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."
bullshit (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:bullshit (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:bullshit (Score:5, Insightful)
Cable companies, on the other hand, have to deal with advertizers who are seeing their dollars, potentially, go to waste on PVR users.
P.S. I love my TiVo, I am watching a lot more TV than I ever did before, and a lot fewer ads.
Re:bullshit (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:bullshit (Score:5, Insightful)
This may be discussed below, but I haven't seen it...
Here is what I don't understand. Let's say I tape all of my Monday night shows for 2 hours using my PVR. As far as my satellite company is concerned, I *watched* those shows and all of the accompanying ads. Chalk up another viewer with the other 10 million that watched the same thing. So where's the problem here? Just because my PVR recorded the show for me doesn't change the fact that the show was "watched". Unless the cable and satellite companies are reporting true viewers versus virtual viewers, in which case they're the dolts that are counting the viewship in a bizarre manner. Once the show has been aired, what do they care if I watch the commercials or not?
Another thing I notice is that the cable companies are the ones complaining. I don't see the major networks crying foul : NBC, CBS, ABC, Fox (here in the States, at least). Or are they raising a stink as well and I'm just not reading the right articles?
However you look at it, though, it just boils down to control. These execs are pissed that the public actually has a modicum of control over how and when they view their television, and the lack of their precise control is what they're truly pissed about.
Re:bullshit (Score:3, Informative)
This isn't limited to cable, either; you'll find regional ads on broadcast TV as well. Don't worry, if your local station can't find a buyer for that 30 second spot at 6:07, the network has a backup ready to go. The one truth of TV is you NEVER see "dead air" in a commercial break.
Re:bullshit (Score:4, Insightful)
Now that I have TiVo, I am actually paying a lot more attention to ads than I used to.
Before, when commercials would come up, my finger would go reflexively to the "mute" button, and I'd start chatting w/ my fellow viewers, or similarly divert my attention to some other activity. My brain was practiced enough for me to almost always know, almost subconsciously, when the program was coming back on, simply from the timing.
Now, with TiVo, that timing is out the window, because the commercials scan by so quickly. At the same time, I am also paying a lot more attention to what I see, because I'm watching for the program to start again. Sometimes I see a rather interesting or bizzare image, and I wonder "what was *that*??" -- so I stop the ffwd, and acutally *watch the commercial*.
If I've seen that commercial before, I don't bother stopping to look at it, but of course that means that *it's already in my head*, and the ad's mission has been a success!
I actually prefer TiVo's standard ffwd style to the 30-second-skip, because I do enjoy watching some commercials -- they can be quite entertaining . Also, I've seen a friend using the 30-sec-skip style, and it's annoying because they always have to hit the 8-sec-back button something like 5 times after overshooting the beginning of the proram.
So, in summary, now that I have a PVR, I actually *see* a lot more commercials than I used to (as opposed to them merely displaying on my tv), and yet I'm not wasting my time on them!
Analyze *that*, all you marketing dum*#@!&&s!
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:bullshit (Score:5, Informative)
The other issue is cable companies losing the ability to sell/rent their own crappy boxes to their customers. Their revenue stream from these boxes can be two-fold--ads and sales/rentals.
I know that when I visit my parents in Miami, and use their shitty digital cable receiver box, I get big ads and huge banners which obscure the picture on the television. If my parents didn't live where the HOA frowned upon it, I'd tell them to get DirecTV.
Re:bullshit (Score:5, Informative)
"Satellite Consumer Bill of Rights, a regulation released by the FCC on August 6, 1996. This regulation PREEMPTS area zoning ordinances and Homeowner Association covenants and restrictions on DBS dish antennas. This rule was required by Congress in the 1996 Telecommunications Act."
Link to FCC fact sheet about this subject.
FCC Fact Sheet [fcc.gov]
Re:bullshit (Score:3, Insightful)
I remember when this law was being discussed, as it was important to RCA/Thompson (a local company that builds DirecTV receivers) that consumers actually be able to install these things when so many housing covenants disallowed satellite dishes. This of course was back when satellite dishes were still 8' or larger and ugly.
