[opendtv] Re: Catch-up TV
- From: Craig Birkmaier <brewmastercraig@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2015 08:09:44 -0500
On Nov 29, 2015, at 8:24 PM, Manfredi, Albert E
<albert.e.manfredi@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Again, if you read about the history of the iPlayer, a problem they had
initially was that the only DRM acceptable to the BBC, or others, was the
scheme used in Windows Media Player. Back in 2005. Nothing to do with HDMI,
which occurs downstream of the receiver. I was using RGB analog, in the PC
monitor back then, so HDMI didn't play any part. But the media player did
play a part.
You missed my point completely.
HDMI is an industry standard supported by the content owners and device
manufacturers. Everything leading up to that was proprietary attempts at DRM,
and in the mid 2000's things were a mess as this article from 2007 points out.
http://www.edn.com/electronics-blogs/anablog/4309564/HDCP-DRM-HDMI-VGA-DVI-and-living-perdition
And things were worse with set top boxes, as the cable and DBS industry had
multiple DRM standards, which is why we eventually wound up with Cable Card,
which allowed each system to continue using its proprietary DRM.
As for the iPlayer, you are correct, it used Windows Media DRM initially. That
was just as much a proprietary standard as the one that Apple developed. And
the article went on to say that early on, iPlayer only worked with Windows:
The open beta incorporated a media player, an electronic programme guide
(EPG) and specially designed download client, and allowed the download of BBC
Television content by computers assigned to a United Kingdom-based IP
address, for use up to thirty days after broadcast. However, it was available
only to users of Windows XP.
This was a controversial decision by the BBC, which led to a petition against
the decision being posted on 10 Downing Street's e-petition website.[17] The
petition reached 16,082 signatures on 20 August 2007. The response from the
Government was:
... the Trust noted the strong public demand for the service to be available
on a variety of operating systems.
On 16 October 2007, the BBC announced a strategic relationship with Adobe,
that would bring a limited, streaming-only version of the iPlayer to Mac and
Linux users, and Windows users who cannot or do not wish to use the iPlayer
download service, such as Windows 9x users.[20] The streaming service was
launched on 13 December 2007.
And guess what Bert? The Adobe Flash player DRM was ALSO proprietary!
So cut the crap about Apple.
Oh excellent. Thanks, I had missed that. At last.
You're welcome. I've got no problem with arguing about history. We're both
getting to the age where our memory ain't what it used to be. But let's try to
support our arguments with facts.
When the congloms use their own web sites for catch-up service, they get all
the ad revenues from the embedded ads in their shows. We're not talking about
cable operators here. We are talking about using the neutral broadband pipe.
In my case, Verizon ADSL, which has no MVPD TV distribution ambitions.
The broadcast industry has been dragging its heels for decades, trying to
protect its one time monopoly on the Appointment TV business model.
- In the 90's they used retransmission consent to take control of the MVPD
systems, which were the launching pad for the new networks that ended the four
network oligopoly. By the end of the decade they owned 90% of the content
delivered by the MVPDs, and they had launched a large number of rerun networks
for their content - they continued to launch new rerun networks for more than
another decade to drive up the cost of MVPD service and the second revenue
streams the MVPDs collect for them.
By the time the OTT services started in 2006, the broadcast network ratings
were REALLY tanking. The technology to offer Catch-up TV was starting to become
viable thanks to faster broadband speeds, but as the WSJ article pointed out,
they were reluctant to use it, as they feared (correctly) that it would lead to
further erosion of prime time ratings, which largely determine the rates they
can charge for ads. Articles I posted pointed out that they would not let
Comcast offer free catch-up shows on demand, but did allow Apple and Comcast to
charge for shows.
You are correct that they get the ad revenues from their own catch-up services,
but this is a mixed bag. The revenues from Their OTT sites are a fraction of
what they get for the broadcasts. And as you pointed out, they had a lower ad
load initially. So they worked together to create Hulu, to create a catch-up
service offering a range of shows from all of the networks. Despite this, the
articles note that Fox still required authentication of MVPD service to watch
their shows until about 2013.
Hulu ad rates are much higher that You Tube, and with the launch of the paid
Hulu services revenues have increased significantly, along with the ad loads
for the free service.
You need to look at the entire picture of what happened between 2006 and today.
Network ratings have continued to decline, although they have been able to keep
charging slightly higher rates for ads until this year. The prices they get for
their best ad inventory have inched up during up-front sales, but advertisers
have moved much of their money to the spot market, where prices have been
declining.
The big change, which helped the content oligopoly get over its fear of OTT
services, has been the huge new revenues they have received for licensing these
shows to Netflix, Amazon, et al. Together with the steady increases in
retransmission consent payments, these revenues have more than offset the
decline in revenues from sales of broadcast advertising.
This is not unlike what happened with the VCR, which Hollywood blocked for
years until the Supreme Court Sony decision. When they finally embraced the
technology they made MORE money.
As I said before, in the early days, these network sites were fantastic. You
got maybe two or three ad breaks for an entire episode, and each ad break was
exactly 30 seconds long. Obviously, the networks were not making money off
this yet. And as I fully expected, the ad breaks became just as frequent as
in the OTA episodes, although thankfully, they are still not as
excruciatingly long as OTA.
This is how they have controlled the transition to OTT, as I have been stating
for months.
And now you are starting to see the next chapter in this story. The free shows
are disappearing from the network.com sites. CBS now directs you to All Access.
Shows arrive later on the free Hulu service, and the ad load has I increased.
The SVOD version of Hulu has shows earlier, with less ads; and for a few bucks
more you can get rid of the ads entirely.
Unfortunately for you, the trend is towards paying for everything. You are not
getting more free access to more popular content, you are getting LESS.
Everything is moving behind one kind of pay wall or another...
It may take another decade, but FOTI is likely to be replaced with POTI (pun
intended) - Paid Over The Internet.
Regards
Craig
Other related posts:
