[opendtv] Re: Variety.com: Comcast Offers HBO Without Other Cable Channels in Bundle Aimed at Cord-Cutters and Cord-Nevers
- From: Craig Birkmaier <craig@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2014 22:49:13 -0400
On Mar 23, 2014, at 9:17 PM, "Manfredi, Albert E"
<albert.e.manfredi@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Craig Birkmaier wrote:
>
> No, NOT walled garden services. I readily admit that the Internet can deliver
> services to authenticated users, but as long as it remains neutral, those
> authenticated services portals compete.
Yes Bert, the Internet allows for competition. But it cannot compensate for the
lack of competition when you only have one or a few choices for something you
want.
You love to attack Apple as a walled garden ecosystem/hardware provider. That
ecosystem relies on the same open Internet as the one that has "set you free."
Like folks addicted to "the cord," you are critical of those who choose the
Apple ecosystem.
Obviously the Internet can support a large group of consumers who choose the
"exclusivity" that Apple offers.
As you read the Wall Street Journal article about the reported negotiations
between Apple and Comcast, I HOPE you consider some of the recent posts in this
thread. Internet bandwidth may be unwalled, but it IS NOT unlimited. The cord
or DBS service is the critical last mile link to the consumer; a link that
assures QOS. Apparently Apple is not willing to rely on "the Internet" for a TV
service - they recognize the limitations of the Internet that exists today.
> Here's the deal, Craig. You are the traditional MVPD customer still. You
> willingly pay your fee, only because you must have your sports channels. And
> that's one holdout, ESPN, that is still exclusive to old-school MVPD monopoly.
No Bert, ESPN is one of several channels I watch that I can only get via a MVPD
service. For the most part I stopped watching the content from the broadcast
networks because I no longer found it entertaining. Different people have
different interests and priorities; "the bundle" is promoted as a grand
compromise - pay a little for everything versus a lot for the few channels you
actually watch. The offer was wearing thin, until the congloms figured out how
to reinvigorate it using authenticated delivery via the Internet.
> But many other people are more flexible than your are. For example, if they
> like movies, they will gladly try Netflix INSTEAD of the extended basic tier
> plus premium tier from the MVPD, just to get HBO.
A handful of homes may find Netflix sufficient, but it is not a viable
substitute for HBO. HBO offers exclusive access to new movies, often before
they are released on DVD, and has a very strong track record with original
content. I only ever subscribed to HBO briefly, but found the service lacking
because it was appointment based; a DVR helped a bit, but you still have to
plan ahead. HBO on demand is a superior service - you can watch when you want,
on any connected screen, anywhere you have the connection.
> This is obvious from the stats, no matter what you claim. Or they go to Hulu
> Plus, or Amazon. All compete against HBO. They don't have to offer IDENTICAL
> service to compete, Craig. Most people are more flexible than you are.
Yes Bert, there are many ways to watch movies at home. HBO has never had the
audience that exists for the extended basic bundles - only briefly did they
ever reach more than 30% of U.S. Homes.
And yes, services do not need to be identical to compete. But they must have
something to offer to get you to write that check every month...
Well maybe not you.
> Flexibility is the key. So while you spin this web of "oligopoly" and
> "government," in fact the only problem is the demand inelasticity on your
> part (and other ESPN addicts). Which gives the likes of ESPN more time to
> drag their feet, and keep demanding more from you. But the numbers are pretty
> clear for HBO. Netflix is stealing their thunder. So they are under more
> pressure to join the Internet era than ESPN might be.
No Bert, Netflix is NOT stealing HBO's thunder. They offer very different
services. HBO is using the Internet to enhance the attractiveness of their
service.
- VOD versus appointment TV
- access on mobile devices anywhere you can connect to the Internet
>> In this case Jeff Bewkes came right out and said that you can only get
>> HBO via the Internet if you subscribe to HBO delivered by a pay TV
>> service.
>
> Irrelevant, Craig. Let me copy the quote a third (or is it fourth) time:
>
> "Time Warner CEO Jeff Bewkes said at an investment conference last month that
> the company was open to the idea of packaging HBO with a broadband offering
> from cable and telco operators as long as they also offer pay TV to
> consumers."
Please show me how you can access HBO Go WITHOUT paying for HBO delivered via a
cord or DBS.
>
> There's no requirment for any other pay-TV package of any sort, ergo HBO
> would potentially be offered with no *other* MPEG-2 TS broadcast channel, to
> this client. So that being the case, the obvious way to offer HBO, to someone
> with a double-play account, is over IP only, but WHO CARES?
Show me just one such example Bert.
> Why would Bewkes insist that HBO be delivered as a unique MPEG-2 TS broadcast
> stream, as well as over IP? No big whoop either way for the customer, Craig.
> The customer couldn't care less. Only the MVPD/ISP would have to put up with
> a nuisance.
>
Simple. HBO IS OWNED BY Time Warner. They want to protect the cord service.
>> HBO cost almost twice as much as Netflix.
>
> Thank you. Explains why people are dropping HBO to go to Netflix, Hulu Plus,
> and/or Amazon Prime.
Not really. They are very different services.
Show me some statistics that support your contention that people are dropping
HBO and substituting Netflix.
You seem to like what Bewkes has to say. Try this on for size:
> “HBO remains in a league of its own,” Time Warner topper Jeff Bewkes said on
> the company’s earnings call Wednesday. ”We don’t see any discernible effect”
> on HBO’s subscriber numbers or pricing because of Netflix or other Internet
> video subscription services.”
>
http://variety.com/2014/tv/news/netflix-now-pulls-in-almost-as-much-revenue-as-hbo-but-hbo-is-far-more-profitable-1201087683
> Again, you're looking from inside this odd walled garden perspective you
> can't seem to shake. Bewkes has seen beyond what you're seeing. A 6 percent
> drop in subscriptions.
The 6% figure is for all premium movie tiers offered by the MVPDs, including
Showtime Starz, et al. And the premium services dispute the study. The economy
is cited as a significant factor as well.
Again, please show me how to get HBO Go without subscribing to HBO from a pay
TV provider.
Regards
Craig
Other related posts:
