Mark Cuban: It's Okay For Broadcasters To Block Access Based On Browsers, Because They're Making Billions

from the ok,-let's-tackle-this-one dept

Like many tech sites, we recently wrote about the fact that the various TV networks were discriminating based on the browser, blocking access to Google TV's browser, because they don't want people to watch the shows they're already giving away for free online on their TV (even though it's easy enough to just hook up a computer to a TV and watch via your preferred browser of choice). Marshall Kirkpatrick pointed us to the fact that Mark Cuban decided to respond to Newteevee's article on the subject, in which the author of the original article reasonably pointed out that this was a braindead strategy by the networks, who were shooting themselves in the foot.

Cuban called this analysis "moronic," noting that the networks are making billions in fees from cable and satellite companies, and why should they put that at risk:
What is at stake is the financial relationships between broadcast networks and tv providers and broadcast networks and their affiliates.

Broadcast nets are now getting BILLIONS of dollars from TV providers. Money they didnt get just 3 years ago. For some, just 2 years ago.

So in the last 24 months they take billions from tv providers (directv,comcast, etc) and you think its smart to give those customers of their the finger and offer the same product online ?

thats moronic
Now, that's a very similar argument to the one made by venture capitalist Bill Gurley earlier this year, who suggested that TV would beat the internet because of the amount of money the networks were making from cable and satellite providers. The amounts were just too high.

And while Mark Cuban is a billionaire owner of a TV network, I think he's blinded by his own prejudices here. Yes, it's true that the networks are making mad cash from cable and satellite TV providers. But the fallacy is believing that these numbers are sustainable and ignoring consumer preference. While the TV folks are living in a world of denial that people won't shift to using the internet to watch TV, consumers are actually moving away from expensive TV deals, and the more they do that, the less willing cable and satellite providers will be to pay huge dollar amounts for programming. The billions of dollars are a blip. A hugely profitable, impossible-to-want-to-lose blip but a blip nonetheless. It's not sustainable because it goes against what consumers want, and in the long term, it'll go away. The reason the billions of dollars are there is because consumers paid that money, but they're increasingly unhappy with what they're getting for it, and they'll increasingly seek alternatives, and then that billion dollars goes elsewhere.

In a separate blog post, Cuban complains that it's "the dumbest idea ever" that networks should give Google its shows for free. Except, um, that shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the situation. Google's not taking the shows. Google is providing a browser to the internet. The same thing that you could do with Firefox if you hooked up your computer to your TV. So, yes, for now the folks in the TV world want to milk it, but at some point they need to realize that the more they do to piss off their viewers, the more trouble they'll be in down the road.

Filed Under: blocking, browsers, google tv, mark cuban

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

  1. icon
    vivaelamor (profile), 25 Oct 2010 @ 2:07pm


    "if you want to watch on computer, then stop watching on TV"

    This old chestnut. I hope you realise that the only way they know whether you are watching TV or not is to ask you. Given that fact, it would make sense for them to also ask you whether you would prefer online services. The alternative is to stop watching TV, hoping that they'll ask you whether you watch TV.

    It's the same backwards philosophy that those blaming piracy for the death of the recording industry tend to use: if you don't pirate and don't buy their music, that'll show them what you really want. The fact is that if the companies cared then they'd have realised what people want a long time ago. It shouldn't be up to the consumer to make sacrifices because companies want to avoid change by ignoring consumer demand.

Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter

Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Follow Techdirt
Special Affiliate Offer

Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads


Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.