Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
The Internet Media Television Businesses

CBS Moving To Syndication Across the Internet 71

Posted by Zonk from the don't-come-to-us-we'll-come-to-you dept.
An anonymous reader writes "The Wall Street Journal takes a look at the new online media strategy being rolled out by CBS. Just over a year ago they rolled out their 'Innertube' service on the CBS website. The streaming video offering allowed viewers to watch sports and reruns directly on the web, but required potential consumers to view the video on CBS.com. That didn't work, even a little bit. So, they've learned their lesson: 'The company plans to pursue a drastically revised strategy that involves syndicating its entertainment, news and sports video to as much of the Web as possible. It represents a stark departure for the TV industry. Most of CBS's major competitors, including Walt Disney Co.'s ABC, General Electric Co.'s NBC Universal and News Corp.'s Fox, are to some degree all betting that they can build their own Internet video portals. Starting this week, an expanded menu of CBS's video content will be available for free to consumers on as many as 10 different Web sites ranging from Time Warner Inc.'s AOL to Joost Inc., a buzzy online video service that is just rolling out. The company calls its new venture the CBS Interactive Audience Network.' This new push is tied into a new advertising strategy, which is covered in-depth in the article."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

CBS Moving To Syndication Across the Internet More

CBS Moving To Syndication Across the Internet

Comments Filter:
  • Doesn't basically every other network already offer this?

    • Re:The last horse crosses the finish line (Score:5, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 14, 2007 @06:47AM (#19111979)
      Name 1? Most networks are trying to create their own portals. Largely because, as they mention in the article, they all have huge cable channels to support as well. This is something that CBS is relatively free of since they only have one (or two) cable networks to their name.

      Instead of investing potentially millions into creating their own service, they are going to offer programs for syndication to various sites on the web. It sounds to me like they are holding to a traditional idea of selling shows, but instead of selling them to cable networks, they are going to sell them to the internet media channels for distribution through the internet (probably as streaming feeds).

      So actually, this is actually a first in a way and not a last. Good job with RTFA.

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by CastrTroy ( 595695 )

        investing potentially millions

        I think that most networks have have invested way more than millions in these internet portals. hire 20 people (which isn't a lot for these large corporations), and you're probably already spending over 1 million dollars. Money for servers, bandwidth, and all the other hosting fees (electicity, heating, building maintenance costs), and i'm sure that they've spent a whole lot more than necessary, and haven't really gotten much out of it. I think this is a great approach for CB

  • Some things come to mind... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by GeorgiaCodeMonkey ( 1101541 ) on Monday May 14, 2007 @06:35AM (#19111881)
    A couple things come to mind when I see stuff like this... #1, Cable TV and Satellite services are going to go extinct. (Good.) #2, As more and more networks start to "broadcast" online, ISPs are going to have their hands full. The move to cap users who download too much (too combat bittorrent) is going to have to stop. Quickly.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Rolgar ( 556636 )
      It looks like Apple TV and Google (with all of it's leased fiber and new data centers) might be moving the source of the files locally, so your ISP won't have to pay fees to the Tier II for sharing content, thus lowering your ISP's cost to allow you to download the content. The only real obstacle to this is cable companies which are some of the biggest ISP's will be losing high paying Digital subscribers to lower cost Internet only packages.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by yabos ( 719499 )
      Until I can stream multiple HD channels/shows at once, Satellite and Cable TV isn't going anywhere.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Cleon ( 471197 )
        Well, sure, it's not going to happen overnight. But bandwidth is only going up, not down--it's really just a matter of time.

  • Intertubes (Score:1, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Great, now I have to deal with a bunch of fat beer-drinking rednecks floating by and clogging up my interweb tubes, too!

    Thanks CBS. Thanks a lot.
  • All of these approaches are already out of date. They should recognise broadcatching, and move to it, ASAP, if they want to be ahead of the competition. As it is, the competition of small, independent producers is already far ahead of the big guys.
  • Innertube? COME ON! What images come to mind? There's imagry associated with water and there's the image of the flat tire. Did they think about this?

