Study: Cable Operators Will Charge For TV Anywhere And roughly 35% of you think that's a good idea We've frequently discussed how the TV industry (both phone and cable) is collectively working on an online video service that takes some existing content and puts it behind a paywall -- accessible only to users who have cable service. The idea has long been that this will stop users from cutting the cord and moving to competing Internet-based services, though there's been some bickering with broadcasters over compensation, and the idea seems to be a jumble of non-standards from one operator to the next. Comcast is so far the first to launch their TV Everywhere effort, and opinions are mixed and content selection is severely limited. Right now, the service is offered as a free add-on to customers who already pay for cable service, though that could change according to a new study by the TDG Research Group. According to TDG, 60% of adult broadband users like the idea of TV Anywhere, and 35% are willing to pay for it: "Current TVE-type offerings remain relatively fledging services with little in the way of compelling content," notes Michael Greeson, TDG founding partner and author of the new report. "Thats to be expected from a service breaking new ground and no doubt feeds operator belief that these services should be viewed as a free value-added service to existing residential TV subscribers as opposed to a new service capable of generating additional revenue." The problem is, people are already annoyed with the amount they pay for TV programs and hundreds of channels they don't watch. Charging people more money in the face of Internet video alternatives seems to ignore the fact that Internet video will (though it will take a long time) be a compelling alternative to these high prices. Ultimately cable operators could offer standalone subscription Internet video services that might be popular, but every indication is that executives find such a concept repugnant and cannibalizing. TV operators continue to operate in a bubble where they believe their current, ridiculously-expensive TV pricing model will be around forever simply because they spent billions on infrastructure. The paywalled, uninteresting TV Anywhere solutions we're seeing are a direct reflection of that over confidence. That's good news for any company out there working on an Internet video alternative aimed at rattling the foundation of the over-priced and inflexible subscription TV ecosystem.
|
 | | Off the point
Really this is a mood point since not only do cable, dish and telcos deserve some compensation for having the network capabilities to provide this service to YOU, but the networks themselves are entitled to a paycheck that will allow their employees and shareholders to eat. This strange idea that everything should be free is just ridiculous. Would you work for free to your company so they will lower prices to their consumer? Or, if you own your own company, would you always proved services for free? | |
|  |  | | Re: Off the point This strange idea that everything should be free. Good thing nobody made that mood point then. | |
|  |  ThrowDemsOutIf you can't convince 'em, confuse 'emPremium join:2002-03-03 Mullica Hill, NJ kudos:4 1 edit | 90% of network shows streamed FREE from their web sites
You can already get 90% of the shows shown on the five major networks for free now streaming over the internet. Though they may only be available for a few weeks after the original airing. So you don't need the cable company's "TV Anywhere" to watch your favorite network shows online.
»news.yahoo.com/s/ytech_gadg/2010···g_tc3117
According to a new survey, the five major broadcast networks have really warmed up to offering free streams of their shows online, with about 90 percent of last seasons' TV shows available for streaming at some point. The catch: Within weeks, most of the free streams were yanked offline, meaning that cord cutters need to strike while the iron's hot. The data comes from Clicker, a programming guide and search engine for online TV. Clicker found that the five big TV networks ABC, CBS, Fox, NBC, and The CW posted about 4,420 free streams of full episodes from 127 shows last season, representing about 90 percent of all network TV shows broadcast (not counting prime-time sports like the NFL). Of the five networks, The CW is the king of free streaming, offering all of its broadcast episodes from last season online at one point or another, while ABC, Fox, and NBC served up more than 90 percent of their shows, according to the survey. CBS trailed the pack with about 88 percent of its shows available online for free, but it also posted a whopping 1,750 episodes online. The networks are also relatively punctual when it comes to posting their free video streams, with more than half of all shows hitting the Web within a day of their original airdates, according to Clicker. "Nearly all" the rest get posted within a couple of weeks. Not perfect, but not too bad, either. Something tells me that before long, the big networks will be streaming all of their shows online for free at one time or another, which makes the case for cutting the cord all the more compelling. Full story: »www.clicker.com/blog/how-much-ne···329.html -- Are you happy with your rep in Washington, DC? | |
|  |  | | Re: Off the point I think what you are missing here is not that they arent getting paid, but that they are double dipping in it.
