Cable Companies Despise PVRs 726
My position that I expressed in my speech and that was inaccurately portrayed: PVR functionality should be provisioned from the headend for the following reasons (which ultimately will benefit consumers):
-
VOD servers cost much less
- If video servers @ $350/stream (Soon Component cost declining 40%/year
- @ 10% simultaneous use, costs $35/sub.
- PVRs cost >10X more
- When simultaneous use = 50%, server costs will have declined >5X
- Disk noise wakes my wife
- Replay box hot enough to fry an egg -- Is that a feature?
- Disk size limitations mean obsolescence, esp. with HDTV
- Available on every set-top in house Average of 1.7 PVRs/PVR household
- No pro-activity/anticipation required
- Records multiple concurrent shows
- NW storage could always have max. res.
- Uses existing deployed base
- Moving parts break more often
- Box complexity means more crashes & customer support costs
My basic thesis is that PVRs + Satellite will eat cable's lunch, and since it's unambiguous that cable needs to get the copyright clearances to offer programming from the head-end, they should start now. It is the case that I suggested that if a Supreme Court case was brought on the legality of each feature of PVRs were brought, some would lose. I also suggested an alternative business model to make everybody happy to avoid the all-or-nothing result that has been occurring in the RIAA vs. Napster wars.
I suggested that consumers pay 1 cent per commercial skipped (which is about the same as what advertisers pay). That would be equivalent to $10/thousand commercials skipped. I think that's reasonable. I also suggested that targeted advertising could be a win-win for all involved by delivering ads in areas that are of greater interest to the viewer so that there would be less incentive to skip and fewer ads would have to be delivered due to the higher prices paid for the targeted group. I also predicted that this dynamic combined with competition between satellite and cable would ultimately make both services free."
PVR (Score:2, Interesting)
VCR v. PVR (Score:3, Interesting)
AT&T Selling TiVo (Score:4, Interesting)
Always two-faced (Score:3, Interesting)
The simple solution.... (Score:2, Interesting)
Hold it (Score:3, Interesting)
Ra Ra Retards (Score:5, Interesting)
PVR Backlash (Score:5, Interesting)
Brian Roberts doesn't get it (Score:5, Interesting)
Still Like Cable for Broadband... (Score:3, Interesting)
In my area, Cable Modem speeds blow away DSL (epically when you look at the price/performance factors). So, to get a $10/month discount on my cable internet, I'm going to keep the $9.95 basic local channel option on my cable TV bill.
It strikes me very odd that Cable has the best potential tap into mass market broadband, and they are wasting any time worried about Satellite TV or PVR's. Satellite is not threat in the broadband department. And, if we ever do get to mass sharing of TV broadcast ala Napster like stuff, we will need broadband more than ever (even if the shows come from satellite). Even thought I am one of the people switching, I'm still keeping my broadband with the cable company.
Re:AT&T Selling TiVo (Score:3, Interesting)
It's a bit like all these music companies finally starting to cotton on that the P2P networks aren't going to die, and at last trying to bring out their own services.
At least it's not (Score:5, Interesting)
At least it's not a perfectly clear-cut issue of right and wrong.
Back in the early days of broadcasting, there was quite a bit of debate as to how broadcasters should pay their expenses. Right or wrong, the system that emerged had broadcasters selling air time to advertisers. Thus, consumers get the content "free" on the assumption that they will hear/see the ads and go spend money.
The television delivery system has now evolved to the point where most people pay a third party (cable company, satellite company) to deliver a high-quality signal straight into their home, negating the need for an actual broadcast signal. So now consumers pay the third party, the third party has a financial arrangement with the "broadcasters", and the "broadcasters" still sell ad time.
The question is now, what do the consumers owe the broadcasters? Are all the monthly cable bills enough to cover the expenses of the cable companies and content providers? If so, there's no need for ads. If not, would you pay a higher cable bill to have ad-free content?
In the beginning, broadcasters sold ads to pay for content. Now, broadcasters work on content to sell ads. Personally, I figure once the signal I've paid for is in my home, it's mine to do with as I please, so long as the use is strictly personal.
