CABLE TV GOING A LA CARTE??? DON'T HOLD YOUR BREATH

[OttosBestFriend]

FROM DEADLINE.com
Cable operators who feared that the FCC might mandate a la carte TV pricing, or restrict companies’ ability to charge broadband customers based on how much they use the Internet, probably felt comforted by comments that two of the three current FCC members made today at the annual Cable Show.

Democrat Jessica Rosenworcel indicated that she’s reluctant to promote a la carte — a key part of a bill sponsored by Sen. John McCain. “Consumer practices are changing,” Rosenworcel says. “The ways that they access content are different today than they were even a year ago.” As a result, if there’s pressure for change it’s “going to be driven by consumers and not necessarily by legislation or regulation.”

Her Republican colleague, Ajit Pai, added that people may be wasting their breath if they talk about regulations that might affect whether broadband providers base their pricing on how much bandwidth a consumer uses. “It’s a commonly accepted aspect of the consumer experience in this country in virtually every other field — the more you consume of something the more you should pay,” he says. What’s more, “the FCC’s authority here is relatively limited.”

LINK TO ENTIRE ARTICLE
http://www.deadline.com/2013/06/fcc...ppetite-to-regulate-cable-pricing-cable-show/

 

[AirForceOrange]

FROM DEADLINE.com
Cable operators who feared that the FCC might mandate a la carte TV pricing, or restrict companies’ ability to charge broadband customers based on how much they use the Internet, probably felt comforted by comments that two of the three current FCC members made today at the annual Cable Show.

Democrat Jessica Rosenworcel indicated that she’s reluctant to promote a la carte — a key part of a bill sponsored by Sen. John McCain. “Consumer practices are changing,” Rosenworcel says. “The ways that they access content are different today than they were even a year ago.” As a result, if there’s pressure for change it’s “going to be driven by consumers and not necessarily by legislation or regulation.”

Her Republican colleague, Ajit Pai, added that people may be wasting their breath if they talk about regulations that might affect whether broadband providers base their pricing on how much bandwidth a consumer uses. “It’s a commonly accepted aspect of the consumer experience in this country in virtually every other field — the more you consume of something the more you should pay,” he says. What’s more, “the FCC’s authority here is relatively limited.”

LINK TO ENTIRE ARTICLE
http://www.deadline.com/2013/06/fcc...ppetite-to-regulate-cable-pricing-cable-show/

Bet they got some nice donations to their PACs...

 

[SWC75]

The future according to Al Fasoldt:
http://www.technofileonline.com/texts/tec052613.html


I like this from the O/P's article:
"“The ways that they access content are different today than they were even a year ago.” As a result, if there’s pressure for change it’s “going to be driven by consumers and not necessarily by legislation or regulation.” and “the FCC’s authority here is relatively limited.”

Yes, I'll miss those 1995 channels, about a dozen of which I actually watch.

 

[Scooch]

The future according to Al Fasoldt:
http://www.technofileonline.com/texts/tec052613.html


I like this from the O/P's article:
"“The ways that they access content are different today than they were even a year ago.” As a result, if there’s pressure for change it’s “going to be driven by consumers and not necessarily by legislation or regulation.” and
Yes, I'll miss those 1995 channels, about a dozen of which I actually watch.

"You'll have your choice of current feature films, older movies, current TV shows, local news, network specials and much more"

No, you won't get "current TV shows" or "network specials" if the networks that sink millions of dollars into producing those shows see their margins cut to the bone by people dropping cable.

The model is changing, but people's expectations for what that entails are... naive... at best.

 

[Crusty]

Sooner than later Netflicks will originate content just like HBO etc. Then watch out.

 

[Guinness]

Sooner than later Netflicks will originate content just like HBO etc. Then watch out.

They have already started. House of Cards, Lilyhammer and Hemlock Grove are all original Netflix content.

 

[SUinNYC]

Sooner than later Netflicks will originate content just like HBO etc. Then watch out.

You mean critically acclaimed original content made by Academy Award winning actors and directors like Kevin Spacy and David Fincher? Nah, they'll never do that.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1856010/

 

[Orangepace]

Sooner than later Netflicks will originate content just like HBO etc. Then watch out.

They already do originate their own content and it's actually good programming.

