Will Hulu Freak Out Over Cablevision's Cool New Personalized Internet Channel?

from the wait-and-see... dept

New York-based Cablevision has been one of the more innovative cable providers out there over the years. It's been mostly ahead of the competition in broadband speeds, and pioneered some interesting bundled offerings well before many other providers. It also fought and won its case to offer a remote DVR where other providers caved. That's not to say Cablevision doesn't have its own issues (and it certainly appears to have no clue how to run a newspaper). But, on the whole, when it comes to the actual technology side, you have to give Cablevision credit for really trying out new things and giving customers increased value.

One of its latest offerings is a pretty smart idea -- letting subscribers move internet content to their TVs remotely. Now, lots of tech savvy folks have set up systems to do this themselves, but this actually sounds like it makes it quite easy for users to do without having to setup any hardware or run any wires or anything, as it's all done over the internet. You send whatever you want to a Cablevision service, and then you can just turn on your TV to a specific channel, and you'll have access to the content. If it works, it sounds pretty cool.

But... are there problems looming? Apparently, you'll be able to send internet video as one of the types of content, and Broadband Reports found out that this includes content from sites like Hulu. Now, you may remember that Hulu has been pressured by its content partners/owners to keep its content (most of which originated on TV) off of TVs. There's simply no good reason for this, but it looks like Cablevision is now enabling that functionality as well -- even as Hulu has worked to block TV access from a variety of different devices and services. Seeing as NBC appears to be the major voice behind many of Hulu's blocks, and NBC is in the process of being acquired by Comcast (assuming regulatory approval), that could make for an interesting battle between Comcast and Cablevision down the road...

Filed Under: cable, internet, tv
Companies: cablevision, comcast, hulu

Bell Canada Will Give You A La Carte Cable Channels... But Only If There's Real Competition

from the otherwise,-you're-stuck dept

We've had plenty of debates on this site about a la carte TV channels. A few years back the FCC put out a report that explained, pretty clearly why mandating the ability of users to pick and choose what TV channels they wanted in their cable package would cost more -- even if the FCC later changed its mind under pressure from "family values" groups who wanted to be able to stop having to pay for "bad" channels to get the wholesome channels. Lots of people like the idea of a la carte channels, falsely believing that they're "paying for channels they don't want." Our position has always been that it's bad policy to mandate a la carte TV offerings, when it's happening naturally in the marketplace -- mainly due to pressure from competition.

So it's interesting to see, up in Canada, that Bell Canada has apparently started offering a la carte pricing... but only in territories where it has real competition. Otherwise, you're stuck with bundles.

Once again, as with net neutrality and metered broadband, we're seeing a situation where the real issue is often a lack of competition in the marketplace, and the answer isn't necessarily to force a particular policy on providers, but to figure out ways to encourage more real competition, such that these other issues take care of themselves.

Filed Under: a la carte, cable, canada, channels, competition
Companies: bell canada

Landlords Can't Force You To Sign Up With One Cable Co... But Can Charge You Extra For Water If You Pick Wrong

from the loopholes dept

For many years, cable/telco/satellite companies would do "exclusive" deals with apartment buildings and other developers, which would limit what services could be offered in those buildings. Back in 2007, the FCC stepped in to say such deals were illegal. But, of course, there are always loopholes. Broadband Reports highlights how a bunch of buildings are using loopholes like telling you can chose any cable company you like... but if you choose a different one they have to pay an extra $40 for water and trash. And... the FCC says these kinds of deals are legal, for now, though it may move against them soon. But, in the meantime, your landlord can effectively force you to choose a cable/telco/broadband provider.

Filed Under: cable, exclusive deals, landlords, telco

The Next Big Battle: Cable TV vs. The Internet

from the grab-some-popcorn dept

Leading up to the New Year, I was inundated with submissions about the supposed "battle" between Time Warner Cable and Fox over fees. The quick background is that Fox wanted to get a cut ($1/subscriber) from Time Warner Cable and TWC claimed it wanted to fight it. Neither side was being particularly honest about what was going on, with TWC launching a hilarious website asking consumers to "vote" on whether it should "roll over" or "get tough" and if you voted for it to roll over, it told you that you were wrong, and asked you if you wanted to change your vote. I didn't write about the whole thing because it was an exact replica of what happened a year ago in a similar dispute -- and, just like in that dispute, the parties settled up just in time to keep Fox from being deleted from TWC's lineup. Of course, at the same moment, TWC also raised its rates. Of course, this was exactly what everyone expected all along, and TWC knew exactly what it was doing. Now it can blame the rate increase on News Corp., even though it had planned to do that all along. Other similar disputes will likely be settled in short order as well.

Of course, I find it amusing that the at the same time that content providers are arguing for service providers to pay them to carry their content on TV, those same service providers are suggesting that content providers should pay in the other direction on the internet. All the "net neutrality" battles are about the very same TV providers using their broadband divisions to claim that content providers should pay the broadband providers more to "carry" their services to users. It's just two sides of the same coin.

Still, the more interesting battle may be shaping up elsewhere. Some consumer groups are asking the Justice Department to investigate cable companies for their "TV Everywhere" effort, which they claim is almost certainly an antitrust violation of collusion to keep certain content from going on the internet. Not surprisingly, the cable industry and their lobbyists have hit back hard, claiming that the whole thing is ridiculous.

To be honest, I think it's a bit early to worry about collusion here. From everything we've seen so far, the cable industry is doing a pretty good job screwing up TV Everywhere on their own, so it's not like it's a huge problem yet. They're trying to turn the internet into cable TV with extra ads. Like the recording industry's many attempts to create their own online efforts, it looks like they're hamstrung by their own legacy view of the world. That isn't to say that there may not be an issue eventually, but it does seem a bit early to be ringing the alarm bells.

There's no doubt at all that the cable companies view "TV Everywhere" as an attempt to keep people from ditching their cable TV accounts and going internet-only. But if those efforts are stymied by terrible execution and implementation it won't do much good. People are already learning how they can watch TV over the internet (without a cable or satellite subscription) and if the cable companies really succeed in blocking TV content from going online in other ways, people will simply route around those blocks and get the content in an unauthorized manner. We've seen this game before, and it doesn't end well for the companies pretending to be gatekeepers. But that doesn't mean the Justice Department should be wasting money investigating them just yet.

Either way, both of these stories suggest a prime battleground for the next year: as the old TV businesses come to grips with the internet (finally). Just like other parts of the entertainment industry, it will be messy and annoying -- and incumbent players are going to make a lot of really stupid mistakes. But, in the end, we should start to get some pretty cool stuff out of it -- though, most likely not directly from the incumbent players, but from the upstarts and innovators on the margins.

Filed Under: cable, carriage fees, internet, satellite, tv, tv everywhere

Entertainment Giants Looking At The Future... And See Cable?

from the future-hazy,-please-try-again dept

We've discussed in the past why we think that the cable companies' "TV Everywhere" strategy is destined to fail. If you don't recall, it's the way the cable companies are looking to respond to the rise of competition in the form of Hulu, Netflix, Redbox, Boxee and others -- not by offering something more compelling, but by putting up a giant wall around content and forcing you to keep your cable subscription (which fewer and fewer people seem to want) if you want to access TV shows online. Reid Rosefelt has a nice rant explaining why this won't work, pointing out (quite accurately) that all those competitors are winning because they deliver what people want, and locking things up doesn't make customers want cable any more:

Why do we enjoy free-with-ads sites like Hulu and Crackle? THEY HAVE FEWER ADS! And we can watch what we want whenever we want to.

What do we like about Netflix? For a fraction of the cost of cable, it gives you DVDs by mail plus the ability watch a lot of movies instantly, either on your computer or with their many compatible set-top boxes.

What do people like about Redbox. One buck! Pick it up and return it to the supermarket!

What do we like about cable?

Ummm, cable is a monopoly. You only get one store. You may only want a pair of socks and a shirt, but you are forced to buy a Yankee cap (even if you are a Mets or a Sox fan), cufflinks, perfume, towels, ladies underwear, two ties, a bedspread, low-slung hip-hop shorts, and a lamp. The kicker is that the price goes up all the time and the Calvin Klein shirt you actually came to buy costs extra. And of course LOTS AND LOTS OF ADS!

It's not that we don't like cable any more--we've always hated it!

But the key insight in the piece is how this, combined with Comcast's attempt to buy NBC Universal, show the backwards thinking of industry execs:

There's one tiny hitch though. Every single TV show and movie from NBC and Universal is available for free to anybody who has ten seconds to look for them. So what exactly is Comcast locking up? This isn't 1995, you know. Either you just shrug your shoulders about file-sharing or you start offering some alternatives that have benefits that people are willing to pay for like Hulu, Netflix, Redbox, and iTunes. Or maybe you work a little and come up with something new? Bill Maher said recently that the Republicans looked into the future and saw... radio. These entertainment giants are looking into the future and they see... cable.

