Maryland may actually be leaving the ACC

[HJS]

The a la carte model will never work. It wouldn't generate enough money to produce the amount of content needed. Cable channels and networks don't know what is the next Modern Family or Duck Dynasty so they have to produce a lot of shows to find the hits. You can't do that with a la carte cable, sorry it'll never happen.

You're probably right, but I think tiered pricing might expand though.

Agreed

When I refer to a la carte, I am referring to Cable companies being able to contract with each TV station. They in turn would bundle them into packages offered the subscriber (something like basic (50 standard channels), premium (same 50 channels but avialable in standard and HD) and elite (400 channels standard and HD) and then have supplemental packages like Sport, Live Concerts, On Demand, etc.).

As to where I think the near future is going... I think you will see more and more situations where the content providers give access directly to the customer. I am thinking something along the lines of South Park Studios and ESPN3. Hulu and Netflix are serving as an intermediary now, but I think that Apple will try to centralize everything like they did with iTunes. The challenge is monetization. No one is going to pay to watch an episode of anything. They'll pay for a service to watch... so long as it isn't some big effing ordeal to navigate to (right now this may be streamers biggest problem). Don't dismiss advertising dollars as as the content provider would be able to cut out the middle man of the network and cable company.

All in all... the cash cow that was predicted to be Conference Network Channels who would be paid insane somes because Time Warner didn't want to lose FOX don't seem as assured at the moment. That said, as content providers access folks directly, it is possible that these Conference Networks still provide the greatest profit potential. But... the evolving market sure changes the analysis.

[cvilleagle]

You're right, Bomber. The other thing that got some press recently was "TVs that listen to you." A little big-brotherish but since everything is going to be voice-controlled, the idea is that they listen to everything that you talk about. You're talking about going on a vacation, boom, first commercial when you start Hulu/Netflix/etc. is for Carnival cruises. I am now off the cable bandwagon and I have to say that it's fantastic. I recently had cable when I was on vacation, and there were some nice things, like stumbling across a random movie I wouldn't have remembered to look up and play, but all in all it's not worth the money anymore.

[eagle9903]

You're right, Bomber. The other thing that got some press recently was "TVs that listen to you." A little big-brotherish but since everything is going to be voice-controlled, the idea is that they listen to everything that you talk about. You're talking about going on a vacation, boom, first commercial when you start Hulu/Netflix/etc. is for Carnival cruises. I am now off the cable bandwagon and I have to say that it's fantastic. I recently had cable when I was on vacation, and there were some nice things, like stumbling across a random movie I wouldn't have remembered to look up and play, but all in all it's not worth the money anymore.

I also got rid of cable because I used it so infrequently and frankly even though I have hulu plus, amazon prime, netflix etc. I don't ever watch tv anymore outside of sports because of it. It is too much work to figure out what to watch. I used to watch a lot of mindless home improvement storage wars and that gunmaking show crap, there is no way I'm going to sit through awful sitcoms to try and find something I like watching. It is too much of a time/effort investment and a lot of those semi interesting reality shows that involve virtually no investment are not on hulu. I had exhausted the cartoon selection on hulu prior to giving up cable.

[twballgame9]

The 180 bucks a month it costs for 500 channels, 180 HD channels, a home phone line and reliable broadband service is so low that it's not worth getting rid of.

[shockdoct]

The new model is already available to some extent and pretty easy to take yourself off the grid if you want. I'm lazy and like being unexpectedly treated to 5 hours of Castle when I least expect it, so I haven't. The question is who will control this - content producers, traditional TV arms, internet providers, hardware manufacturers, or the cable companies themselves.

The big piece of the puzzle is monetizing the content and I think that a provider like Hulu is missing the mark in a big way. Yes, they provide advertising but they provide standard advertising sold in much the same way TV ads are sold. They should be personalizing and targeting their ads based on your personal they have access to a la web advertising. This is a much more responsive form of advertising and people pay for it. Think about if they could bring in re-tartgeting technologies into their mix. You're on tractors.com, looking at a new John Deere, and then you leave the site, go check your bank account, and then fire up an episode. First commercial break, John Deere ads are in front of you, keeping that mindshare.

I have dropped cable in lieu of Aereo (amazing service currently in NYC only)/Hulu Plus/Netflix via Roku.

I will concur on the surprise of repeated and untargeted nature of advertising on Hulu Plus via Roku. It seems like a real missed opportunity for effective advertising since the software should know exactly what you have watched and might even have some optional demo information on you.

Hulu Plus via a browser actually gives the user an options for which ad they would like to watch, but I suppose that is strictly web advertising which is frankly light years ahead of TV advertising (Hulu Plus via Roku).

[shockdoct]

The a la carte model will never work. It wouldn't generate enough money to produce the amount of content needed. Cable channels and networks don't know what is the next Modern Family or Duck Dynasty so they have to produce a lot of shows to find the hits. You can't do that with a la carte cable, sorry it'll never happen.

You're probably right, but I think tiered pricing might expand though.

Agreed

When I refer to a la carte, I am referring to Cable companies being able to contract with each TV station. They in turn would bundle them into packages offered the subscriber (something like basic (50 standard channels), premium (same 50 channels but avialable in standard and HD) and elite (400 channels standard and HD) and then have supplemental packages like Sport, Live Concerts, On Demand, etc.).

As to where I think the near future is going... I think you will see more and more situations where the content providers give access directly to the customer. I am thinking something along the lines of South Park Studios and ESPN3. Hulu and Netflix are serving as an intermediary now, but I think that Apple will try to centralize everything like they did with iTunes. The challenge is monetization. No one is going to pay to watch an episode of anything. They'll pay for a service to watch... so long as it isn't some big effing ordeal to navigate to (right now this may be streamers biggest problem). Don't dismiss advertising dollars as as the content provider would be able to cut out the middle man of the network and cable company.

All in all... the cash cow that was predicted to be Conference Network Channels who would be paid insane somes because Time Warner didn't want to lose FOX don't seem as assured at the moment. That said, as content providers access folks directly, it is possible that these Conference Networks still provide the greatest profit potential. But... the evolving market sure changes the analysis.

I think you are seeing the newer cable options like VZ being much more progressive in the carriage fees.

VZ's announcement that on FiOS they will start giving channel owners the option to abolish the per-subscriber model and instead go with the number of "unique views" (determined by VZ's set-top box) is a step in the right direction.

[eagle9903]

The new model is already available to some extent and pretty easy to take yourself off the grid if you want. I'm lazy and like being unexpectedly treated to 5 hours of Castle when I least expect it, so I haven't. The question is who will control this - content producers, traditional TV arms, internet providers, hardware manufacturers, or the cable companies themselves.

The big piece of the puzzle is monetizing the content and I think that a provider like Hulu is missing the mark in a big way. Yes, they provide advertising but they provide standard advertising sold in much the same way TV ads are sold. They should be personalizing and targeting their ads based on your personal they have access to a la web advertising. This is a much more responsive form of advertising and people pay for it. Think about if they could bring in re-tartgeting technologies into their mix. You're on tractors.com, looking at a new John Deere, and then you leave the site, go check your bank account, and then fire up an episode. First commercial break, John Deere ads are in front of you, keeping that mindshare.

I have dropped cable in lieu of Aereo (amazing service currently in NYC only)/Hulu Plus/Netflix via Roku.

I will concur on the surprise of repeated and untargeted nature of advertising on Hulu Plus via Roku. It seems like a real missed opportunity for effective advertising since the software should know exactly what you have watched and might even have some optional demo information on you.

Hulu Plus via a browser actually gives the user an options for which ad they would like to watch, but I suppose that is strictly web advertising which is frankly light years ahead of TV advertising (Hulu Plus via Roku).

hulu on the playstation also gives you choice of ads, but it is I think the choice of three ads for the same product. I generally wait for it to go away without choosing one.

[b0mberMan]

I think so much of this is caught up in intertia. You can't really monetize too well when you don't have a clear front runner on the new model. Plus you have the traditional companies for the most part lobbying to keep things as is.

- I don't know what Apple's plans are but their initial thinking had to be around creating the content ecosystem in the manner they did with music. I don't think that's an option. One thing the content side of the TV industry has realized this time around is that they don't want to lose control of the distribution.

- I don't get why HBO won't become a premium content provider across all channels. I don't have HBO on my TV, but I would sign up to get it online. But I can't.

- Netflix is making a play at this and getting into the content model. It will do well with Arrested Development. I haven't seen how House of Cards went. But will they have enough momentum to keep subscribers afterward? What is their next offer?

- Hulu is still dependent on agreements for content with the networks. I still think they could get a better return on their advertising though if they adopted a web model of targeting. Problem is that may not scale - having personalized or targeted video content. A banner ad that chases you around from website to website is cheap to create and easy to deploy. Web video is less so.

- Finally, you have your internet providers ready to turd in your punchbowl and start charging you per your household usage instead of a flat fee. That is going to harm people who want to move to a web or multi-platform distributed model instead of paying for Cable or DirecTV.

[shockdoct]

I think so much of this is caught up in intertia. You can't really monetize too well when you don't have a clear front runner on the new model. Plus you have the traditional companies for the most part lobbying to keep things as is.

- I don't know what Apple's plans are but their initial thinking had to be around creating the content ecosystem in the manner they did with music. I don't think that's an option. One thing the content side of the TV industry has realized this time around is that they don't want to lose control of the distribution.

- I don't get why HBO won't become a premium content provider across all channels. I don't have HBO on my TV, but I would sign up to get it online. But I can't.

- Netflix is making a play at this and getting into the content model. It will do well with Arrested Development. I haven't seen how House of Cards went. But will they have enough momentum to keep subscribers afterward? What is their next offer?

- Hulu is still dependent on agreements for content with the networks. I still think they could get a better return on their advertising though if they adopted a web model of targeting. Problem is that may not scale - having personalized or targeted video content. A banner ad that chases you around from website to website is cheap to create and easy to deploy. Web video is less so.

- Finally, you have your internet providers ready to turd in your punchbowl and start charging you per your household usage instead of a flat fee. That is going to harm people who want to move to a web or multi-platform distributed model instead of paying for Cable or DirecTV.

I agree on HBO. I have to assume they are getting more from the cable companies than they would get if they opened up HBO GO to non-cable subscribers.

Good point about the ease of creating web banner ads vs producing a video commercial. But I do feel like I could see more/different commercials on Hulu. It is usually the same allstate,chase,etc commercials on repeat.

I think with the development of uncapped wireless networks (Clear comes to mind), possibility of Dish offering internet on their cobbled together spectrum, and cheap fiber being laid out by both large non-traditional companies (Google Fiber) and smaller operators (Vtel in VT plans to offer Fiber for $30/mo for 18k subscribers), you will see cable operators lose their dominant position (and only current subscriber growth) in the broadband arena. This should hopefully limit the usage rates from proliferating or at least provide alternatives for tech savvy individuals.

[Cadillac90]

I agree on HBO. I have to assume they are getting more from the cable companies than they would get if they opened up HBO GO to non-cable subscribers.

Good point about the ease of creating web banner ads vs producing a video commercial. But I do feel like I could see more/different commercials on Hulu. It is usually the same allstate,chase,etc commercials on repeat.

I think with the development of uncapped wireless networks (Clear comes to mind), possibility of Dish offering internet on their cobbled together spectrum, and cheap fiber being laid out by both large non-traditional companies (Google Fiber) and smaller operators (Vtel in VT plans to offer Fiber for $30/mo for 18k subscribers), you will see cable operators lose their dominant position (and only current subscriber growth) in the broadband arena. This should hopefully limit the usage rates from proliferating or at least provide alternatives for tech savvy individuals.

HBO doesn't want to run around trying to collect monthly subs when they have the cable companies delivering a shit ton of subs for them already. It will not help their business model.

Cheap fiber is not a reality. Don't fool yourself, it is very expensive to get it to the house just asked Verizon and check out the cost of the NBN in Australia. I would argue that the encumbants are still in a very solid position with regard to their broadband customers and video customers for that matter for the ones that own their own content.

Oh and the Verizon model you spelled out in an earlier post has been tossed out there. No one has agreed to anything and at the end of the day net/net it probably wont save Verizon any money.

[eagle9903]

I agree on HBO. I have to assume they are getting more from the cable companies than they would get if they opened up HBO GO to non-cable subscribers.

Good point about the ease of creating web banner ads vs producing a video commercial. But I do feel like I could see more/different commercials on Hulu. It is usually the same allstate,chase,etc commercials on repeat.

I think with the development of uncapped wireless networks (Clear comes to mind), possibility of Dish offering internet on their cobbled together spectrum, and cheap fiber being laid out by both large non-traditional companies (Google Fiber) and smaller operators (Vtel in VT plans to offer Fiber for $30/mo for 18k subscribers), you will see cable operators lose their dominant position (and only current subscriber growth) in the broadband arena. This should hopefully limit the usage rates from proliferating or at least provide alternatives for tech savvy individuals.

HBO doesn't want to run around trying to collect monthly subs when they have the cable companies delivering a shit ton of subs for them already. It will not help their business model.

Cheap fiber is not a reality. Don't fool yourself, it is very expensive to get it to the house just asked Verizon and check out the cost of the NBN in Australia. I would argue that the encumbants are still in a very solid position with regard to their broadband customers and video customers for that matter for the ones that own their own content.

Oh and the Verizon model you spelled out in an earlier post has been tossed out there. No one has agreed to anything and at the end of the day net/net it probably wont save Verizon any money.

I feel like cheap fiber is probably similar to a tesla coil.

[b0mberMan]

HBO doesn't want to run around trying to collect monthly subs when they have the cable companies delivering a shit ton of subs for them already. It will not help their business model.

That's short-sighted. Use an electronic payment system. Sure, you go from selling to a few outlets to selling directly to individual consumers, but you get a powerful amount of information from your subscriber base. Then you have an understanding of who your viewers are, where they are, you can track their viewing on their devices and drop a cookie in there, understand where else they are going online, what they look for, what they buy etc. And you have an informed revenue stream to market to ad partners. I know HBO doesn't 'do' ads, but as the traditional cable model erodes, they would be foolish not to look at these other streams of revenue to bring in.

[Cadillac90]

HBO doesn't want to run around trying to collect monthly subs when they have the cable companies delivering a shit ton of subs for them already. It will not help their business model.

That's short-sighted. Use an electronic payment system. Sure, you go from selling to a few outlets to selling directly to individual consumers, but you get a powerful amount of information from your subscriber base. Then you have an understanding of who your viewers are, where they are, you can track their viewing on their devices and drop a cookie in there, understand where else they are going online, what they look for, what they buy etc. And you have an informed revenue stream to market to ad partners. I know HBO doesn't 'do' ads, but as the traditional cable model erodes, they would be foolish not to look at these other streams of revenue to bring in.

They can and do get an understanding of whom their viewers are through their cable partners, who collect that same information through the set top box. I wish it were that simple but the fact of the matter is that they would lose a significant amount of subs and thus revenue and wouldn't be able to pay for shows like The Sopranos. Why rely on the fickle ad dollar when they get steady, visible subscriber revenues. The traditional cable model isn't eroding anytime soon.

[b0mberMan]

HBO doesn't want to run around trying to collect monthly subs when they have the cable companies delivering a shit ton of subs for them already. It will not help their business model.

That's short-sighted. Use an electronic payment system. Sure, you go from selling to a few outlets to selling directly to individual consumers, but you get a powerful amount of information from your subscriber base. Then you have an understanding of who your viewers are, where they are, you can track their viewing on their devices and drop a cookie in there, understand where else they are going online, what they look for, what they buy etc. And you have an informed revenue stream to market to ad partners. I know HBO doesn't 'do' ads, but as the traditional cable model erodes, they would be foolish not to look at these other streams of revenue to bring in.

They can and do get an understanding of whom their viewers are through their cable partners, who collect that same information through the set top box. I wish it were that simple but the fact of the matter is that they would lose a significant amount of subs and thus revenue and wouldn't be able to pay for shows like The Sopranos. Why rely on the fickle ad dollar when they get steady, visible subscriber revenues. The traditional cable model isn't eroding anytime soon.

Frankly I'm advocating both. And as someone who works in market research, the info they are getting from their cable partners is not as granular as you can get by tracking individuals like you can through engagement on personal connected devices. It takes effort to execute it right, but the payoff can be big once advertisers see you have an ability to target the specific people they want with the messages those specific people want to receive, where they want to receive them, and when they want to receive them.

Also, I just looked and apparently HBOs subscriber base has been increasing lately, so that's probably reasons #1 through 1,000 that they're not taking my advice. A lot of this has to do with the fact that they are putting out good shows again, which is what the direct to consumer model would hinge on as well. And really, any content model, be it the traditional or these new areas we're talking about. The reason for not standing pat or starting to migrate their offerings to a different platform is the bet that people are going to realize that the content is being put out there and there are other ways of consuming it that cost less and allow you to select what you want, and decide not to subscribe to cable, hence dropping HBO, waiting until the DVDs come out, etc.

[PhillyandBCEagles]

The 180 bucks a month it costs for 500 channels, 180 HD channels, a home phone line and reliable broadband service is so low that it's not worth getting rid of.

Do you get carrier pigeon service included with that as well??

I'd get rid of cable in a heartbeat if it wasn't for live sports. There's other shit I watch on TV but nothing I'd miss (you can get TV shows, news, and interesting time-wasting History Channel/National Geographic-type shit online).

[hansen]

The 180 bucks a month it costs for 500 channels, 180 HD channels, a home phone line and reliable broadband service is so low that it's not worth getting rid of.

Do you get carrier pigeon service included with that as well??

I'd get rid of cable in a heartbeat if it wasn't for live sports. There's other shit I watch on TV but nothing I'd miss (you can get TV shows, news, and interesting time-wasting History Channel/National Geographic-type shit online).

I have a home phone line as well. Granted, it's VOIP, and I only pay 30 bucks a year for the service.

[talon]

This is from 4 years ago:



In an a la carte world, would sports channels become more expensive as they couldn't count on automatic fees from all the subscribers who never watch sports? Or would advertisers pressure the sports channels to keep the a la carte price low, as sports are pretty much the only thing left on TV that you can't DVR and watch later?

[PhillyandBCEagles]

I'd be paying $13.85/month for cable under that plan.

Palladia is the real steal on there, they have a ton of good shit. 8c/month for G4 is also a steal for the Lost reruns alone, plus they have some good movies.

[hansen]

I'd be paying $13.85/month for cable under that plan.

Palladia is the real steal on there, they have a ton of good shit. 8c/month for G4 is also a steal for the Lost reruns alone, plus they have some good movies.

Fox Soccer at .16 is another bargain. Premier League, UCL, etc.

I have Verizon and I could almost move down to the lowest tier if not for Fox Soccer being on the middle tier.

[shockdoct]

Cost of each channel that is a little more up to date and includes nielson ratings.

[twballgame9]

The 180 bucks a month it costs for 500 channels, 180 HD channels, a home phone line and reliable broadband service is so low that it's not worth getting rid of.

Do you get carrier pigeon service included with that as well??

I'd get rid of cable in a heartbeat if it wasn't for live sports. There's other shit I watch on TV but nothing I'd miss (you can get TV shows, news, and interesting time-wasting History Channel/National Geographic-type shit online).

I have no phone. The package was cheaper with the phone line than without.

And I wouldn't. Streaming has its own suck aspects that people are simply overlooking at this moment.

[innocentbystander]

Why do people want Notre Dame so bad?

$

[PhillyandBCEagles]

The 180 bucks a month it costs for 500 channels, 180 HD channels, a home phone line and reliable broadband service is so low that it's not worth getting rid of.

Do you get carrier pigeon service included with that as well??

I'd get rid of cable in a heartbeat if it wasn't for live sports. There's other shit I watch on TV but nothing I'd miss (you can get TV shows, news, and interesting time-wasting History Channel/National Geographic-type shit online).

