[mythtv-users] Data Direct Subscription Expires?

Brad Templeton brad+myth at templetons.com
Wed Jan 5 18:28:15 EST 2005


On Wed, Jan 05, 2005 at 02:02:16PM -0800, Bruce Markey wrote:
> You can start with "Related projects" on http://xmltv.sf.net/ .
> Most of these are for displaying and searching listings. Only
> a few are PVR projects and many of those are dead.

Yeah, though the fact taht the only software question they ask on
the survey to get datadirect is what PVR you use, I always figured
that was the only significant thing to them.  Though they have
the certificate code to help judge as well.
> 
> TV will change over time and these are all good points but none
> of this in any way proves that TMS is about to start charging
> for DataDirect.

Of course.  As you may recall, I simply was interested in discussing
how long they would continue doing it for free.   When something useful
comes for free, it is naturally curious to wonder why, and if it will
stay free in the long term.   I'm not sure we can judge either way, but
because we are all investing lots of effort in building our boxes,
it's something to wonder about.   The 3 month subscription time also
raises curiousity.  I don't think it's there just because they want
frequently updated answers to their survey.  Trying to put on their
hat, I beleive the prime reason for a 3 month period would be to allow
flexibility to change their offering, and/or charge for it.

> Until this sentence, I've never typed the word "subsidize". That
> is your spin word. If stations did not publish their schedules,

And as I have found it it's not even true, no subsidy is going on,
that was a mistaken assumption you put forward based on the PBS
data.


> Take movie listing as another example. It is the movie theaters
> that want their show times to appear in the paper. Say, papers
> are delivered to prisons. The prisoners can't go to the theater
> and buy over-priced popcorn. Do the theater owners insist that
> papers cannot be delivered to the prison? Will the paper charge
> a higher price for newspapers that they know are going to people
> that cannot or will not go to movies? Will they press a special
> run that doesn't have show times or deliberately wrong show times
> for no apparent reason? Of course not.

Indeed, for no other reason than this is hard to do.  Do the movie
houses pay to get in the plain listings, rather than the ads that
are sold around them?   I don't believe so.  But again, my main
point is not that I expect them to go out of their way to punish
PVR users, not for some time to come.

What I have wondered is, will they stop going out of their way to
_help_ us?  I think that's entirely possible.  If they are doing so
now (which is the assumption which has been put forward.)

I know how it works today, how the system starts out simple, send
out data, distribute data.  Though in fact the "distribute data" part
is highly customized, in that for each PVR user they know not only
who you are and what PVR you have but your channel lineup and which channels
you have asked not for data on.

Because of this level of customization, the question of "what data do
we want to give the PVR users" is a trivial one for them to change their
minds on, unlike the question of paper news in a prison.

I actually still remain skeptical that the stations are paying to
get in the database but they might be.   Frankly, if the newspaper said
"We don't have listings for CBS because they refuse to pay to be in the
listings" some people would be angry at CBS and some would be angry
at the paper -- I'm not sure which way it would swing.

However, what remains true are the following:

    They can easily configure what sort of data goes out to every
    different type of user, tunable based on what PVR they have, where
    they live, what chanels they watch etc.

    If the stations are paying, the listing distributors will, to some
    extent, do what the stations ask them to do.

    If the stations are not paying, the listings distributors will
    probably not pay much attention to them, but on the other hand they
    will have no particular incentive to give us free services if they
    think they could get us to pay.

> CBS is selling air time. It is a matter of negotiations between

Again, strictly, what the advertiser wants is not air time, she wants
effective exposure of her ads.  (Go back a level and they just want
more sales, but that's too far up the abstraction chain.)

Today, all they know about is ratings and airtime.  But trust me, they
are worried about the PVR, even though it is not popular enough to
dent them yet.  They talk about it all the time.   They have the debate
we're having, on the future of advertising and how to reach the viewer
in the land of the PVR for everybody.   They invested in Tivo to keep
a handle on it -- they care a lot.

So what they are doing today is interesting, but the long term debate
hinges on what they plan for the future, and what we can know about it.

But you know all this, so I don't understand the reluctance to consider
how that might change, and how it might affect whether we have to
pay for listings in the future or not.

> negotiate for placing ads. Impact on listings services is pretty
> much zilch. The advertisers will not sell more product as a result
> of fewer people receiving listings. The stations will still need
> to publish their schedules no matter what their ad rates are.

Correct.  But I deal with these sort of things all the time.   Media
executives get emotional about these issues.   The path I see is:

    "Ad sales are down!  The advertisers won't pay as much for our
    shows because everybody is watching them on the PVR and not
    viewing the ads!"

    "What can we do about it?  How can we stop this commercial skipping?
    We sued Replay TV and they went bankrupt, what else can we do?"

    "Well, you know, we currently give Tribune Media to put
    our show times in their database, and that data is the lifeblood
    of the PVR, the things are just glorified VCRs without it.  They
    sell the data we give them, they need it to support their profitable
    business."

    "Let's put some pressure on them, then!"

This probably wouldn't work, but that's not the point.  It wasn't the
lawsuit that sunk Replay either.  But they still did it, and will do
steps like it.   When they see automatic commercial skip in a PVR, they
go ballistic.   If it gets big enough to care about.

_If_ they can put pressure to interfere with Myth (and Myth gets on
their radar) then they will apply what pressure they can.

And quite simply, if they asked Tribune to stop giving out the data,
Tribune could easily comply.  Whether they will depends on their own
motives, who is more important to them, etc.

> That's Gemstar. I can't imagine a world where they would come
> begging for the stations to give them their schedules. Would the
> stations respond 'oh, we were trying to keep that a secret but
> I guess if the newspapers want them that badly, here you can
> have this' ;-).

If the stations are _paying_ as you say, then they will do what the
customer says.  If they are not paying, they will do what they feel
is in their own interests.
> 
> Don't hint at some pie in the sky crud that all video will be
> digital and it will be downloaded on demand from video service
> providers and leave it at that. There are schedules rather than
> menus of archives to select from so listings do still need to
> be published (just like they still needed street sweepers a
> century ago before all those horseless carriages).

I don't think it's in the sky.  Bandwidth is on a nice downward
price path.
> 
> The commercial DVR's services pay and they don't get sub minute
> data. Besides, this is a little foggy. It is the stations that

They don't pay enough, clearly, to justify the cost of making the
data more accurate.    Or don't think it's important enough (in spite
of user whining.   It may also be that because their own software is
poor at conflicts, in the case of Tivo, that they don't _want_ precise
timings because they would do more harm than good right now.

> send out their schedules. The listings service pass this info on.
> I don't see how the listings service would charge more for some
> more accurate data than the stations provide. This goes back

That's a common concept for value-added repackaging of data.  You
bring in crude data cheap or free (or you suggest negative cost), you fix it
up, improve it, and sell it for more.

However, as noted, I think the big reason is that with Tivo, the market
leader, it causes more problems than it fixes.  Though right now the
timings are improving so who knows?

> to the idea of the stations providing, or the service
> manipulating good and bad data. I'm not buyin' it. Certainly
> not proof that DD will become a pay service any time soon.

Nothing is proof of anything until they tell us what they want to do,
of course.  But it is worth understanding why they give it for
free right now.   Is it simply and wholly as a stopgap against
inefficient scraping?   Could be.   But why the 3 month time period?

> I'm thinkin' it's more like the Cygnus support model for gcc.
> They are paying to hold someone accountable for reliable data.
> Newspapers aren't getting rich just because they have TV listing
> so I don't see how listings services could charge them enough
> to be profitable.

Actually, that's wrong, it's a bit more complex.  First of all,
readers want the listings.   Secondly, and perhaps more important,
the TV stations and others buy ads around the listings.  That is
what really pays for TV Guide, and the TV Guide channel etc.

So the newspaper is going to tend to want to do listings.  However,
typesetting up that big page is a lot of work if they do it themselves.
So they are happy to pay anything less than that cost to have somebody
else prep up the data for them.

I believe this is the primary source of revenue for the syndicators
of this data, not payments by the stations, but I await being proven
wrong.   I mean, I should be able to find this out trivially, my dad
was a senior TV network executive when I was young, but he's unavailable :-(

> Alive or not, I can't imagine it working any other way. The
> stations are the benefactors of having there product promoted.

Actually, some are, some aren't.  In those days TV was simple.  3
shows on at any given time, and people knew them all, they didn't
have to go to the listings to see what was on.   New shows and
new indepedent stations had the most to gain here.  CBS didn't have
to tell anybody when Ed Sullivan was on when it was hot.

Anyway, we should stop arguing about this and go find out, I guess.

... Dials the phone ...  TADA!!!

I called a local Fox affiliate.  She assured me they don't pay a dime
to give data to Tribune.   They pay what she called a "miniscule annual
fee" for the HDTV PSIP listing database which is in a different company.


> 
> That's paranoid ;-). If you choose to believe that, we'll
> have to agree to disagree.

Look, it's not paranoid if they are really out to get you.  As they
showed in the Replay TV suit.   Well, "they" is a bit amorphous, and
there are all sorts of players here.
> 
> DataDirect is TMS' self initiated effort to extend their reach
> and branding, reduce their on-line cost and gather valuable data
> while they're at it. If they tried to charge for it, they'd lose
> these benefits.

> This has drifted so far off track. You posted (as many before
> you have) an alarmist statement to this list which pre-suppose
> that DD is a scam to sucker people in so that they will screw you
> over by charging subscription fees once you become dependent and
> it is only a matter of time. (okay, maybe I'm being dramatic here).

Yes.  All I wondered was how long it will continue to be free.
It is normal to wonder that when you get a service for free.  I
guess it's true that in the free software community, people lose
that cynicism to a degree, as I know when I was asked by people who
were skeptical of Mythtv being free.


But this is not FUD (I have no motive for FUD anyway).  This is
a serious question, as we all put a lot of effort into our systems,
which depend on good listings -- will we keep getting it free?


More information about the mythtv-users mailing list