become real-life ~~stalkers~~ players on the trail of celebrities in an interactive and competitive format.

The producers call their proposed series the first to bring the immediacy of Twitter to the TV screen.

"Twitter is transforming the way people communicate, especially celebrities and their fans," said Reveille managing director Howard T. Owens, who expects the new project to "unlock Twitter’s potential on TV."

No further details were made available on the show’s format or when it might hit the air.

Now as inane and stupid as I might personally find this whole idea of Twitter crossing over into an equally stupid and mind-numbing reality TV format there may actually be a legal battle brewing if they actually try to make the jump.

The reason I say that is Leo Laporte, the man behind TWiT (This Week in Technology), is asking folks on Friendfeed if this is the point where Twitter finally crosses the boundary into his trademarked area as far as naming is concerned

Question for you all. I have a trademark for TWiT – first used in May 2005, trademark applied for May 2006 and registered March 2007. The trademark is in "Entertainment in the nature of visual and audio performances, and musical, variety, news and comedy shows." http://bit.ly/HT7L0

As Leo pointed out he has defended the trademark when it came to some of the 3rd party Twitter clients

Up until now there’s been no conflict with Twitter. (We have sent out cease and desist letters to several companies using "twit" in their name and doing podcasts). But now Twitter is doing a TV show. The confusion between Twit and Twitter is mounting. What do I do? Defend my mark? Or let my brand be swallowed by the big guy (even though we were first by several years)? I need your advice. What does the community think?

While I think he might already have weakened his brand by not establishing some sort of legal notice against Twitter in the first place I personally think he should at least attempt to draw a line in the sand at this point. The reaction on Friendfeed at this point; an hour into his original posting of the question has almost 50 responses, is falling on both sides of the question.

It’s not a position that I would want to be in but then the idea of Twitter coming to a TV set near me is scary enough. Not to mention (again) just plain stupid.

Jimmy Kimmel is insane, and that’s why we love him

Duncan Riley — Thu, 21 May 2009 06:06:04 +0000

The announcement of the fall television lineups for the US television networks also goes hand in hand with a process called “upfronts,” where the networks pitch their shows to advertisers.

Usually these events involve stars rattling off numbers about how great their show is, and how much better it will be next year, or as Gawker so nicely puts it: “one enormous act of autofellatio, an endless stream of workers sucking the c***s of the companies they work for in order to hold on to their jobs and continue to cash ridiculously large paychecks.”

But this year was different. ABC Late Night Talk Show host Jimmy Kimmel decided to channel Jerry McGuire and tell it like is:

“Let’s get real here. Let’s get Dr. Phil-real here. These new fall shows? We’re going to cancel about 90 percent of them. Maybe more.”

“Every year we lie to you and every year you come back for more. You don’t need an upfront. You need therapy. We completely lie to you, and then you pass those lies onto your clients.”

If ABC is so confident in its new fall shows, he asked, why is it announcing them at the same time it announces the midseason shows that will replace those fall shows? “This show ‘Shark Tank’ has the word tank right in the title,” he said.

“Next year on ‘Grey’s Anatomy,’ your product could kill Dr. Izzie. It just depends on how much you want to pay.”

“I think all our shows are going to work this year. I really do. I don’t, really.”

“The important thing to remember is: who cares, it’s not your money.”

Kimmel also took a shot at NBC and Jay Leno, whom ABC once courted to possibly replace him when his contract with NBC expired, saying that they’re “giving Jay’s viewers exactly what they want. An early-bird special.”

As the NY Times notes, the chances of Kimmel’s show lasting much longer are very slim indeed. He’s insane, and that’s why we love him.

Technology to take power usage through the roof

Steven Hodson — Wed, 13 May 2009 23:14:27 +0000

Last year the world spent $80 billion (USD) on electricity to power all the gadgets we can’t seem to do without anymore. This poser demand has increased due to the rise in computers, MP3 players, home video games, wireless routers, portable phones and those hot flat screen, high definition digital televisions. It is so bad that the estimate is that by 2030 the expenditure on electricity will grow to $200 billion (USD).

It is believed that to meet these demands will require the output of 200 new power plants and will double greenhouse emissions to on billion tons of carbon dioxide per year. This has prompted a move by the International Energy Agency (IEA) to start urging governments around the world to create new, lower, energy efficiency standards. The idea being to force manufacturers to include extra-low power modes for when our gadgets aren’t in use as well as improve the overall operating efficiency of those electronic gadgets.

Paul Waide, a senior policy adviser at the agency, says the digital revolution is transforming home electronics into ubiquitous, multi-purpose appliances. Some refrigerators now come with televisions in the door, while TVs are now high-definition computer monitors that can also be used to listen to radio.

He said consumers should shut down their gadgets when not in use and unplug when not in use the growing number of battery chargers needed for cordless phones, cellphones, iPods and laptops.

And they should listen to radio on an actual radio, rather than an energy-hogging television or computer.

At the same time, many jurisdictions are moving to digital-only television, which consumes far more power than the traditional analogue sets.

The IEA estimates the electricity demand for television usage will rise by 5 per cent a year.

Source: The Globe and Mail

This is what you call a serious Star Trek addiction

Steven Hodson — Fri, 08 May 2009 21:54:44 +0000

There are all kinds of people who would consider themselves to be die-hard fans of everything Star Trek, even though others might have different words used to describe them. They go to all the Star Trek conferences decked out in their best Star Trek clothes. They can probably recite every line from every show. They will get into heated battles over which was the best series and just how much of an idiot Shatner is and Picard is the best USS Enterprise captain bar none.

However they all pale in comparison to Tony Alleyne. Not happy with just wearing the best Star Trek costume around he also has turned his apartment in Hinckley, Leicestershire England into the coolest homage to Star Trek. As you can see from the photo above and the ones below he hasn’t missed a trick.

[hat tip to My Modern Metropolis]

Hulu goes International … well sort of

Steven Hodson — Fri, 08 May 2009 02:54:34 +0000

Hulu is a great service that allows you to watch all the cool television shows that all the networks with the exception of CBS decides they want you to see. There is only one problem with Hulu. If you don’t live in the US you’re shit out of luck because the networks who control what Hulu does says you can’t mainly because they can’t figure out how to advertize against it outside of the States. some will suggest that it is more of a copyright problem, which it is to a certain extent but in the end it’s all about the money – and control.

Now we hear though that miracles of miracles Hulu is starting to cut some deals with International television networks and movie companies. Of course the first thought is that finally we will be able to say goodbye to the stupid geotarding of shows we can watch. Visions of being able to watch some good quality television on the web begins to fill our thoughts.

Except for one thing.

The deals being cut from the sound of things is only for content that will be shown in the US on Hulu. So geotarding lives folks. There is no mention in the reports I have seen that these deals being inked mean that Hulu will start being available outside of the US. All we hear is how US audiences will now be able to see shows that they haven’t been able to up until these incredible deals being made.

In most cases, the launch of the programmes on Hulu will be the first time they have been seen by a US audience, with the advertising on the site generating a new revenue stream for the producers. “You have these hidden gems [like Green Wing] which the US audience just hasn’t seen before,” said Mr Forssell.

Source: FT.com

Guess these guys haven’t heard of BitTorrent or binary newsgroups, and they bitch about piracy.

North Korea detains Current TV journalists

Duncan Riley — Fri, 20 Mar 2009 01:32:41 +0000

Two American journalists working for Al Gore’s Current TV are reported to have been detained in North Korea for failing to stop shooting footage in the country.

Laura Ling and Euna Lee were detained Tuesday along the Chinese-North Korean border. A Chinese guide working with them was also detained although a third journalist with the group, Mitch Koss, managed to avoid capture, reports AP.

U.S. officials expressed concern and said they were working with the Chinese government to ascertain the whereabouts of the journalists.

The pair is said to have been working with Rev. Chun Ki-won, a South Korean activist who helps North Korean refugees seek asylum prior to making their trip. South Korean media reported that the pair were arrested near the Tumen River in the North of North Korea (map below).

View Larger Map

We know newspapers are screwed but what about that other media – Television

Steven Hodson — Sat, 28 Feb 2009 23:59:46 +0000

We all watch; some rubbing their hands together in glee and back patting, as the newspaper industry flails around trying to keep its head above water. For the most part it seems as if they are doing a rather bad job of it as more and more established newspapers shutter their doors forever. They all might like to point at the big bad Internet and the current economic climate as the reasons for their slide into oblivion but the fact is that while the Internet might be the vehicle of change it only shows how flawed the business model of the industry is.

