[opendtv] Re: ESPN Scores Top Audiences in Cable History with Semis | Multichannel
- From: Craig Birkmaier <craig@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2015 11:18:30 -0500
> On Jan 9, 2015, at 7:28 PM, Manfredi, Albert E <albert.e.manfredi@xxxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
>
> It's so simple, Craig, and once again, I've explained this dozens of times.
> In a walled garden, you the user can only navigate to places allowed by some
> middleman. Walled in. Over the Internet, the user goes wherever he wants,
> limited only by sites that any number of people, in any number of places, may
> care to set up. Not limited by the distribution medium's middleman. And those
> sites themselves can, if they want to, limit geographically who gets to see
> them. (Which can be defeated by anonymous proxies, for the not totally
> technically-challenged.)
Wow, that's so cool Bert.
So I can subscribe to Netflix and watch the new episodes of Game of Thrones
when they are offered by HBO.
One subscription to rule them all!
You are so confused...
You are making a distinction based on the distribution infrastructure, not the
content people are paying for. I do not subscribe to cable because they hook a
coax wire to my TV; I subscribe because of the content they deliver over that
wire, and now the ISP service that the wire offers.
As a result, I am ALSO able to subscribe to Netflix. But I cannot watch HBO
because I don't pay for it.
It's a bit like saying I could only shop in the little town near my farm when
my transportation was a horse and buggy; shopping in the big city 50 miles away
was impractical. Then I got a car...
We are experiencing a renaissance in the way entertainment content is consumed.
To be sure, the Internet is part of that Renaissance. But it is not because I
can now choose between Cox Cable and Dish Sling or the next VMVPD to set up
shop on the Internet.
It is because I can now access much of the content I want on demand, and on
devices I own that can pull bits from the Internet that are NOT connected to
that coax.
I can get rid of the Cox TV bundle, but they are the only game in town for heal
high speed ISP service at my home - AT&T DSL and the many cellular LTE options
are too limited in bandwidth, and the cellular options are too expensive.
>
>> And Bert also uses the term walled garden to refer to services
>> that require hardware from a single manufacturer
>
> Walled gardens have a nasty habit of playing this hardware exclusion game
> too. And Apple, certainly, has a nasty habit of trying to emulate that modus
> operandi for people who use their devices. Aside from Craig, anyone else I
> hear addressing this topic freely admits that Apple wants people to stay
> within Apple's boundaries. And they add that often Apple does this claiming
> their solution "is better." Non-standard, otherwise a nuisance, but if you
> live within those limits, you're golden.
And Android is different? Get real.
Apple is MORE supportive of industry standards than most of its competitors. I
run Windows on my Mac...
> And with old technology, particularly in early rural CATV systems, that
> limitation made some amount of sense. With the Internet, in theory you can
> play these same games if you want to, but no one seems to do so, except
> across international boundaries. So when I watch a CBS show on the Internet,
> no one forces me to use a local affiliate's web site, even though it is
> technically feasible to set up this way.
Cable (CATV) had nothing to do with it Bert, except that they could put
antennas on tall towers and import distant stations. If this expanded the
market for the broadcasters serving that area they were all for it. If it
allowed the system to replace the local ABC affiliate with a distant ABC
station they went to the Government to shut it down.
The same thing happened with the Internet. Local stations (both radio and TV)
were NOT ALLOWED to place network and syndicated content on the Internet. There
were some attempts to use geo-fencing, but they failed...
Obviously the situation is changing. Moonves now says he does not care how you
watch CBS. The local affiliate in DC still cares, and sees the handwriting on
the wall - they are losing their monopoly on distributing that content. Without
that protection they may go the way of the horse and buggy.
> Which is PRECISELY why, on *multiple* occasions Craig, I have pointed out to
> you that it is only what the content owners themselves decide that really
> matters. And these content owners, including the likes of John Skipper of
> ESPN, have seemed to keep their options wide open in this regard. Wide open.
> As they have hinted to previously, and has become obvious in the past couple
> of days.
Nothing has changed for ESPN.
