Cable Tries To Stuff The Internet Video Genie Back In The Bottle Even broadcasters have doubts over new 'TV Everywhere' model... Monday Mar 02 2009 11:30 EDT Last week we noted that Comcast and Time Warner Cable would soon be offering TV content via broadband for free -- provided you were already a cable subscriber. The idea is to keep viewers away from alternatives and keep ad revenue in house, though as we noted last week, the industry's thought process doesn't entirely make sense, given the flood of existing content (much of it free) that's already available. You can get a general idea of the industry's thought process by reading this Advertising Age report, which quotes Time Warner CEO Jeff Bewkes: quote: "If you want to watch your favorite TV network or shows through broadband on any device -- PCs or mobile -- you can do it as long as you subscribe to any multichannel provider," Mr. Bewkes told Advertising Age. "It's a natural extension of the existing model." "This is not just for the cable industry," he said. "It's about keeping the health of all these fantastic networks while making them available at no extra charge on the online platform."
One quickly gets the feeling Bewkes and company really think they can turn back the clock, and simply shift the traditional TV advertising model online, where years of free content (including P2P piracy) have already completely changed the game. Once they realize they can't put the genie back in the bottle, you'll see them start pushing metered billing more seriously -- so if they have to play "dumb pipe," they'll still get their cut. Industry analyst Craig Moffett puts it another way: quote: "At the end of the day, the cable operators are going to be fine because they will charge for the service they provide, which is access to the ones and the zeroes whether that service takes the form of linear video or broadband," said Bernstein Research cable analyst Craig Moffett.
But metered billing doesn't help broadcasters, thus this new "TV Everywhere" effort. However, according to the article, even the broadcasters themselves are skeptical that it's actually going to work. That means they're likely going to continue focusing on bypassing carriers and offering content directly via their websites, which simply adds to the slew of options that make this latest move irrelevant before it's even launched. The entire thing is a vicious circle that should only get more interesting as Internet video goes from niche to mainstream. |
mob (banned)On the next level.. join:2000-10-07 San Jose, CA |
mob (banned)
Member
2009-Mar-2 11:02 am
Best of luck dead, I mean dear cable coIf they think they can bring their archaic model of control and profiteering to the internet, they are in for a huge surprise. | |
| | |
Re: Best of luck dead, I mean dear cable coNo kidding. This clearly shows just how out of touch with reality they are. In 10 years they'll be in the same boat the telephone companies are today with POTS, except the video cash cow subsidized data to a far larger extent than commercial POTS ever did (residential is not even a factor).
Can't say I'll miss them. The dozen or so strong cable networks will survive nicely while the 1,000 lame ones will fade away along with the MSOs. | |
| | 19579823 (banned)An Awesome Dude join:2003-08-04 |
to mob
quote: If they think they can bring their archaic model of control and profiteering to the internet, they are in for a huge surprise.
I agree totally! They would probably blast it with spam so who would wanna watch it anyway?? (Even if free) | |
|
amungus Premium Member join:2004-11-26 America
1 recommendation |
amungus
Premium Member
2009-Mar-2 11:16 am
haha"they're likely going to continue focusing on bypassing carriers and offering content directly via their websites, undermining the very plan designed to save them."
Good. Tons of people do actually like the ability to just go to "network_name_here.com" and watch shows...
It's easy enough for most people to simply watch the streams there.
And about being a 'dumb pipe' - um, that's the whole reason people went to broadband... Because AOL and the like are just pointless. People want to connect to the internet, and be free to go where they want.
It's just a cable channel. One 6Mhz slice of spectrum on a wire. Nothing more, at least until channel bonding comes along. Making a bigger deal out of it usually ends up making things worse for everyone. One ought to be able to choose what they'd like to receive over that channel - hence, the internet was born... If they try to turn it into a prison system, eventually it will overflow and the system will collapse under the strain. | |
| | me1212 join:2008-11-20 Lees Summit, MO |
me1212
Member
2009-Mar-2 11:18 am
Re: hahaYup. | |
| | |
to amungus
said by amungus:"they're likely going to continue focusing on bypassing carriers and offering content directly via their websites, undermining the very plan designed to save them." Good. Tons of people do actually like the ability to just go to "network_name_here.com" and watch shows... It's easy enough for most people to simply watch the streams there. And about being a 'dumb pipe' - um, that's the whole reason people went to broadband... Because AOL and the like are just pointless. People want to connect to the internet, and be free to go where they want. It's just a cable channel. One 6Mhz slice of spectrum on a wire. Nothing more, at least until channel bonding comes along. Making a bigger deal out of it usually ends up making things worse for everyone. One ought to be able to choose what they'd like to receive over that channel - hence, the internet was born... If they try to turn it into a prison system, eventually it will overflow and the system will collapse under the strain. I am one of those people who watches the network feeds. I wish Discovery channel had a free feed. What I like isd the ability to watch shows when ever I want to watch them. Simple as that. I also use Hulu on occasion. | |
|
|
why watch tv online if I already have cable?This makes no sense.