If this is indeed the case one has to wonder just what is in store for that other bastion of culture and greed of our society – The Television Industry. Like the newspaper industry television is an advertising reliant business where a 30 second spot on a hot primetime show; of which there are fewer every year, can cost an advertiser upwards of $700,000. However just as with newspapers that revenue stream is under severe attack. It might not be as bad as it is in the newspaper industry but if we follow it as an example it doesn’t bode well for the television networks.

Tim Arango in the New York Times today wrote

Financially, the networks are on shaky ground, partly because they rely almost solely on advertising. CBS reported that for the fourth quarter of last year, as the recession deepened, operating income in its television segment declined 40 percent, even though it was by far the most-watched network. In the second week of February, CBS had 12 of the top 20 shows, according to Nielsen Media Research.

News Corporation, which owns Fox, reported operating income of $18 million in broadcast television, compared with $245 million a year ago. And Disney’s broadcasting business had a 60 percent drop in operating income.

It has gotten to the point that unlike the stead climb of advertising rates the networks have actually started to have to reduce them by and average of 15 percent, about $122,000 for a regular prime-time spot. As a result we have been seeing a growing shift in the type of programming being offered. Now we get cheap to make reality shows, talk shows etc rather than expensive to produce shows like Lost and other big name shows. Chances are that today we probably would even see shows like it or CSI get off the drawing board especially consider that it cost about $10 million for the two part pilot episode of Lost.

As Michael Nathanson, an analyst at Sanford C. Bernstein & Company, said in the New York Times post “That’s why the architecture needs to change”. The questions we have ask are – into what and do they have enough time?

[graphic courtesy of TV Blanket]

Why the rest of us couldn’t care less if Hulu is pulled from Boxee

Steven Hodson — Fri, 20 Feb 2009 01:40:07 +0000

I finally have had a chance to play around with Boxee and it sure seems to be a great way to watch video content on your television screen or computer monitor. The social aspect of it all; like most things social related these days could be a real winner for the service. On the whole it looked like Boxee had a winning formula on its hands until US viewers were informed of a big change in Boxee’s line-up of providers.

You see the majority of Boxee’s television related programming comes via the hottest video property on the web right now – Hulu. The thing is that Hulu itself is really just a content provider that has agreements with the various television networks to provide their shows via the Hulu player on the web. So what you had was one content provider providing it’s content to yet another video content provider who didn’t have any agreements in place with either Hulu or Hulu’s video providers.

As confusing as this sounds it gets even worse when the originating video providers told Hulu to stop making the content available via Boxee. This pretty well took the majority of Boxee’s content right out of play. Of course there was some uproar when happened but not as much as you would think. The reason for this is because to countries outside of the US Hulu is a non-player in the global video market.

So when Boxee announced that they would be pulling all Hulu provided content from the comments may have lit up from angry Americans but garnered nothing but a big yawn from the rest of the world. This of course is due to Hulu’s geotarding of its content so that it can only be viewed by US residents. This geotarding of course carried over to Hulu content played through Boxee so not only did non Americans lose out so did Boxee because all the really good content came primarily from its Hulu connection.

This problem isn’t the fault of either Boxee or Hulu but that of television networks who still haven’t gotten a clue about how this new fangled thing called the Internet works.

The Inauguration as a tipping point for the death of broadcast television

Duncan Riley — Sat, 24 Jan 2009 01:20:22 +0000

We’ve long argued that broadcast television, that is television broadcast over the air, your traditional television stations days are numbered. The rise of on demand television shows online, despite internet enabled televisions still yet to be available in millions of homes (many launched at CES) shows a switch away from traditional broadcast television.

The counter argument has always been live, big events, such as sport will sustain broadcast television, although as we’ve seen many sporting bodies are now embracing live online feeds as well. But something strange happened for the inauguration of President Barack Obama: despite live coverage being offered on nearly every station, millions turned to online streams to watch.

How many? well the methodology isn’t brilliant, but NewTeeVee counts 70 million views vs 35 million for television. Even allowing for repeat views (each load is counted, vs viewership with television) online streams at very least rivaled broadcast television.

Millions didn’t turn on their televisions, instead they turned to the web. Live streaming on the internet has moved past a curiosity and bit player to become mainstream.

