Comcast CEO Brian Roberts gave a post NBC-merger interview with the Wall Street Journal this week in which the CEO again blows off the threat posed by Internet video, and notes that for the time being, basic video subscriber losses at the company are a combination of no housing growth and increasing competition from the telcoTV sector -- not services like Netflix, which the CEO equates to simply "reruns." While the Journal's headline insists the CEO has "no fear of web video," Roberts re-iterates that Comcast won't offer their Xfinity Internet video services to those who don't subscribe to TV, something based, in part, on web video. Says Roberts:
quote:Where we can add value, at least in the world that I see today, is taking our existing customers and giving them full access to all content online because they’re subscribers. So, today, we have that enabled for networks like HBO, Showtime, Cinemax, and Starz. We just made a deal with Time Warner and Turner. I hope we will be able to add to that quickly with NBCUniversal content and others."
Roberts insists that at the moment Internet video is "more friend than foe," and that Comcast may have less to fear than other companies because they "give the best Internet experience, residentially, in this country." Again though, if a company were truly unafraid of the competitive and (r)evolutionary potential of Internet video, they wouldn't be withholding it from paying customers as a standalone option for those uninterested in regular television.
could be a LEADER , but no keep insisting on proping up a dying business method.
Let's see 25 milion Comcast cable customers, at least 100 million households that have non-Comcast internet. So potentially 100 millon new customers. And they are turning this comney down because a very small % of their 25 million cable customer might drop cable?
could be a LEADER , but no keep insisting on proping up a dying business method.
Let's see 25 milion Comcast cable customers, at least 100 million households that have non-Comcast internet. So potentially 100 millon new customers. And they are turning this comney down because a very small % of their 25 million cable customer might drop cable?
CableCo is doing the right thing for their shareholders. People will continue to subscribe cable packages, regardless of the price - its still the best bargain, entertainment-wise. And it ain't dying.
IPTV is not going to offer up channel-surfing of cable content or traditional cable channels, and iTunes/Amazon are not going to offer "All You Can Eat" pricing. Netflix and its ilk will continue to be limited to a smidgen of content, while their costs climb. Attempts to sort/organize quasi-free content, i.e. GoogleTV, will fail, and fail again, as content moves, disappears, and DRM reigns. "Net Neutrality" will ensure that your streaming doesn't work well.
As much as I cheer Netflix and IPTV/OTT concept, there is no free lunch - said providers can't expect ISPs to sit idly by and offer up multiple 1080p streams worth of bandwidth to every household without compensation. Nor can we expect to watch PPV's for a dime.
You can keep incorrectly trying to predict the future, but history shows that the prices for Netflix and Amazon keep *dropping* for the content they offer. Sheez - Amazon just started offering existing Prime members access to content without charge.
You can keep incorrectly trying to predict the future, but history shows that the prices for Netflix and Amazon keep *dropping* for the content they offer. Sheez - Amazon just started offering existing Prime members access to content without charge.
With idea that they'll get people to join Amazon Prime and fork over $79 a year for "free" streaming. I'm not saying it's bad deal but don't be fooled by the "free" part. There is a method to their madness. When they can offer HD streaming though the PC I might bite.
Or this, simply visit the home page for AIV and look at the link at left listing HD content. Movies in HD are available with a device such a Roku and even some internet capable tvs.
You can keep incorrectly trying to predict the future, but history shows that the prices for Netflix and Amazon keep *dropping* for the content they offer. Sheez - Amazon just started offering existing Prime members access to content without charge.
Predictions are never perfect, but I've been pretty good so far.
I like Netflix and Netflix streaming. I'm just not unrealistic about the free ride you think they'll get, and no, you can't "force" it by law, unless there is major legislation regards the bundling of content - and that ain't happening on either side of the aisle.
CableCo is doing the right thing for their shareholders.
As a shareholder of Comcast I would be pissed they are basically tunrnng down money from 100 million potential customers. Most of those potential customers are not and will not ever be in a Comcast area.
Let's have fun with math. Say 100 million customers at $30 a month = $36 BILLION a year in revenues. Yes please tell me how SMART Comcast is being. Their 25 millon cable customers don't comes close to that. Plus the streaming money has higher profit margin. No lines to repair, no having to send people out to houses to do instalations or fix things. No having to replace old or broken STBs and other equipment.
For example I live in a Charter area so unless Charter sells out to Comcast( unlikely ) then Comcast is losing money. They could be getting money from me something they would not otherwise EVER be able to do. For Comcast to turn that down is like Charlie Sheen turning down free crack and hookers.
CableCo is doing the right thing for their shareholders.
As a shareholder of Comcast I would be pissed they are basically tunrnng down money from 100 million potential customers. Most of those potential customers are not and will not ever be in a Comcast area.
Let's have fun with math. Say 100 million customers at $30 a month = $36 BILLION a year in revenues. Yes please tell me how SMART Comcast is being. Their 25 millon cable customers don't comes close to that. Plus the streaming money has higher profit margin. No lines to repair, no having to send people out to houses to do instalations or fix things. No having to replace old or broken STBs and other equipment.
To be clear: I share your passion for the concept of IPTV cable-equivalent delivered competitively across franchise lines, interstate, etc. I just don't see it happening, at all.
CableCo is not going to sabotage its existing sales.
How do you conclude that profit margins are higher on streaming delivery? How do you conclude there is any profit, ever?
How will OTT CableCo retain customers when they can't service the facilities, but must rely on "net-neutral" packet delivery of their service? Who will pay $30 a month for basic OTT cable when the best you get at prime time is 240p @ 5 FPS?
To be clear: I share your passion for the concept of IPTV cable-equivalent delivered competitively across franchise lines, interstate, etc. I just don't see it happening, at all.
CableCo is not going to sabotage its existing sales.
Ok let me use someone smaller than Comcast. How about Charter and it's 5 million customers. What is the MAX profit from those customers compared to say 120 million potential customers that live outside Charter areas? Also you're assumption is that a huge amount of current Charter customers would dump Charter via cable for Charter via internet which isn't true at all. And if it was that says A LOT about Charter's business model doesn't it?
How do you conclude that profit margins are higher on streaming delivery? How do you conclude there is any profit, ever?
MLB offers games on cable/satellite via Extra Innings and online via MLB.TV. MLB.TV is half the cost of Extra Innings. If this was money loser for MLB they wouldn't be doing it.
How will OTT CableCo retain customers when they can't service the facilities, but must rely on "net-neutral" packet delivery of their service? Who will pay $30 a month for basic OTT cable when the best you get at prime time is 240p @ 5 FPS?
Hyperbole. 240p? That's a joke right? do you know how the internet works. I have Charter internet. Now if I watch a show on Hulu do you think the entire data stream is going over 100% Charter infrastructure? um...no.
said by 88615298:Ok let me use someone smaller than Comcast. How about Charter and it's 5 million customers. What is the MAX profit from those customers compared to say 120 million potential customers that live outside Charter areas? Also you're assumption is that a huge amount of current Charter customers would dump Charter via cable for Charter via internet which isn't true at all. And if it was that says A LOT about Charter's business model doesn't it?
Theoretically, normally, yes, entities like Charter would be greedy enough and pursue 23 million Comcast TV customers, via IPTV (and lose their shirts as the product fails).
But there are several wrenches in the works, primarily the content cost, which is going straight up. No one is going to let it be sold *cheaper* for IPTV delivery, and we've seen that all concerned are fairly adept at restricting access in creative ways. And of course, your ISP will do whatever they can, to protect their video content.
USDTV, FloTV, Ivi, and Sezmi are all history. They all tried to sell content via alternate delivery. Sure, only one tried IPTV, but it was squashed like a bug. You can protest that Charter et al have deep pockets and are up for the challenge, but I just don't see them committing financial suicide when they can all maintain the status quo.
said by 88615298:MLB offers games on cable/satellite via Extra Innings and online via MLB.TV. MLB.TV is half the cost of Extra Innings. If this was money loser for MLB they wouldn't be doing it.
That's a reasonable example, for sports programming, and indeed, it might have better margins if delivery costs don't go up.
I don't see the content industry realizing the potential for higher margins via direct sales to the end-user; their MBAs don't like that kind of math, and again, the ISPs will want their cut.
said by 88615298:Hyperbole. 240p? That's a joke right? do you know how the internet works. I have Charter internet. Now if I watch a show on Hulu do you think the entire data stream is going over 100% Charter infrastructure? um...no.
No, just using YouTube performance as a metric, and adding in some net neutrality, which will have the opposite effect of what most people anticipate.
Remove net neutrality from the equation, allow IPTV sellers to buy packet priority to the STB, and 4K @ 60fps becomes a possibility - but you don't end up necessarily with a lower cost product.
Your a shill for the network if you believe any of that, or more likely a troll. If comcast wont let me watch shows on nbc.com because i dont have cable tv the i'll watch it from 1 of the dozens of free sites that host the shows without ads and they can lose out on whatever they'd make for me watching the 4 mins of ads via their site. I dont say that 115$ a month for cable tv is a deal when i watch 2-4 shows a week depending on the season. Netflix is under 10$ a month, and even though I hardly watch that, when I do its still cheaper then me watching anything on demand from the cable company.
If comcast wont let me watch shows on nbc.com because i dont have cable tv the i'll watch it from 1 of the dozens of free sites that host the shows without ads and they can lose out on whatever they'd make for me watching the 4 mins of ads via their site.
From the article I highlighted the part you need to re-read.
quote:Roberts re-iterates that Comcast won't offer their Xfinity Internet video services to those who don't subscribe to TV, something based, in part, on web video.
You can still access video from other sources, Some stuff on Xfinity comes from Hulu, doesnt mean hulu will be blocked.
So you pay $10 a month to watch " almost nothing"?
That doesn't sound to smart to me.
How about you throw your $10 a month my way and I'll send you a couple of my old DVDs every month. I promise they will be better to watch then the old TVland quality re-runs Netflix streams.
was the Blockbuster CEO. Excuse me Mr Brain Roberts, your company even pushes reruns. Isn't that was that little cash cow of yours called On-Demand is? I've got a great idea! Why don't you buy Blockbuster for $290 million dollars and then compete with internet video. You'll have to take down the plywood off of all the windows and restock all the shelves. But you just bought NBC, so you must be rolling in the cash.
I've got a great idea! Why don't you buy Blockbuster for $290 million dollars and then compete with internet video. You'll have to take down the plywood off of all the windows and restock all the shelves. But you just bought NBC, so you must be rolling in the cash.
No, Comcast overpaid for NBC so they won't have any extra cash until they soak subscribers again.
I gave up my TV subscription a month ago. I'm now internet only.
Last night I watched a couple of things from the online TV service at Comcast.net.
I thought it was mighty nice of them to let me do that.
It makes sense, too. Because if I don't download it from there then I'll download it from somewhere outside of the Comcast network. I would think they'd prefer to save on peering traffic and costs, right?
Of course, maybe they're just repacking Hulu or something and I couldn't tell... I dunno...
Comcast offers more than Hulu. (I haven't subscribed to Comcast's TV service for two years.) So your idea, while sensible in theory, doesn't make sense in practice. I think the CEO is unaware that his own system doesn't behave the way he says it does.
no the reason for the 250GB soft cap is the Florida Attorney General
their practice of going after the top .1% of congested nodes is the same as it was before but now if you don't go over 250GB your safe and even if you do you must get the call or it doesn't matter and even then you have to get the call twice
if they were in fear of internet video then they'd have a hard cap and have UBB but they don't
Xinfinity Video is totally useless and underwhelmed. It is not even in the class as Hulu or Netflix. Even if you are a Comcast customer, you will get very few episodes of TV shows in there. For example, there are only 5 full episodes of Simpson's, 5 full episodes of House, and 2.5 (out of 7) seasons of Desperate Housewives over there. It's like a joke to even call it a web TV service.
The cost is no longer worth the service I get from Comcast. I was going to cancel TV and use Netflix and Antenna for tv. But found out Comcast has slowed my connection from 20+ Meg to 10 meg without any notice. Still same package but some reason I'm told by Comcast 10 meg is what I have always had..(NOT). They jacked the rates today on everything costing me another $8.00 a month. I asked price on just internet and it's $59.99 for 10 meg and 79.99 for 16 meg. I've been paying $44.99 for over 10 years running over 20 meg for the last few years. I use Vonage started at $26-27 dollars increased taxes and fees it's now over $37.00. $117 for tv and slow internet. Total around $150 per month. I can get unlimited phone anywhere us.. 3 meg DSL.. for $35.00 for the first 6 months then reg price $49.99 after.. Hoist the antenna hooked to TIVO @$12.99 and say goodbuy to the overpriced Crapcast. BYE BYE....
Okay, everyone WAVE YOUR MAGIC WAND TOGETHER, HERE WE GO...
1
2
3
Okay! you all now can click on ANY CHANNEL you want and watch it OVER THE INTERNET! Which, BTW, you just brought to it's knees and will never get working again when you increase bandwidth usage over 1000%.
None of you have a clue how much more bandwidth it would take to stream video to your home.
And even if you did have that bandwidth, ask the people that have Uverse how they like waiting for every channel change. "CLICK" wait... wait... wait... wait... "CLICK" wait.... wait... wait...
Yeah, I'm sure everyone will just love that.
It's like the people wishing for everyone to have an electric car instantly too. Those guys in Montana that have to drive 300 miles to the corner store sure are going to like those way-station stays overnight to recharge I'm sure. 2 days for a previous 3 hr trip.
The internet was never ment to stream video. And believe it or not, the people that make the movies, make prints of movies, transport the movies, transfer them to Video, ship the video, put the video on a server, make the advertising for the video, install the lines to your home, make the software that runs on your home box all have to be paid. This isn't free as much as you all would love to believe it is.
The people in the chain of getting video to you won't just sit back and go unemployed because you guys want to be able to watch video on a 2 way conduit for some stupid reason.
Someday we will build a new network that can handle all this, and they are designing it right now. But it's not ready. It's not cheap enough, and it's not happening for at least 5 more years.
Fail, I see someone has bought into the 'we have to take it easy on the poor battered internet!' BS. As for a large scale example millions of people watched Olympics streaming just fine. Youtube serves up tons of video every day.
I'd like to hear more about this magical 'new network' that is anything other than just expanding internet capacity to meet growth demands, which has been working just fine so far. Outside North America most place don't even have caps! They must be on the new network already?