

YouTube co-founder calls for global access to TV online - pwg
http://www.afr.com/p/technology/youtube_co_founder_calls_for_global_sFVUIKr17luhpnJYBwCOLM

======
joshuaheard
Thank you. I'm tired of getting the "thank you but we don't stream to your
country" due to licensing concerns every time I want to watch Netflix or Hulu
in France. (Yes I have bypassed this message with VPN).

~~~
cclogg
100% agreed, especially with regards to Youtube.

I personally haven't gotten into Hulu/Netflix... I think a community driven
approach like Youtube is ultimately the best approach. But Youtube is just
being squandered by copyright holders all of the time.

Sometimes I just want to show an awesome <insert show here> clip to a friend,
and many times I can't find it simply because it was taken down.

It'd be amazing if Youtube could have every show and movie and song (which it
almost does on the music side) just readily available. Convenience is the
biggest factor for me, but I guess Hollywood doesn't make enough money on 15s
intro ads VS $20 DVDs?

------
ippisl
I wonder: can espn , which holds streaming right for most live sports event
until 2020 , use that power to start an online subscription service that also
includes other content , and become the de facto tv provider ?

~~~
akgoel
I'm sure ESPN could, but they probably wouldn't. Online streaming on this
scale would essentially become pay-per-view, and the pay-per-view revenue for
most games would not match the current broadcast revenue. Would you pay $50
per football game you wanted to watch online? I only say that because I used
to pay $20 for a Houston Rockets playoff game on pay-per-view in the mid-90's,
and they went away from that model once the broadcast revenue from having
every subscriber pay into a bundled package overcame the pay-per-view model.

~~~
pedalpete
I think you're assuming the pay per view model would not change as well. Pay-
per-view makes a fortune, but only appeals to a small set of the audience due
to the currently high-costs. However, if we use the superbowl as an example
(huge adverstising costs, and large audience).

110 Million people watch the superbowl, a 30 second commercial costs about $3
million (time slot fee only). Are there more than 30 commercials during the
superbowl? I couldn't find that number, but 30 seems like a lot, so let's go
with that. The revenue per viewer is about $1.20. So even if the cost to watch
the superbowl was $4, the broadcaster would still be making more than they
currently are with the advertising model.

Where this breaks down is the amount of time people spend channel surfing. I
think as people channel surf less, they'll watch less, which is why the model
of paying directly for each piece of content is a challenge.

------
walshemj
Ok how long till Murdoch will start using his papers to paint youtube as a den
of vice and porn

~~~
prawn
He's ramped up his efforts working against Australia's NBN because it's a
threat to his pay TV network Foxtel.

------
AsymetricCom
I bet Comcast is loving this.