If you are a subscriber to their cable service is should be included with that subscription because you are already paying to receive it regardless of how it is being delivered.
I would extend this even further. If I am paying ANYONE money that is then paying the content providers then I should be able to get it any way I want regardless. EXAMPLE: I pay for uVerse and ATT has to pay NBC to carry their channels and thus their shows to deliver it to me. Therefore, I should be able to get NBC content anyway I want because I am already paid for. So if I want to download a show over BT, over my phone, from NetFlix or through another ISP's service then I should be able to do just that with no additional fees because I have already been paid for in my subscription to ATT which has then paid NBC. THAT is the business model that they need to figure out how to adopt. | |
|  |  | | So let me get this straight. Companies pay to sell me goods and services during the shows and movies I watch. I already pay for access to these shows through either cable, internet, or satellite. But now Im also suppose to pay again for it for the priveledge of watching these shows again? Where does it end? not too mention If I do all that I get hit again if I want it for my own collection.
Some of you dont see and apparently never will see the bigger picture. This is how companies like At&t arrive at scams like the microcell. Let us allow you to reroute your cell phone traffic that you already pay for (and apparently At&t cant provide to the satisfaction of the customer ) to be sent instead over an internet connection you already pay for and buy our device and pay a monthly fee. Give an inch and they will take a mile. Grow up!!!! | |
|
 | | Dumped cable quote: The problem is, people are already annoyed with the amount they pay for TV programs and hundreds of channels they don't watch.
Just recently dumped cable precisely for this reason. I watched Discovery/NatGeo/History and that's about it. Switched to Clearwire and am getting 10-15Mbps instead of 7 on TWC. Am doing Hulu/Netflix/Playon on PS3 and Win7 Media Center. It's now $50/month for two rooms instead of $140/month. Will be $60 as I'm planning to do Hulu Plus, still less than half.
The game consoles are now focusing on bringing streaming content with Netflix, Hulu, etc. When streaming content hits the non-techie masses and there are more options for dumb pipe broadband connections, the cable companies will need to change their model. | |
|  |  | | Hulu Plus Speaking of Hulu Plus, I was able to download the software on PS3 yesterday. I couldn't get to my Hulu account (needs to get approved) but they do have about 18 sample shows/movies to instantly view.
It now has HD settings at I think 2.6 and 3.2Mbps. The HD content looks much better than SD but not quite up to par with Netflix HD at 2.4Mbps. Good enough though. The 1Mbps SD content does not look nearly as good as Hulu Desktop at 1Mbps. Still in beta so hope they improve the SD side. | |
|  |  |
 jagged join:2003-07-01 Boynton Beach, FL | we're quitting tv altogether we're dumping cable by the 18th
with Netflix and other alternatives we won't be paying $160 to watch 20+ minutes of ads an hour and only 6-10 channels we really care about.
We're done subsidizing the ESPNs and other channels who think they're worth $1-2-3 and more per month of my cable bill | |
|  |  funchordsHelloPremium,MVM join:2001-03-11 Yarmouth Port, MA kudos:5 | Re: we're quitting tv altogether said by jagged:we're dumping cable by the 18th with Netflix and other alternatives we won't be paying $160 to watch 20+ minutes of ads an hour and only 6-10 channels we really care about. We're done subsidizing the ESPNs and other channels who think they're worth $1-2-3 and more per month of my cable bill We pay $80 a month, but other than that, your statement is similar to a dinner-table conversation we had at my house last night. We might wait until next spring, however. Our OTA signals are a problem where we live -- we might end up getting the most basic CATV tier because of that. -- Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Cape Cod, MA -- KE1MO Tweet! Tweet! -- »twitter.com/funchords | |
|  |  |  | | Re: we're quitting tv altogether I am doing the same but it is going to be a phased approach.