Which raises an obvious question: if people are happy to watch live television on a computer, even before many can play the stream on their televisions, how long now until the idea of broadcasting over the air dies?

Broadcast television stations involve large costs for licenses to broadcast. If their viewers are just as happy watching online, why continue broadcasting over the air?

As newspapers are slowly starting to switch to online only (or just closing), it’s conceivable that broadcast television stations may follow a similar pattern, although with cable thrown into the mix. Cable offers penetration into most houses in the United States, and internet offers a replacement to the costly broadcast licenses and supporting technology needed to broadcast, particularly so with the switch to digital television.

Within the next five years, internet enabled televisions will be mainstream, and along side video on demand, users may well pick a stream from their local station instead of an over the air signal. Broadcast television will die, and like newspapers, the smart stations will dump their attachment to the airwaves, and have long and possibly prosperous futures.

Endemol Acquires Southern Star For $50 Million

Duncan Riley — Tue, 20 Jan 2009 02:22:40 +0000

Endemol has acquired the Southern Star Group from Fairfax Media for $75 million AUD ($50 million USD) plus earnouts.

Included in the sale is Southern Star International, said to be one of the world’s largest independent distributors of English-language programming, and owner of 14,000 hours of content.

Subsidiary Southern Star Entertainment is Australia’s largest independent TV producer, and responsible for shows including Blue Heelers, The Secret Life of Us and many more.

Endemol already had a relationship with Southern Star through the JV Edemol Southern Star, producing shows including Big Brother.

Speculation has been mounting in Australia as to the financial state of Fairfax Media. The company has a strong debt exposure in a difficult market, and advertising rates at its flagship papers (The Age, The Sydney Morning Herald) are reported to be in decline. Fairfax said in a statement that it would use the proceeds to retire debt.

Vizio Wins Round One of the Internet Enabled TV Releases

Duncan Riley — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 02:51:10 +0000

Missed from our earlier round up of Internet enabled television releases at CES was details from budget TV maker Vizio, which isn’t bad because they actually deserve a post by itself.

Vizio, for those not familiar this brand is a budget LCD TV maker that sells primarily in the United States, with some availability in Canada and Japan. It’s also remarkably the largest seller of LCD’s in the United States, ahead of Samsung.

So can a budget TV maker compete with the big guns in internet enabled televisions? In this case, they not only compete they kill.

Here’s the specs.

entertainment, information and social networking content into the viewer’s living room. With unprecedented choice and control of web-based and local content from a wide range of popular content providers and services, including on-demand movies and music, news, weather, sports, gaming and social networking services,

Video
Comes with Amazon, Blockbuster and Netflix video on demand. In negotiations with Hulu for streaming. So not one like many of the others, but all the three major players.

Music
Pandora and Rhapsody, plus support for the Intel Yahoo widget platform

Games
Access to Accedo Broadband’s Funspot service delivering games including Texas Hold ‘Em Poker, Sudoku, and QuizzMaster.

Extras
Flickr support naturally, but here’s the big one: support for Adobe Flash Lite, so developers can build on Flash as well. Widgets in development include CBS, Showtime, Twitter, The New York Times and MySpace.

But Wait, There’s More: a remote with built in Qwerty Keyboard, and it runs on Bluetooth. Very nice along side the 802.11n WiFi.

According to Gizmodo (also image credit) the line up will start in two TVs this fall, eventually expanding to Vizio’s entire XVT line.

Cheap televisions with kick ass internet access. WIN. Now if only they’d make PAL versions so I could import one.

Last Minute Deal Keeps Viacom Content on Time Warner Cable

Duncan Riley — Thu, 01 Jan 2009 11:23:53 +0000

Time Warner Cable has reached a last minute deal with Viacom Inc. on carriage fees, avoiding a blackout of 19 cable channels to around 15 million customers.

Channels that would have disappeared from the United State’s second largest cable provider included Comedy Central, Logo, BET, Spike, TV Land, Nick at Nite, Nickelodeon, Noggin, The N, Nick Jr., TEENick, MTV, VH1, MTV2, CMT and Palladia.

The channels were expected to be pulled at midnight January 1. Viacom has been asking viewers to lobby Time Warner to come to a deal.

Details of the agreement are said to still be finalized, but reports suggest that Time Warner has agreed to the high rates demanded by Viacom.