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by karnal ( 22275 )
      You think they really thought it through to call it the CBS Interactive Audience (CIA) Network?

      Oh the fun..
    • Well, after all the Internet is just a bunch of tubes that Al Gore invented, right???

      Or maybe they were trying to make a reference to the outdated technology of Tube (CRT) televisions... Is anyone (in their right mind) buying CRT televisions anymore?

      Let the tubes die.

      • Or maybe they were trying to make a reference to the outdated technology of Tube (CRT) televisions... Is anyone (in their right mind) buying CRT televisions anymore?

        Your right, and it's a terrible choice to use the word "tube". Just look at how unsuccessful YouTube is.

  • Thank you! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by copponex ( 13876 ) on Monday May 14, 2007 @06:46AM (#19111965) Homepage
    I hardly watch any television. The days of sitting around and waiting for your favorite show to come on are simply over, and I don't want to spend $40 a month plus $15 a month for Tivo just for the pleasure. It's simply not worth it.

    Instead of litigating viewers and websites, it appears CBS may "get it." I hope they follow through with their plan without a team of lawyers getting a hold of it and ruining it entirely. CBS should be congratulated, and we should all vote with our eyes and reward them for recognizing that the Internet has changed entirely the meaning and value of media distribution.

    And I must say, it's about time American companies stopped trying to sue their way to success and innovate instead. Real business leadership needs to return to our economy before there's nothing left but corporations suing each other over worthless patents and dead ideas.

    • Flip side (Score:2, Insightful)

      by packetmon ( 977047 )
      On the flip side of the coin... Take into the consideration the fact that not everyone is Internet Savvy enough to watch TV via their machines. For broadcasting companies to think I will sit down on my monitor and watch television there is absurd. For one, me personally, my flat screen has a bigger and better picture. Secondly bear in mind not everyone has a high speed connection, so just because companies are throwing fiber to the home, it doesn't mean that everyone will be jumping on the bandwagon. Not to
      • But if the options are either over-the-air, for people who aren't paying, or $40 for cable, plus $40 for internet, for those who do pay, I think that you could get a lot of people moving to $60 for faster internet, and cutting the cable bill. Provided they made it easy to put the image full screen on your tv via s-video out, or some wireless box that connects to your router, I think that broadcast cable tv as we know it could be gone if 50 years. Which is a pretty short time considering how ubiquitous it
        • Here is the issue with that... Networks suck at times. How would you feel if you're paying $60.00 per month but the connection between broadcaster and your provider keeps having issues? Its not similar to cable in the sense that the only issues you would have with cable would be with the provider. You could call them bitch and moan. Try calling them because some backbone went down [merit.edu] and see what they'll tell you. So while you wait for someone outside your cable company to fix their network, I will bitch and m
          • The difference with tv not on broadcast is that you'd most likely be able to get the same show from several different sources. So if part of the network is down, then you'd still be able to watch the same show from some other online distributor. If something was wrong with part of the network that was out of the internet provider's control, and all their customers (or a significant percentage) were complaining, I'm sure they'd put a lot of pressure on whoever is in control to get the content back up.
          • People still cling to the idea that you have to watch a stream in real time. That idea is as quaint as televison = three networks. People mostly watch about 10 to 15 hours of TV a week. Some more, some less. People who watch lots of TV tend to be poorer and have less disposable income. People who watch less than 10 hours a week would typically be willing to pay for the content to avoid commercials.

            There is already enough capacity to stream in 15 hours worth of DVD quality TV over the course of one week t

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by shmlco ( 594907 )
              "There is already enough capacity to stream in 15 hours worth of DVD quality TV over the course of one week to your hard disk over simple broadband."

              So? It would still be much, much, much more efficient to multicast a stream at a given time and have your system record it if it's one you want to watch. You may WATCH it at any time, but content is still produced and released to a schedule.