I am paying for cable- so I can watch clear, good quality with the cable- or I can deal with herky jerky video streaming instead?
What, do people need to watch tv while they're at work, visiting Grandma, at the supermarket, driving to work? What is the point of this?
Believe me, I have cable and would love to ditch it in favor of internet video, but I think the quality of what is available online has some quality issues that need to be resolved.
I have major problems with Hulu, with jerky, choppy video, and so do a lot of other people from what I read online.
I do watch some stuff online already, because I'm tired of the cropping the network/cable company does. So I'll watch stuff at the network websites, which usually work better than Hulu for me. And for the stuff that isn't available- which is a lot- I grab it from the newsgroups.
The cable industry isn't going to stuff this genie back in the bottle.
Cable and satellite are yesterdays technology. They need to move forward or become extinct. People want to watch stuff online because there are FAR LESS commercials. Not to mention it's free...
I can't stand the amount of commercials on cable anymore. $60 a month for this BS? If I never ever see another car commercial or fast food ad as long as I live I will die happy.
IF I could get any kind of OTA signal where I live I would have ditched cable already. But I can't. So next best choice is online video.
The cable companies better adapt or die. Time for an unlimited tier for their broadband customers. I'd pay an extra $15 or $20 a month for unlimited with no caps.
| |
| | TitusMr Gradenko join:2004-06-26 |
Titus
Member
2009-Mar-2 11:33 am
Re: why watch tv online if I already have cable?That's an angle you don't hear as often as you should: cable (content) channels supposedly pushing up the rates for cable providers, who pass it along to you, advertising the hell out of you anyway. The ratio of commercials to content on a prime-time network show is ridiculous; I don't, and won't, watch it. Five minutes of show, four minutes of commercials. It's stupefying why anyone would sit through that. Cable started out that way (nearly no commercials), and now they're almost as bad as the networks.
I suppose I'm spoiled by Netflix and PBS shows ...
The dumb pipers will meter bandwidth for sagging revenue. I don't believe a word regarding their increasing numbers -- everyone I talk with is either considering dropping cable or already has. If they have kids, they'll hang onto it as long as they can. Single people increasingly get what they need on the net and these guys have no recourse but to gouge your eyes out for access. Why they bother with their own flavor of online content is beyond me ... it smells like bad PR -- the stink before the flush, so to speak. -- | |
| | | 1 edit
1 recommendation |
Re: why watch tv online if I already have cable?Everyone you talk with is dropping cable?? LOLOL What world do you live in? Hardly anyone is dropping cable.. no matter how many bbr geeks say they are. Most of the world still want high quality pictures on their TV's... not their PC's. Once ISP's start capping their service, this wonderful idea of TVip will be dead. Even FiOS will eventually add caps when too much of their video revenue becomes depleted.
VoIP has only survived bc of its very small amount of data consumption. | |
| | | | TitusMr Gradenko join:2004-06-26 |
Titus
Member
2009-Mar-2 11:54 am
Re: why watch tv online if I already have cable?said by ITALIAN926:Everyone you talk with is dropping cable?? LOLOL What world do you live in? Hardly anyone is dropping cable.. no matter how many bbr geeks say they are. In a world that values reading comprehension, evidently "everyone I talk with is either considering dropping cable or already has" You're in CT, I'm in a rural area where unemployment is probably 1.5x to 2x the national average. -- | |
| | | | | jester121 Premium Member join:2003-08-09 Lake Zurich, IL |
Re: why watch tv online if I already have cable?So 12-16 percent then? Got it.
Hyperbole much? | |
| | | | | | TitusMr Gradenko join:2004-06-26 |
Titus
Member
2009-Mar-2 2:13 pm
Re: why watch tv online if I already have cable?said by jester121:So 12-16 percent then? Got it. Hyperbole much? Ignorance of one's current reality, much? Actual unemployment rate 13.9%: Merrill Lynch» www.financialweek.com/ap ··· yAlert01and that's a month ago. Check out the rust belt for unemployment numbers NOW, like, uh ... today. Are you really this daft? Do you live in Lush Rumball's world? -- | |
| | | | | | | jester121 Premium Member join:2003-08-09 Lake Zurich, IL |
Re: why watch tv online if I already have cable?Errr.... okay, so 20-25 percent where you are (assuming we throw the Labor Department official numbers out the window and use the ones you cherry picked)?
Just want to be 100% clear on what you mean by "everyone".
Good thing they expanded the digital converter box coupon program, eh? No wait, I forgot -- people in the boonies all have satellite dishes don't they? | |
| | | | | | | | MrMasterRum Connoisseur Premium Member join:2000-12-16 St Thomas, VI |
MrMaster
Premium Member
2009-Mar-2 4:08 pm
Re: why watch tv online if I already have cable?said by jester121:Errr.... okay, so 20-25 percent where you are (assuming we throw the Labor Department official numbers out the window and use the ones you cherry picked)? Just want to be 100% clear on what you mean by "everyone". Good thing they expanded the digital converter box coupon program, eh? No wait, I forgot -- people in the boonies all have satellite dishes don't they? ahem...I promise not to drop a ton of f-bombs this time. Many people in the 'boonies' don't have cable and many of us "urban folkz" choose not to be raped by the cable companies. I just received my digital converter box this weekend. I gave all my previous coupons to my parents who really do live in the 'boonies'. So layoff. | |
| | | | | | | | TitusMr Gradenko join:2004-06-26 1 edit |
to jester121
said by jester121:Errr.... okay, so 20-25 percent where you are (assuming we throw the Labor Department official numbers out the window and use the ones you cherry picked)? Just want to be 100% clear on what you mean by "everyone". Good thing they expanded the digital converter box coupon program, eh? No wait, I forgot -- people in the boonies all have satellite dishes don't they? You're a utter tool, aren't you? And that rhymes with . . . Read some facts and quit gilding a wilted lilly: » www.infowars.com/real-un ··· artment/EDIT: and I didn't "cherry pick" anything. I googled "real unemployment figures" and picked from the top four results. What is you want to defend when people are suffering in a terrible economy? The market? The left, the right, the middle, what? whom? what the hell is wrong with you? Really, man; what is your problem? -- | |
| | | | | | | | | jester121 Premium Member join:2003-08-09 Lake Zurich, IL 1 edit |
Re: why watch tv online if I already have cable?Wow, you're really angry -- it's amazing that the country can even get itself out of bed in the morning. Should we just turn off the lights and go home until the government sorts things out?
It's weird -- I still sit in traffic while driving to my job every morning; do you think all the other drivers are headed to the unemployment office to pick up their check? I dunno, there were still people shopping at Costco and the shopping center when I was out this weekend, and plenty of people pushing carts out to their mostly modern cars. The restaurant where I had lunch today was full too, I even saw some people paying cash -- so it's not a credit card max out going on.
You can whine and moan all you want, but things aren't really that bad in the real world. Despite the efforts of the media to prop up the new president's messiah status and set him up to save the day, the real America continues working and taking care of their families as much as possible -- cutting back as needed but certainly not languishing in real poverty like the rest of the world knows.
EDIT -- this has gone pretty far off topic from the news thread so I'm dropping it. | |
| | | | | | | | | | TitusMr Gradenko join:2004-06-26
1 recommendation |
Titus
Member
2009-Mar-2 5:42 pm
Re: why watch tv online if I already have cable?said by jester121:EDIT -- this has gone pretty far off topic from the news thread so I'm dropping it. Good. Don't let the door ... -- | |
|
| | | |
to ITALIAN926
said by ITALIAN926:Most of the world still want high quality pictures on their TV's... not their PC's Oh, ok. Enjoy all your commercials while I enjoy high quality pictures on my second PC, which happens to have a DVI to HDMI cable that hooks directly to a 42 inch HDTV. It streams commercial free tv shows I actually like constantly, plus has a library of Tv shows from The Three Stooges and Our Gang, through the Honeymooners and Flintstones, all the way up to today, with everything in between. So you just keep on watching your "reality tv" garbage, I'll be laughing from my grave (because I'll die from lack of vitamin D because my TV shows are so awesome). | |
| | | | | |
Re: why watch tv online if I already have cable?said by james16:said by ITALIAN926:Most of the world still want high quality pictures on their TV's... not their PC's Oh, ok. Enjoy all your commercials while I enjoy high quality pictures on my second PC, which happens to have a DVI to HDMI cable that hooks directly to a 42 inch HDTV. So you just keep on watching your "reality tv" garbage... Hey- I resent that remark.... I will admit... I do like a couple of reality shows. I couldn't live without "No Reservations" and "Bizarre Foods" on the Travel channel, and I do like Iron Chef on the Food network and Ghost Hunters on SciFi. But for the most part I HATE reality shows.... and lately the stations that used to show better stuff like TLC, Discovery, and History have switched to mind numbing reality tripe. Like you I would like to set up a PC and HDTV, but really don't know much about doing this. I'd need another PC, and I'm still using my old analog tv. I still have analog cable, and I've read that analog cable on an HDTV looks pretty awful, that's why I haven't gotten a new set yet... | |
| | | | | | TitusMr Gradenko join:2004-06-26
1 recommendation |
Titus
Member
2009-Mar-2 12:30 pm
Re: why watch tv online if I already have cable?They'll know they've won when cable is reduced to reruns of:
Cops Dog the Bounty Hunter Cheaters Wildest Police "(insert something here)" House Porn (HGTV) The Kardashian enema Lockup "RAW"
(the last two are in their order on purpose!)