Although it did turn out to be to our benefit, I'm sure that RCA wasn't worried about us when they lobbied the FCC, just their own bottom line.
Re:bullshit (Score:4, Informative)
TiVo doesn't replace the set top box if you have cable. TiVo has a model with an Integrated Sat descrambler, but not a Cable descrambler. My TiVo has to change the channels on my cable box via an infrared wire.
But I'm moving to an area without broadband so looks like I'm going to ditch Cable. Screw them anyways.
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
Re:bullshit (Score:3, Informative)
TiVo gives you a guide that is FAR better then any cable company supplied guide.
Didn't. (Score:3, Insightful)
Appears to be identical to TiVo's (Score:3, Informative)
Unfortunately, there's no way to determine whether you're going to get a TCD1 model or a TCD2 model (with USB2.0 instead of 1.1). The only guaranteed way to get a TCD2 model right now appears to be buying an 80-hour unit. There don't appear to be any 60-hour TCD2 units.
Re:bullshit (Score:5, Informative)
Tell them anyway. The FCC has ruled [fcc.gov] that homeowners' associations cannot stop people from installing satellite dishes of 1 m diameter or less (among other things, like wireless broadband antennae.)
Re:bullshit (Score:4, Informative)
If they're in a condo or townhome, they can put up a dish as long as it doesn't attach to common property. If they have a south-facing porch or balcony, you can attach the dish to the guard rail. Several people where I live have various mini-dishes installed. (If they don't have a view to the satellite, they're stuck.) If they're in a home, they can put up a dish on their property. If the HOA gives them grief, they can tell the HOA to go fsck themselves...several years ago, the FCC decreed that HOAs, CC&Rs, etc. can't be used to keep people from putting up antennas and dishes for TV-reception purposes.
Likewise, Charter. (Score:3, Insightful)
A cable guy speaks, er, types (Score:3, Informative)
No, cable companies don't hate PVRs. To my knowledge every major MSO (Multiple System Operator) is in some stage of developing a PVR service. Why haven't they launched such a service yet?
1. Lack of consumer demand. In the US, more people still use out-houses than PVRs. That's not to say it's not a cool technology -- 'cause it is -- but it's not yet mainstream. Won't be for a while. Note that TiVo and SONICblue aren't yet raking in the dough.
2. High cost. While Series 1 TiVos can be purchased for $150, most decent PVRs are still ~$300, with a ~$10/month subscription fee. Sure, you can build your own PC-based PVR and get TitanTV.com for free, but this solution doesn't appeal to the majority of consumers.
3. Unattractive business model. Consumers are conditioned to lease their digital set-top box (STB) from their cable company, which means the MSO must purchase the STB from the manufacturer and keep the capital cost of equipment on its books. Most MSOs are limiting captial expenditures as they move toward free cash flow, so new services that require heavy capital spending are scrutinized. Especially new services with limited (albeit growing) appeal (see #1 above).
Product development is simple:
1. What do customers want?
2. How much will they pay?
3. Can we make money charging that?
For a more detailed look at Product Development 101, see this post [slashdot.org].
Changing gears for a moment, let's talk about rising cable rates. <soapbox> Why do MSOs raise their rates? Mostly because of increased programming costs. You see, MSOs have to pay the content providers for some of the most popular channels. It's been published (so I'm not giving away any secrets here) that ESPN raises the price it charges MSOs by ~20% per year, and won't let MSOs move the channel(s) onto a premium tier. Gotta stay in basic, as that's accessible to all viewers.
Ah, so we blame ESPN! Not so fast. *Their* costs are rising, too. The money to pay for Alex Rodriguez's $252 million contract isn't coming from ticket and beer sales. It's TV money. The Yankees can afford the highest payroll in baseball in part because of their TV contract. Follow the money: players' salaries skyrocket, which dramatically increase broadcast rights fees, so video networks (such as ESPN) charge more for their content, and cable companies are forced to increase their rates. Salaries, broadcast rights, and carriage fees increase much more than the typical 5% cable rate boost. </soapbox>
Thanks for reading. Bring on the flames!
