Have you wondered why you can't stream certain programs even on their own networks' websites without proving you pay for cable or satellite? It boils down to how they adjust the value of the advertising dollar. On TV it's based on the old-fashioned "Nielson" rating--the audience, how many people watch a show. The more of an audience a program has, the more valuable the advertising space and the more the network can charge for that space. As Madeline5 points out, many of the networks are now outright owned by Comcast and Time-Warner, etc., so they have a direct stake in limiting online streaming coverage by successful competitors (like Netflix and Hulu). Until their business model is updated and online programming has the same weight as television, ads sold for streaming programming won't produce the same revenue. It's the dollar that matters and right now everything is skewed to favor the "old guard",ie, television broadcast services(cable/satellite/network).
The best course of action to fight this is to directly contact cable providers, satellite companies and of course the network and television producers and complain. Flood them with letters, emails, and twitters, letting them know why you don't want cable and want the freedom to watch your programming online (and downloaded). We also need to demand the ability to record these shows and watch them on any device. Doing so is perfectly legal (like the VCR).Corporations DO pay attention to "letter-writing" campaigns. It is also important to realize that we WANT to keep the ad-supported model. It worked successfully for decades with FREE over-the-air broadcast services, and helps support providers like Hulu. Believe me, they'd have to charge much more if not for ads.
A lot of people say they'd prefer an ala carte system, picking and choosing networks or programs that they actually watch (presumably PAYING separately for each one), but we really don't want to do that. First of all, it would limit your exposure to new and risky or possibly even experimental programming. More importantly though, we'd wind up paying a LOT more for content than we do now. Successful shows and networks help support those with more limited audiences. As expensive as cable is, think about how much we actually pay for each individual show--even if you don't watch it.
Now, imagine if you had to pay Amazon prices for EACH of those shows. Forever. It is to our benefit to support the ad model and put up with the bundles, just encourage better bundles. Someone is watching that fishing channel...even if it isn't you; if not, the networks wouldn't pay for it. To get an idea of how this might work: CBS is offering their own network app for $5/mo. That doesn't seem too bad on the surface, but compare that to HuluPlus for $8. Doesn't seem like that much of a bargain in comparison does it? Especially considering the limited number of current programs on CBS. Let's say you only watch the major broadcast networks-CBS,ABC,NBC,Fox, that's $20/mo and you still aren't getting full access and are still stuck with shows you don't watch. Hulu is a bargain that it is to our benefit to support this kind of business model.
SlingTV has just present a new option for $20/mo which allows access to a limited bundle (including sports channels) of LIVE television (as it plays). It's an interesting development but I won't be signing up for it as it doesn't offer major networks--and it is LIVE ONLY (no past episodes, etc) This option fails to utilize any of the advantages of the internet viewing(really missing the point), but it may be an early sign of things to come. Still, they keep trying to duplicate the old linear way of watching tv and ignore how the industry has been revolutionized--we've gone far beyond the time-shifting of old VCRS; with our computers, streaming and multiple devices everywhere. They still think they can control HOW we watch our shows. They even tell Hulu for example, which devices we can watch which show on, which is ridiculous! Why? What is exactly the point of that?
I'd much rather see the networks support existing options such as HuluPlus (and other options like Roku, etc.) rather than compete in thier far more expensive and limited way. The only way existing conglomerates like Comcast can win is if they continue to squeeze out these other options like Hulu and we have to show them that's not going to work. They are deliberately trying to undermine these types of services--as their own dissatisfied customers cut cable; drive out Hulu and the like, then they dive in (further expanding their monopoly) and raise prices--just as they have with cable. The only way we can stop them is to tell them we don't like what they're doing, and we aren't going to pay for it--and DON'T pay for it if they don't support providers like Hulu!
reply
share