We should be getting paid to watch advertisements. (Score:4, Interesting)
The cable companies have never been your friend (Score:5, Interesting)
The cable monopolies are just like any other service provider monopolies - terrified of change, and totally freaked out when people don't buy %100 into their latest revenue generation scheme.
I find particularly funny the latest "don't get a satellite dish!" ads (even though IMO dishes offer much better service) There's one in particular playing here in Boston (On broadcast TV mind you) where these two parents say how "they have 5 kids and going 5 minutes without TV would be worse than cancer"
PVR is also an avenue of attack against the Dish (Score:3, Interesting)
Just like their other attack ads about 'get the whole story' they can add that the set top box that gives you freedom to record multiple shows at once fries an egg on top of it! Oh now, why ever shall I keep this device.
As a dual tuner DirecTV user, I can finally say FORK the broadcast companies that move good TV shows 'against' each other in competition to force me to pick one over the other.
not with my TiVo they don't.
I have a dual tuner DirecTV and a regular TiVo, I can record 3 shows at once if needed.
That doesn't help the cable companies... (Score:5, Interesting)
It might benefit cable companies if the usefulness of the PVR increases the desire of viewers to upgrade their subscriptions. If by getting Tivo, HBO suddenly becomes very valuable for me, then that's a big bonus for my local cable company. I'd be curious to see if the statistics support that conclusion. My thinking would be that a Tivo would allow somebody to make more effecitve use of less channels. Why get the premium channels when you can keep your TV schedule filled with all of the obscure programs from non-premium channels that you didn't know were on before.
I watch 2x the amount of TV with Tivo (Score:5, Interesting)
After reading and hearing so much about PVR's, I decided the time was right to try one out. The main problem was that I only had a cell phone so it looked like the replaytv was my only option. After doing some digging, I found that the Tivo series 2 works with a few USB network adapters. I decided to go with Tivo since I preferred the interface, plus it is the stronger of the two companies.
I received my Tivo a week ago today, and I can not stop watching television. The amount of TV I watch has doubled because with the Tivo. I can find interesting programs to watch, where before I would only have a small chance of stumbling on the program accidentally. I FF through probably 1/2 the commercials , but there are plenty of times when I don't.
My potential exposure to advertisers has doubled since purchasing my Tivo. I'm watching programs I normally wouldn't see because of the time-slot. With the scheduling features, I'm catching many live programs that I would not watch if the Tivo guide wasn't available plus I can't FF the commercials. The short sidedness of established industries to recognize the value of disruptive technologies has been well documented, and the cable industry's aversion towards the PVR is a classic example. The companies that are first to embrace the PVR will succeed.
The Ultimate Showdown (Score:5, Interesting)
Unless the record companies, the cable companies, and all the rest of these multi-billion dollar industries can figure out a way to keep their revenue streams at current levels or at least something they're happy with without trying to hold back technology or control how it is used, something will happen. Technology - better said 'invention' - is just like nature: you can't hold it back. Once something is available, the public, and not a select group of high-riding jerks, control it. The only way to keep technology from taking on a life of it's own is to keep a lid on it in the first place, and that option never existed/is already past.
What the showdown will be, or what will happen is beyond me. How the unthinking masses (those who listen to N'Sync; those who could care less how much control Microsoft has over what they do with their own computer and the things they create with it; those who don't mind watching hours upon hours of crappy commercials - and they're not all bad commercials, just most - during their days/weeks/months/years) will affect this, I don't know either. But even they will eventually see the light.
And just like technology and nature and all the rest, there's no stopping public opinion/demand.
Re:They hate (Score:2, Interesting)
Damn good point. Even the commercials I do watch don't influence me. Often, I don't even know what they're advertising. Not as though I'm paying attention or anything.
OT: it's not just TV advertising either, in a typical day, I do the following, without even giving it a thought:
- delete all spam email
- throw away those cards in magazines
- close pop-up ads
- hang up on telemarketers
- send away door-to-door solicitors
- do what I can to ignore billboards etc.
- turn off radio when the ads start
- flip through channels during commercials
The amount of advertising is so overwhelming, I don't see how anybody can do anything except ignore it all.
Re:oh yea... (Score:5, Interesting)
Personally, I rather like my cable company.
For a nice low fee they provide me with telephone (at the cheapest rates in the country), my choice from their selection of TV channels, and a damned good broadband internet access (24/7).
They fulfil their part of the contract nicely.
Nope, I have no problems with my cable company's service or pricing, thanks.
I dunno, maybe we just have a better quality of company over here in the UK or something? *shrug*
Re:bullshit (Score:3, Interesting)
Sure, having 6 HBOs sounds cool, but I've got enough network/public TV to load the TiVo as it is, and HBO (as well as most cable original programming) replays all of its original programming throughout the week anyways. Even some networks have taken to replaying their shows (Fox's 24 on FX, and the WB's easy-view Smallville).
"But I'm moving to an area without broadband so looks like I'm going to ditch Cable. Screw them anyways."
Make sure you give them the finger on your way out
The System (Score:4, Interesting)
Now after many decades, and lots of profit things are changing, they will find a way.
Paid placements (Truman Show type adds), Sponsored programs (No Boundaries (Ford)), ads in the corner, a little box (like the 24 hour news channel).
And well if they can't make big profits, they'll leave and someone else will pick it up.
If all the big broadcasters give up a local community group may do educational or informational programming, or promote local talent.
The resource will remain available, and someone will find a use for it, probaly a better use.
Re:bullshit (Score:1, Interesting)
Will I go back to cable - not a chance!
cable should LOVE TiVo, not hate it!! (Score:3, Interesting)
Bingo! This must be the front row! (Score:3, Interesting)
As far as the copyright part goes, in that respect I don't see PVR's as being all that different than VCR's in terms of being a time machine. They are just more flexible time machines. I think the real problem is that 20 years ago, when VCR's were really starting to hit big, cable companies were not in the local advertising business, so they didn't mind when the broadcast channels screamed about VCR's and people fast forwarding through commercials. Now they are in that business in a huge way, and PVR's are an even more adept way for people to avoid viewing commercials.
EVERYONE should be a winner w/PVR, including cable (Score:2, Interesting)
When in the past I would TAPE a show, I would zip ahead about 2 minutes & watch the show.. only seeing about 20 seconds worth of commercials per break because when you record at the slow speed you can't really "view" anything when you FF. W/TiVo I FF but can see the gist of the commercial. Sometimes I will go back & watch the commercial if it or the product interests me. I'm sure I'm not alone in this, several of my friends agree. SO ACTUALLY... TiVo causes me to WATCH MORE COMMERCIALS THAN I USED TO. When I used to watch LIVE TV, those were 2 minute bathroom or kitchen breaks, so I didn't watch commercials then either.
If the companies got smart they would take advantage of the 2-way communication available with this technology & target their ads better! But they won't because they are idiots & would rather I went back to my old ways of not watching any commercials at all.
AS for VOD from cable... yeah right!! They get enough of my money every month, no way I'm gonna pay per view a movie that I already rented from BlockBuster 3 months ago! The PPV is always WAY WAY behind the video release.. That's why they dont get MY money. Anyone else agree?
Re:Ra Ra Retards (Score:3, Interesting)
Allow me the same type of experience as renting from blockbusters (5 day rental, can watch as many times as I want in that time frame, have control over the the movie, e.g. FF, RW, pause) for the same $$$ and I'm sold. I now no longer have to trudge to BB to rent something / no late fees. Want to pimp your upcoming WBR/WEA releases? Allow users to download videos and sneak peaks of upcoming albums (and allow their subscribers to order items at a slight discount).
This is the type of service that can distinguish cable companies from sat. TV companies since sat. TV doesn't have the broadband infrastructure in place to replicate the service. Why movie studios are afraid of this boggles the mind. All I see is a huge paycheck for whoever can deliever this service at a reasonable price.
So lemme get this straight... (Score:2, Interesting)
"He also openly called on the cable companies and Hollywood to sue the PVR companies for copyright infringement"
So, he's openly calling for industry to sue, but he owns a PVR himself? That's pretty funny.
Re:VCR v. PVR (Score:3, Interesting)
With my PVR, I just hit skip, skip, skip, skip and if I go too far, back-skip (7 seconds back) and I'm back to the show. All told, usually 2-2.5 seconds interruption. And, I don't actually see the commercials I'm skipping, and unless your VCR blocks video during fast forwarding, you still are - even if it goes by silently and too fast for you to appreciate, you are still seeing the ads, and that's the *big* difference between a VCR and a PVR.
PVR's should change ad costs (Score:2, Interesting)
The result should be that ad costs are revisited. I'm sure that there are shows that people tend to watch in person such as live events and news shows. Commercials during these events should cost more and could potentially be more frequent.
Two other factors should also be weighed:
1. There is a point at which commercals are useful to the viewer (e.g. new items on the market, sales at food locations, upcoming shows, etc.)
2. There is a number of commercials per hour that would be non-intrusive enough that viwers would find it unnecessary to skip them. Charge more per commercial and reduce the # of commercials.
Advertisers will pay. They will have no choice.
The other option is legislation. It's easier and insures that current business practices stay practical. That's what I think they will do.
Re:If you like progress... (Score:3, Interesting)
Capitilism has a very simple solution for this, and mark my words you'll see it in action over the next decade. While the Slashdot crowd beleives the average Joe consumer is a simple sheep that can be herded by the content providers, this is simply not true. The average consumer knows what they like. They have a threshold of pain that is probably higher than your typical Slashdot poster, but eventually the average consumer gets tired of things not being delivered on their terms.
Any economist will tell you that people are selfish. They always act in their own best interest. The PVR is basically a win-lose situation. The consumer wins, the ad-subsidized programmer loses. Its that simple... Yet I don't see people giving up the PVR any time soon. I do think you'll see a change in how content is delivered.
Think of it like the Internet. I pay someone XXX amount of dollars to get on the network every month. By itself that connection is worthless. In order to get actual value out of it, I have to turn to independent content providers. I may pay some of them (if their content is especially good) for their content. I may put up with Ad's on other sites if their content is worth my time. The Internet is a Win-Win for everyone. The person providing the connection hooks me up with content providers that can make money in a number of creative ways. This is how entertainment distribution WILL be in the future. We'll pay our satellite/cable company to get on the network, but our content will be provided seperately.
Its no accident that Echostar is so very interested in putting together satellite Internet access.
Re:bullshit (Score:2, Interesting)
His second story balcony doorstep.
He also acquired a lot more "accidental" door dings on his car. Of course, all of that's illegal-- what are you going to do, call the cops? Sue the HOA? I don't think I can ever live in a condo setting-- I just can't get along with that many people that well.
Re:bullshit (Score:3, Interesting)
Sure it does. Many cable companies are either offering or in the process of offereing Video on Demand services (for a fee, of course). By using TiVo, you don't need their services, hence they can't sell it to you. And since the Video on Demand is tied into other services that are bundled (for example, IO from Cablevision [www.io.tv]) they can't sell you those things either. So the cable companies loose out.
Lastly, if you use TiVo to record shows, they don't get the additional revenue from offering the show again. For example, TNT runs the same movie many times in a given week. This is so that people that were watching something else the first time it ran gets another chance to see it. If you record it with TiVo, then you don't need that second chance. Nor do you ever see the commercials that they insert to earn the cash to keep operating. So they loose that money as well. See the Slashdot article about "TiVo users are stealing"
Can anyone see how the cable industry might not be totall thrilled about TiVo?
Re:Gary Lauder (Score:4, Interesting)
1) I won't give those scoundrels another penny more than I must.
2) I want to control my life, and not be dependent on them.
3) I know they spy on me, but I'll be damned if I'll give them permission to spy on me.
4) If I want to keep the recording, I'm at their mercy.
5) This doesn't apply to the cable company, but with voicemail I have to pick up the phone to see if I have any messages; the answering machine blinks when I have a message.
These are pretty much the same reasons I refuse to get digital cable, too. There is no reason why the set-top box needs it's own phone line, damnit! Why can't it communicate via the cable? Because it's cheaper for them to require me to have a 2nd phone line just for them than it is for them to develop/deploy the technology to address individual set-top boxes over the cable system.
Finally, his statement that this will eventually be a free service is an absolute lie, unless perhaps they force you to pay for it as part of basic cable. This "service" is brought to you by the same people who, in the 1960s, continued to collect a premium for color (as opposed to black) telephones years after new customers could get any color for the same price, and in the 1990s continuted to collect rent for phones that had been paid off dozens of times over, years after customers were allowed to own their phones.
Corporations will continue to lose money as long as they treat their customers like thieves and morons.
VOD & paying for skipped ads (Score:3, Interesting)
I'd be more than happy to pay 1 penny for skipped ads...if they never appeared in the first place so I got to watch the show uninterrupted. Except I can see it now: this popular show would have had 1000 ads but this other show would only have had 100. Still, if the price wasn't prohibitive, I'd pay to subscribe to say Farscape.
Paying for commecials is a crock (Score:3, Interesting)
Yo, Gary, lose the FUD! (Score:5, Interesting)
Gary Lauder writes: PVR functionality should be provisioned from the headend for the following reasons (which ultimately will benefit consumers):
* Disk noise wakes my wife
That is your wife's problem, not the industry's. I've been in the same room as a Tivo, and never noticed any significant noise. If I were to say that cable TV prices keep me awake, is that grounds to have my bill reduced?
* Replay box hot enough to fry an egg -- Is that a feature?
I've never seen a Replay box... but I have seen a little thing called a TV. It gets pretty warm too!
* Disk size limitations mean obsolescence, esp. with HDTV
HDTV is making existing VCRs and TVs obsolete. Should we get rid of the whole "TV" concept?
My basic thesis is that PVRs + Satellite will eat cable's lunch, and since it's unambiguous that cable needs to get the copyright clearances to offer programming from the head-end, they should start now.
Translation: I'm a venture capitalist who didn't get into the PVR business when I could. Since PVRs are better than cable, let's ban them so I can make money! [All IMHO, of course.]
I suggested that consumers pay 1 cent per commercial skipped (which is about the same as what advertisers pay). That would be equivalent to $10/thousand commercials skipped.
That's a reasonable solution -- assuming that the TV, cable or satellite feeds, and other equipment are free. If I'm paying for cable, I should be able to handle the incoming data in any way I see fit, as long as I stay within Fair Use of copyright.
Sarcasm off.
$10 per 1000 commercials skipped... (Score:3, Interesting)
An hour long show has around 15 minutes of commercials. At an average of 30 seconds, they are showing about 30 per hour. Watch an hour of tv a day, and you are 'seeing' 30x30=900 ads per month.
Now I would be happy to pay $10/month to watch 2 movies and 3 shows a week (in fact I do, with ads), but imagine having a wife and 3 kids (aged 15, 11 and 7) - the TV might be on 10 or more hours a day. Such a family has to cough up $100/month. And that 15-year-old will know how to remove the ads, believe me. So will the 7-year-old.
But there is an alternative; perhaps Gary Lauder has already figured it out. I can see his point of the cable company being the one to invest in the infrastructure; I have no problems with that. But if the functionality is there for cable to provide the functionality of a PVR, then it is also there to provide the commercials the viewers want to see!
First of all his payment scheme needs a limit. Perhaps different plans, but lets say that you pay $10/month you get the aforementioned hour a day ad-free. Allow the viewer(s) to specify if they prefer frequent short breaks (American-style, I believe), or a few long breaks (in Holland there is often a 6 minute break from 7-13 minutes in the show!!). Have the commercials be lower volume (perhaps 80% instead of 150% as at present - I reach for the mute button to save my ears). And most importantly - let the user 'kill' any ad.
I'd prefer for the killing to be permanent for that particular ad - I'm either not interested or disgusted sufficiently that I will not want to by that product (more info in next para - do not read if squeamish), and also they can obviously profile to show worthwhile ads.
In Holland the situation used to be (long ago) that there were commercials before and after shows, but not during (also, you paid a license fee, although less than for the BBC - they do this via tax now tho). Now though, they are long (15-18 mins per hour) and LOUD. But their content is by far the most obnoxious thing. (You have been warned, leave if squeamish). My gf (American) and I (British) do not want to see: kids pissing in the supermarket [by a rival store which has toilets]; some woman checking her crack in a mirror to see if her sanitary napkins are working; a toddler with what looks like shit all over its face [presumably some kind of tasty chocolote - fortunatly I switch off so quickly I don't even know what brand to avoid]; nor are we interested in breast-feeding.
Finally, once the commercials are on demand, that means that instead of ads having to be targeted to an audience of millions, it can be local. For example, I want to hear if there is a new local computer store, or even what offers are on at one of the three local supermarkets. Anyway, ramble off
Re:VCRs with Commercial Advance? (Score:2, Interesting)
For me, PVRs are a smarter and higher-capacity VCR. It can know to record a show that I would otherwise forget to set my VCR for, and has more storage than a tape does so that I can record more stuff if I'll be out of town for a few weeks. It should let me take prerecorded shows with me via a laptop, to catch up on things during plane trips, bus rides, etc.
I'm too lazy to edit out commercials, and until some PVR tool can do that automatically without accidentally deleting part of the show, my archives will include commercials, which provide me regular opportinities to visit the kitchen or bathroom should the desire or need arise. Why would I want to delete them? While the Time Warner guy thinks of me as a thief should I answer the call of nature, I'll continue doing so as I don't feel that is an immoral thing to do.
1 cent per commercial - seems fair (Score:2, Interesting)
The only problem, is that pay per view costs much more than 20 cents and I am already paying a monthly fee for box. Can I just cut some useless channels instead?
Re:bullshit (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:bullshit (Score:2, Interesting)
Home hard disks can make cheaper VoD (Score:3, Interesting)
However, in this case, having the disk at the home makes sense. See my latest essay on this, or what I call Poor Man's Video on Demand [templetons.com]
Re:1 cent for skipping commercials? (Score:3, Interesting)
Under a "pay-per-skip" model, you are paying the broadcaster, not the commercial maker, $.01 for skipping the commercial. In other words, the broadcaster needs to get $.01 from someone. Thet advertiser is not going to pay it unless you watch the commercial. If you do not watch the commercial, you need to pay that $.01 to make sure you can keep getting the content.
The real problem with this model, however, is: What constitutes skipping a commercial?
Clearly, using ReplayTV autoskip is skipping commercials. Is going to the bathroom? What about pausing the TV, going to the bathroom, and using autoskip? What about changing the channel?
These are big problems for the proposed business model. It is possible, however, to address them if you try to think them through in a way that will benefit all involved instead of jump to some socialist knee-jerk reaction.
Point-by-point response to Gary (Score:2, Interesting)
Perhaps to the VOD provider, but to the end user? Everywhere I've lived there's one and only one cable provider. Monopoly prices won't be as competitive as Replay/TiVo/UltimateTV in competition.
Plus, with ReplayTV I can queue up a pile of movies from HBO, and bring it to the Tahoe cabin for the weekend.
> Disk noise wakes my wife
That's not an intractable problem. In a few years you'll just keep the main ReplayTV in the family room and stream the movie to ultra-quiet and cheaper player units in the other rooms.
> Replay box hot enough to fry an egg -- Is that a feature?
This matters absolutely zero to me, and probably to most people. I want my laptop cooler, not my ReplayTV.
> Disk size limitations mean obsolescence, esp. with HDTV
Disk size limitations? Disk sizes grow exponentially. By the time HDTV is provided to my apartment complex (it's a new and nice apartment but they don't see HDTV on the near horizon), I'm sure 1 Tb disks will be commonplace. 2 Tb maybe.
> Records multiple concurrent shows
TiVo's 2 tuners already do that. Rarely are there more than 2 good shows on. Rarely is there one good show on, which is why I need the ReplayTV to time shift.
> Moving parts break more often
This feels like scraping the bottom of the barrel. Besides, I'd be more worried about my cable company's VOD going down and them not caring. I only have the one provider, remember. What am I gonna do, antenna? Besides, I bought one of the first dozen ReplayTV units and never had a single problem.
There were a few more points. I'll leave those to someone else. I've got TV to watch.
-jh-
P.S. If I must pay 1c for each skipped commercial, do I then get 1c for each commercial I watch twice? It seems only fair, and with some of those Victoria Secret commercials...