Let me be the first to admit I was wrong, a la carte *cable is coming sooner than later - *Sorta

[bevosu]

Cord-Cutters Rejoice: CBS Joins Web Stream
By EMILY STEELOCT. 16, 2014

A new era of à la carte television arrived in earnest this week — seemingly all at once and more quickly than many industry executives and television fans had expected. And with it, the virtual monopoly that cable, satellite and telecommunications companies have had over TV programming is dissipating.

Just one day after HBO said it would start an Internet-only offering,CBS announced on Thursday its own subscription streaming service that lets people watch its live programming and thousands of current and past shows on demand.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/17/business/cbs-to-offer-web-subscription-service.html?ref=business

CBS All Access...

http://www.cbs.com/all-access/upsell/?intcid=CIAb4ac575

 

[Scooch]

Thank goodness, now I can pay to stream a network I get over the air for free!

And no NFL!

 

[cuseinchina]

Thank goodness, now I can pay to stream a network I get over the air for free!

And no NFL!

This is a big pile of bricks being thrown on the thin ice. A few more bricks and everything breaks apart in the existing model.

Also not a lot of room to put a big rooftop antenna when you live in the city as most people in this country do.

Think about what comes next with CBS doing this...the other networks need to respond and in both instances the ripple effects will be far more interesting than is the case with CBS.

If ABC goes next, you are talking about Disney -- the amount of content that Disney owns is unreal, not the least of which is the ESPN system but it goes well beyond that.

If NBC is next...who is the parent company that owns NBC ????

Very interesting to see how this plays out.

 

[Millhouse]

Thank goodness, now I can pay to stream a network I get over the air for free!

And no NFL!

but but but i pay 100 bucks for 1000 channels, CBS is one of those channels, i thought ala carte would cost .10, not 6 bucks with no sports

 

[supp]

but but but i pay 100 bucks for 1000 channels, CBS is one of those channels, i thought ala carte would cost .10, not 6 bucks with no sports

Well, let's not pretend like you're not getting something extra for that $6 per month. 5000 hours of historical programming. Anyone up for a "Beauty and the Beast" marathon?

 

[TheCusian]

but but but i pay 100 bucks for 1000 channels, CBS is one of those channels, i thought ala carte would cost .10, not 6 bucks with no sports

I fully expect to pay more for smaller bundles. Say 10 sports related channels for 40.

But, but, but you pay 100 bucks for a 1000 channels! But I pay 40 for just what I want. Saving my family $60 a month and increasing my standing with my spouse.

 

[orangeinjersey]

People keep thinking, oh yeah, i'll save 50-100 from my cable bill by dropping cable. But guess what, your cable company owns the conduit you use to access the internet. Overtime they will simply just raise the price of broadband. I have directv, cablevision charges me MORE for not having a bundle. I am paying $60 a month, for basic internet. I could see that jumping up to $70 very soon.

 

[WickedOrange]

http://m.wsj.com/articles/prices-add-up-with-a-la-carte-tv-1413501679?mobile=y&mod=e2tw

 

[Millhouse]

http://m.wsj.com/articles/prices-add-up-with-a-la-carte-tv-1413501679?mobile=y&mod=e2tw

Free version of same story

http://www.msn.com/en-us/money/smar...e-prices-could-be-higher-not-lower/ar-BB9uV7M

 

[Longtimesu]

We'll see. I'm just spitballing, honestly. It's not just about what people are paying for Netflix today, but also how much a company like HBO is shelling out to to produce content. I'm skeptical that Netflix, for example, can maintain their $9.99 price point for much longer. Their programming costs are exploding, and anyone who reads their quarterly earnings can tell you how much pressure is being put on their margins. They grew less than 1 million subscribers in the US last quarter, and their stock got crushed.

I think the consumer equation on a la carte changes when you have to pay $75/month for 7 or 8 channels, along with a $60+ broadband bill.

I totally get that if *all* someone wants is Netflix, or HBO, or AMC, or whatever, then the cost may be advantageous. But when you're a family of 4, like mine, who needs a bunch of other channels to satisfy the taste of every member of the household, the a la carte approach may not look so hot.

So this is why I keep saying that we're going to see more proliferation of choice and many additional models for consumers. These declarative statements that no one will by a bundle in a couple years, or that a la carte is going to ensure only high quality programming gets made, are myopic and silly.

Free version of same story

http://www.msn.com/en-us/money/smar...e-prices-could-be-higher-not-lower/ar-BB9uV7M[/QUOTE
And to quote the article which Millhouse posted, and as I stated in my post above:
"Driving the change is the growing popularity of online streaming services from Netflix Inc, Hulu and Amazon.com Inc.’s Prime Instant Video. In response, many networks have started making their own content available online or selling it to such services, but usually after it debuts on their linear service."

I sold TV advertising in every State for almost 10 years. We did this to fund our TV show. What I learned was this. TV ad budgets are way down. They are down because viewers are fed up with the amount and lengths of TV ads. They are dvr'ing and going to paid online streaming for content. Advertisers know this. So they pull back on their ads. Why advertise to a dead horse they say. Viewers also want instant access to their favorite shows without ads, pod casting as an example. TV execs know this. I've spent many hours talking to the execs at many major networks as well as the History, Travel, and Discovery channels. I've talked with many other TV producers, all of their concerns are that ad revenues are down and because of that it is driving the Time Warners of the world to increase subscriber costs to make up for lost ad revenue. Bundling, not bundling, is because of the drop in ad revenue. Ad revenue has always driven the TV business and has been the main catalysis for what the broadcasters charged. We did a survey of our viewers. My database is 2,000,000 plus customers. We asked which they would rather do to view our shows. Watch live on TV, or through paid subscription streaming and podcasting? The 78% choose streaming and podcasts. And that answer is what the TV broadcast companies recognize. And why they are increasing costs to the viewer. The new wave will be paid subscriptions via Internet streaming and pod casting. You buy only what you want to see. The Time Warner's of the world will always be here. But more and better choices will be outside of their monopoly.

 

[supp]

Free version of same story

http://www.msn.com/en-us/money/smar...e-prices-could-be-higher-not-lower/ar-BB9uV7M

I've got lots of problems with the Needham analysis in that article. First it assumes either a bundled or unbundled future rather than a la carte as an additional option for consumers. Second, its dire predictions about the future are all based on the current economic models on which cable channels operate remaining the same in this new environment. That's just stupid.

Unbundling is largely about reaching the young audiences that cable is hemorrhaging. This move is about capturing a bigger slice of the potential audience out there, not about cutting off people who see the benefits of the current system. And if unbundling is the future for all, there's no reason to think that total channels are going to contract dramatically and a la carte costs are going to go through the roof. The opposite could happen as well. If Roku is any indicator of the future, hosting/launching new channels is a breeze compared to the past. And who's to say that existing programmers won't be able to adjust to the new market conditions to make it work. Just to give an example, maybe part of the solution to an unbundled world will be smaller budgets for college sports contracts? That's not exactly the worst outcome imaginable.

 

[Oakland]

One thing that should be pointed out is that there is lots of advertizing on cable. When cable first came out, part of the sell was that it was commercial free. Now some of the channels have more ads than broadcast ever did. There are probably dozens of channels the cable companies will offer for free just to keep the ad dollars.

Not cable necessarily, but the channels currently offered by cable and satellite providers.

HBO announced today that it will begin offering its programming via a streaming subscription, utilizing a blueprint similar to Netflix's model, by 2015.

I never thought the cable companies would offer a la carte networks, but if the more popular nets (ESPN, Nickelodeon, FX, AMC, A&E, TBS, TNT, etc...) all begin to stream, then what choice will the cable providers truly have?

There are dozens of articles online covering this mammoth announcement from every conceivable angle.

The one that I've linked below (from Ad Age) seems to suggest that other cable nets who are positioned well might follow suit.

All of a sudden, la carte ESPN, via a streaming subscription, now seems like a no-brainer to me.

I was wrong - sorta.

http://adage.com/article/media/hbo-offer-standalone-web-streaming-service-year/295425/

 

[WickedOrange]

http://news.yahoo.com/t-wants-know-why-town-building-1gbps-network-191018014.html

AT&T wants to know why a town is building a 1Gbps network when it already offers 6Mbps DSL

Why is one bandwidth-hungry town building its own 1Gbps fiber network for its citizens when AT&T already offers them 6Mbps DSL? That’s the question AT&T would like to ask city leaders in Chanute, Kansas, a small town of roughly 9,000 people that is petitioning the state to allow it to offer greater access to the high-speed fiber network that it built to support town utility operations.

RELATED: The FCC wants states to stop killing municipal fiber networks that put AT&T to shame

The Wichita Eagle reports that AT&T is concerned about this development and “filed to officially intervene in the case and was granted that permission on Tuesday morning” this week.

“Any decision made by the KCC could impact AT&T’s business operations in the area, which is why we asked to intervene in the proceeding,” AT&T told The Eagle. “AT&T remains interested in both broadband issues and the work of the KCC.”

It’s true that a 1Gbps fiber service would definitely impact AT&T’s business operations in the area and likely for the very worse. Ars Technica points out that Chanute would charge citizens just $40 per month for its 1Gbps service, which is a mere $5 more than the six-month teaser rate for AT&T’s 6Mbps service. What’s more, AT&T’s plan includes a hard data cap of 150GB per month and going over that limit will set you back by an additional $10 per month.

Despite AT&T’s interference, Chanute officials don’t think the state will do anything to block their plan, which has already survived a major challenge after activists beat back legislation that would have all but crippled towns’ ability to build their own fiber networks. What’s more, AT&T says that it hasn’t taken an official position on the fiber network and is simply seeking out more information on why the town might be interested in building such a network and how it might impact AT&T’s own DSL business.

This article was originally published on BGR.com

 

[tep624]

I could pretty much survive with a good host of sports channels and about 20-30 other channels. I watch more sports, movies and cable series (i.e. HBO's) than anything.

Getting HBO standalone is a start.

 

[NashvilleOrange]

I ditched cable for the last 2+ years surviving on WatchESPN app on AppleTV with a login from a cable customer. I also had HBO go, Netflix and could always get the games on at my favorite bar. I think I could've kept this up had it not been for Comcast's inconsistent internet service. I pay for 50 mbps but running speed tests have been down at 5 or 3 at certain points. If I had Google Fiber or the other fiber service down in Chattanooga I would venture to say that I would have been able to keep this up. I have no way of proving it but I'm pretty sure Comcast knew I was streaming sports and screwed me over. Now I'm back to having cable and it's pretty awesome. I can watch any game and not have to worry about losing signal/buffering. Just thought I'd share my story on my attempt at cutting the cord. Not quite there yet.

 

[CuseOnly]

the marginal channels will go away completely.. right now if you say espn charges $6 for carriage fees well that has to go up. you think 50% of the houses will want espn? its probably way less than that and the same for all the other stations. I know people say they only need 3-4 channels, but is that true? do you never watch live TV, no local shows, no local news,

You like "the walking dead" you paying $10 for AMC a month, 17 million watched it so that means way less than in households , so say 5-10 million, right now they get 75 million a month from cable fees they need to get 7.5 million to break even. they might do it. but when the popular show goes away they start to hurt for money.

if you pay $100 a month for cable that means you dont watch more 10-15 channels , you don't watch whatever is the hot show because you never see it, you cant even check it out with this model.

i would say most people i know have 2-4 people living at home and watch 10-20 shows on a regular basis crossing 5-10 channels, but that doesnt mean i dont look around and find stuff all the time. you dont do that on netflix. its just like you dont browse ESPN on the web and see 20% of the content, you browse a newspaper and you see it all , you buy books on amazon you never see stuff you would if you went to a book store. you watch SU football you would never know teams score from inside the 20 if you didnt watch ESPNU..

if you really want to watch stuff years after the rest of the world netflix is great, but its not all on there and you will miss out on a ton of stuff.