And ESPN, of course, where men gourmandize their way to the Cath Lab -- | |
| | | | | | |
to jazzlady
said by jazzlady:lately the stations that used to show better stuff like TLC, Discovery, and History have switched to mind numbing reality tripe. Like you I would like to set up a PC and HDTV, but really don't know much about doing this. Luckily you can buy most of the shows from Discovery and TLC directly from them, or you used to be able to. As far as doing the PC to HDTV thing, it's not that complicated, it's just expensive (unless you're patient and wait for sales). | |
| | | | | | | |
Re: why watch tv online if I already have cable?said by james16:said by jazzlady:lately the stations that used to show better stuff like TLC, Discovery, and History have switched to mind numbing reality tripe. Like you I would like to set up a PC and HDTV, but really don't know much about doing this. Luckily you can buy most of the shows from Discovery and TLC directly from them, or you used to be able to. As far as doing the PC to HDTV thing, it's not that complicated, it's just expensive (unless you're patient and wait for sales). I don't buy anything unless it's on sale!!! LOL As far as buying shows- I don't want to own them. I just want to watch them. The PC to HDTV thing now... that's a bit more complicated. I want to do this in my bedroom, where most of my tv viewing is done. So I will need a new PC, sufficiently fast enough for the task, and an HDTV to replace my old analog set. Plus a wireless keyboard of some kind of course... I'm seriously considering it... | |
| | | | | | | | |
Re: why watch tv online if I already have cable?said by jazzlady:So I will need a new PC, sufficiently fast enough for the task, and an HDTV to replace my old analog set. Plus a wireless keyboard of some kind of course... I'm seriously considering it... The PC doesn't have to be fast at all, the one I'm using is only 1Ghz and has 512MB of ram, the only thing you need alot of is hard drive space to store the tv shows and a decent video card that can display higher resolutions at a decent refresh rate. | |
| | | | | | | | |
to jazzlady
said by jazzlady:said by james16:said by jazzlady:lately the stations that used to show better stuff like TLC, Discovery, and History have switched to mind numbing reality tripe. Like you I would like to set up a PC and HDTV, but really don't know much about doing this. Luckily you can buy most of the shows from Discovery and TLC directly from them, or you used to be able to. As far as doing the PC to HDTV thing, it's not that complicated, it's just expensive (unless you're patient and wait for sales). I don't buy anything unless it's on sale!!! LOL As far as buying shows- I don't want to own them. I just want to watch them. The PC to HDTV thing now... that's a bit more complicated. I want to do this in my bedroom, where most of my tv viewing is done. So I will need a new PC, sufficiently fast enough for the task, and an HDTV to replace my old analog set. Plus a wireless keyboard of some kind of course... I'm seriously considering it... Newegg newegg newegg. I just had a thought, I wonder how cheaply you can make a computer to HDTV setup for???? You can get 40 inch HDTV's for for not that much. » www.newegg.com/Product/P ··· 89253161. Smaller TV and a cheap computer build and under $1000 is doable. | |
| | | | | | | | | |
Re: why watch tv online if I already have cable?said by Corehhi:Newegg newegg newegg. I just had a thought, I wonder how cheaply you can make a computer to HDTV setup for???? You can get 40 inch HDTV's for for not that much. » www.newegg.com/Product/P ··· 89253161. Smaller TV and a cheap computer build and under $1000 is doable. LOL Newegg RULES! )) I get lots of stuff from the egg, much to my husbands dismay... I am torn between buy or build though. For a cheap machine just for tv I may go with a refurbed Dell. I got a refurbed Inspiron 530 back in April '08. It has an Intel Q6600, 4 GB's of ram, 500 GB hard drive, and an ATI Radeon 3450 video card. It was $550 including shipping. Came with XP Home, I've reformatted to XP Pro. It's a reasonably fast machine, and it's been great. Something like this would be ideal for my bedroom, even if I would have to upgrade the video card. | |
|
| | | | | tapeloopNot bad at all, really. Premium Member join:2004-06-27 Airstrip One |
to jazzlady
said by jazzlady:Like you I would like to set up a PC and HDTV, but really don't know much about doing this. I'd need another PC, and I'm still using my old analog tv. I still have analog cable, and I've read that analog cable on an HDTV looks pretty awful, that's why I haven't gotten a new set yet... You might want to check out: » www.mythtv.org/If you don't mind Linux, that is. | |
| | | | | | | |
Re: why watch tv online if I already have cable?said by tapeloop:said by jazzlady:Like you I would like to set up a PC and HDTV, but really don't know much about doing this. I'd need another PC, and I'm still using my old analog tv. I still have analog cable, and I've read that analog cable on an HDTV looks pretty awful, that's why I haven't gotten a new set yet... You might want to check out: » www.mythtv.org/If you don't mind Linux, that is. LOL I *like* Linux.... but only use it on my old laptop right now. I dual boot XP and Ubuntu 8.10. I am in the market for a new system, and I would like to dual boot that as well. Linux sucks for streaming though. I've noticed a lot of sites that use the Move media player like ABC don't work with Linux. | |
|
| | | | Mr FelINTJ - The Architect Premium Member join:2008-03-17 Louisville, KY |
to james16
Just drink a lot of vitamin d milk and enjoy your tv even longer | |
|
| | | me1212 join:2008-11-20 Lees Summit, MO ·Google Fiber
|
to ITALIAN926
Ifthe owners of FiOS were smart they would get together with the IPTV cos(like netflix, hulu, ect.) and get a bundle and keep the no cap, but charge a bit more for that package, and offer it with or with out normal tv. That would deal a blow to cablecos. | |
| | | | | Mark F1 join:2007-08-01 Fort Wayne, IN |
Re: why watch tv online if I already have cable?Verizon FIOS has been promising for some time now that we would soon be able to stream TV shows and movies from the internet, via their Media Manager PC software and their DVR, to any TV we have connected to FIOS.
