IVI-TV FAILS TO DELIVER PHILADELPHIA & ANTENNA TV

[OhioMediaWatch]

But you're still running up against syndex, as mnradiofan pointed out.

There are market-based broadcast rights to programming, period, as much as you'd like that not to be the case.

It's the same reason they had to black out a lot of programming from some of the cable superstations. It's the same reason "WGN America" in 2011 shares almost no programming with WGN-TV Chicago, save for a few news broadcasts and some sports where they have the rights (Cubs, etc.).

In Ivi.tv's case. they were not exercising syndex protection at ALL. They were channeling the signals lock, stock and picture straight to your computer. I'm not at all surprised that the rightsholders came at Ivi.tv with pitchforks - the plaintiffs in the suit include just about every major network and group, along with the commissioner of Major League Baseball (!).

Look, it's cool, we know you liked it, but reality struck Ivi.tv straight in the face.

Could some alternative pop up, perhaps from major cable companies? Sure. They're already on that path, as Time Warner Cable ships the ESPN networks (to video subscribers) online. And the cable companies are working on TV Anywhere, which would do so on a broader basis - again, to existing subscribers.

But it doesn't mean using the Internet to ship a broadcast signal from another market to your home is ever going to work. Well, short of Slingbox, which has only survived because the device limits its streaming to one-at-a-time from an existing video source. And the sports leagues, especially, are still not happy with that.

 

[mnradiofan]

And can you imagine the time that would take and what the outcome would have been. Nobody would have said yes.

IVI invented a new "toaster" or took the "toaster" where it had never gone before. I call that progress.

Cable TV had to put up the same fight when they first came out. Noooo you can't do that with our
signals, the stations said. IVI was not 100% or even 80% right, but I can't blame them for wanting to take out their new toaster and show it off.

NOW YOU SAY.....streaming is not a new toaster, it's been around awhile. Sure, but nobody has streamed 55 broadcast stations all at once before and from 4 cities.......that's where the progress comes in.

I'll agree that it attempted progress, but it did so by spitting in the face of broadcasters, lawmakers, and content providers. Yes, cable did the same thing, and it too was pulled back a bit, if you recall, by syndex, and also by sports blackout restrictions. ivi.tv made no attempt to work with rights holders, no attempt to block out of market content that it didn't have national rights for (such as NFL, NBA, MLB, and other sports, hence the reason MLB was involved), etc. If they had done some of those things, I might have SOME empathy for them, but they did nothing. They flat out stole the content to make a profit off of it. The broadcasters, and content owners, asked ivi to stop, but ivi again refused to do so, so the courts became involved.

I think it would be cool too, to watch any TV channel from any market, for a low monthly fee. But, as long as the content providers are making money, and the consumers are paying it, it won't happen. MLB knows this, hence the reason they introduced an online package, same with NFL. And, as is usually the case, demand will set the prices. If the price is too high, consumers will walk away and the price will become lower.

 

[gregg75]

I respect your opinions and see where you are coming from. I just think it's time to put
the power back into the people's hands (instead of cable/satellite providers). Just because
this is the way things have been done for so long doesn't make it right. There does come a
time when change is necessary, things need to be modified and updated and this may be one
of them.

Should the post office have cried FOWL when people started using email? It has certainly had
an impact on them. No. There comes a time when old rules are reviewed and changes are made,
mostly in order to the benefit of the consumer.

So the choices are to continue paying the corporate monsters or to give the power to the people.

 

[Robnoxious]

They lasted a bit longer than I had pegged. 54 days to be exact. I never thought ivi would see the light of 2011.

 

[OhioMediaWatch]

So the choices are to continue paying the corporate monsters or to give the power to the people.

All the populist rhetoric - which is being used by the Ivi.tv people, by the way! - will not change the fact that the "corporate monsters" have rights to their programming, and that this system circumvents some of those rights.

And Ivi.tv was making money off that content.

 

[KeithE4]

Should the post office have cried FOWL when people started using email? It has certainly had an impact on them. No. There comes a time when old rules are reviewed and changes are made, mostly in order to the benefit of the consumer.

The stations, networks, and/or program producers own their content and have 100% right to decide how it's distributed.

The post office doesn't own the mail you send through their system. You own that mail and have 100% right decide how it's sent - via USPS, FedEx, UPS, or email. IVI and the cable companies are kinda like the post office. They are carriers. They have rights to nothing that they themselves don't create. Cable companies pay (and of course, as a result, we pay) to distribute program content. IVI didn't.

So the choices are to continue paying the corporate monsters or to give the power to the people.

What part of "the 'corporate monsters' own what they produce, just like you and I own what we produce, and have sole rights as to how their content is distributed" is so difficult to understand? If you produce a TV show, then you can sell it, rent it, or give it away - your choice since you're the owner of the content. YouTube is filled with videos that are given away legally (and some that are not, but those eventually get taken down).

 

[Starbucks]

There is no way that even if this company can continue operating.....they will never have the right or consent to operate local stations especially network affiliates. The same thing happened to Primestar Satellite when I could get east coast feeds on the west coast, and local affiliates from over 12 cities, plus nearby markets that push waivers thru if you live just outside the 25 mile range. Then Prime Star was getting sued because it effected the local markets prime time commercials that broadcast during that time period. And I was done watching Saturday Night Live by 10:00 PM. (Live from the west coast). That's one of the main reasons they were bought and became Direct TV.

 

[ansky212]

So the choices are to continue paying the corporate monsters or to give the power to the people.

Based on your logic, you could produce your own TV show that you 100% own. The I come along and start broadcasting your TV show via my website and charging people to watch it, keeping all the proceeds for myself and paying you nothing. You would be ok with that? That's basically what IVI is doing.

 

[JeeperOne]

There is no way that even if this company can continue operating.....they will never have the right or consent to operate local stations especially network affiliates. The same thing happened to Primestar Satellite when I could get east coast feeds on the west coast, and local affiliates from over 12 cities, plus nearby markets that push waivers thru if you live just outside the 25 mile range. Then Prime Star was getting sued because it effected the local markets prime time commercials that broadcast during that time period. And I was done watching Saturday Night Live by 10:00 PM. (Live from the west coast). That's one of the main reasons they were bought and became Direct TV.

I predicted BACK WHEN IVI FIRST ROLLED OUT that their system as it stood was going to fail. Many of you (Some who STILL persist on getting A HOUSE FOR THE PRICE OF A SANDWICH today) were saying that I needed to (Basically put) "Lighten Up" & enjoy it while I could.

Well I did.

Now that IVI has been told to discontinue its domestic broadcasting until further notice, I don't think either of us can expect to be watching the news out of Chicago via any channel except WGN America anytime soon (Unless of course you live in the Chicago viewing area ).

That said, here's how I believe the new IVI TV will breakdown.....

BASIC PACKAGE Local & Foreign Channels

EXTENDED BASIC PACKAGE Basic Package PLUS Cable Channels NOT currently offered by your local cable provider

PREMIUM PACKAGE All Channels (Including those offered by your local cable provider) except those offered in the sports package & PPV channels (Price dependent on what channels you order)

SPORTS PACKAGE All online sports packages (Fees charged by the sports provider)

Of course, this would mean you would likely have to register with them but you have to do that now. It would also mean that your basic package would be dependent on the information provided in your billing profile as well.

But in this dog-eat-dog mobile world, IVI TV would also have to come up with phone apps so people can take IVI TV with them on the go (With the basic package changing if the user is roaming).

Having said all that, I'll still keep the IVI TV player on my computer as outside of maybe CCTV 9, I'm not very interested in the current lineup (ALL informercials ALL the time)

Just my opinion.....

Cheers

 

[gregg75]

Should the post office have cried FOWL when people started using email? It has certainly had an impact on them. No. There comes a time when old rules are reviewed and changes are made, mostly in order to the benefit of the consumer.

The post office doesn't own the mail you send through their system. You own that mail and have 100% right decide how it's sent - via USPS, FedEx, UPS, or email. IVI and the cable companies are kinda like the post office. They are carriers. They have rights to nothing that they themselves don't create. Cable companies pay (and of course, as a result, we pay) to distribute program content. IVI didn't.

Been away a few days......
The Post Office does OWN FIRST CLASS mail. That's why FedEx and UPS can only do overnight mail. You will never be able to mail a letter at either of them for 35 cents. And all the emails have had an
effect on first class volume.......as has online bill pay.......why mail granny a letter when you can email. Why didn't the government put a surcharge on emails? Because it was time to MOVE FORWARD.

I think Pat and a few others mentioned IVI broadcasting other people's content. Well, at least they were not adding their own commercial content (which cable and satellite constantly do). And the case is on appeal, there is still a small chance IVI could come out on top. Larry Flint took his case all the way to the Supreme Court and he eventually won. I have a feeling IVI may do the same. It ain't over yet.