-Ray
Works both ways... (Score:5, Funny)
And if you hate the cable industry, then the PVR is your friend.
VCR v. PVR (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:VCR v. PVR (Score:4, Funny)
Re:VCR v. PVR (Score:4, Insightful)
I know it doesn't sound like much of a difference, but the difference is like a magazine vs. a Sunday newspaper. In the newspaper, you can pull out all the ad sections and read the rest of the newspaper with minimal in-line ad interruption. With a magazine, it seems like every other page is yet another full color ad designed to draw your attention away from what you are reading. With the newspaper it's easy to 'skip' the ads, with the magazine you have to 'fast forward' around them. Not a really good analogy (Ok, actually it sucked) but I'm tired...
Re:VCR v. PVR (Score:3, Insightful)
I think you're dead wrong about DVDRW replacing PVR. With current technology, you can only record 2-4 hours onto a DVD. Even with DivX/MPEG4 adoption or dual layer discs, its still only 3-5x or so more. Current PVR's (with up to 240+ GB's HD space), record up to hundreds of hours of TV, and file management is tons easier than optical media (i.e. why CDRW usage is outnumbered 1000:1 by CDR's). Modern PVR's are even network aware, so that you can stream video's across TCP/IP networks, or automate backup of your favorite shows to your PC in full MPEG2 quality.
If anything, they will merge into specialty products for people who want to make DVD's and have the PVR (it makes sense, since PVR's all use MPEG2 to start with), but as it stands, DVDRW technology is highly inferior to PVR in terms of PVR capability. DVDRW will certainly become a mainstay in home theatre devices, just not in the PVR space (because they suck bawls for that)
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.
AT&T Selling TiVo (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:AT&T Selling TiVo (Score:5, Funny)
AT&T, Comcast (Score:5, Informative)
Re:AT&T, Comcast (Score:3, Funny)
-B
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.
Large companies are not homogeneous. (Score:3, Insightful)
Always two-faced (Score:3, Interesting)
They can't even get analogies right (Score:4, Insightful)
PVRs make the TV viewer happier, so that they WATCH MORE TV.
What do the cable companies and advertisers want you to do? WATCH MORE TV!
They need to get their heads out of their asses and realize just like how they were wrong about VCRs destroying the movie industry, they're wrong about this now.
It's amazing how these companies stay in business... One might think their monopolies had something to do with it.
Re:They can't even get analogies right (Score:3, Informative)
I tune out commercials (Score:4, Insightful)
If I see the commercial again I will remember it, but if not in the context of the commercial I do not even remember it. Does it influence me to buy the product? Absolutely not. In the grocery store or shopping mall I do compartive shopping and ask the store help. At that point I will make a decision. And if I like the product then I will buy it again.
I think the problem with the big cable companies is that advertising in the current model DOES NOT WORK anymore. People get so much advertising that they have taught themselves to tune out...
Re:I tune out commercials (Score:3, Insightful)
Ads are effectively big business *paying for the TV you watch*! Maybe you should think about that before you moan about them. Even if you do 'tune out', don't tell everyone!!! These ads are vastly reducing your TV viewing costs!!!
Re:They can't even get analogies right (Score:3, Informative)
The site has some interesting comments and facts on commercials growth. I'm only missing a graph showing how it increases by time, but everyone must have noticed that this is manipulated in many ways for example by having less commercials than normal in the opening episodes of 24^2 which of course will backlash by more than that amount in the conclusive episodes...
Even though premieres would sync up to us here in Europe I suspect that I would still find my shows on the net with the ads pre-cut.
Wrong! WATCH MORE ADS! (Score:4, Insightful)
Sorry guys, but that just has no value to me. Watching TV shows does have some value to me, such that I will pay for cable, and (maybe) watch ads. But the whole point of the broadcast system is to get people to buy stuff.
[important]
(Of course, the FCC grants licenses to broadcasters with the understanding that they will serve the public good. Hey, kind of like how copyright law gives someone a grant on a public domain with the view that it will serve the public good. And just like copyright, these companies have forgotten (or ignored) that they're being a special dispensation with the understanding that they will give something back in return.)
[/important]
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.
Re:That doesn't help the cable companies... (Score:3, Informative)
Perhaps, but my perspective is strictly from rate setting. I can charge $X based on X viewers from the previous sweeps period; this is 'air value'. Air value is determined primarily from ratings because there is no tangible way for advertisers to connect returns to specific marketing strategies. Returns are secondary to ratings at best, pie in the sky 'what ifs' at worst. Furthermore, returns are less likely to be noticed by large nationwide chains (which have larger wallets) than by mom and pop shops, therefore further decreasing their value.
Why doesn't anyone see this?Perhaps because it is wrong?
Re:They can't even get analogies right (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem with a standalone PVR is that you've gotten features from someone else, and the cable company won't be able to get ahold of that money.
For example Cablevision's digital product includes video on demand. They've got a bunch of series available for that... and to get a certain channel's programming on demand, you pay an additional fee. If you have a PVR, you probably won't be buying their VOD entrees, since you'll just tell your PVR to grab them for you.
The bit about satellites is also telling. Cable companies can do VOD, because they've got a nice fast low-latency pipe between your house and their systems. CV does VOD by shipping the video over their cable-modem network. When you pause it, it stops coming at the other end. Naturally, that's not very feasible with a dish. They'd like to hype that as something that makes them better than a dish, but DirecTiVo is their worst nightmare, because it gives you the benefits of their VOD service, while giving you two tuners so you can record anything you like, instead of the selection of shows the cable company has available.
Re:They can't even get analogies right (Score:3, Informative)
What do you mean, "Sure"? That "Sure" is the key that makes video swapping on the ReplayTV currently a gimmick. Even on a cable modem uploading a 600MB file to someone takes forever (mine only does about 128Kbps upstream), making the entire notion of show swapping purely academic (pun in hindsight not intended). It's not the home users on a cable or 56K modem that pose any file swapping danger, it's the university dorm guys living on multiple T1s. And compared to the numbers of households their numbers are peanuts. They only mentioned Napster because it's the Evil-Consumer trait du jour.
Hold it (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Hold it (Score:3, Informative)
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=02/
FUD. It's not just for Microsoft anymore.
Huh? (Score:4, Insightful)
Help! Cable companies are STEALING from me! (Score:5, Insightful)
They've been ripping me off for years, even before PVRs existed!
BASTARDS!
Hey, I'm only applying the same specious reasiong the media companies use to call me a pirate, a criminal and an ingrate!
multiple funding sources (Score:4, Insightful)
But it's like buying the Sunday paper -- the ads subsidize the (fairly low) cover price. Cable TV would cost more (or very well could) if they didn't also get funding from ads. (And Premium channels that *do* run uninterrupted movies are one example
timothy
Re:Help! Cable companies are STEALING from me! (Score:3, Funny)
Ra Ra Retards (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
VCRs with Commercial Advance? (Score:4, Insightful)
The bottom line here is FairUse and the unfortunate news for them is once that signal enters your home (provided you haven't used any illegal methods for decoding it) its yours to do whatever you personally want to do with it (i.e. not rebroadcasting).
The cable industry our friend (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't have a PVR, but I can't recall a time when the cable industry has ever been my friend. $45 for exteneded basic cable services, and what do you get? 70 channels of ads. I can't stand watching TV! Slowly but surely commercial length is increasing while show time is decreasing. 1/3 of a 30 minute segment is commercials. Sure the PVR would fix that but even before this article everyone knew that someone was going to cry foul. The cable industry is just like the rest of the content industries, as soon as the content control is in our hands they bring in the lawsuits because they don't want to change.
Screw it! I'm about to move and I've already decided that I'm not going to pay the money every month to have junk piped to my home.
PVR Backlash (Score:5, Interesting)
Brian Roberts doesn't get it (Score:5, Interesting)
They should take thier lead from Netflix... (Score:4, Insightful)
Gary Lauder (Score:5, Funny)
So, he doesn't like them. He thinks they are for copyright violation. He thinks cable companies should sue the PVR manufacturers. So, why does he own one and why is he pissed that his wife can't operate it.
Hey Gary, can she set the clock on your old VCR?
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.
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.
Time Warner Cable seems to have a different view (Score:5, Informative)
Ironic that Time Warner Cable would do this, as it's part of the much larger AOL Time Warner which seems torn between the content provider and the content producer mode - the company owns lots of record companies and movie studios. Yet AOL and Time Warner Cable seem to be doing things the content part of the company doesn't like. It's like watching Sony make mp3 players and yet be distributing copy-restricted CDs.
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.
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.
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:At least it's not (Score:5, Funny)
Since they do run ads now, what's their excuse for not producing quality programming currently?
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"
Re:The cable companies have never been your friend (Score:3, Insightful)
I saw that ad the other day too. I thought it was funny considering one of the (many) reasons I switched to DirecTV from AT&T Broadband was that the cable went out so much. In six months I've only seen problems with the dish ONE time, and the show was still watchable, the video was just degraded a little.
Of course with five kids and a dependance on television I think they have bigger problems than sattelite outages. They haven't figured out how to raise children or use condoms yet.
VOD (Score:4, Insightful)
Once again, maybe cable companies should consider taking a look at improving their own products instead of trying to shut down technology they don't like. Other industries actually have to produce a better product to ensure they get customers' money. I hate that the entertainment industry is taking the approach that it is better to just shut down any technology that threatens their desired business model than to react to the market and improve their product. How anti-capitalist.
If you like progress... (Score:4, Insightful)
Because they derive their profits by gaming the system. Any change in the rules by which the system works is a threat to them - the fact that their sector, whatever it may be, might expand overall is irrelevant. They're on top now because they're perfectly situated to control things as they stand. Now that an oligopoly is in place, and everything is arranged to their liking, they don't want to rock the boat.
In IT you notice it particularly, but it is also true in energy, in agriculture, in real eastate and even in manufacturing.
My personal belief is that if this goes unchecked it will be the death of western civilization (assuming our contempt for our own environment doesn't get us first, except that is really part and parcel of the same phenomenon.)
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:If you like progress... (Score:3, Informative)
My personal belief is that if this goes unchecked it will be the death of western civilization (assuming our contempt for our own environment doesn't get us first, except that is really part and parcel of the same phenomenon.)
I'm assumed he means: If we let these grubby oligopolies use the government and FCC to regulate PVR's and other liberating technologies (P2P, wireless networking), THEN it will be the death of western civilization.
You have to remember that today's (Demo)/(Republi)crats don't give a shit about the free market or smaller government.
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.
What a time to be alive! (Score:3, Insightful)
PVRs spell the end of the ad-based rev model (Score:5, Insightful)
"There has grown in the minds of certain groups in this country the idea that just because a man or corporation has made a profit out of the public for a number of years, the government and the courts are charged with guaranteeing such profit in the future, even in the face of changing circumstances and contrary to public interest. This strange doctrine is supported by neither statue or common law. Neither corporations or individuals have the right to come into court and ask that the clock of history be stopped, or turned back."
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.
go ahead. (Score:3, Insightful)
Who ever said that in business, you are guaranteed to make money forever doing the same old shit? It takes innovation to keep alive, and those people who give the customer new, interesting things, without trying to extort them for every last cent, will be the ones to succeed.
So I say let him go on despising Tivo and all these technologies we like. It will only make better companies stand out more.
Offpeak pricing... video demand and video supply.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Why wouldn't it be very much more to their advantage to have "offpeak pricing" for customers with PVR's that were willing to record content at times convenient for the cable company? And have the PVR owner pay for the storage facility?
Seems to me that if video-on-demand takes off cable companies will be faced with either expensive infrastructure costs... OR ticked-off customers trying to explain to their kids why they can't watch "Lilo and Stitch" tonight.
Or are the cable companies planning to build special you-don't-control-it-we-do PVR's? In which case you'd think they wouldn't want to make the PVR companies angry, unless the cable companies want to do all their own R&D...
Or are the cable companies just planless and clueless?
Some thoughts (from Planet Replay). (Score:5, Informative)
Entertainment's demise? (Score:5, Insightful)
After reading this, one might walk away thinking that that Comcast invented TV entertainment. While nothing could be further from the truth, it's precisely this kind of arrogance that will lead to the demise of companies who, rather than seeking to understand what consumers value, work to shackle them with tight controls over how, when, and for how much various shows can be viewed.
Is it any mystery that consumers will attempt to minimize the level of harrassment by commercial entities attempting to sell them the latest and greatest of everything from the latest super-steam-powered convection oven to tampons? The reason that cable owners are concerned is that they assumed that they would be able burn the candle at both ends, charging for both content and ads, ad infinitum. PVRs enter the market, and now PVR owners, who maximize their enjoyment by skipping the cruft, are being branded criminals.
What can be learned here? For starters, there is no comparison between Napster users and PVR owners. Perhaps most important, though, is that there's a real honest-to-goodness clue here with respect to consumer interests. The issue is not that people are using PVRs, but whether or not the cable industry will have the foresight to adapt their business model, rather than force feed its 'content' - replete with all of the ad-gak - to its customers.
cable should LOVE TiVo, not hate it!! (Score:3, Interesting)
Oh. Please... what kind of LOGIC is this? (Score:4, Insightful)
Ok. Someone's going to have to explain to me how the TRANSMISSION MEDIUM of a television signal affects who buys a VOD program and who doesn't.
If I want to want to pay $4 to watch a VOD program, why am I more likely to do it if the signal comes over the air vs. comes over a wire?
What a bunch a freakin' morons.
What the REALLY don't like about PVR's is that they can't control what you watch. The idea of a 'lineup' (putting an average show behind a great show in hopes that you're to fuckin' lazy to change the damn channel) disappears, and they don't like that...
Combine that with the ability to fast-forward through commercials (just like a VCR), and they lose all marketing pull.
What those of us w/ a PVR know is that suddently, TV is on MY terms. When I want to watch TV, it's almost guarenteed that there is something good to watch.
As usual, these monolithic, monopolistic companies/organizations (MPAA, CABLE, RIAA) complain about a paradigm shift in their business, rather than try to capitalize on it.
-1 Redundant (Score:3, Funny)
If you love your PVR, the cable industry is not your friend.
If you have cable, the cable industry is not your friend. Duh.
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.
Pay to skip commercials? (Score:3, Insightful)
This is just another of the continuing business model problems in the commercial world today. If your business model relies on forcing consumers to do something they don't want to do and aren't compelled to do, you're going to have problems. You may succeed in ramming it down their throats (credit card arbitration agreements, for example), but to be blunt, persuading your customers that you're a collection of greedy, controlling asses is not a good business plan in the long term. It leaves a big opening for someone to come along, fill the need, NOT be a greedy, controlling ass, and eat your lunch.
Now if you're being honest and you genuinely believe you offer a superior service, fine. Speeches about it are not necessary. Let the best product win in the marketplace.
But I don't want any ads (Score:3, Insightful)
Waitress: Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
Wife: I don't want ANY spam!
Wife: Could you do the egg bacon spam and sausage without the spam then?
Waitress: Shut up! (Vikings stop) Bloody Vikings! You can't have egg bacon spam and sausage without the spam.
I don't wan't ANY ads! I didn't sign any contract obligating me to watch ads. I don't care if they're targeted, this doesn't make me more likely to want to watch them.
An advertiser pays on the basis of the statistical number of eyeballs likely to view a given commercial, thus, Super Bowl commercials are insanely expensive, late night TV spots are much cheaper. However, if any given consumer, or even a small minority of consumers (which is the current base of PVR users) skips the commercials, the statistics are not affected, due to the large sample size. How is this use of PVR's so much worse than what the average consumer does, i.e., hit the channel up/down button as soon as an ad comes on during your program? This behavior is much more likely to reduce the number of individuals seeing a given ad.
In any event, it boils down to Heinlein's idea of not going to the courts to defend an outdated business model. Why should the cable company, who is admittedly scared of the satellite/PVR model, get to dictate who may and and may not time shift, record on whatever device they choose, and skip commercials, any more than the satellite company may dictate the same thing. The advertisers pay on a statistical, not individual basis. If those statistics change, due to technology, then the pricing models should follow it in a supply & demand economy.
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.
So many false assumptions! (Score:4, Insightful)
Many of his points are a comparison of VOD vs. PVR. The main problem here is that these are two different things. A PVR will let you control everything you watch, while I'm sure VOD will only be used for movies and events. Arguing that you should do one instead of the other is silly, since the consumer would do best to have both.
Lauder comments on PVR noise. My friend recently got a new Dish 508 PVR. When he turned it on, I heard absolutely nothing. Zero. The hard drive was running, and it was dead silent. Credit new hard drive technology.
The 508 also has a fan, but I never heard it running (after it was on for a good while). Just because one box (the Replay he mentions) isn't well-designed for heat output, doesn't mean they all are like that. Again, this is an issue fixed by technology.
Lauder also says "Disk size limitations mean obsolescence, esp. with HDTV". Is there ANY device that's going to handle the transition to HDTV gracefully? The size issue is not really an issue if the disk is "big enough" to begin with. I think that at 40-80GB, we're at "big enough" for most people. In any case, the obsolescence argument applies to VOD servers just as well.
Lauder's only arguments that have any bite are:
- Moving parts break more often
- Box complexity means more crashes & customer support costs
The crashing issue is more a reflection on poor software engineering (and probably that due to poor scheduling) than anything else, however. PVR software could be made bulletproof, in time.
Customer support is always going to be an issue wherever you add new features. So this argument will apply to ANY new features added, not just PVR.
Lauder's "basic thesis
His comment that "if a Supreme Court case was brought on the legality of each feature of PVRs were brought, some would lose" is just a swipe. There's very little that a PVR does that a VCR doesn't let you do already. The only difference is the spontaneity and the time you have to wait before you can watch. The only questionable features are those added by the newest Replay box (trading programs over the net), which are not core PVR features. If lobbyists make politicians make VCRs illegal, then perhaps there may be a case.
Lauder's final comment regarded commercials. It should be pointed out that even with a PVR, you cannot skip commercials while watching live TV. Doing so requires planning head to watch delayed TV. If you're going to sit down and flip channels, you're still limited to watching live TV.
Lauder thinks consumers should pay for commercials skipped. If that makes sense, then what about paying consumers for commercials watched repeatedly? That makes sense too, right?
PVR/VOD from the headend.... (Score:4, Insightful)
> that was inaccurately portrayed: PVR functionality
> should be provisioned from the headend for the
> following reasons (which ultimately will benefit
> consumers):
Yeah, ok... and when you're not in the major metropolitan area that has actual competition (more than one cable company in a market - aka Boston areas) like, oh, say Maine or West Nowheresville, KS or Hotashell, NV you have to wait for the cable company to get around to supplying you with this ability. Just like cable modems, people won't wait.
Sure, if you want to provision VOD or PVR from the headend, get off your lazy-cable-monopoly-butt and DO IT! PROVE US WRONG! Make it work and prove us nay-sayers wrong. Don't just say 'this is bad - you should do it our way instead' - then not have your way available outside a lab or a tiny test market area.
Face it cable companies, you're behind the times on this one and you've lost the edge you could have had.
Wow,, that's a rant, but what do you expect from someone who owns a domain like Adelphia Sucks.com [adelphiasucks.com]
Re:What's a PVR? (Score:5, Informative)
We should be getting paid to watch advertisements. (Score:4, Interesting)
You *ARE* getting paid to watch advertisements. (Score:4, Insightful)
If we ever get to the point where everyone watches TV on a PVR and takes out the commercials, broadcast TV will go bankrupt and the only TV you'll be able to get you'll have to pay for (or will be CSPAN or some other public access channel.)
Re:Ads.... AARRGGHH!!!! (Score:3, Insightful)
Erm, instead of worrying about adverts on TV, I suggest you go back to elementary school and learn some simply maths skills.
Clue - you are getting 36% ads and 64% program material. NOT the absurdly wrong figures you are trying to pretend.
No, just means actors will be paid less. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:No, just means actors will be paid less. (Score:4, Funny)
Truer words haven't been spoken. The industry pay is the mimic of the dot com frenzy back in late 90's. $300,000/yr for a Java Developer. Give me a break. (Read: -1, Overvalued).