              • Re: (Score:2)

                by Yvan256 ( 722131 )
                So what, it does need to be made in the first place, you can't work around that. On the upside, if you subscribe to a podcast you CAN'T miss it, unless someone decides to remove it from the server.

            • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

              by badasscat ( 563442 )
              People still cling to the idea that you have to watch a stream in real time. That idea is as quaint as televison = three networks. People mostly watch about 10 to 15 hours of TV a week. Some more, some less. People who watch lots of TV tend to be poorer and have less disposable income.

              Elitist and completely untrue. The average US household watches 8 hours of TV per day - that's about five times more than you seem to think. Here's a reference (PDF link) [nielsenmedia.com].

              Moreover, there's nothing "quaint" about watching TV
              • Of the people I know close to my age (twentysomethings), none of them subscribe to cable/satellite television. A good percentage of them don't even *own* televisions. Of the people I know close to my parents age (late fourties to fifties) all of them do.

                Now, one could argue that economics might play a factor, but it's a small one at most. There's a fair mix of income levels between the two groups. The elder group always finds money to pay for cable/satellite, but the younger group tends not to start subscri

              • Re: (Score:2)

                by Mr2001 ( 90979 )

                DVR owners still watch a hell of a lot of live TV. The point of a DVR is not to enable you not to watch shows that are on while you're watching TV; the point of a DVR is to allow you to watch shows when you otherwise couldn't.

                Since I bought a TiVo, I barely ever watch live TV. Why would I want to flip through the guide, desperately looking for something to watch, when I've got hundreds of hours of recorded shows I know I like? Why would I even want to remember what time my shows are on when TiVo does it for me? Why would I want to sit through a commercial break with no way to fast-forward?

                I think the people who have a DVR but still watch a lot of live TV are mainly either new owners who haven't set up enough series recordings y

              • Nielsen is biased. It will exaggerate the amount of TV watched. Most people turn the tv on in the morning only to catch the weather reports and let it run providing a general background noise.

                The report you cited is from 2005.

                Even if they are home by 8PM, they might not watch what the networks are pushing at 8PM. They might easily watch the previous day's prime time show or a movie from the previous weekend. Channels like BBC, TVland, AMC, TCM run old classics in marathon sessions. "24 hours of Gunsmoke"

            • Radio has only survived by broadcasting into cars, where people want a simple, free, no management music stream that doesn't impact their ability to drive. TV can't do that.
          • I already pay that much, and it feels crummy. I fucking HATE comcast! Second only to the assholes who gave them a monopoly on cable.
          • If you have to bitch and moan just because your cable is out. Do something else.
    • You're right. Waiting for TV is over. But the price isn't as bad as they would lead you to believe...

      $65/mo is what Tivo wants you to believe. For $0 a month I have a ReplayTV (with lifetime activation and commercial skip) and for $9/mo I get basic analog cable*. That's more than enough to fill all my free time with TV that I care to.

      * But they give me extended digital cable for free, because they cannot be bothered to filter it out.

  • Sending TV shows through the inner tubes has been patented by MS or possibly Daryl McBride. User beware!

  • Youtube? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by moxjake ( 557231 ) <jpbower@NospaM.mtu.edu> on Monday May 14, 2007 @07:02AM (#19112085) Journal
    That entire article remains silent on Youtube. I would think if they're going to put it on THE video site on the web, the article would mention it. Seems a bit silly to distribute to 10+ media sites with almost zero market penetration when you can distribute to one big site.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by yabos ( 719499 )
      Youtube would be junk for actual TV shows. Flash longer than about 2 mins has audio sync issues. It would never work unless they encode in something more reliable like MPEG-4 or H.264.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Dan Ost ( 415913 )
        I thought this issue had been resolved in recent versions. Perhaps they only improved it such that I no longer notice it (don't watch a lot of flash video).
    • They don't want to deal with Youtube because they want to sell the advertising, and keep the ~90% share of it.