I have no phone. The package was cheaper with the phone line than without.

And I wouldn't. Streaming has its own suck aspects that people are simply overlooking at this moment.

True, but again most of those suck aspects (lag/buffering, etc.) are really only applicable to live sports.

[shockdoct]

I think an important issue will be whether the sports programming on apple tv is blacked out locally like it would be if you were to purchase NHL Gamecenter or I think MLB TV for your computer.

Huluplus already has pretty great selection of shows and seems to be improving as time goes on.

It will also be interesting to see if you can get things like HBO to go for it. I would think not.

Question around the blackouts will depend on the sports leagues and the agreements with their cable partners.

I think you will always have the local tv blackouts of online streams so the local tv networks can collect their cash from their local consumers.
The bigger question will be around the national tv blackouts.

In terms of "national" broadcast blackouts, you can go down two different avenues.

On one hand you have MLB.TV which only blacks out Saturday afternoon (3-4 games usually) and Sunday Night baseball (1 game) each week. MLB.tv does not currently blackout weekday ESPN games, the weekly TBS game, or anything broadcast on MLB Network (own broadcast/production of games or simulcasts of a local affiliate's feed). Thus MLB.tv is a great option if you live outside of your teams market.

Then you have NHL which has gone full retard. The NHL Gamecenter online package not only blacks out the weekly NBC game (defensible) and every single NBC SportsNetwork game (quasi understandable), but in addition blacks out a game where NHL Network is just retransmitting a local networks feed (flat out atrocious)

So if you are a fan of a decent team that the NHL loves to put on the national broadcasts (NBC, NBCSN, NHLN), you can watch maybe 40% of the team's games live if you have cut the cord and don't have cable anymore.

I was thinking more along the lines of an antitrust issue. I don't think it applies everywhere, but I think and I'm not looking this up so could be very wrong, that comcast down here was forced to provide its content from comcast sportsnet to the satellite providers and verizon. I can't see why appletv couldn't force its way in too.

It applies everywhere. FCC evidently closed the terrestrial loophole that exempted Comcast Philly from having to upload to satellite. I don't believe Apple TV would be covered by that FCC regs unless they are planning to beam the content via satellite.

With baseball season upon us, I started to research ways around the blackout issue. I found an inexpensive method that allowed me to avoid blackouts by using a proxy server. Cost me $50 for the year.

[claver2010]

FWIW I get the Mets & Rangers up here through streaming and rarely have an issue.

[HJS]

Regarding Apple TV... some analyst at a shop I never heard of claims the TV is coming out this year... will come with iPad like mobile TVs that can be placed and streamed to throughout the house... will be 60" and cost anywhere from $1500-$2500.
http://www.sfgate.com/business/technolo ... 406248.php

[shockdoct]

FWIW I get the Mets & Rangers up here through streaming and rarely have an issue.

Assuming you are using the league's streaming services, that is likely due to your residence in Red Sox/Bruins territory.
A proxy allows you to watch the local games via MLB.tv or GCL while residing in the local blackout territory.
It is useful for people who eschew cable but still want to watch whatever game would be broadcast in the local market.

[claver2010]

Sorry was referring to the quality not the restrictions, you're correct

Both are HD quality and rarely have problems

[HJS]

With the mess going on at Rutgers, I think it clear that they have adopted Fr. Leahy's view towards athletics (which was originally pioneered by Temple). Now that they are in a conference that pays them equally no matter how they perform, there is no incentive for the University to reinvest in the program. There is no incentive to hire a big time coach or AD. There is really nothing left for them to do but cash checks handed to you by the Conference.

[MilitantEagle]

With the mess going on at Rutgers, I think it clear that they have adopted Fr. Leahy's view towards athletics (which was originally pioneered by Temple). Now that they are in a conference that pays them equally no matter how they perform, there is no incentive for the University to reinvest in the program. There is no incentive to hire a big time coach or AD. There is really nothing left for them to do but cash checks handed to you by the Conference.

Your top choice for the BC job, Howland, appears to be a candidate.