YouTube co-founder calls for global access to TV online | Hacker News Reader

YouTube co-founder calls for global access to TV online

afr.com

47 pointspwg10 comments

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).

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?

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 ?

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.

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.

Sure but they never will. ESPN makes $5 per cable subscriber in the US regardless of whether you watch it or not. You think your model works better for them?

BTW 90% of my US sports are not done on ESPN. Of the 4 major sports they only do a few select games.

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

Probably about 3 years ago.

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

I bet Comcast is loving this.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com