      It's just a gradual step from:
      1. Control everything (Portal)
      2. Control the advertising but not the distribution (CBS making deals with partners)
      3. Let others control advertising and distribution for a kickback (Youtube model, which they are all panicked about)
      4. Give it away for promotion

      What seems strange to me is that I can't get a torrent of Survivor with advertising, only one without advertising

  • Joost: We Pwn Your Puter (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Coriolis ( 110923 ) on Monday May 14, 2007 @07:55AM (#19112587)

    (Alternatively, "In Soviet Russia, Joost watches YOU")

    The Joost EULA allows them carte blanche to install whatever they like on your machine, and makes it a contractual violation to interfere with it, its settings or its network traffic. That doesn't seem compatible with anti-virus or firewalls (which I imagine invalidates that aspect of the contract instantly, but IANAL and I digress). They swear that they anonymise all collected viewing habit information before passing it onto advertisers, but then again, they can change the EULA, TOS and PP at will. Again, probably invalid, but IANAL.

    They state quite clearly that they will be using your bandwidth to communicate with other computers running their software. Obviously, because it's a P2P app. But this isn't Skype, with a relatively small amount of traffic. This is video, distributed P2P. That's going to eat my bandwidth, and probably be dog slow to boot.

    This isn't what I want. I'm not sure this is what anyone wants, at least in their target early-adopter group. Who wants ad-supported content, for which I'm paying a variable, uncontrollable amount? Give me ad-free, DRM-free, fairly priced content that I can download direct, thanks. Too much bandwidth? Well, invest in a content distribution network, or keep poking ISPs in the side until they sort out multicast.

    Meh.

  • Finally! (Score:3, Insightful)

    by MMC Monster ( 602931 ) on Monday May 14, 2007 @08:16AM (#19112787)
    One of the networks is starting to get it.

    All CBS has to do to make money off this is have advertising in a corner of the screen or just have regular commercial interruptions as usual. Some people will skip the commercials, just like how they do it with VCR tapes, but if the commercials are engaging enough, people will forget. Having a scrolling line of text commercials at the bottom of the screen works as well (remember, since this is not a TV screen, the video can still be 16:9 or 4:3 and still have a small bar at the bottom of the screen with the text commercials without impeding on the video.)
    • > All CBS has to do to make money off this is have advertising in a corner of the screen

      Right on. thenewsroom [thenewsroom.com] is one of those content distribution sites, and the beauty of it is that you can do things like create a custom feed of Coast Guard videos [blogs.com] and you'll get the latest content both from CBS and from other content providers. The videos are of pretty high quality and the ads aren't too long. Ditto for text content [blogs.com], too, except it's a static ad and thus doesn't take up any time.

      Disclaimer: I'm worki

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by ukemike ( 956477 )
      Okay so they get it, but is there anything worth watching on CBS? I honestly don't know since I got rid of my TV 2 years ago, and rarely watched the networks before then.
      • I like Numb3rs well enough for me to give this stuff a try. Assuming they make it available outside the US...something their Innertube service never did.
  • I have a mild Letterman habit. Will I be able to watch last night's show on Joost, or will I get a message saying that my IP address is outside the US and I am therefore unable to watch due to copyright and licensing restrictions? I know which one my money's on.
  • Hey CBS and others,

    Drop the streaming all together and post your current line up and the good shows that you keep replacing with crap reality and game shows at the iTunes store. Yes, I know that you are doing this for some already; just post the rest. Streaming quality is never going to be as good an experience as is watching a show on my TV by way of my iPod. Streaming playback is even worse for those of us without a well equipped computer, and there are a lot of people in my boat.