 

[bnoro]

They have already started. House of Cards, Lilyhammer and Hemlock Grove are all original Netflix content.

and the reboot of Arrested Development

 

[Moontan]

Let us know when and where ESPN is available, as well as ACCN and Syracuse vs. Wagner.

Yes, it'll happen at some point... just not today. Until the bandwidth is there to sustain multiple HD streams, without buffering issues, at my house, I'll stick with Real TV.

 

[Crusty]

You mean critically acclaimed original content made by Academy Award winning actors and directors like Kevin Spacy and David Fincher? Nah, they'll never do that.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1856010/

Well there you go - now all they need to do is bid on major sports contracts. I keep thinking that as traditional networks continue to lose viewers they will not be able to keep up and the Netflicks of the world will buy them for contents. I think we will be watching a la carte sooner than we might think and that the prices will also be higher than we think although still cheaper than the bundled packages.

(I guess I have to go sign up today!)

 

[TheCusian]

The truth is that something is happening. The internet continues to disrupt the traditional model. To what extent? Who knows. Cable companies hold a lot of the power - and with lobbyists, er - "Washington" - not willing to help mold the best solution... we'll probably get a crazy hybrid system until someone really steps up - Netflix, Apple, Google.

 

[Millhouse]

"You'll have your choice of current feature films, older movies, current TV shows, local news, network specials and much more"

No, you won't get "current TV shows" or "network specials" if the networks that sink millions of dollars into producing those shows see their margins cut to the bone by people dropping cable.

The model is changing, but people's expectations for what that entails are... naive... at best.

people think this stuff just gets created magically. if you want people to create expensive shows for you, they're going to get paid one way or another. they have a choice about whether to produce the content.

 

[SUinNYC]

Well there you go - now all they need to do is bid on major sports contracts. I keep thinking that as traditional networks continue to lose viewers they will not be able to keep up and the Netflicks of the world will buy them for contents. I think we will be watching a la carte sooner than we might think and that the prices will also be higher than we think although still cheaper than the bundled packages.

(I guess I have to go sign up today!)

Sports do make sense, but sports are one of the few things that are still watched live (along with news), and the investment required to produce and stream live sporting events would be staggering--nevermind the expertise (which ESPN has). I'd be surprised if Netflix moved into that territory anytime soon.

 

[cuseinchina]

"You'll have your choice of current feature films, older movies, current TV shows, local news, network specials and much more"

No, you won't get "current TV shows" or "network specials" if the networks that sink millions of dollars into producing those shows see their margins cut to the bone by people dropping cable.

The model is changing, but people's expectations for what that entails are... naive... at best.

Or really what you mean is that networks and cable channels will no longer be able to produce really bad content that no one wants and count on their stable income stream from the cable system. In reality this is way better for providers of QUALITY content. They can charge consumers directly and cut out the middle-man. specialized providers that produce interesting material for a specific audience should have no trouble at all staying afloat, and in fact will do better in this scenario.

Tell me how cutting out the middle man hits the margins of content providers? It just means that more of the economic value accrues directly to the content providers. The only losers are producers of bad content that people won't pay for ala carte...and if people wouldn't pay for it on its own why should they be expected to pay for it as part of a bundle? And btw for people who like bundles there will still be old model style content aggregation - you just will have the ability to opt-out - and I think the vast majority will opt out.

the ceo of showtime came out just yesterday saying how they would be beneficiaries of unbundling. owners of good content will cut the cord with cable as soon as an acceptable alternative exists - eg bandwidth/speed is good enough to support multiple hd streams over the internet pipe. Cable companies will make money by providing and upgrading the dumb internet pipe - and will have tiered pricing --- they won't go out of business they will just get a smaller / more appropriate piece of the pie instead of duopolistic profits.

 

[cuseinchina]

the cable companies know they are fu***d because they are now trying doing two opposing things - offering incentives and simultaneously threatening content providers - to try to keep their content off of the internet. http://www.bloomberg.com/video/incentives-to-thwart-web-tv-18e87PoHSHWDo75btXVI6w.html Meanwhile the coo of the same company tried to turn the focus to high speed data growth at the same conference the following day. A couple big companies will take the plunge at once - and then you'll see a mass exodus from the cable monopoly. Only losers on the content side are those producing bad content. consumers win big with this both in terms of better bang for our entertainment buck and maybe more so in the level of innovation in content provision this move will allow. Remember all the cable companies did was buy up little local monopolies that existed all over the country...all they are, are debt fueled consolidators of somebody else's hard work - they are basically just large private equity companies who used cheap debt to consolidate local natural monopoly businesses - the most basic kind of financial engineering. don't morn the demise of big cable's monopoly profits.

 

[SWC75]

Or really what you mean is that networks and cable channels will no longer be able to produce really bad content that no one wants and count on their stable income stream from the cable system. In reality this is way better for providers of QUALITY content. They can charge consumers directly and cut out the middle-man. specialized providers that produce interesting material for a specific audience should have no trouble at all staying afloat, and in fact will do better in this scenario.

Tell me how cutting out the middle man hits the margins of content providers? It just means that more of the economic value accrues directly to the content providers. The only losers are producers of bad content that people won't pay for ala carte...and if people wouldn't pay for it on its own why should they be expected to pay for it as part of a bundle? And btw for people who like bundles there will still be old model style content aggregation - you just will have the ability to opt-out - and I think the vast majority will opt out.

the ceo of showtime came out just yesterday saying how they would be beneficiaries of unbundling. owners of good content will cut the cord with cable as soon as an acceptable alternative exists - eg bandwidth/speed is good enough to support multiple hd streams over the internet pipe. Cable companies will make money by providing and upgrading the dumb internet pipe - and will have tiered pricing --- they won't go out of business they will just get a smaller / more appropriate piece of the pie instead of duopolistic profits.

I've heard that the producers of "niche" programming would rather be part of a cable system which needs their program to fill one of those 1995 slots. I've never understood why the market can't work here. If you are doing say, "The Ballet Channel" and know you aren't going to have the fan base of "The Wrestling Channel", in a open market you can find out how much ballet fans would be willing to pay for your channel, (especially if they aren't having to pay for The Wrestling Channel and 1980 or so other things they don't watch). The way it is, the owner of the cable company can decide they's rather put The Wrestling Channel I, II, II, HD, "Classic", etc. rather than your channel because you don't have enough fans, according to their surveys.

 

[TheCusian]

people think this stuff just gets created magically. if you want people to create expensive shows for you, they're going to get paid one way or another. they have a choice about whether to produce the content.

It's about scale. Cable companies are big - but largely regional. Netflix, Google, Apple are national and sitting on loads of more users. They can fund premium stuff and charge less because of scale.

People are largely fed up with the current model (right or wrong) and want to see things shaken up.

 

[bevosu]

Some of what's happening

Gatekeepers of Cable TV Try to Stop Intel

By BRIAN STELTER

Intel’s plan to create a virtual cable service is running up against a barricade being guarded by cable and satellite distributors.


http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/13/b...tv-try-to-stop-intel.html?ref=technology&_r=0

 

[HtownOrange]

I would be OK with a system that simply charged for an amount of viewing and credited the networks I watch. The networks woud really be compensated via the market. Produce crap I don't watch that network. Show good sports live, I will watch.

 

[cuseinchina]

I've heard that the producers of "niche" programming would rather be part of a cable system which needs their program to fill one of those 1995 slots. I've never understood why the market can't work here. If you are doing say, "The Ballet Channel" and know you aren't going to have the fan base of "The Wrestling Channel", in a open market you can find out how much ballet fans would be willing to pay for your channel, (especially if they aren't having to pay for The Wrestling Channel and 1980 or so other things they don't watch). The way it is, the owner of the cable company can decide they's rather put The Wrestling Channel I, II, II, HD, "Classic", etc. rather than your channel because you don't have enough fans, according to their surveys.

this is it exactly. the argument that niche programming will go away is ludicrous. Niche products of all sorts are generally high margin because they have a very specific and engaged audience who will pay up for something they care about.

For me, I'll gladly pay $10/month for bbc world news, another $20/month for espn plus the future acc network, then i'll get the broadcast networks (which have always been available free) over their internet stream free of charge and the rest I'll take pay per view. having spent time living/working in the islands, I would also pay up a few bucks a month for a Caribbean station featuring reggae music and local cultural stuff. I'll buy what I like - and so will everyone else. you don't need a huge audience to make quality content work, it just needs to be valuable to enough people who will pay up. Niche will thrive under ala-carte, it won't suffer --- only bad content will suffer.