The Internet is positively overflowing with downloadable movies, from Movielink to CinemaNow to Guba and soon, or so the cognescenti say, Apple’s iTunes. Now, add AOL to the mix.
AOL (in a move that might take the stink off the subscriber search data fiasco) announced today it has downloadable movie deals with a slew of studios, including, 20th Century Fox, Sony Pictures Home Entertainment, Universal Pictures, and Warner Bros. Home Entertainment Group.
The films from these top motion picture distributors will join the growing mix of video content at AOL Video, which already has 45 “on-demand” video channels. (It’s odd how AOL has, in fact, amassed an impressive collection of video content and yet isn’t widely known for this feat.) Fox and Sony will also make some of their TV shows available for purchase on AOL Video.
Prices for the movie downloads range from $9.99 to $19.99. It’s significant that the content can be downloaded and viewed only on PCs or portable devices — the company is saying nothing about burning the films to DVDs.
Posted by Cynthia Brumfield at 6:48 PM | Print | Comments (0)Tivo is on a roll — after scoring a big patent fight win over EchoStar, the once-doomed but now seemingly renewed DVR pioneer has landed a big cable deal. The company announced this morning a pact with Cox Cable, now the nation’s third largest cable company.
Tivo will be available via a software download to all Cox customers who have boxes capable of this kind of upgrading. The new DVR offering will give Cox customers capabilities of offering bells-and-whistles that they don’t get with the Cox native guide, including the ability to link on-demand and high-def programming with Tivo options such as SeasonPass recordings, WishList searches and the recently announced TiVo KidZone.
As Davis Freeberg points out, the Cox-Tivo deal has been in the works for some time. But, other cable operators, such as Time Warner, which doesn’t have a deal with Tivo, have got to be getting nervous about how aggressive Tivo is going to fight to protect its patents.
Posted by Cynthia Brumfield at 6:26 PM | Print | Comments (0)
A very difficult issue has cropped up in Canada — attorney Mark Goldberg has this item about a petition he helped file asking the CRTC to give ISPs permission to block content from a U.S.-based white supremacist. This racist, neo-Nazi Bill White of Roanoke, VA, has called for the murder of an Ottawa human rights attorney.
The CRTC has the right to give ISPs the go-ahead to block content but has never done so. Google, a private entity, helped the government out Wednesday by taking down one of White’s sites hosted at blogger.
However repulsive White’s views are regarding race, religion and violent overthrow of government, it’s always upsetting when the government, any government, is asked to snuff out speech. In the U.S., the First Amendment is designed to specifically protect unpopular or fringe speech, however repugnant or ignorant that speech may be.
It is only with great, great reluctance, and only in very rare circumstances, that the government should ever block what anybody says. That’s why the ACLU fought so hard on behalf of neo-Nazis to march in Skokie, IL.
But, the First Amendment does not protect speech that threatens others or that could incite panic or rioting. In fact, calling for the murder of people is grounds for arrest and indictment. I’m not as familiar with Canadian free speech law, but from what I do know, the laws are similar in both countries.
What Goldberg and his colleagues are seeking to do is limit speech, and from the sounds of it rightly so (as much as it pains me to say that). They are not, as Jon Arnold says, seeking to limit some kind of “net neutrality” freedom. Arnold calls this situation “the dark side of net neutrality,” but it is no such thing.
It’s the dark side of free speech, maybe, but has little to do with the ability of carriers to pick and choose from content and applications providers. That’s net neutrality. This is free speech and deals with the question of when and under what circumstances the government has the right to limit the ability to speak.
Posted by Cynthia Brumfield at 10:06 AM | Print | Comments (1)USA Today’s David Lieberman has this piece today on the rivalry between Verizon and Cablevision in the cable operator’s home territory of Long Island. He doesn’t provide a lot of new information but does offer insight into what true competition among communications carriers would look like.
Verizon, which a spokesperson says “has fire in the belly,” is pulling out a lot of stops to steal customers from the well-liked Cablevision, including a “guerilla marketing” campaign.
Verizon is deploying what it calls a “guerrilla marketing” campaign. It sends salespeople door-to-door, sets up product demonstrations at concerts and community events, and slaps messages on Chinese food containers, pizza boxes and take-out coffee cups.
Moreover, the telco has taken out some pretty blunt ads.
Verizon’s pointed ads pour salt on wounded feelings about cable service, with slogans such as: “All I want is to cut off cable;” “All I want is to get on board with a company I like;” and “All I want is a choice other than Cablevision.”
COO Tom Rutledge says that Verizon isn’t taking any customers away from his company and Cablevision’s most recent earnings report backs him up…for now. In Q2 06, Cablevision actually added 35,000 core video customers, advancing to 3.1 million total basic subscribers.
Moreover, Cablevision added 122,234 voice customers, with around 21% of its homes passed taking voice from Cablevision and not Verizon. But still, it’s early days and Verizon is definitely not going to give up.
Posted by Cynthia Brumfield at 8:32 AM | Print | Comments (0)
Blogs We Read