Watching that type of internet content on a big TV, from a comfortable chair or couch, beats watching it on a small PC monitor. Verizon needs to get with it and offer streaming video (not downloaded video which takes lots more time and lots more drive space).
I occasionally watch TV on the internet because I can watch something I missed and see older shows and movies not available on cable. And, Youtube has become the biggest jukebox around.
So, I use the internet to suppliment cable, not replace it. I just wish that there was an easier way to watch it on our big TV, like Verizon has promised. Mark F. | |
| | | | | | me1212 join:2008-11-20 Lees Summit, MO ·Google Fiber
|
me1212
Member
2009-Mar-3 8:43 am
Re: why watch tv online if I already have cable?Wow... maybe that means no cap for them(I don't think they have one now[correct me if I'm wrong]) hope fully they will blaze the path of no cappingness(Is that a word?).
I just wish the had it where I live, but I doubt they will EVER get it in to rural areas like mine. | |
| | | | | | | •••••••••
| | | | |
to ITALIAN926
Cable really doesn't offer much. I dropped it a year ago and haven't missed it. I guess if I suddenly develop a taste for lowest common denominator reality shows, mindless sporting events,fluff piece news, and crappy a$$ movies I'll consider picking it back up. said by ITALIAN926:Everyone you talk with is dropping cable?? LOLOL What world do you live in? Hardly anyone is dropping cable.. no matter how many bbr geeks say they are. Most of the world still want high quality pictures on their TV's... not their PC's. Once ISP's start capping their service, this wonderful idea of TVip will be dead. Even FiOS will eventually add caps when too much of their video revenue becomes depleted. VoIP has only survived bc of its very small amount of data consumption. | |
| | | | | ••••• | | | | 88615298 (banned) join:2004-07-28 West Tenness |
to ITALIAN926
said by ITALIAN926:Everyone you talk with is dropping cable?? LOLOL What world do you live in? Hardly anyone is dropping cable.. no matter how many bbr geeks say they are. Most of the world still want high quality pictures on their TV's... not their PC's. A) OTA HD is better than HD via cable/sat B) OTA SD is better tha SD via cable/sat C) who says you have to watch TV on your PC? I can watch netflix via xbox 360. With a PS3 on can use the internet browser to watch sites like Hulu on their TV. Or like many people hook the PC to the TV. My friend just got a new 42 inch TV and he has his PC hooked up to it via HDMI. You obviously have very narrow and obtuse view of things. | |
|
| |
1 recommendation |
to Titus
said by Titus:That's an angle you don't hear as often as you should: cable (content) channels supposedly pushing up the rates for cable providers, who pass it along to you, advertising the hell out of you anyway. The ratio of commercials to content on a prime-time network show is ridiculous; I don't, and won't, watch it. Five minutes of show, four minutes of commercials. It's stupefying why anyone would sit through that. Cable started out that way (nearly no commercials), and now they're almost as bad as the networks. Right you are- about both points. My cable bill went up $5 a month when they added the Disney channel. Hey- I don't have kids- and I've NEVER watched it. Not one single time. So I've paid hundreds of dollars for a channel I don't watch and would dump in a hot minute if I were able to. Makes me feel justified when I "acquire" some of their films. They owe me. Stupefying is a great way to phrase it. The amount of commercials is mind numbing. I tape anything I want to watch that is still broadcast in widescreen, so I don't have to sit through the commercials. I've seen as little as 4 minutes of the show interspersed with 5 minute commercial breaks. It's truly unbearable. The dumb pipers will meter bandwidth for sagging revenue. I don't believe a word regarding their increasing numbers -- everyone I talk with is either considering dropping cable or already has. If they have kids, they'll hang onto it as long as they can. Single people increasingly get what they need on the net and these guys have no recourse but to gouge your eyes out for access. Why they bother with their own flavor of online content is beyond me ... it smells like bad PR -- the stink before the flush, so to speak. -- LOL That cracked me up. But the more they meter, the more they're going to lose with people switching to uncapped alternatives like FIOS and DSL. Are they too stupid to realize that giving people unlimited access, and charging a bit more for it is much better than losing the customer altogether? Apparently so... | |
| | | | ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
| |
2 recommendations |
to jazzlady
said by jazzlady:.... Time for an unlimited tier for their broadband customers. I'd pay an extra $15 or $20 a month for unlimited with no caps. unfortunately, that's exactly the attitude the cablecos like to see - someone willing to pay more money for an uncrippled connection. there shouldn't be caps or throttling and if there were competition in the U.S. market, we wouldn't even be discussing caps. however, I'm guessing it will cost you more than $15 or $20 a month for no caps, assuming they even allow accounts with no caps. | |
| | | me1212 join:2008-11-20 Lees Summit, MO ·Google Fiber
|
me1212
Member
2009-Mar-2 12:24 pm
Re: why watch tv online if I already have cable?Yup, if you were in an area that had a few DSLs with no cap or, FiOS, or both along with cable internet, which would you choose?