    Also for CBS... I'd l
    • I agree and do it in H.264 HD while they are at it. After the shift to all HD equipment I don't want to back down to SD streaming. The Xbox market place stuff is a good start (though not in Canada yet), but it has the fatal flaw of being stored on the Xbox. If only you could download the same from windows marketplace, then store it on the PC with loads of disk space and then watch it on any copy of WMP or 360 MS would have a killer on their hands.
  • All joking aside - and quite seriously - will it run in a web browser on Linux? I'd rather not have a TV and be able to get to video clips (like the President's State of the Union address) over the Internet. Last I checked, the major networks (CBS, ABC, AOL, etc.) were using tech that relied on Windows Media Puke to play, thus I couldn't watch it from my Linux PC. (Even Yahoo! does that with their YouTube/GoogleVideo equivalent, so I stay away from it.) Really that is probably part of the success behind YouTube and GoogleVideo - it runs on any platform without a problem. Running Mac? No problem. Running Linux? No problem. Running Windows? No problem.

    So, will CBS's new syndication system run on Linux? If so, great - I'll be there to watch it. If not, too bad; guess I'll have to wait.
    • When's the last time you checked? The two that I've used both have Flash video players (CBS and NBC).

      • When's the last time you checked?

        Specifically - CBS - it's been a while; I had a TV this year (my wife wanted it), but I had checked around for the 2006 State of the Union, and none of them offered anything that was watchable under Linux at that time. I believe I have checked since, but not necessarily CBS, and had the same issue arise. Great to hear CBS and NBC using a Flash Video Player. I still stand by my original comment though - just because this gen of tech does, doesn't mean that the next will too

    • I watched a few of CBS's shows from kbuntu, on my notebook over wireless without issue (that I am aware of). I've found it very helpful for a few shows I missed that I did not record (my mistake). I really don't understand the issue with going to cbs.com to see the shows that cbs created, it made it easy for me to find and watch the shows I missed. I knew they were cbs shows. Also there we few ads, fewer then were present from the over the air broadcast. - Justin

    • Last I checked, the major networks (CBS, ABC, AOL, etc.) were using tech that relied on Windows Media Puke to play
      When exactly was the last time you checked? For the last few months I've been using CBS's Innertube to watch Jericho just fine on my Macbook. It uses Realplayer and about all the software you need. It can use Windows Media player if you have it but it doesn't need it.

      • When exactly was the last time you checked? For the last few months I've been using CBS's Innertube to watch Jericho just fine on my Macbook. It uses Realplayer and about all the software you need. It can use Windows Media player if you have it but it doesn't need it.

        See here [slashdot.org], though, your comment makes me think that they are may be deciding what to use on a per-show basis...which would just be odd, inefficient, and would still go back to my original comment...can anybody confirm? I'll check tonight when

      • When exactly was the last time you checked?

        I checked some last night and again tonight. I even installed the latest Flash player, but got denied access to FoxNews, NBC, and CBS shows. Oddly, though, they all wanted me to install the latest flash player. Looking at the page source for the FoxNews page, it relied on VBScript to determine the player version (through an active X control) but otherwise used JavaScript. I did not check why CBS's or NBC's site would not run it. So, I am still out from being able

  • One thing i'm sure will not change... As soon as a CBS video ends up on a website not of their choosing (youtube) BAM!, DMCA take-down notice. I can just about guarantee it.
  • The relatively recent explosion of P2P filesharing and user content sites like Youtube created a new and (mostly) unregulated means of delivering media to the masses. This is a threat to the technologically antiquated business models of the big traditional media conglomerates and it scared them senseless. The difference I see here is that CBS is trying to adjust their business model around the new "paradigm" (sorry, I couldn't come up with a better word), while the RIAA/MPAA is trying to fight it to save th
  • I guess the Internet really is a series of tubes:

    • YouTube
    • InnerTube
    • BoobTube
    • iTubes

    etc.
  • It's pretty easy to see that there aren't a lot of Slashdot users who care about television programming - check out the number of people commenting here vs. the teachers putting the students through a gun scare debate. Personally I don't watch TV, I use one as a graphical output for my DVD player. Judging by the response to this article, I'd be willing to say that I'm not alone.

Slashdot Top Deals

I do not fear computers. I fear the lack of them. -- Isaac Asimov

Close