I agree that marginal channels will go away completely and the individuals or media companies that own them will lose a ton of money.

Why do carriage fees automatically have to go up just because channels get unbundled? If ESPN charges TWC $6 for carriage fees, why does this automatically have to become $40 for someone who only wants that channel? Where is that assumption coming from? If ESPN is making money selling carriage fees to TWC at $6 why do they have to charge the consumer with a direct channel 4x more? I for one am a sports addict and I would never pay $30 for just ESPN, I think the market will eventually set the value of what each channel will bear as far as a consumer charge.

TWC and cable companies won't be able to prop up the garbage channels by charging the consumer more because ESPN is a premium channel. They would have to resort to charging us over what the carriage fees are or I will just go directly to ESPN on the internet and watch it without them.

 

[CuseOnly]

Some here are really going to hate this comment, but the 'historical' intermediary distributors add zero value given current technologies, are an obstacle to true market effects and simply anachronistic and monopolistic. Investing any thought in them is like investing thought in the Tower Records retail chain circa 1999. You might not know when it is going to die, but it sure as shite isn't looking good.

Long before you go through Millhouse's exercise in the wisdom of bundling - the simple question is why in the world would a content creator need one or more content distributor(s)/intermediary(ies) in 2014? It will take some time to die, and some new aggregators will arise - but they will look more like Netflix and Amazon prime - and they will offer bundles of course. Ones that make economic sense.

And yes - this means our 'take' from the ACC Network will be subject to real market forces, and therefore be less than that of the SEC and B1G. Ain't that 'murica?
Ain't that how it should work?

Those with content and more importantly popular content will always be king. The closer these companies get to the consumer, the cheaper it will be for us and the better and more profitable it will be for them.

It will result in the death of the cable companies and distributors of content.

 

[TampaLaker]

WatchESPN app on AppleTV with a login from a cable customer.... so we justify theft... I am sure everybody does it...

but what happens when nobody will pay for it...

 

[upperdeck]

WatchESPN app on AppleTV with a login from a cable customer... so we justify theft... I am sure everybody does it...

but what happens when nobody will pay for it...

pretty easy for espn to lock down the watchespm app when they really want to. the ISP knows your IP. this is an addon to ESPN now, when the business model changes they will change as well.

 

[WickedOrange]

A really interesting paper from PWC on this topic.

Feeling the Effects of the Videoquake
Changes in how we consume video content

http://goo.gl/r28ceN

 

[WickedOrange]

While Kansas City and others gloat about their gigabit internet from Google Fiber, a small internet service provider in Minnesota is about to offer stupid fast 10-gigabit connections to consumers. US Internet just announced that the new service will be available to 30,000 households in Minneapolis next summer. It'll be expensive, too, at $400 a month.

But wait, let's back up to that 10-gigabit detail. That's about ten times faster than Google Fiber, and gigabit ethernet is already a benchmark so impossibly fast it's hard to imagine how any average consumer would use that much bandwidth. That said, Google is actively working on achieving 10-gigabit speeds too. This little local ISP from Minnetonka just beat them to it.

The ISP is advertising its new service as the "first 10 GB internet in the world," and while that's not necessarily true, the company's offering 10-gigabit connections for households is certainly a first in the United States.

This all begs the question: Does anybody really need 10-gigabit internet? Those kinds of speeds are usually only used to link servers in data centers, and most home computer hardware would max out at lower speeds. In effect, nothing an average American would do on the web would ever require speeds that fast. A 10-gigabit connect would open up all kinds of new possibilities in terms of uploading video and even setting up servers in homes, though.

If anything, US Internet's power play illustrates just how screwed up the broadband industry is in this country. While Comcast has been offering 50 megabit per second connections to consumers for $77 a month, US Internet has been offering 1 gigabit per second connections for $65 a month. That's exponentially faster for $12 less per month. Now, building on that infrastructure, they're going to increase speeds ten-fold and continue to offer cheaper speeds, relatively. It's not so much that Comcast can't do the same thing. The cable giant just won't.

http://gizmodo.com/local-isp-offers-internet-speeds-10-times-faster-than-g-1674917397

 

[Toga]

Would it allow me to with North Korea?

