Fox Provokes Cable Subs w/ Limited Access 08/17/2011 Fans of Fox shows like Glee and Family Guy are now forced to make a choice: pay for a subscription or wait a week to watch back episodes of their favorite programs. Tuesday Fox launched its authentication strategy for online vids at Fox.com and Hulu requiring viewers to prove they're paying subscribers for day-after access. Fox announced weeks ago that it would limit access to catch-up episodes of current shows to those who have not subscribed to participating pay-TV services. The only problem is that DISH Network is the only provider that's gotten on board... so the majority of viewers - whether they pay for cable or not - are now forced to wait a week to see the same shows. The implications go beyond timely access to already-ran content. How will this distribution development affect cable operators during retrans negotiations with Fox seeking more money for its shows? Why would a cable op pay more for Fox programming if their subs can't view it when they want? Adding insult to injury, Fox is urging viewers to express their frustration by contacting their cable providers to demand day-after access. Check Fox's new landing page for irked viewers here. According to reports, this is the message cable operators are receiving when customers fill out the form on Fox's new landing page: "Dear , I want to continue watching full episodes on FOX.com but you are not one of the participating providers. As a customer of I want you to know that I expect to have access to these episodes included in my subscription." SOURCE
I guess this is how they're fighting back against "cord cutters". Ironically, these shows are still broadcasted freely through Over The Air (OTA) stations. However, they don't consider these free local stations as "TV Providers" by their definition, "TV provider refers to a cable, satellite or telco (telephone company) that provides TV programming to your home as a paid service." Even though the audience of these local stations, who pay the same licensing fees as paid providers but are only subsidized by advertising, can watch their programming free are discriminated from online access. Instead of extorting "cord cutters" into some paid form of access to their content, the repercussion of their action is going to increase the likelihood their content will exchanged through peer to peer file sharing sites. And since Fox has executed this directive with only a single provider on roll out, this is likely to backfire on them as paid subscribers might realize just how easy it is to get their content without paid delivery methods. Looks like Fox is ultimately trying to "get blood from a stone" by exacting additional revenue from their "TV Providers" as well. I understand it is a capitalistic world and content delivery is considered a premium. However, rolling out such a "service" this hastily made things worse for the channel providers and their subscribers for it is likely to influence more cords being cut.