I can understand a bit more, or a business connection for no cap, if it does not cost more than 30%(even thats a bit much) more than caped internet. | |
| | | |
to nasadude
said by nasadude:said by jazzlady:.... Time for an unlimited tier for their broadband customers. I'd pay an extra $15 or $20 a month for unlimited with no caps. unfortunately, that's exactly the attitude the cablecos like to see - someone willing to pay more money for an uncrippled connection. there shouldn't be caps or throttling and if there were competition in the U.S. market, we wouldn't even be discussing caps. however, I'm guessing it will cost you more than $15 or $20 a month for no caps, assuming they even allow accounts with no caps. I'd still be willing to pay $15-20 more for a connection with a reasonable cap. Comcast's 250 GB's is more like it, but I think I would want 500 GB's minimum if I were going to be streaming all the time. It's a whole hell of a lot better than the stinking 80 GB cap I have to deal with now. The problem is the providers are not willing to be reasonable. That's really galling when you think about Japan with it's symmetrical 100/100 connection and 1 TB caps... for less money than most customers pay for broadband here. :-( Broadband in this country will not improve until the government gets involved and sets some ground rules for these services- like they do for electric utilities. In the meantime- the telco/cableco's will strive to give the customer the least amount of service for the highest price they can get away with. | |
|
| MchartFirst There. join:2004-01-21 Kaneohe, HI
1 recommendation |
to jazzlady
I have no problems using Hulu. In fact, because of Hulu, and I stopped paying for cable TV a while ago. Now i'm just paying $50 a month for my internet bill. Granted, I don't get every TV show out there - But there is usually nothing good on Cable TV anyways. You are paying money for something that shows something you want only 10% of the time. Hence why people are so attached to their Tivo-esque devices these days. | |
| | | •••••••••••••••••••• | | |
said by jazzlady:This makes no sense. I am paying for cable- so I can watch clear, good quality with the cable- or I can deal with herky jerky video streaming instead? I think I need to clarify that statement- it's a bit confusing. I meant why watch Comcast/Your Cable Provider online- if you're already paying for regular cable service from Comcast or whomever? Why would someone with cable service watch the same cable offerings online? They wouldn't. It makes no sense. They would just ditch the cable altogether and watch the stuff offered for free. The free offerings are numerous, and increasing every day, but the streaming quality issues need to be resolved. | |
| | |
batch to jazzlady
Anon
2009-Mar-2 1:11 pm
to jazzlady
I too hate commercials. I built a home theater pc/DVR to record the shows I watch. I don't watch commercials any longer, and can watch a show whenever and however I like. You may want to look into doing something similar. | |
| | FFH5 Premium Member join:2002-03-03 Tavistock NJ
1 recommendation |
to jazzlady
You still need to get the video to your house somehow. If people stop using linear cable TV and use the internet to watch Network series & movies, the ISPs(also the same people as linear TV providers - like Comcast, TWC, AT&T, Verizon fios, etc) will just start charging more for the internet connections. And the best way to do that will be to start charging by bill-by-byte tiers. That way the more video you watch, the more they make to pay for all the costs of providing fatter pipes(including upgrading networks to fiber) for the last mile.