Bingo. It's yet another case of execs looking to lock up content and block value, rather than providing additional value to users. It's people thinking about the way things used to work and trying to recreate it with a digital facelift, rather than looking to actually take advantage of what the new technology enables. That's only a snippet of Reid's analysis, so go read the whole thing.

Filed Under: business models, cable, content

Neat Trick: Rogers Offers Online Video And Broadband Cap To Punish You For Using It

from the that'll-work-well dept

Two separate initiatives by cable companies are coming together in conflict. We've seen how many cable companies are trying to set up video portals that will let subscribers to cable TV get access to the same content online, as a weak attempt to reduce churn of consumers dumping cable altogether and concentrating on online options. But, at the same time, they're also looking to implement broadband caps with high overage fees. Those two concepts are shown together with Rogers offering both a video portal and low metered caps with high overage fees. So your incentive is to not use the video portal (which apparently is limited in the first place). How is that going to reduce the churn? It seems like a far better option is to just go with another provider that actually focuses on adding value rather than limiting it. Too bad there's so little competition up in Canada. Ahhh... that explains things, now, doesn't it?

Filed Under: broadband caps, cable, canada, metered billing, overage fees, tv content
Companies: rogers

Comcast Exec: We Need To Change Customer Behavior, Not Our Business Model

from the good-luck,-buddy dept

Brooks writes "Speaking at a cable broadcaster's summit, Steve Burke, Comcast's COO, said: "An entire generation is growing up, if we don't figure out how to change that behavior so it respects copyright and subscription revenue on the part of distributors, we're going to wake up and see cord cutting." How's that for cart before the horse?

His ultimate goal -- to maintain or increase revenue for Comcast -- makes perfect sense, and is positively what a cable COO should be focused on. From there on out, though, he's off in the weeds. How about offering this new generation new and innovative services that are worth paying for? That's challenging, of course... but how challenging will it be to change the next generation's behavior "to respect subscription revenue." Yikes.

How many consumers, in any market, are focused on "respecting" vendors' revenue streams? How, exactly, does he propose to effect this sea change? And why not just develop products that consumers will willingly pay for, rather than trying to change consumer behavior in such a fundamental way?"

The quotes really are quite stunning. Burke basically seems to be saying the focus needs to be on figuring out ways to get consumers to change, rather than changing to match what customers want. A business model based on going against what consumers want doesn't seem likely to last that long.

Filed Under: business, cable, customers
Companies: comcast

Lawsuit Against Cable Companies For Not Offering A La Carte Channels Dismissed

from the choose-your-own-reason-why dept

Two years ago, a class action lawsuit was filed against the cable companies for not offering a la carte channels. This is an issue that gets people up in arms -- even as studies have suggested that mandated a la carte would cost consumers more (though, others dispute those findings). On the whole, I think that a la carte offerings that let people choose their own channels would certainly make consumers much happier (a good thing), but I have trouble believing that it should be mandated by the government.

So does the district court where the lawsuit was filed. It's now been dismissed, with the court saying that the plaintiffs failed to show the harm to the market. Of course, the case will be appealed, so this is a long way from over.

Filed Under: a la carte, cable

Sports Fan Lobbying Group... Or Anti-Cable Lobbying Group?

from the how-lobbying-works dept

We've talked in the past about the sneaky nature of Washington DC lobbying, whereby the real lobbyists' goals are hidden as some sort of bogus grass roots campaign involving some random group of people. It looks like that's about to happen again, as a bunch of satellite TV and telcos have put together what is officially a "sports fan" lobbyist organization. However, it appears to really just be an anti-cable effort. The initial campaign is likely to be an attempt to stop the cable firms from their current effort to block competing television service providers from being able to carry cable-owned sports networks. The real fight is about who gets to control what TV sports content, but it sounds much nicer to pretend that it's "concerned sports fans" as a lobbying group, rather than "cable company competitors."

Filed Under: cable, lobbying, satellite, sports fan

Forget Piracy Or Boxee... Could Netflix Take Down Cable?

from the submarine-innovation dept

A bunch of folks have been sending in the recent Wired Magazine article talking about how Netflix's online streaming offering may be a disruptive innovation that takes down cable. The thinking is that, with Netflix service being built into lots of different settop devices, and the ability to watch various TV shows that are offered via DVD (and the Netflix streaming service, as well), why would people need cable any more? They can just wait until the "video" is out, and stream it via Netflix. The article may go a bit far in proclaiming Netflix as the winner of this battle right now, but it does suggest that (whether it's Netflix or some other provider) the model that cable television has relied on for so many years is certainly facing a pretty big disruption, one way or another.

Filed Under: cable, dvds, movies, streaming
Companies: netflix