Obviously every content owner has options, both in terms of distributing direct
to consumer, and via licensing their content to multiple distributors, both
virtual and facilities based.
So the pipe is not the issue anymore. The licensing terms, and the walks they
create, are the real issue. I still can't watch HBO without paying for it.
>> For sure, it will be skewed that way, as sites like HBO direct and others
>> emerge. Sites that carry ESPN will most likely have many sports fans, and
>> sites that do not carry ESPN will be better deals for non-sports fans.
>> *Because*, Craig, these non-ESPN sites won't be subsidizing the sports fans.
>> This is quite self-evident.
Netflix is doing quite well. The new HBO Internet service may do well too, if
the price is right. The Hollywood Reporter article I just posted got it right:
> Dish announced during CES that it would go after that audience with Sling TV,
> an over-the-top streaming service that it wants to be the third subscription
> for a millennial alongside Netflix and Hulu.
That's three subscriptions Bert, and it still does not provide access to
everything.
> But the main point in this regard is, ESPN is now going to be available with
> absolutely NO ties to any old "the bundle," or to any walled garden
> locally-monopolistic pipes (all of which you said had very similar "the
> bundles"), or any other such limitations imposed by, or **facilitated** by,
> old technologies. Only time will tell how many other sites will offer ESPN,
> Craig, be that all by itself, or bundled with some other stuff.
BIG WHOOP.
I Still need to buy ESPN as part of a walled in bundle, and I still need my Cox
ISP service to watch it on my big screen TV.
>
> I said *many* times that over the unwalled Internet, it will be a lot more
> difficult to force content owners on tiers or bundles that benefit OTHER
> content owners. In the old monopolistic "the bundle," instead, where the
> consumer had to "take it or leave it," with no other options available, it
> was easy to do.
And it is just as easy to do this via a VMVPD service. New options, yes. Ala
carte, no.
> The time MUST come when I can shame you into quitting this "not gonna happen"
> stuff, Craig. Every single time you've said it so far, you have been wrong.
Really. Can you watch ESPN?
> I'll chalk this up as another example, like the one about HBO being offered
> on demand pre-HBO Go, where Regards
> Craig
>
It was significantly cheaper, but that was years ago when basic cable was less
than &20/mo, and HBO was about $7/mo. Basic cable is now $24/mo plus taxes, and
HBO is now $10/mo, $15.99 after six month. This is not a special bundle.
> Dated July 28, 2014: "Bloomberg is reporting that Time Warner Cable will
> offer consumers a slimmed down TV bundle that includes the web-only HBO Go,
> broadband internet, and a few other channels for 50 bucks a month."
Obviously this is new, as it is a VMVPD service that includes ISP service.
>
> Do the legwork to prove that this was always possible, and then explain why
> these new bundles made such a splash, Craig.
No explanation needed on the first part. HBO has always been sold as an add on
premium tier that could be combined with other tiers.
As for the splash, let's wait to see how these new services do. Let's see real
subscriber numbers and the percentage of the total market they attract. Netflix
has more than 30 million U.S. subscribers. HBO has less than 30 million, and
hardly any Internet only subscribers, as the new Internet service has not
launched yet and we have no numbers on the number of subscribers to the new
Time Warner bundle. I Comcast offers a similar bundle.
> The nation’s No. 1 cable operator confirmed that it has launched a trial
> offer of “Internet Plus,” which includes broadcast TV, video-on-demand, HBO
> (and HBO Go) and 20- or 25-Mbps broadband. Subscribers also get access to
> Xfinity Streampix, Comcast’s Netflix-style multiscreen VOD service with
> several thousand TV shows and movies.
>
> The bundle is priced at $39.99 or $49.99 per month for 12 months (depending
> on market), which is $15 less than the starting price for bundles with
> Comcast’s expanded basic cable lineups. The price goes up to $69.95 monthly
> after the first year. The limited-time offer is being promoted across
> Comcast’s footprint to new residential customers, but may not be available in
> certain areas.
>
Regards
Craig
Other related posts:
