TV Networks Block Google TV from Web Content

why would they do that? to keep people from progressing to new tech? if you can watch it on a regular PC, and regular tv, why not an internet capable tv? i dont get it.

These are the throws of an industry that sees the end. Just like the Fox network ordeal with Cablevision. They are trying to save their industry, but are actually going to speed up the transition to ala carte programming. If they keep going down this path they will meet the same end as the music industry.

We'll see for how long, and if they don't agree on anything, someone else will make it happen through a crack, a hack, or wherever creativity takes them. Is not like restrictions are 100% secure.

I can't blame the networks for trying to survive; however, I can't wait for Gtv (or similar product) to become mainstream.

I'm sorry but that was just a douchebag move by those networks.

Who watches network TV anymore, other than for sports....if they died tomorrow I don't think I would even notice, guess I am just ahead of the curve.

Just make GTV look like chrome to the network websites, problem solved.

I am in full agreement with you, I haven't seriously watched broadcast network tv in almost 8 years.

It is mindless drivel, and has nothing for me, but the same old tired formulas that are exactly what is going to end up killing them off.

I like the way Google responded. Very polite and understanding, something we don't see in corporations these days *cough* Apple.

Licensing. Control. Money. Simple.

google is acting so calmly about the subject because the move is no way near from stoping gtv from progressing, i also think that google can force some sense into them. lol "negotiate" is the politically correct term.

Toms, you have to come to grips with the spam being posted here on your sites.

It is ruining a great experience...

seems to me that google made this a problem by picking a unique user agent for google tv. simply changing the user agent to pretend to be, say, internet explorer on windows, would solve this right away and would be incredibly trivial to do.

Apple is paying big bucks to offer the same shows for a fee. Google was trying to get it for free. Now it looks like the networks have gone money hungry. Lame.

And the Cable companies say they can not offer ala carte because of technical and bandwidth issues which is BS. We have Bright House Networks in Orlando Florida and right now they are switching channel lineups so we have 2-3 sets of the same channels, thats right and they are also using an IP system that detects which show you want, then retrieves the show in real time, just like your PC and the internet. This is already in place for all channels. So bringing ala carte and paying for only the channels you want to watch would be no problem, EXCEPT these cable companies do not want to part from the money they will lose by offering you USELESS bundles of channels you never watch. We pay $135 for internet and cable and watch 10 channels of a package of about 150 channels (lowest package offered). 10 CHANNELS !!!!

I don't get what these broadcast networks gain from this move? It seems like allowing their shows to be available via GTV would just increase their audience base (i.e. there's no difference between watching their shows on your laptop or GTV - its basically watching over the Internet).

They would still make the advertising revenue from all those insidious embedded commercials from every episode viewed. I mean, if its about the money, who's currently paying them for watching their episodes over the Internet from say, a laptop or desktop computer? Whats the difference?

The networks obviously feel threatened by Google. I would too if I were still implementing an outdated media technology.

The big 3 major networks and Fox have always been that way about their programming. They think nothing of blocking their shows from a cable or sat. company if they aren't being paid royalties by them.. Of course the Irony to this is, that you can opt out of the local channels on most sat. tv packs, and even some cable tv packs, and if you've got the motivation to go out and do it, you can go to wally world or another place and buy a simple outdoor Antenna and still get them Over the air for regular digital and QAM HD local channels.

The problem with this whole thing is, from what I can see, is Google tv requires you to have a broadband connection. Which implies that you already have either digital cable + internet. Or, Satellite TV + DSL through one of the major phone companies..... Which means they're already getting royalties through one of those sources for you to watch their channels.... Which means they're double dipping.

i don't think this is very legal. They are blocking access to their websites to a specific piece of hardware and/or browser. What's to stop the networks from blocking access to Firefox users if they sign a deal with Microsoft for IE? What's to stop them from blocking access to HP computers if they sign a promo deal with Dell or Apple? This sets a bad precedent and is entirely anti-Net Neutrality. I would expect an FCC investigation soon.

I bet websites like project free tv and surf the channel still work. Also, how is this different from watching their websites on HTPCs?

You guys have it all wrong. FCC isn't going to do anything because no laws have been broken. The content owners are will within their legal rights to block certian viewers from seeing it. There are exceptions to the rule such as PBS.

You also have to remember the big networks are in business to make money for themselves and the advertisters. If neither can make money then there is no point in being in business, right?

There is no such thing as free lunch. Somebody has to pay for it as there are expenses involved.

Darkk

Perhaps you've forgotten what copyright is? They OWN it, they PAID to have it made, they can do what they want with it. Most of the programs you are downloading off youtube and other such sites, stripped of commercials, are illegal copies. Just because you've gotten comfortable with breaking the law doesn't make it legal, or right.

Actually a number of cable companies are building up to an ala carte pricing structure that is already being tested by employees. It actually saves bandwidth because what is happening right now is that all channels are constantly broadcast to you 24/7, so what is being planned right now is an adaptive system where the most commonly watched channels in a given market will be continuously broadcast, and that will be part of the "basic package" deal, and anything else will remain off of the stream unless requested by the user, allowing people to choose what additional channels they want in a better way freeing up more than 3/4 of the bandwidth being used. So your claim of companies saying "it takes to much bandwidth" is absolute bunk.




Actually you don't need television services to get internet. There are many people who have internet without video because they just access the content they want online. And satellite companies don't provide internet, they just have a deal with local phone companies to bundle their service to compete with the cable bundle. In fact, the CEO of DirecTV says he'd be interested in a partnership with cable companies to bundle cable internet with satellite television.




Unless it's a publicly supported channel (as in PBS like a previous poster stated), they can block access to their content all they want. Also, you clearly don't understand what net neutrality is if you're using the term in this context. Net neutrality is about the issue of internet providers giving preferential treatment in regards to access speeds between sites. Meaning if Verizon owns the backbone to the site you are trying to access and you're using a Cox connection, they can't limit you because you are trying to access the site from another provider.

In this case it is a site blocking an application from access, an application that is free, and an application they are not in any agreement with to provide content to. Well within their right to do so.

Faux News blocked, surely that is a win win situation for Google TV.

Wow, big leap. Why would I complain about how legal something is if I break the law myself. I do NOT go to YouTube or BitTorrent for shows, I go to Hulu, which is one of the sites blocked to Google TV (no, I don't own one).




Guess what, Net Neutrality isn't something the ISPs are doing without the buy-in of the content providers. No, the ISPs are not blocking access to GoogleTV, but these content providers are showing a clear desire to exclude certain members of the public from their content (and not just those who don't pay or are underage).

These networks feel some sort of danger from GoogleTV (not sure why, its just an internet browser like everything else). Imagine if they blocked the PS3 or XBox 360 from viewing these sites. Oh wait, I forgot that Microsoft already worked out a deal with Hulu to display their content. I guess it's already started hasn't it? GoogleTV provides a "free" way to display Hulu content on your TV. The XBox 360 requires a paid Live! account to view Hulu on your TV, and I'll bet real cash money that Hulu and the networks get a cut of that everytime a 360 user accesses Hulu.

Now, Hulu is starting a premium service, are they not? If, at that time, they don't allow GoogleTV users to display content with a paid account, we'll know something sinister is going on.

Still, I view Hulu on my TV for free thanks to the PC I have connected.

More ways these oligarchies are hindering the constant advancement of technology. Shame on you, networks.

It's not that.
The networks are happy for you to watch old shows in full, notably ones that have already had a pretty good run and even some that have hit nationwide syndication.

But these are all individual users watching for personal use.
What Google is doing is almost like redistribution for business.

Local terrestrial stations have to pay for syndication of content, therefore so does Google, you may think it is no differant than a PC allowing people to watch streaming TV but a PC is not sold as an Internet TV appliance, whereas GoogleTV is solely that.

so... it still plays thier episode, they still play thier couple commertials with direct advertisment, so they get money ... yet they aren't happy because its accesed from the tv not the computer.. yes i get it they dpon't get sas much money but they are still getting paid

Easy fix:

Open the vid on a computer and stream your screen across the network using VLS (VLC's server counterpart) GoogleTV should be able to pick that up. Kinda screws up remote control though

Looks like GoogleTV won't be able to replace my HTPC after all.

Again, you have no idea what Net Neutrality is about. It is not about content providers, it is purely about the ISP's blocking certain types of data traffic (P2P, FTP, and gaming traffic), or restricting those types of traffic. It isn't about PC A not wanting to give access to PC B, it's about the moderator of communication not wanting to give PC B access to PC A because of either the type of traffic, or the network PC B is coming from. It is about everyone getting the same Quality of Service (aka speed) as everyone else regardless of the application or data types they use. It has nothing to do with content providers blocking content, at all.

Network neutrality is the principle that Internet users should be in control of what content they view and what applications they use on the Internet. The Internet has operated according to this neutrality principle since its earliest days... Fundamentally, net neutrality is about equal access to the Internet. In our view, the broadband carriers should not be permitted to use their market power to discriminate against competing applications or content. Just as telephone companies are not permitted to tell consumers who they can call or what they can say, broadband carriers should not be allowed to use their market power to control activity online.
—Guide to Net Neutrality for Google Users

This issue here has nothing to do with the ISP's, it's not saying, "Comcast is blocking Google TV's from accessing NBC, ABC, etc.'s content" or "AT&T is blocking its subscribers from using GoogleTV to view internet programming", it is saying the content provider themself is blocking access to a certain application or device which is well within their rights.

Using Xbox Live as an example is a gross mistake to make as well. Saying "Well I can't access this person's content because of Microsoft, NET NEUTRALITY!" is a statement made out of ignorance. You are not connecting to the internet at large through your Xbox360, you are using an application that is connecting to a closed garden network, that provides a specific service for a specific purpose. There had to be a deal to be made because Microsoft had to design an application with the provider (Hulu in your argument) so that their customers could access the service, because the 360 doesn't have a web browser. Companies have to do the same thing with internet enabled blu-ray players and televisions.

The arguments you make reek of the typical anti-corporate conspiracy theorist BS spouted by people who really don't know what their talking about, but want to use the latest slang words to sound smart.

"All three networks confirmed that the TV shows from their websites will not play on Google TV because they have been blocked."

That line says it all.

Who cares whether you view it on a htpc, gtv, desktop, laptop, phone or other device? If it is on their website for free viewing there is no point to this besides bad publicity. All the gtv seems to do is take all the content and make it easier to access.

I'm sure google will figure out a way to set things straight.