dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
25
share rss forum feed


skeechan
Ai Otsukaholic
Premium
join:2012-01-26
AA169|170
kudos:2
Reviews:
·Clear Wireless
·Cox HSI
·Verizon FiOS
reply to pnh102

Re: MSOs are afraid of being relevant again

And there will continue to be cheaper and cheaper providers and the "old model" of charging $100+ for CATV locked to their overpriced hardware will be a distant memory. This news item isn't about cord cutting but MSOs not wanting to open the door to what would amount to be a 'new provider'.

They can be part of that inevitable future or they can be the RIM of the home entertainment industry scrambling to figure out how to respond 3 years too late.

Just like AT&T saw huge growth as a result of having the 'gotta have it device', it only takes one provider, perhaps a DBS provider to do the same, leading a mass exodus if the product isn't a complete piece of poopy. Then suddenly the MSOs will want to be on board just like VZW wanted on board after balking at first.



pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD

1 recommendation

The problem here is not the pay tv providers, but rather with the content creators themselves. They would be the ones who need to make the first move, in this case, offer their content to Apple TV and others for a reduced price.

The problem is they have no incentive to do this, as pay tv providers (and their customers) pay content providers even when they do not watch this content.

Also keep in mind that over the past 15 years, the number of available pay tv providers available to most given residential customers has increased. Most people can get pay TV from at least one cable company, both satellite companies and sometimes a telephone company, or any combination thereof. But even with this, service prices still continue to go up.
--
Romney/Ryan 2012 - Put a couple of mature adults in charge.



FFH
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ
kudos:5

2 edits

1 recommendation

said by pnh102:

The problem here is not the pay tv providers, but rather with the content creators themselves. They would be the ones who need to make the first move, in this case, offer their content to Apple TV and others for a reduced price.

The problem is they have no incentive to do this, as pay tv providers (and their customers) pay content providers even when they do not watch this content.

Also keep in mind that over the past 15 years, the number of available pay tv providers available to most given residential customers has increased. Most people can get pay TV from at least one cable company, both satellite companies and sometimes a telephone company, or any combination thereof. But even with this, service prices still continue to go up.

That is because the real oligopoly power rests with the big 7 content companies. They control almost all content and it is they who set the prices.

»en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_conglomerate
quote:
The Walt Disney Company is America's largest media conglomerate in terms of revenue, with News Corporation, Time Warner, CBS Corporation and Viacom completing the top 5. Other major players are NBCUniversal, and Sony



»en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_cros···g_Six.22

--
»www.mittromney.com/s/repeal-and-···bamacare
»www.mittromney.com/issues/health-care


skeechan
Ai Otsukaholic
Premium
join:2012-01-26
AA169|170
kudos:2
Reviews:
·Clear Wireless
·Cox HSI
·Verizon FiOS
reply to pnh102

It doesn't look like Apple was looking for direct carrier deals. I thought they were looking to partner with MSOs to stream the channels to Apple TV, just like Cox already does with their iPad app.

If it is direct producer deals, MSOs can cry exclusivity all they want, like Dish Network did over AMC, but what are they going to do? They can get away with telling AMC no. But they can't get away with telling AMC, USA, TNT, HBO, ESPN, HGTV, FX, and everyone else no. Once one domino falls, like Disney, the MSOs have lost this war.

Meanwhile for the content creators this other model would simply be a NEW revenue stream. They don't have to make more than they get from the MSOs because that revenue would be in addition to what they get from the MSOs.



pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
reply to FFH

I'd argue that even with say, 20 or more major content companies, each one of those companies has a "monopoly" on its product. For example, if you want to watch "Pawn Stars" you can only get that from the company that owns The History Channel. No other content company could (legally) sell you access to "Pawn Stars."
--
Romney/Ryan 2012 - Put a couple of mature adults in charge.



pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
reply to skeechan

said by skeechan:

It doesn't look like Apple was looking for direct carrier deals. I thought they were looking to partner with MSOs to stream the channels to Apple TV, just like Cox already does with their iPad app.

The problem here is that instead of going into a new (and very small, as per my previous post) market, they are now competing with every pay tv provider who offers a similar app. They'd also be doing it at a disadvantage because for the Apple service to work, a separate piece of dedicated hardware would need to be purchased, as contrasted to something like the Cox or Comcast app, which runs right on an iPad that many people already own.
said by skeechan:

If it is direct producer deals, MSOs can cry exclusivity all they want, like Dish Network did over AMC, but what are they going to do? They can get away with telling AMC no. But they can't get away with telling AMC, USA, TNT, HBO, ESPN, HGTV, FX, and everyone else no. Once one domino falls, like Disney, the MSOs have lost this war.

This could also go the other way. People who have Dish but who want to watch AMC content are more likely to simply switch to a provider which shows AMC.
said by skeechan:

Meanwhile for the content creators this other model would simply be a NEW revenue stream. They don't have to make more than they get from the MSOs because that revenue would be in addition to what they get from the MSOs.

The problem here again is that the cord cutter market is still very small. Even if every cord-cutter were to subscribe to these kinds of services, the total money gained would be tiny compared to what the content providers get from the pay tv providers. Also look at it from this way:

What if a network like AMC decided to offer a $10 or $15 a month streaming service that allowed for people with no cable service to watch current AMC content? I doubt that the pay tv providers to which AMC is currently joined at the hip would like that very much, as this gives pay tv subscribers a nice incentive to drop pay tv service.
--
Romney/Ryan 2012 - Put a couple of mature adults in charge.

LucasLee

join:2010-11-26
kudos:1
reply to pnh102

said by pnh102:

I'd argue that even with say, 20 or more major content companies, each one of those companies has a "monopoly" on its product. For example, if you want to watch "Pawn Stars" you can only get that from the company that owns The History Channel. No other content company could (legally) sell you access to "Pawn Stars."

you are misusing the term "monopoly".


pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD

said by LucasLee:

you are misusing the term "monopoly".

A monopoly is defined as a market in which there is one source for a product or service.

If I want to watch a current episode of Pawn Stars, I have to go through the History Channel to get it. I can't go to any other (legitimate) channel.
--
Romney/Ryan 2012 - Put a couple of mature adults in charge.


LightS
Premium
join:2005-12-17
Greenville, TX

Err... I wouldn't consider a TV show the product/service. I would consider The History Channel itself the product..


LucasLee

join:2010-11-26
kudos:1
reply to pnh102

that's like saying Apple has a monopoly on iPhones. when the market under discussion would actually be 'smartphones', and the iPhone is simply one competing option.

if you were to look around, i'm certain you could find a show equivalent to Pawn Stars from a different network.

there are many other content providers offering other tv shows of various quality, and that is the market within which Pawn Stars exists. so unless the owners of Pawn Stars own all low rent garbage tv shows, then there is no monopoly.