P.S.>> If people stop watching Broadcast Network & Cable TV networks over cable, the Networks have to recoup the cost of providing the shows somehow. So, expect to see advertisements embedded in their online video offerings even more than they are now. No more 2 mins of ads added to 40 min drama series shown online. It will be back to the 20 mins of ads like they have on cable TV. | |
| | | |
Re: Cable will start bill-by-byte tierssaid by FFH5:You still need to get the video to your house somehow. If people stop using linear cable TV and use the internet to watch Network series & movies, the ISPs(also the same people as linear TV providers - like Comcast, TWC, AT&T, Verizon fios, etc) will just start charging more for the internet connections. And the best way to do that will be to start charging by bill-by-byte tiers. That way the more video you watch, the more they make to pay for all the costs of providing fatter pipes(including upgrading networks to fiber) for the last mile. You know, I'm actually ok with that type of billing if the price was fair. But like the cell phone companies- they will rape you. They'll be charging 5000% more than it costs them and still they'll be bitching they're not making enough money... P.S.>> If people stop watching Broadcast Network & Cable TV networks over cable, the Networks have to recoup the cost of providing the shows somehow. So, expect to see advertisements embedded in their online video offerings even more than they are now. No more 2 mins of ads added to 40 min drama series shown online. It will be back to the 20 mins of ads like they have on cable TV. You're probably right- and if they think piracy is bad now wait until they pull that kind of crap. Then even Grandma will learn how to use bittorrent... LOL | |
|
| |
needs sleep to jazzlady
Anon
2009-Mar-3 8:34 am
to jazzlady
At a certain point the cable and fios companies that have tv offerings are going to ask themselves and the content providers (otherwise know as networks) "Why should I pay you X dollars per month.. this content is no longer exclusive over my media... you GIVE this content away for free." When these cable and fios providers ask that question and cut back how much money th content providers receive we'll see a change, but I'm not sure what direction the scales will tip in. It takes $ to create tv shows and movies, those $ (and a profit) are recouped by the content providers (ABC, NBC, FOX, HBO ESPN etc) through ad sales, product placements, merchandising and selling the distribution rights. Silly as it sounds the content providers also care about their "branding" or brand image. When you take away the content from a very neatly controlled distribution method like TV you begin to erode the brand. | |
|
|
no such thing...What the cable industry ****MUST**** realize by now is there is NO SUCH THING as exclusive content. Any published content whether it be video, audio,software, interactive content, etc has the possibility of being *FREE* for the taking (putting the legalities aside for a moment).
The key is adjusting their business model. Until recently, it was just more convenient (and cheaper) to buy a cable-tv service for the family. That amounted to a potential of a couple hundred viewing hours of programming.. unless your bedridden with a tv stuck in front of you 24/7/365. Consumers are becoming more tech savvy as time progresses. Couple this with the popularity of portable devices, services such as youtube, p2p, wireless connectivity, etc-- and you have yourself a blessing, or nightmare depending upon your perspective. The cable companies seem to have been convinced by the entertainment industry that the consumers are *NOT* their friends and is now taking a harder line... this will cause backlash in the coming months/years.
There is something to the mantra: if you can't beat 'em, join 'em cliche'
A practical approach to providing some inherently *Free/Value added* content is part of what helped cable companies retain customers.. think public access/info channels, think music channels, even wifi. One can easily extend this idea into *broadband only* consumers. BUT: the idea is not to COMPETE with free p2p, just as a platform for promoting the content you already sell. Even the owners of The Pirate Bay have said that the entertainment industry uses *METRICS* from the torrent site to find what content to promote around the world, market by market.
If the schmucks in the cable industry would get off their asses.. they'd realize they have a platform for short circuiting Apples gigantic lead in online distribution.. you jerks own the last mile for heaven sakes... look what you did for VOIP?!? The DEAD LAST thing you want to do is alienate these customers! Or do you want to wait until enmass free p2p becomes so organized that you can't even get a foothold into selling digital content "files" of what you already sell in *BULK*?
We all know it's worth more to resale broken apart and sold piecemeal, but as to how you actually BUILD THE MULTILAYER PLATFORM & EXECUTE will be critical.
AT&T and Verizon are fumbling around trying to get it right, but until recently.. the cable industry just hasn't been interested.
| |
| |
oddThis is pointless. I thought this is why Comcast invented on demand so customer's can view their shows at anytime. Why waste money doing the same thing all over again? This will drive people just to purchase internet instead of cable tv service. | |
| | |
Re: oddComcast invented on demand? Ha, you funny. | |
|
|
Need something unique to even bother with this...To make this a compelling service, they would need to offer a live streaming version of your cable package that you could log onto from any PC. I'd sign on for that. (Yeah I know, I could just get a slingbox; but what I'm talking about wouldn't count against your caps if you were away from home) And it would be great if you could tap into and stream shows off your DVR. I know this kind of forward thinking would never happen due to piracy fears, tho. Unless they had something unique to offer like this, I don't see the point of even bothering w/ just throwing some content on the web in a lame attempt at a Hulu clone site. | |
| |
what??i thought the internet was not for video distribution?
and what's going to happen to their stuppid caps? | |
| jsz0 Premium Member join:2008-01-23 Jewett City, CT |
jsz0
Premium Member
2009-Mar-2 1:24 pm
Network DVRI think a more interesting approach might be to network the DVRs with Mocha and offer a PC client to view the content you've already set to record on the DVR and also stream live content. Saves a ton of IP bandwidth, gives customers a reason to keep the linear video service, and offers better quality and live streaming. (something IP video doesn't really do yet) | |
| |
BobbyJ
Anon
2009-Mar-2 1:37 pm
Useless... If I already have cable i wouldn't want it on my PC. Well, most of the time I'm playing World of Warcraft and farming wow gold [ » WoWGoldPig.com ]. Watching tv is just an alternative when server is on maintenance. That would be the only time when my PC gets to rest. | |
| MIRV join:2000-12-01 Louisville, KY |
MIRV
Member
2009-Mar-2 4:44 pm
cable telvision is dead to meI dropped cable television in 2000. Media server has been online since 2003 (just mapped drives before that.) I've never looked back. It's like having your own television station with no commercials evar! | |
| needforspeed59Cruise Ship Just Passing Through join:2001-05-02 La Place, LA |
Am I reading this right?Given: cable TV programmers such as MTV and ESPN makes tons of money off the monthly sub fees paid by cable, satellite and telcos and ultimately you and I. So, these programmers are just going to let their stuff out there for free? LOL! I don't see how that business model works. Maybe I missed something that explains this in the posts above. Pay per byte pays the distributers; not the programmers. I don't believe ad revenue will make up for the loss of sub fees. I think this will be another RIAA-type battle. | |
| | 88615298 (banned) join:2004-07-28 West Tenness |
88615298 (banned)
Member
2009-Mar-2 11:13 pm
Re: Am I reading this right?said by needforspeed59:Given: cable TV programmers such as MTV and ESPN makes tons of money off the monthly sub fees paid by cable, satellite and telcos and ultimately you and I. So, these programmers are just going to let their stuff out there for free? LOL! I don't see how that business model works. Maybe I missed something that explains this in the posts above. Pay per byte pays the distributers; not the programmers. I don't believe ad revenue will make up for the loss of sub fees. I think this will be another RIAA-type battle. A) if more people ditch cable and satelite these networks will have to find a different way to get revenues. There is only so much they can charge cable/sat companies. B) ESPN is trying to do the cable model on the internet. They are charging providers a fee to let their customer to access ESPN360.com. This is doomed to failure. I feel the digital transition in combination with online Tv viewing and the bad economy will have fewer cable/satelite cusotmers. Maybe not a whole lot but even a 5%-10% dip in viewship equates to millions of $$$ in lost fees and advertising dollars. Now a network like ESPN which is owned by Disney which is owns ABC I'm not sure why they can't hitch a ride on a subchannel for ABC affilaites to get viewers that normally can't get them. If 16 million households have OTA only then that's potentially million more viewers? That almost as many that DirecTv has. | |
|
3 edits |
This is about the future.Many of you are asking the question: "Why would I want to watch TV online"? Simple. As an example, last week I missed 24 on TV. I was out. I forgot to record it. No problem! The next day I went to the Fox web site and watched it online. Yes, the picture was a bit small, because my computer is slow and causes the picture to stutter when displaying flash full screen. BUT..I'm dealing with that by building a new computer. Should I also say that despite the limitations, I enjoyed watching the episode and am grateful that Fox allows me to watch it on MY time?
Don't you all get it? Big cableco and telco wants to nip this in the bud! They saw what happened to radio when Ipods and Internet radio came in. Do any of you remember how BAD Internet radio sounded ten years ago compared to how good it sounds today? In 2000 I had just got 768/128 DSL and was paying 50 dollars a month for it. The service was so bad that I had difficulty listening to a mono 24kbps Real Audio stream (remember Real Audio? UGH!). It stuttered and cut out all the time. Now I can listen to Radio Paradise with near CD quality stereo for days at a time without a single stutter-on a 6 mbps DSL that costs 20% LESS then that 768 DSL did.
Yes, today's online video stutters and has issues-but do you really think it will be that bad a few short years from now? MPEG-4 is just coming into vogue, and it offers DVD quality at HALF the bandwidth of MPEG2. Yes, it requires more CPU power, but my new computer will be a dual core Pentium-with 4 gB of RAM-replacing a single core AMD Athlon 3200. How many of you will be using the same computer five years from now? I'll wager that less then 10% of you will.
This is what the cablecos/telcos are so scared of-their business plans as they are today have no future tomorrow. The worst possible thing that could happen to them is to be relegated to the provider of a dumb pipe-just like the phone company was in the 1980s when it became strictly a dial tone provider.
So, they do a two pronged assault-first they cap users, claiming network congestion-when the truth is that THEY have PLANS for that extra bandwidth-they want to sell it to you AGAIN! Why charge once when you can charge TWICE!
Remember a couple years ago when the telcos and cablecos wanted big sites like Google to pay them for transport? It was quickly shot down as unfair. Now the two crooked companies have discovered another way: charge the CUSTOMERS twice! Rather then give them the bandwidth to access the sites they WANT, instead CAP them and then force them to get the stuff at THEIR site-at an extra cost!
Don't kid yourself- this has NOTHING to do with any bandwidth issues- it has 100% to do with GREED! | |
| |
TWCSUCKS
Anon
2009-Mar-3 5:18 am
Canceling CableI'm with you - cable is done, and internet providers should just focus on broadband. Cable has gouged consumers too long! » twitter.com/twcsucks | |
| |
1950s TechI remember thoes times.. | |
| warriorsIt's A Great Time Out join:2001-06-05 San Jose, CA |
Makes sense for themIf their website is ease of use, it makes sense to capture their own subscribers' online tv content viewing activities. | |
|
| |
|
|