I am putting a new 32" in the wall of my bedroom. The only thing that will be connected to that is a computer with OTA and Netflix. This will give me the DVD, Streaming, Locals, and DVR capabilities.
We will see how the significant other adapts to that and then move on. | |
|
 |  dmwagnerQwest DSL -alltel join:2002-04-29 Canton, SD | said by jagged:We're done subsidizing the ESPNs and other channels who think they're worth $1-2-3 and more per month of my cable bill Exactly. Charge me a base rate and then per channel I want. I was watching only History/SciFi/TLC pretty much along with one local. Not worth it. | |
|  |  |  |  |  funchordsHelloPremium,MVM join:2001-03-11 Yarmouth Port, MA kudos:5 | Re: we're quitting tv altogether smells like bait in here.  | |
|  |  |  |  joebarnhartPaxio evangelist join:2005-12-15 Santa Clara, CA Reviews:
·Comcast
| Re: we're quitting tv altogether Bait?? Definitely. But only for LinHes/KnoppMyth. 
If you are handy with a computer and would like the greatest PVR since Tivo, it's worth a serious look. I get 90% (well, soon 100%) of my viewing pleasure in glorious 1080 hi-def on my LinHes box. It has very high "WAF" as well (a term coined in the forums there -- "wife acceptance factor").
But we just can't get those Fox News programs over the air... | |
|
 KearnstdElf WizardPremium join:2002-01-22 Mullica Hill, NJ | one way to lower content costs would be if all the studios got togather and agreed to start paying the actors less money. some of these clowns can make more than 1 million per episode.
but it would take a unified effort from all the production companies because if just one agrees to pay, they would throw the whole thing off. -- [65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports | |
|  |  | | Re: one way to lower content costs i think thats called collusion. | |
|  |  | | So the actors, directors, etc. get paid less so the studios and producers get more money? If you honestly think the price for these shows would go down because of that, you're a fool. Same thing could be said about the sports world. | |
|  |  |  Reviews:
·Comcast
·Comcast Digital ..
| Re: one way to lower content costs why can't the major networks come up with a sports network to rival espn and put it on their 7 digital subs they are allowed to have. Maybe all of the majors can get together and form a all sports/news network. It would be the same across the board except the local affiliates would be allowed to show local programming during certain hours (like midnight to 5pm then from 8 to midnight they would show live sports). | |
|  |  |  |  DavePR join:2008-06-04 Canyon Country, CA | Re: one way to lower content costs ESPN is owned by a major Network (ABC) | |
|  |  |  |  |  | | Re: one way to lower content costs Both are owned by Disney | |
|  |  |  |  |  tshirtPremium,MVM join:2004-07-11 Snohomish, WA kudos:3 Reviews:
·Comcast
| Even more, SPORTS are a known money machine. even if many of us don't care, those that do will pay incredible amounts for..SEATS, COVERAGE, SPECIALTY mags and newspapers, etc. the goal is to convince EVERYONE (particularly content providers) that NOBODY can live without !))% sports coverage 24/7. I can, and don't wish to pay for all the foo-foo that goes with it. | |
|
 |  KearnstdElf WizardPremium join:2002-01-22 Mullica Hill, NJ | Doesn't Disney also require you to carry ESPN in a general cable tier in order to be allowed to have the other stations which they own? -- [65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports | |
|
 u3912974 join:2007-07-31 San Francisco, CA | TV Anywhere isn't TV Anywhere IT doesn't work outside the United States. So forget going somewhere and watching comcast on vacation in London. The only place that anywhere will work is anywhere in the US. It should be called TV Anywhere in the US!!! | |
|
 | |
|
|