 

[PTBoardOp94]

First Class Mail is only a name. I can certainly send a letter 2 day ground with UPS, but it will cost me more than 44 cents to do so.

This suit is over. The difference with Cable and Satellite companies is that they seek permission of the rightsholders, and typically pay them a fee in order to carry their content. If IVI was willing to pay a nickle a month per person to each of the local stations they offered, and was willing to abide by Syndex rules, they probably wouldn't be facing shutdown. But their very mission was to skirt Syndex (along with similar rules by the NFL and other sports leagues)

 

[gregg75]

Well go to UPS and tell them you want to send a first class letter for 44 cents. They would laugh you out the door.......BECAUSE ONLY THE POST OFFICE can mail a regular letter.

Just keep bowing to the corporate cable and satellite monsters......your bill will soon be over $100
a month for basic. THEN......you'll be wishing IVI was still around.

 

[OhioMediaWatch]

Well go to UPS and tell them you want to send a first class letter for 44 cents. They would laugh you out the door.......BECAUSE ONLY THE POST OFFICE can mail a regular letter.

There is no prohibition from "sending a letter" via FedEx and UPS and the like.

You can't hand them an envelope and send it for 44 cents, sure. But they even have larger "letter" envelopes, and would be happy to send it at whatever their regular rates are.

http://www.ups.com/content/us/en/resources/ship/packaging/supplies/envelopes.html

http://fedex.com/cn_english/tools/envelope.html

Again, if you tell them you want send a letter at 44 cents, you're right, they will "laugh at you".

 

[PTBoardOp94]

I've never paid a cable or satellite bill in my life, so I doubt I'll be begging for IVI to be back. Xfinity can't ever raise my rates

 

[ansky212]

Just keep bowing to the corporate cable and satellite monsters......your bill will soon be over $100
a month for basic. THEN......you'll be wishing IVI was still around.

You are missing the point. The only reason IVI was able to charge $4.99/mo. is because they were not paying the networks any broadcast rights fees. If they were doing things legally you would be seeing charges for IVI similar to what the cable companies charge. Cable and satellite prices keep going up because the carriage fees the networks charge keep going up. Why do you think IVI should not be subject to these same charges?

 

[mnradiofan]

I respect your opinions and see where you are coming from. I just think it's time to put
the power back into the people's hands (instead of cable/satellite providers). Just because
this is the way things have been done for so long doesn't make it right. There does come a
time when change is necessary, things need to be modified and updated and this may be one
of them.

Should the post office have cried FOWL when people started using email? It has certainly had
an impact on them. No. There comes a time when old rules are reviewed and changes are made,
mostly in order to the benefit of the consumer.

So the choices are to continue paying the corporate monsters or to give the power to the people.

If you want power, as others have pointed out, then you need to produce your own content. MOST of what we pay cable companies now goes directly back into paying for content. All one has to do is LOOK at the balance sheets of these companies to realize that, while they are making a profit, it's actually not much more on a percentage basis than profits made by other industries.

If that isn't good enough for you, then my second suggestion is that you start contacting programming providers and start negotiating rates and starting your own programming service. I'm almost willing to guarantee that, should they agree to allow you to carry their content, you will not be able to do so for LESS than what cable TV can do it for today. You're distaste for the "corporate monster" isn't misguided, and I've felt that way in the past before, but your looking at the wrong corporate monster. Look at broadcasters, and networks like ESPN, who all double-dip to pay for programming by charging the consumer AND the advertiser (and now they've also been able to add the third revenue stream of TV on DVD sales so we will pay for the content AGAIN). Or maybe you can get mad at the people who PRODUCE the programming for charging too much. Or the actors, writers, and production staff for getting paid too much. The list goes on and on.

 

[Starbucks]

Companies like IVI are the pirate radio stations or Limewire versions to the controlled cable/ satellite industry, and is the revolt tool to the consumer that all this doesn't have too cost so much and has the tools to operate like any major cable company providing as much or more content for less cost or free.
And the bottom line is is that they want to be sued so they can make major headlines, while building a quick customer base. Then comes the court negotiation stage, especially when you shut one down, another will pop on. Look at Napster. They were the leader from keeping recorded material like CD's going above the 20.00 cost for a few good songs you only wanted. That ended up to the pick and choose concept for a reasonable cost. It really didn't cost 20.00 to produce a CD in general especially when you bought the blank ones for as low as a $1.00 a piece.