Re:Time Warner is onboard...kind of (Score:3, Informative)
Time Warner Austin is deploying the same box. It's a Scientific Atlanta Explorer 8000; they can come with different sized hard drives. Time Warner Austin markets these as having 50 hours worth of storage, but it uses variable bit-rate compression for the digitization, so you never know for sure just how much you can store.
The Explorer 8000 hardware is very nice. Two tuners, so it can be simultaneously recording two separate shows on two separate channels (either analog or digital) while you're watching something in playback. I can't tell any difference between playback and live quality, which is better than you get with a (non satTV) Replay or TiVo, where the compression is generally quite noticeable. The 8000 works better as well than the SA Explorer 2000 digital cable box.. changing channels is faster, etc.
Unfortunately, the firmware in the box is pretty crappy still. They have been improving it, but even with the latest firmware release, there are a whole lot of issues. [makeashorterlink.com]. The experience of using it is not nearly as nice as a TiVo, and it is completely lacking anything like the TiVo 'Season Pass' or 'Recommendations' functions, so if you tell it to record every episode of the Daily Show, it will do so.. four times a day as Comedy Central shows repeats three times a day. At other times, the box seems to simply forget to record a show you told it you wanted, usually if the show changed times after the 8000 initially made a note as to the time and channel to record. The SAE 8000 uses Time Warner's standard cable guide, seemingly, and it appears that the cable guide provided by the cable system doesn't provide enough data to do the kind of smart tricks a TiVo can do.
For 10 bucks a month, it's quite a bit cheaper than a TiVo or Replay, but if you've got one of those, I wouldn't advise ditching it in favor of the Time Warner box. If Time Warner and Scientific Atlanta keep working at it and continue to put out firmware upgrades, it might turn into something quite nice indeed. As it stands, having the Time Warner box is better than not having the Time Warner box, but not as nice as having TiVo or Replay.
Re:Video On Demand? (Score:5, Informative)
And if so... do they REALLY think we're that stupid?
I happen to have worked in the cable industry. Video on Demand, or VOD, is a sort of "instant" Pay Per View (PPV), or more accurately DVD rental without having to go to the store.
Rather than calling the cable company and telling them you want to watch Movie X when it comes on at 12:00pm, you press a button your cable remote and the movie is streamed instantly to your cable box. You can pause, stop, rewind, or fast-forward, and you get a certain time window (48hrs or something) within which you can watch your selection as many times as you want.
The cable office has racks of servers packed full of disk space and bandwidth that can singlecast video streams to hundreds of subscribers. Companies are currently working on getting all the DVD functions like different audio streams and camera angles as well as special features into the VOD package, and the eventual goal is to make Blockbuster obsolete.
So it's more than PPV rebranded, but I'd guess they still think you're pretty stupid.
Re:Video On Demand? (Score:3, Informative)
Anyway. Time Warner has started offering iControl, which has a huge potential IMO. It's real VOD with pause, play, FF, RW. We've seen the occational bug, but it's mostly stable. The real potential is the increasing library of movies.
I watched Michael J. Fox in "The Frightners" the other night. I missed the movie when it came out many years ago and I always seem to find it in the middle when it shows up on a super-station. So the other night I wasn't interested in any of the new releases for $4.00 (less than BBuster) but I saw "The Frightners". It was priced at $1.75! That is totally cool! An old movie, cheap, no driving, right now. They had "African Queen", "Singing in the Rain" and a bunch of other oldies, all for $1.75.
Now I hear that they are going to include iControl stuff from DIY, FoodTV, HGTV... for NO CHARGE. This is what VOD is all about. Now if the networks/sci-fi/original movie crowd would jump on the band wagon, I could watch whatever I wanted when I wanted.
So, Time Warner still sucks, but at least they have a product I can enjoy...
Later
=MikeT
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*
NO! (Score:3, Insightful)
People who do not watch television engage in TERRA and WILL get a visit from Baron Jon von Ashcroft, Lord of the House of DOJ.