While Kansas City and others gloat about their gigabit internet from Google Fiber, a small internet service provider in Minnesota is about to offer stupid fast 10-gigabit connections to consumers. US Internet just announced that the new service will be available to 30,000 households in Minneapolis next summer. It'll be expensive, too, at $400 a month.

But wait, let's back up to that 10-gigabit detail. That's about ten times faster than Google Fiber, and gigabit ethernet is already a benchmark so impossibly fast it's hard to imagine how any average consumer would use that much bandwidth. That said, Google is actively working on achieving 10-gigabit speeds too. This little local ISP from Minnetonka just beat them to it.

The ISP is advertising its new service as the "first 10 GB internet in the world," and while that's not necessarily true, the company's offering 10-gigabit connections for households is certainly a first in the United States.

This all begs the question: Does anybody really need 10-gigabit internet? Those kinds of speeds are usually only used to link servers in data centers, and most home computer hardware would max out at lower speeds. In effect, nothing an average American would do on the web would ever require speeds that fast. A 10-gigabit connect would open up all kinds of new possibilities in terms of uploading video and even setting up servers in homes, though.

If anything, US Internet's power play illustrates just how screwed up the broadband industry is in this country. While Comcast has been offering 50 megabit per second connections to consumers for $77 a month, US Internet has been offering 1 gigabit per second connections for $65 a month. That's exponentially faster for $12 less per month. Now, building on that infrastructure, they're going to increase speeds ten-fold and continue to offer cheaper speeds, relatively. It's not so much that Comcast can't do the same thing. The cable giant just won't.

http://gizmodo.com/local-isp-offers-internet-speeds-10-times-faster-than-g-1674917397

 

[texascpa]

This all begs the question: Does anybody really need 10-gigabit internet?

Nice article ruined by the ever-increasing question in this country: "do we NEED something"? What does need have to do with anything. This country isn't based on "need". If it was, it wouldn't be a free market (er, I mean quasi-free market) economy with a Constitutional Republic form of government. Makes me want to puke that people out there believe we should live our lives based on need.

 

[Czar]

I agree that marginal channels will go away completely and the individuals or media companies that own them will lose a ton of money.

Why do carriage fees automatically have to go up just because channels get unbundled? If ESPN charges TWC $6 for carriage fees, why does this automatically have to become $40 for someone who only wants that channel? Where is that assumption coming from? If ESPN is making money selling carriage fees to TWC at $6 why do they have to charge the consumer with a direct channel 4x more? I for one am a sports addict and I would never pay $30 for just ESPN, I think the market will eventually set the value of what each channel will bear as far as a consumer charge.

TWC and cable companies won't be able to prop up the garbage channels by charging the consumer more because ESPN is a premium channel. They would have to resort to charging us over what the carriage fees are or I will just go directly to ESPN on the internet and watch it without them.

Because there's going to be a ton of people not paying for ESPN anymore, and you have to pick up the slack. Look at Sky Sports prices in the UK as an example, 30 bucks for ESPN sounds right.

 

[Moontan]

Why do carriage fees automatically have to go up just because channels get unbundled? If ESPN charges TWC $6 for carriage fees, why does this automatically have to become $40 for someone who only wants that channel? Where is that assumption coming from? If ESPN is making money selling carriage fees to TWC at $6 why do they have to charge the consumer with a direct channel 4x more? I for one am a sports addict and I would never pay $30 for just ESPN, I think the market will eventually set the value of what each channel will bear as far as a consumer charge.

ESPN needs to maintain revenue to pay for all of the programming license fees. If you don't pay your share then SU won't be getting the much needed ACC TV $$.

Don't forget you'll be getting more than just ESPN. There's also ESPN2, ESPNU, ESPNews, all of ESPN3, and the oft overlooked Ocho.